This seems big-

Well yeah... the Pac-12 and ACC don't have enough OSU, UM, PSU, MSU and UW's to make it worth it for TV. Why would you trade PSU/TAMU for PSU/(BC, WF, Louisville, Duke, NCSU)?

(02-16-2022 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  This seems big-

Lol well that didn't last long...hard to be allies with a conference you're about to eat, and I think either the ACC or PAC is definitely headed for the B1G plate.

If Gene wants to play a CFP game in a bland NFL stadium over hosting one at Ohio St, let’s hope he retires soon.

Buckle up Boy's and Girl's, Conference Expansion is coming.

(02-16-2022 12:31 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  Buckle up Boy's and Girl's, Conference Expansion is coming.

There's a new conference being created?

It was pretty obvious, at least to me, that schools like Ohio State, Michigan and USC were not going to give up playing teams like ND and Alabama, etc....in order to play "Alliance" games against mid and lower level "Alliance" teams.

(02-16-2022 12:22 PM)b2b Wrote:  Well yeah... the Pac-12 and ACC don't have enough OSU, UM, PSU, MSU and UW's to make it worth it for TV. Why would you trade PSU/TAMU for PSU/(BC, WF, Louisville, Duke, NCSU)?

Even further, it's not so much trading PSU-TAMU as much as it's trading more frequent PSU vs. MSU/Wisconsin/Michigan games that would be 100% controlled by the Big Ten (and sold in its TV contract) compared a lot of PSU vs. a non-Clemson/USC Alliance games where they only control 50% of the rights.

I've said from the beginning that I would be surprised if the Big Ten reduced its conference schedule (especially with the SEC bumping up its conference schedule to 9 games). The Big Ten simply goes deeper with a lot more brands, so the real issue to the conference TV value comes from how the Big Ten's "second tier" conference games (e.g. those Wisconsin/Michigan State/Iowa/Nebraska-type brands that would be playing Georgia Tech/Cal-level Alliance brands as opposed to Clemson/USC) are materially more valuable AND the Big Ten would keeping all of that revenue in-house. The most valuable games for the Big Ten are their *own* conference matchups. Once you get past the Clemson/USC-level, there's no non-conference Alliance game that's really more interesting for the typical Big Ten school than it is to just simply playing their own conference members like Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/Wisconsin more frequently.

Well that was short lived

By the way, with the Big Ten initiating new TV rights negotiations (as discussed on other threads), it seems pretty clear that the conference got word that having a larger conference schedule was going to be more valuable than a mandatory slate of Alliance non-conference games.

As I've stated before, it makes TOTAL sense to work to get Michigan/Ohio State playing USC/Clemson for non-conference games. However, that's quite different than forcing the entire league to drop a conference game in exchange for what really would maybe be a couple of marquee non-conference games per year that could be scheduled on an individual basis, anyway. Maybe a slate of annual Alliance kickoff games in the first week of the season (similar to the Chick-Fil-A kickoff games) is a much more realistic premise if they want the relationship to continue.

(02-16-2022 12:22 PM)b2b Wrote:  Well yeah... the Pac-12 and ACC don't have enough OSU, UM, PSU, MSU and UW's to make it worth it for TV. Why would you trade PSU/TAMU for PSU/(BC, WF, Louisville, Duke, NCSU)?

This works out better in the end for football scheduling for all three conferences. The nine conference games are better for the Pac-12. When it comes to the Big Ten vs the Pac-12 in non-conference games, they already have plenty of future games scheduled:

Ohio State at Washington (2024)
Washington at Ohio State (2025)
Ohio State at Oregon (2032)
Oregon at Ohio State (2033)
Washington State at Wisconsin (2022)
Wisconsin at Washington State (2023)
Utah at Wisconsin (2028)
Wisconsin at UCLA (2029)
UCLA at Wisconsin (2030)
Wisconsin at Utah (2033)
Michigan at Washington (2028)
Michigan State at Washington (2022)
Washington at Michigan State (2023)
Oregon at Michigan State (2029)
Michigan State at Oregon (2030)
Nebraska at Colorado (2023)
Colorado at Nebraska (2024)
Arizona at Nebraska (2028)
Nebraska at Arizona (2031)
Purdue at Oregon State (2024)
Colorado at Northwestern (2026)
Northwestern at Colorado (2027)
Colorado at Minnesota (2022)
California at Minnesota (2028)
Minnesota at California (2029)

That is a total of 25 future games with the Big Ten for the Pac-12. The Pac-12 has 46 future games with the SEC. They have very little with the ACC and I think they will work on adding some games with them. Football scheduling within the Alliance was always going to be a challenge.

RIP Alliance...

(02-16-2022 01:29 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  RIP Alliance...

It had a good run and accomplished a lot.

Not surprising.

IMO, the Alliance was never actually meant to be a full-fledged, Holistic Alliance of some kind. It has been shrouded in that gauze for PR purposes, but IMO it's really just an "oppose the SEC in the playoff negotiations" thing.

So this statement reveals what the B1G is actually willing to give for the Alliance, and the answer seems to be "not much", LOL.

It accomplished the goal of delaying the CFP

They obviously couldnt say that was the goal, but clearly it was

(02-16-2022 01:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not surprising.

IMO, the Alliance was never actually meant to be a full-fledged, Holistic Alliance of some kind. It has been shrouded in that gauze for PR purposes, but IMO it's really just an "oppose the SEC in the playoff negotiations" thing.

So this statement reveals what the B1G is actually willing to give for the Alliance, and the answer seems to be "not much", LOL.

I agree with this, although I would say that there were a lot of assumptions made about what the purpose of the Alliance was to begin with. I've always said it was about stopping the playoff, sooooo mission accomplished I guess LOL. Also I would say that this doesn't necessarily kill a scheduling alliance, it just pushes it out... but that makes sense when you are trying to figure out what a pay for play league is going to look like.

I think there's going to be a lot more to come over the next few years. Expansion? Probably... Breakaway? definitely

I knew this was coming.

FSU, Clemson, Louisville, & GT weren’t going to give up the SEC rivals. USC and Stanford weren’t going to give up ND. If the ACC and PAC 12’s best brands aren’t going to go all in on alliance scheduling why should the Big 10?

The eastern part of B1G will schedule ACC teams for OOC games. I know Rutgers has BC, Syracuse and VT on future schedules. Maryland and PSU should be able to get games from UVA, VT and Pitt at the least.

(02-16-2022 01:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  By the way, with the Big Ten initiating new TV rights negotiations (as discussed on other threads), it seems pretty clear that the conference got word that having a larger conference schedule was going to be more valuable than a mandatory slate of Alliance non-conference games.

As I've stated before, it makes TOTAL sense to work to get Michigan/Ohio State playing USC/Clemson for non-conference games. However, that's quite different than forcing the entire league to drop a conference game in exchange for what really would maybe be a couple of marquee non-conference games per year that could be scheduled on an individual basis, anyway. Maybe a slate of annual Alliance kickoff games in the first week of the season (similar to the Chick-Fil-A kickoff games) is a much more realistic premise if they want the relationship to continue.

Totally agree. The B1G can sell its rights in different bundles to multiple outlets so more inventory is key. 5-6 year deals with each; CBS gets 1st pick for FB in the Saturday 3:30 slot and retains MBB game of the week and conference tourney final, and then split the balance of FB, MBB, and WBB between some combo of ESPN/ESPN+, NBC/USA/Peacock, Fox, Amazon, or HBO Max/Discovery+/Turner Sports.