OT: “Alliance” will be 8+1+1
- Thread starter RTRMR
- Start date
Come on everybody now, do another truffle
Tha 2024 pre-school WVU smackdown rumble shuffle
Tha 2024 pre-school WVU smackdown rumble shuffle
Because the big ten is about more than football (and basketball). It’s about preservinb “olympic” sports and commitment to academics and research.
Ultimately, this alliance isn't about conferences. It's about television networks. It is basically Fox Sports sticking it to ESPN.
How does it work with the ACC/Big with 14 teams, and the PAC with 12. I guess there will be years where some ACC/Big teams play 2 games against each other.
As mentioned the ACC (like the SEC) is all ESPN so that doesn't make any sense.
I do agree, though, that the alliance is not really about scheduling - in fact, I'm not even sure this scheduling system will even come to pass given how far in advance contracts are set up - but is actually about votes. If the Big 10/Pac-12/ACC all agree to work together and vote together when it comes to things like how the playoffs are set up then they can basically control the system and gets terms more favorable to them and less favorable (relatively) to the SEC who would otherwise potentially have the most influence.
Add in the multiple ACC-SEC rivalry games and ND games with ACC and Pac-12 schools, and I really wonder how much thought has been put into this idea, or is it just something that sounds nice on the surface.
It's an interesting idea but I don't see how it works (more in a second). I mean, on the surface it's great - each team in each conference gets 5 home games and 5 away games against Power 5 (is that Power 4 now?) conference teams. Each school can then book 2 cupcake games as well for 7 home games. I actually prefer this system and don't mind having fewer conference games; I'd rather see the variety of opponents.
Couple of things to work out:
1. The Pac-12 has fewer teams, so in theory that means 2 Big Ten teams and 2 ACC teams don't play a Pac-12 opponent in any given year. This might be a good thing to help out with point #2
2. The ACC has a bunch of teams that have annual OOC games with SEC teams (Ga Tech, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville) and this would make it impossible or difficult to schedule such games unless a team is willing to only have 6 home games some years and 11 Power 5(4) games. No way that is happening. Some teams could volunteer to not play a Pac-12 team which would solve this a little but it's not quite enough.
2a. Iowa also has a similar situation with playing Iowa St, but I could see them being okay with giving it up. That said, it would be easy to have Iowa just never play a Pac-12 team in this situation and be able to play Iowa St.
3. The ACC teams also have their contracted games with Notre Dame. 5 ACC teams play them each year. Similar to point #2, this would be essentially impossible to pull off if all ACC teams are playing both a Big Ten and Pac-12 team. Either Notre Dame would need to be part of this scheduling system or we'd see most ACC teams being either a Pac-12 or a Big Ten team in any year.
4. Who the heck would the SEC teams play? Maybe they keep the ACC rivalry games if it can be worked out, but otherwise they'd have to play the remnants of the Big 12 or even lesser teams. Even if the SEC goes up to 9 conference games, this would make it much awkward in terms of schedules.
5. Obviously, there's a ton of scheduled games that would need to be worked out, especially with teams scheduled against SEC teams in the future. How would that even work? The Big Ten/Pac-12/ACC teams aren't going to be paying a bunch of money to buy out existing scheduled games.
I see PSU playing Clemson and USC a lot.
I see OSU and Michigan playing Duke and Oregon State a lot.
To preserve natural rivals.
I see OSU and Michigan playing Duke and Oregon State a lot.
To preserve natural rivals.
It would, but I don't think that it would happen much if this truly came to pass. This is about maximizing exposure and rating and the networks would want the bigger name schools in each conference facing off. So I'd expect PSU to generally get schools like USC, Washington, Oregon from the Pac-12 and Clemson, FSU, Miami(FL), or Va Tech from the ACC (man, it is tough to say who would be a "good" ACC team outside of Clemson). In generally, they'll probably try to avoid more regional games because they'd get better ratings from intersectional match ups.
That would be interesting. Any agreement between the BIG and SEC would certainly put pressure on the remaining Football powers outside of BIG and SEC (Clemson, ND, FSU / Miami, USC, UCLA, Oregon) to make a move.
Who are they playing right now? Recent years?
Throw out the rivalry games because they exist for a different reason.
Adding 2 more teams, I'd say they go to a 10 game conference schedule. Then you got your MAC team and Mercer to fill it out.
Would love to see some of these alliance games in November. That would make them real interesting.
Sure, they definitely could, but that would make it pretty much impossible to compare the SEC in any meaningful way to the other power conferences. It would also mean that few if any SEC would have OOC losses while a bunch of Big Ten/Pac-12/ACC would have such losses. I'm not sure that would be a good thing for the alliance.
I see this partially coming about: some teams will opt in for 2 OOC games, other for only 1 (and being flexible to schedule a different Power 5 team like an SEC or Big 12 opponent or Notre Dame). as long as the math works out and teams are always balanced in the number of home and away games, it could work.
The rumors are that the alliance was largely formed to stop the SEC & ESPN power play. The SEC commish was courting UT and OU while also on the playoff expansion committee and ESPN has exclusive media deals in place for both the playoffs and the SEC to it would have been a huge win for the network. The other conferences are stepping in to make sure that we don't just hand the reigns to the best conference and and expanded playoff over to ESPN without allowing other media networks to compete, and to hopefully avoid a media monopoly and also to increase the media payouts for the playoff due to some competitive bidding.
Would love to see some of these alliance games in November. That would make them real interesting.
Yeah heading to Miami for a long weekend in November, including football, would be great.
Boston -not so much.
Yeah heading to Miami for a long weekend in November, including football, would be great.
Boston -not so much.
I agree...but we are going to get Pitt and Syracuse. I'd love to get VA, Duke, FSU, Miami, NC....We'll get Pitt and 'Cuse with an occasional VTech.
Yeah, but then Virginia would back out.
I think the 8+1+1 system would be great. Assign teams by standing the previous year. It would be a big upgrade in scheduling (most years) and create some interest with new teams on the schedule.
And it will also mean more losses and reduced access to the CFP.
Oh, well you’re forgetting that the B1G has an incompetent commissioner with zero vision to understand and accept what needs done to protect the conference for the future of its sports.
I think it's about playoff voting to be honest.
Notre Dame is an interesting wrinkle. On the one hand, they'd love the USC/Stanford and UM/MSU/Purdue rivalries...along with their Pitt/BC/Miami histories. But...why would the alliance want them? I guess to get Notre Dame WHEN the Alliance teams host Notre Dame. Once again though, Notre Dame makes more money out of this than the conference schools do.
Also, I could see them staggering your strength of schedule. For example, let's say they were going to set the 2023 and 2024 pairings at the end of this season (but let's use today's AP poll)...then PSU wouldn't draw Clemson and Oregon. Maybe one of them...but then the other school would be a mid-tier opponent. So...maybe Clemson and Arizona State...or Oregon and North Carolina.
But I do think they'll keep the elite teams away from the cellar dwellers. It'd be a waste of money for them to ever pair PSU with Washington State. Or USC with Rutgers.
Also, I could see them staggering your strength of schedule. For example, let's say they were going to set the 2023 and 2024 pairings at the end of this season (but let's use today's AP poll)...then PSU wouldn't draw Clemson and Oregon. Maybe one of them...but then the other school would be a mid-tier opponent. So...maybe Clemson and Arizona State...or Oregon and North Carolina.
But I do think they'll keep the elite teams away from the cellar dwellers. It'd be a waste of money for them to ever pair PSU with Washington State. Or USC with Rutgers.
I was thinking about this today. If ND is destined to be both relevant and som independent, it would be interesting to have ND play two teams each from the ACC, Big Ten, and PAC 12. Of course, that doesn’t exactly fit the 8-1-1 scenario that the PAC 12 mentioned
They could fill the games that the PAC 12 can't and play 2 Big 10, 2 ACC potentially, no?
What you said accurately reflects how the Big Ten represents itself, which is a load of shit.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Podcast Jerquaden Guilford Decommits + Top Targets To Replace Him- Latest: NittanyNation51
-