Besides politicians, a lot of other parties would have to stand idly by and get a huge screwing for that to happen. Not sure why you're so enamored with that idea.
B1G, Pac12, ACC in Discussions about Forming Alliance
- Thread starter gregkoko
- Start date
Besides politicians, a lot of other parties would have to stand idly by and get a huge screwing for that to happen. Not sure why you're so enamored with that idea.
No one is enamoured with anything. This has to do with what ESPN can try to get away with. Either they will succeed or fail like the Super League in Europe failed. Bottom line is folks should not think this is over yet. It seems like the B1G, ACC and Big12 at least now see what is at stake. It doesn't mean ESPN is finished pushing what may be its agenda. No one knows, but no one can stay comfortable.
Best article I’ve seen on why the possibilities of why a Big Ten - PAC 12 - ACC Alliance makes sense.
This must include what the networks pay to the conferences in general not just football like the graphic states. That’s why Big East is there and frankly I don’t think it’s broken out like that by sport anyway. Football is usually estimated to be 80% of the value though.
If it’s all Sports (i.e. Big East revenue from Fox for basketball), what’s missing here is a CBS Line Item for the Big Ten basketball package consisting of Sunday afternoon games televised by CBS of Big Ten games.
So is there any conceivable chance that it includes a complete lock out of games with SEC teams or at least only agreeing to high-paying 1 and 1s to drag their asses up to northern stadiums more often?
My guess is I doubt will see those types of details next week, nor any information about a scheduling component of the Alliance.
My other guess for the future is while the 3 Conferences will never announce a lock-out of the SEC, I can easily see the SEC increasing their in-Conference games component of the Schedule with Texas and Oklahoma, and more games played within the Alliance, thus, decreasing games with the SEC.
Question for legal guys. If the three conferences were to agree to no longer play SEC schools, is that any legal issue regarding collusion, anti-trust, etc.?
Do you see the SEC having a scheduling agreement with remaining schools from the Big 12, as well as The American?
Also believe initially the most important issue the Alliance faces is ensuring the CFP is structured to limit ESPN’s attempted monopolization of College Football. They need to create an NFL model for the Playoffs. Multiple Networks need to be involved to televise games and the Championsip game should rotate between Networks/media platforms annually. This will increase revenue with multiple parties bidding on multiple packages, as well as, ensure other Networks/media providers are engaged in College Football.
For any question related to conference reorganization/expansion that begins with "Is there any conceivable chance...?", the answer is YES.
Is Clemson going to be on board with no more games vs South Carolina ? Is Florida State ok with none vs the Gators ?
I don't expect a lockout of the SEC, after all there are in state rival games to be played for some ACC/SEC schools and I don't think those will end. But like I've mentioned, and it's great for fans, you'll see more power conf vs power conf games in the future whether it's intra or inter conference there will be less patsy games. Sucks for small schools who plan their budgets on these paydays but for fans who want to see better competition and matchups it's great.
I could imagine 10-11 power vs power games in the future for all schools. I've seen suggestions of moving those patsy games to spring game scrimmage possibly to try to keep those schools in the fold and still give them payouts...don't know the logistics of all that though and if it's feasible.
Besides the near term benefit of scheduling, the main long term goal really IMO is getting the playoffs to the open market. That will help everyone in the long term looking even beyond the ACC contract with ESPN. If more streaming outlets/networks are involved for the playoffs then more streaming outlets/networks will be involved for tier 1/2 rights of all the leagues and it helps everyone get more money. More media involvement is a tide that lifts all boats, including the SEC.
For now sure the ACC is stuck and will likely fall further back with new deals on the horizon but if you get more players (media companies) involved now well then you have a shot for more money in the future when you are free. Who knows maybe even close the gap enough to keep members in place. Unfortunately the wait would be 10+ years but the GOR could keep you safe until then with the prospect to at least have your members wait around and see what a new deal out to multiple networks could get them.
Last edited:
I think those rivalry games would and similar would remain in tact. I'm not even sure there would be any mandate to stop scheduling the SEC but just a concerted effort to schedule more against each other.
If I'm the B10 I'd try to get 2 for 1 on the conference level (not school to school) for scheduling since its the one lending a hand to the other two. They can take in a little more quality inventory but I don't think that will happen.
Cause Swofford couldn't look beyond the tip of his nose. If you have a deal that might not be great suck it up for a bit but he didn't do that and instead now they've got a deal that's not great for a lot more than a bit. I think to get the ACCN and also a little more money for their additions (schools) they had to up their length a lot and now they're stuck.
Same principle applies now with the CFP and waiting 5 years. Yea you'd rake in more money if you open it up for 12 now but then ESPN has monopoly on it for who knows how long. Suck it up for 5 years and suck it up if your conference may get shut out for some of those years but realize in 5 years more network involvement is a rising tide for all boats (conferences) that will not only bring a boatload of money for the playoffs but also money for all your regular season tier 1/2 rights. So just deal with it for the short term for a bigger long term gain.
I not really sure how the scheduling portion of this alliance will work. Will it be just the power teams OSU, UM, PSU, USC, Oregon, Washington, Clemson, Fl State and VT? Or will every team be required tp participate? The prospect of having to play Wazoo again at 10pm PDT holds little attraction for me as does the idea of playing WF. It would be great to play USC or UCLA in SoCal but at least initially we probably draw the bottom schools in those conferences. Also with schedules made years out, won't this require many schools to buy themselves out of previously contracted games?
I'd like to see games vs Cal (remember us playing a home & home with them in early 2000's). But San Fran is a fun road trip.
But we'll probably get stuck with more games vs the French and the Domers.
But we'll probably get stuck with more games vs the French and the Domers.
Whoever does the scheduling, I hope it isn’t the same guy who dies the inter conference pre season basketball tournaments. Seems like we play on the road a lot more than in Piscataway.
Would this agreement be only for football ? Would love to see the look on the faces of Miami and UCLA when they come up for a baseball series on February 28 !!!
I hope this works out but I do not have high hopes. The ACC and PAC12 need the B1G. The B1G does not need them. Not that I think we need to throw the knockout punch but we should not be making it easier for them to survive, especially the ACC. Considering the ACC and ESPN were the ones that created many of the issues being addressed in the first place.
I would think that it it was anti-trust, then the SEC and ESPN would be equally or more exposed for anti-trust anti-competitive practices.
If the Big Ten agrees to schedule a game a year each vs. the ACC and Pac 10, that leaves one OOC left unscheduled. That essentially freezes the SEC out because nobody is going to want to schedule the SEC for their one possible cupcake slot.
This is not about scheduling. It is about creating a voting bloc.
It's both. There are a limited number of real new revenue generating games. A scheduling agreement means that the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac 10 agree that they are only going to schedule those games among themselves and not share with the SEC. Also it keeps them bottled up in the SE and over time might decrease their relevance to the rest of the county.
I'm not saying how important this is when compared with the voting block for the college playoff, but it seems to be more than nothing.
I mainly agree with you about scheduling, but feel long time rivalries between programs in the ACC ,BIG & PAC will continue , like the USCe vs Clemson and Florida /Florida St games that Heaven mentioned along with Louisville-Kentucky rivalry game allowed.
Then you have rivalries that could come between teams in the alliance.
Nebraska-Colorado
Penn St-Pitt
Maryland-Virginia
Indiana-Louisville
Hell, I'd even throw the Big 12 a bone and have Pitt schedule WV. for a Backyard Brawl every year.
Have each conference program schedule the others for OOC games
ACC team plays 1 B1G and 1 PAC
B1G vs 1 ACC & 1PAC
PAC team plays 1 B1G and 1 ACC team for OCC games
Is the Big 12 not being mentioned because the Big Ten thinks they are now on the level of the AAC and not worth getting involved with or does the Big Ten think the Big 12 will not exist in a few years ?
IMO, the alliance is primarily a voting bloc play. Big 12 is not needed, and hence not invited.
Some thoughts on the Alliance from ESPN writers on what this all means and different possibilities on questions