Toggle sidebar

B1G, Pac12, ACC in Discussions about Forming Alliance

R

Roy_Faulker

All-Conference
Feb 7, 2002
4,868
2,618
0
Wasn't this also the "alliance" that was in agreement to cancel their football seasons d/t COVID...that is until ND offered to strengthen its relationship with the ACC and they balked?

As Rutgers and former BE (the original one :) fans - haven't we learned the hard way already not to trust the ACC and its member schools?

I think this is stupid and the BIG should be acting aggressively in its own interests...if Warren got concessions of some sort then great but I'm not too confident.
 
R

rutgersguy1_rivals

Heisman
Dec 17, 2008
45,215
16,775
0
Does anyone actually read through the thread...some of the info I've posted has been reposted like 2-3 time lol. I guess that's why I repeat myself so often, I know things are always missed.

Anyways read one idea, don't know if it'll come to fruition, with regards to B10 scheduling if it did reduce down to 8 conference games. Have 3 permanent rival games and then 5 games with other members swapping years so you'd see every team every other year and then the two highest ranked B10 teams play in the champ game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queztastic
G

graystork

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2008
8,515
3,367
0
rucoe89 said:
and the SEC takes AZ, ASU, Cal and Stanford. That gets them access to rich California football talent and expand westward. TV/eyeball market is big enough that they can stay ahead of the B1G.

If B1G takes all the PAC-12 Cal Schools and AZ schools they lockout the SEC. California has strong media markets and Arizona is growing. This may allow B1G to leapfrog SEC.
Click to expand...
Cal and Stanford to the SEC? Right after the SEC poaches Harvard and Yale from the Ivy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scarlet_Scourge, WhichReligionIsRight and SteveVA2
G

graystork

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2008
8,515
3,367
0
cicero grimes said:
I agree with you 100 percent. However, the B1G may not want to disturb the decades long relationship with the PAC. The y might encourage the PAC to expand with TTU and OSU and sit tight.
The reason for this might be to move into the southeast in 2035. FSU and VA Tech or UNC might be available under the right circumstances given you access to southeast athletes and growing demographic markets.
The great white whale for the B1G is ND. IIRC the B1G offered membership to ND as far back as 1989. If the ACC destabilized after the 2035 GOR expires you might be able to get three ACC teams and ND. With a PAC scheduling alliance and membership in the B1G ND would be able to play most of their traditional rivals on a yearly or bi-yearly basis.
I still prefer the idea of adding 6 PAC teams now and forming a coast to coast conference and be done with it. Such a super conference would be in an unassailable position money wise. You also maintain academic integrity with the B1G presidents as the selected schools would be AAU members. The only question is would the B1G be willing to gut the PAC?
Click to expand...
I think the answer to your last question is no, at least not right now. The Big Ten still feels confident with it's present position. The alliance is more for the benefit of the PAC12 and ACC than the B10. Only if the Big 10 is presented with an existential threat by the SEC would they do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cicero grimes
G

graystork

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2008
8,515
3,367
0
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
no.. the PAC 12 is undesirable because of TV times and national audience and, of course, travel expenses and time. If it were all about political power or sway over the NCAA your point would be fine.. but its all about TV revenue and revenue in-general and rankings based on games seen by most people who get a vote in such things and select the CFP teams.

If the money is there for Clemson and Fla State then they will stay in the ACC (as long as they can recruit against the SEC teams not named Bama). They will have a better shot at the CFP from the ACC than the SEC. Texas and Oklahoma just increased their chances by joining the SEC.. assuming their recruiting can improve... and I am not convinced it can unless they win in the SEC right away. They will both get some marquee matchups vs big SEC teams.. their fans and boosters will be happy with that.. for a time.. but the losing will grind on them.
Click to expand...
Travel expenses pretty much taken care of by a western conference. Hell Washington travels to Arizona and ASU now, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa aren't that much farther. TV revenue? You don't think TV would be interested in move that adds Los Angeles (#2), Seattle (#12), Denver (#16), Portland (#21) and Salt Lake City (#30)? Revenue? USC, Washington, Oregon, and Utah are top 30 in the nation. TV matchups? USC/Washington/Oregon v. Ohio St/Penn St/Mich/Wisconsin? People WILL watch those games. Texas and Oklahoma just buried themselves in the SEC. Texas couldn't win the Big 12 how are they going to win the SEC. It's all about the money.

Actually I think the CFP is a joke. I could see the Alliance and SEC not agree to a CFP format and go back to the old system. Or back to a one game championship, SEC v. Alliance. There's no way the Alliance is going to agree to big numbers of SEC teams in the playoff.
 
Last edited:
G

GoodOl'Rutgers

Heisman
Sep 11, 2006
123,974
19,585
0
graystork said:
You don't think TV would be interested in move that adds Los Angeles (#2), Seattle (#12), Denver (#16), Portland (#21) and Salt Lake City (#30)? Revenue? USC, Washington, Oregon, and Utah are top 30 in the nation. TV matchups? USC/Washington/Oregon v. Ohio St/Penn St/Mich/Wisconsin? People WILL watch those games. Texas and Oklahoma just buried themselves in the SEC. Texas couldn't win the Big 12 how are they going to win the SEC. It's all about the money.
Click to expand...
Yes.. I think they would be interested.. but will the revenue share of the Big Ten teams go up or down after we take X number of PAC teams?

My comment was not about the alliance.. which is a good idea. It was about expansion to the PAC markets... the PAC wanted Texas and Oklahoma.. they didn't get them. The SEC got them despite having smaller TV markets on average (I think).

Why doesn't the SEC add the best PAC teams if it is such a good idea?
 
R

rutgersguy1_rivals

Heisman
Dec 17, 2008
45,215
16,775
0
Like I said in one of these threads, I don’t think anyone lost Texas/OU. They’re a natural fit for the SEC geographically and football mentality wise. SEC would’ve had right of first refusal. Similarly there are other schools that are more natural fits for the B10 if that day comes and the B10 will likely have right of first refusal.




 
G

graystork

All-Conference
Nov 30, 2008
8,515
3,367
0
GoodOl'Rutgers said:
Yes.. I think they would be interested.. but will the revenue share of the Big Ten teams go up or down after we take X number of PAC teams?

My comment was not about the alliance.. which is a good idea. It was about expansion to the PAC markets... the PAC wanted Texas and Oklahoma.. they didn't get them. The SEC got them despite having smaller TV markets on average (I think).

Why doesn't the SEC add the best PAC teams if it is such a good idea?
Click to expand...
Because the best PAC teams are educational institutions that have no interest in the SEC. Revenue share up with USC, Washington, Oregon, and Utah,, down with UCLA and Colorado.
 
N

NickRU714

Heisman
Aug 18, 2009
13,604
12,367
0
Less than 2 years later and Big 10 takes 4 PAC-12 schools.

Every talks about the ACC destroying the Big East but they weren’t decades long partners.

With friends like the Big 10, who needs enemies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom