Anything that slows down the mindless rush toward expansion that on many levels makes no sense, except for $$$ concerns is a good thing. This sport was always regional and its a shame that decades ago, the schools in the northeast could not come together and form a conference that had football staying power. That said, I’m glad RU is in the B1G which allows the school to compete at the highest level. Rational and reasonable thought should prevail and hopefully it will.
B1G, Pac12, ACC in Discussions about Forming Alliance
- Thread starter gregkoko
- Start date
This is my beef with it all. Weeks ago, SEC and Big 10 were considered the top conferences with most history and most TV money. SEC had more championships, but viewership considered us largely equals.
Fast forward, and now we’ll essentially be seen as equals with Pac-12 & ACC. And worst of all, the SEC now has built a reputation that 3 separate conferences have to align just to counter it.
It’s a safe play. It continues tradition, and it keeps Pac-12 alive. But we had a once in a lifetime opportunity to solidify the Big Ten in perpetuity. Add a strong western pod, full of AAU behemoths, and SEC can’t push us out of the way. The Big Ten steers the boat.
Instead, now we’ll have many chefs in one kitchen, and do we really expect all 41 teams to be dedicated to making less money than they could with the SEC? As soon as teams start breaking off for greener pastures, it could spell the end of the alliance. And by then, will Big Ten have the strength it has at this exact moment to poach Pac12? Who knows… I doubt it.
When SEC goes to a mega money 32 team model (their plan) are teams like Clemson, FSU, Vtech, Oregon, USC, and Washington really going to stay in a wobbly alliance vs a sure thing?
But is this the safe move for now? Yes. Is it the move that plans for the future? Doubt it
The goal of all this stuff is to kick out the lesser schools so the money doesn’t need to be split with them. The Alliance for scheduling and voting will go with as few teams/conferences as possible to accomplish their objectives.
Snarky comments about Rutgers in comments. But I also understand these commenters aren’t the sharpest pencils in the pencil box. I can tell you our west no one cares the vast majority of SEC schools. Never once ever heard of anyo E out here say Alabama-Auburn or Alabama-LSU was a must see game.
The comments from the SEC fans are very funny. They remind me of that famous sports prognosticator Paul Tagliabue, who was making fun of Rutgers heading to the Big 10 in a New York Times article at the time (see below). By the way, Paul, despite what you predicted, we are loving those Big 10 revenue payouts, the highest among all conferences! Do some of the themes sound familiar to what the leftover Big 12 teams and the SEC teams are saying today? Just replace the phrase "Big 10" in the Times article with "SEC."
Paul T predicts the future
Scarlet Jerry
Paul T predicts the future
Scarlet Jerry
Week1 One cupcake will now be like a preseason game that small schools can make some money
Week 2 One game vs PAC 12
Week 3 One game vs ACC
Week 4 regional or cupcake/ Pac 12 or ACC depending on what year it is (one year is 3 games and next year is 2 games in alliance)
8 conf games follow
they are going to want a Ohio st vs Oregon like game as a prime time opening week game
Week 2 One game vs PAC 12
Week 3 One game vs ACC
Week 4 regional or cupcake/ Pac 12 or ACC depending on what year it is (one year is 3 games and next year is 2 games in alliance)
8 conf games follow
they are going to want a Ohio st vs Oregon like game as a prime time opening week game
The strength of an alliance is tenuous at best. There’s just not enough incentives to keep the alliance together if things go even a little in a different direction. Particularly for the B1G that is still in a position of relative strength. It’s asking the B1G to sacrifice itself for the sake of playing defense against the SEC.
I don’t see the B1G limiting itself to only 2 teams. Assuming OSU is one, why will other marquee programs like UM, Nebraska, and PSU agree to limit themselves, let alone programs like MSU, Wiscy, NW and others that over the years have had legitimate shots at the playoff or NYE Bowls (some of the NYE teams will now in theory qualify for the playoffs).
If even 1 more team captures its prior glory like a Miami, how will the ACC keep peace if they’re only sending Clemson and FSU to the playoff?
Same with the Pac12 if you have competitive USC, Oregon and Washington teams in the same season, not to mention Stanford and other schools that challenge from time to time.
While I agree the B1G has to play offense here, there’s not a natural new member other than Notre Dame. I suspect that’s the only reason the B1G is considering an alliance since expansion is not a realistic option right now within their footprint.
I don’t see the B1G raiding the Pac12 even though those are likely the best options for new members. The relationship between these 2 conferences has existed for nearly 120 years! Rather than a raid, this would need to be a partnership of some kind where both conferences combine to join a 28 team super conference.
I don’t see the B1G limiting itself to only 2 teams. Assuming OSU is one, why will other marquee programs like UM, Nebraska, and PSU agree to limit themselves, let alone programs like MSU, Wiscy, NW and others that over the years have had legitimate shots at the playoff or NYE Bowls (some of the NYE teams will now in theory qualify for the playoffs).
If even 1 more team captures its prior glory like a Miami, how will the ACC keep peace if they’re only sending Clemson and FSU to the playoff?
Same with the Pac12 if you have competitive USC, Oregon and Washington teams in the same season, not to mention Stanford and other schools that challenge from time to time.
While I agree the B1G has to play offense here, there’s not a natural new member other than Notre Dame. I suspect that’s the only reason the B1G is considering an alliance since expansion is not a realistic option right now within their footprint.
I don’t see the B1G raiding the Pac12 even though those are likely the best options for new members. The relationship between these 2 conferences has existed for nearly 120 years! Rather than a raid, this would need to be a partnership of some kind where both conferences combine to join a 28 team super conference.
So interesting and it will be fascinating to see how this evolves. I'm also a believer that the purpose of the Big Ten Conference is not football as the end all be all. Unlike the SEC, football is not a reason to cancel classes during the Fall Semester.
Purely speculative, however, I can easily see in the very long term 2 completely separate leagues - 1 league being a paid minor league system with universities directly paying professionals in a free market; and 1 league organized as a collegiate model. I also believe not all the best football and university brands will play in the minor league model as Presidents of the Universities will make these decisions, not media, fans or ADs. Thus, I don't buy the idea of calling a paid minor league system a "Super Conference".
Personally, I have less than zero interest in watching and supporting a paid minor league system. If I wanted to watch paid professionals play football, I'd watch the best players of which reside in the NFL. I also differentiate between payments from NIL of which most are side hustles (just like any other college student who's earning money to pay for college), compared to Universities paying salaries in a free market.
We have moved to an Olympic model. I still root for the athletes carrying our flag. I'll still root for the athletes who attend Rutgers and play under our colors. The vast majority of our athletes will get little to nothing from NIL deals. Players in revenue-producing sports will likely get something. The high-profile athletes in those sports may do quite well, but they will be the exception, not the rule.
you may agree or disagree with this take (and this guy is very b8 focused)...
but, interesting that "the Alliance" seems to be a response that the 12-team playoff idea was created by b12/SEC w/out the PAC/B1G/ACC in the room - and they are now pushing back.
and also, "the Alliance" is saying to b8-- hey go call SEC if you want a life-line.
I think the "non-aggression" idea may hurt the B1G (if there really was a chance to get a USC/UCLA)..but, is the "next best" option if grabbing a couple huge PAC schools was not really likely..
The alliance might work if everyone were making the same amount from their media deals. 4 equal conferences would work. Problem is that revenues are not currently equal among the 4 remaining power conferences. I understand that the B1G has had a long relationship with the PAC. I also know that they poached Maryland from the ACC, and us from what was left of the Big East. Schools will approach the SEC and B1G to get a bigger payday. And we'd be fools not to move on USC and whoever they want to bring with them.
Depends on the objectives of the Alliance. If the Alliance presents a Voting Bloc to counteract the SEC and especially the full influence of ESPN over the Sport, then the Alliance will work.
The Conferences will never be equal in pay unless they merge/share TV revenue and don't see that happening in the short/intermediate term. However, that doesn't mean the Alliance will not succeed in its objectives. In the short term, they need to kabash this expanded Playoffs prior to 2025 and get multiple TV Networks/Media Providers involved in the Sport, otherwise the possibilities of increasing revenue going forward for all 3 Conferences decline.
The Conferences will never be equal in pay unless they merge/share TV revenue and don't see that happening in the short/intermediate term. However, that doesn't mean the Alliance will not succeed in its objectives. In the short term, they need to kabash this expanded Playoffs prior to 2025 and get multiple TV Networks/Media Providers involved in the Sport, otherwise the possibilities of increasing revenue going forward for all 3 Conferences decline.
I agree. An alliance does zero to address the money discrepancy. And until that is solved, schools will continue to look out for their own. Help me understand how the alliance materially addresses any of that? I see a value for using it to ensure that we get the right outcome in the CFB TV deal, as a show of strength. And maybe a few better games for some added interest, which will drive some value. Better than nothing, but if that is all Warren has, we are in trouble. Need bigger picture thinking than that.
While important, and we need to get it right, that is a pretty limited objective. It is basically a voting block and some limited added inventory. Does nothing to really address the core issues really.
The Alliance can kill (delay) the expanded playoffs (currently owned by ESPN thru 2025-26 season) until the current deal runs out. Then when a new deal can be negotiated more than ESPN can be involved (so expanded playoffs isn't just a (mostly) ESPN and SEC windfall). More bidders mean more $$$$ for all and less ESPN control.
The Alliance can be at the forefront of the NCAA Constitution Convention coming up - they can drive the direction of the NCAA so it's not just an SEC-minor league.
there is a lot a single voting bloc can do.
Last edited:
Without the expanded playoff get ready to hear ESPN talking heads - when/if UT and OK join - incessantly saying "the SEC should have all 4 spots." Inevitable.
And if it stays at 4 for any length of time, how exactly does UT expect to ever get in? They have to get better than A and M, then Oklahoma, then they have to get to LSU/Georgia level, and then there's Bama.
Maybe USC Oregon, Ohio State and Michigan don't want to be in the SEC.
If a Mini NFL occurred, someone has to lose... brands will get crushed.
SEC doesn't make significant amount of money from taking in Clemson and Florida St.
Maybe they are just looking at the actual end game.. not just the a few decades ahead.
......
If the hand is forced, USC and other Pac 12 go to the BIG10 a decade from now... maybe they are just hoping that another conference doesn't need to get destroyed..
This alliance might get the BIG10 on par with the SEC in money for those that don't believe they currently can get there. And maybe it gives the ACC and Pac-12 just enough to remain stable.
Again. If you are of the opinion that the Pac12 teams would first go to the BIG10 before the SEC.. and that ultimately the ACC has nothing that would make it worth while for the SEC.... then this might be the best answer to the SEC. Not an arms race that will have many casualties... but handcuffing the SEC and limiting their future power
If a Mini NFL occurred, someone has to lose... brands will get crushed.
SEC doesn't make significant amount of money from taking in Clemson and Florida St.
Maybe they are just looking at the actual end game.. not just the a few decades ahead.
......
If the hand is forced, USC and other Pac 12 go to the BIG10 a decade from now... maybe they are just hoping that another conference doesn't need to get destroyed..
This alliance might get the BIG10 on par with the SEC in money for those that don't believe they currently can get there. And maybe it gives the ACC and Pac-12 just enough to remain stable.
Again. If you are of the opinion that the Pac12 teams would first go to the BIG10 before the SEC.. and that ultimately the ACC has nothing that would make it worth while for the SEC.... then this might be the best answer to the SEC. Not an arms race that will have many casualties... but handcuffing the SEC and limiting their future power
I don't disagree with any of that. There is value to it. It just doesn't do much to solve the fundamental issues though
far from the main concern...
but, the minor point that the b12 (B8) has been left out - and that was VERY intentional. basically saying "you decided to vote with SEC on expanded CFP and didn't call us to discuss so you've already spoken" is an interesting take.
Also, the PAC12 working committee on expansion is supposed to release it's initial findings in about 2 weeks. You know if they decide to reachout (say to the TX schools) those 3 would jump in a second.. and b12 dies a fast death. or the PAC could choose to slow down--- and then the b12 dies slowly...
I think the PAC needs the Texas Schools to increase the marketability of their TV rights deal coming up soon and make the PAC Network more appealing to TV Carriers like Direct TV because of those Tex schools are in a time-zone better suited for national coverage than most of the PAC programs .
(I don't believe the PAC Network is carried by Direct TV)
The PAC Commissioner has said that that conference will talk about expanding in a couple of weeks.
Doesn't mean they will, but their alliance partners might suggest going into Texas might make the PAC a little stronger when it comes to national exposure.
Last edited:
quiz,
how much extra money per yr that only goes to a very small handful of individuals per school, but not so much as one cent to so much as one fan, or alum, or student, or player legally, or faculty member, of any school, would it take to incentivize one to vote against the athletic best interests of the school??
and by "athletic best interests", i don't mean the short term financial interests of the very small handful, who will be the only ones to ever see a cent.
make no mistake, competitive and won loss wise, literally every legacy school in the SEC just loss ground and is worse off with the addition of UT and OU.
not only did the long range W-L record of every school take a hit, but the recruiting of every school who will compete with UT and OU for recruits, which is literally every school in the SEC, not just TAM, will take a hit recruiting wise as well. some significant.
also, literally every legacy SEC school just lost significant influence and voting shares in literally every future decision on everything the SEC makes, and lost influence to not just UT and OU, but also to the league office as well which gains in power with this.
and on that front, UT will never stop being who UT is and always has been. (ask the B12 how that works).
while everyone beyond ignorantly sees legacy SEC schools as somehow benefiting from this, reality is, there is a term for every legacy school that got suckered into voting for this total and complete lack of vision.
SUCKERS!!!
how much extra money per yr that only goes to a very small handful of individuals per school, but not so much as one cent to so much as one fan, or alum, or student, or player legally, or faculty member, of any school, would it take to incentivize one to vote against the athletic best interests of the school??
and by "athletic best interests", i don't mean the short term financial interests of the very small handful, who will be the only ones to ever see a cent.
make no mistake, competitive and won loss wise, literally every legacy school in the SEC just loss ground and is worse off with the addition of UT and OU.
not only did the long range W-L record of every school take a hit, but the recruiting of every school who will compete with UT and OU for recruits, which is literally every school in the SEC, not just TAM, will take a hit recruiting wise as well. some significant.
also, literally every legacy SEC school just lost significant influence and voting shares in literally every future decision on everything the SEC makes, and lost influence to not just UT and OU, but also to the league office as well which gains in power with this.
and on that front, UT will never stop being who UT is and always has been. (ask the B12 how that works).
while everyone beyond ignorantly sees legacy SEC schools as somehow benefiting from this, reality is, there is a term for every legacy school that got suckered into voting for this total and complete lack of vision.
SUCKERS!!!
I can tell you one way it address that issue. People overlook two facts: 1) expanding the playoff appears to have been a key factor in the SEC's move. 2) Texas and Oklahoma are waiting 4 years to leave.
The alliance can block playoff expansion, and make the Texas/Oklahoma move drag out long enough for something to derail it. For example, there will be one, if not two, state elections between now and then. That's an opportunity for the remaining schools in those states to make it a political issue and maybe derail the whole thing.
No chance of it being derailed politically. There was no appetite for that this time around. Much different landscape in that regard than a decade ago
No, there is a chance. Notice that they made the move less that two weeks after the news broke. They were obviously trying to make the move official before any opposition could form.
Still don't understand why an "alliance" is good for the B1G. Alliances are all always based only on one thing - "Trust". History tells me not to "trust" any team in the P5.
Please help me understand what has changed that indicates that an alliance is a good thing for RU and the B1G???
Please help me understand what has changed that indicates that an alliance is a good thing for RU and the B1G???
Nothing happens yet. Even with OU and UT the SEC hasn't done enough to change much. Now if they go to 18 and take Florida State and Clemson all hell breaks lose. Right now being able to outvote the SEC on playoff expansion and letting them cannibalize each other for one, maybe two playoff spots is fine with the Big 10, Pac 12, and ACC. Let's see how Texas and Oklahoma like finishing third in their division. But if the SEC goes further, the Big Ten becomes a hunter. The alliance is merely a temporary non-aggression pact, not a pre-merger or alliance. And it forms a block of votes to prevent the SEC from expanding the playoff to get more SEC teams in.
it's a fair point. I agree- the Alliance is less-good for B1G than it is good for the ACC or the PAC. If the Alliance means no poaching - well, the B1G was more likely to poach FROM the ACC or PAC than the other way around.
Still, controlling the pace of CFB expansion and having the biggest voice in the NCCA re-do are not small things as in relates to the next 10 year window...
B1G can't poach any ACC due to GOR. That is not ending for over 10 years from now.
Pac-12 GOR ends next year or the following year.
If The B1G wanted to add USC and UCLA they would have to wait two years, but I guess talks could start before that.
Pac-12 GOR ends next year or the following year.
If The B1G wanted to add USC and UCLA they would have to wait two years, but I guess talks could start before that.
What do you see as the fundamental issue?
Seems to me the alliance does address the fundamental issues. And it unifies and stabilizes the schools that want to have traditional college sports against those that want to have an NFL minor league.
it does nothing to curb the coming onslaught of expansion to super leagues. It may buy time for the BIG but unless we target and go after premier names for a true national league, we become ACC like
But Rutgers and the BIG are on the NFL minor league side.
Literally every defense of "Alliance" has been - get more networks involved to bring in more money.
More money doesnt equal "traditional college sports".
Who here wants Rutgers to make less money going forward?
I say align with the SEC actually and stay as a Top 2 conference.
The discrepancy in money between the conferences. The SEC and B1G have a significant gap over the ACC and Pac 12. Until that changes, teams will still have significant motivation to look out for themselves, similar to what Texas and Oklahoma just did. Until that is solved, you will not have stability. This alliance really wont do much to change that. Further, the B1G's goal should be to ensure it remains on par with the SEC, not propping up the weaker sister conferences. If an alliance helps with voting rights and the CFB, great. I have no objection to it. But this alliance is being sold as much bigger and more important than it really is. The core issues still remain issues.
The thing is, it really only been the Big 12 schools that have been looking to leave. Despite all the far flung internet rumors, there is no concrete evidence that schools from the Pac 12 or ACC are interested in leaving.
Plus, stopping playoff expansion and limiting this NIL stuff could actually short circuit the move of Texas and Okkamona into the SEC.
How is the Alliance being sold as much bigger and more important? Every single article I've read discusses a voting bloc on playoff and governance issues to counteract the SEC, and potentially a scheduling component, of which is undefined at this point, all viable and realistic. Not one article states the Alliance is going to correct the discrepancy in revenue between the Conferences, although some incremental additional revenue is possible based on the scheduling component.
It remains critical for the Big Ten Conference to ensure other Networks (Fox) and/or media providers remain potential partners for involvement in the Playoffs to keep their interest in the Sport. This will support contract negotiations when the Big Ten's media deals expire in 2023, and will result in additional revenue. The same holds true for the Pac-12.