Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 Alliance

#1      
The Transfer Portal
New Alliance dropping tomorrow. Get in, losers, we're going to fight the SEC.

"The new scheduling should create additional marquee games and perhaps increased television money, while potentially squeezing the SEC in non-conference scheduling.

Four ACC teams have annual games with in-state SEC rivals — Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia, Florida State-Florida and Louisville-Kentucky. Those games would continue, but there would be a decided lack of available non-conference dates for other SEC teams seeking major opponents."

"The Alliance is wary of ESPN, who has exclusive rights to all SEC games starting in 2024, also having full control of the playoff. ESPN has rights to the playoff through 2025 and an exclusive negotiating window. There has long been a strong feeling within the sport that multiple networks broadcasting the playoff would be better financially and for exposure."
 
#2      
New Alliance dropping tomorrow. Get in, losers, we're going to fight the SEC.

"The new scheduling should create additional marquee games and perhaps increased television money, while potentially squeezing the SEC in non-conference scheduling.

Four ACC teams have annual games with in-state SEC rivals — Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia, Florida State-Florida and Louisville-Kentucky. Those games would continue, but there would be a decided lack of available non-conference dates for other SEC teams seeking major opponents."

"The Alliance is wary of ESPN, who has exclusive rights to all SEC games starting in 2024, also having full control of the playoff. ESPN has rights to the playoff through 2025 and an exclusive negotiating window. There has long been a strong feeling within the sport that multiple networks broadcasting the playoff would be better financially and for exposure."
I still don’t see how replacing one game against a BIG Ten East Division opponent with a PAC 12 or ACC opponent adds much, if anything, to Illinois’ financial bottom line. I mean, yeah maybe if we’re swapping out Rutgers for Oregon, but what about the year when we get, I dunno, Wake Forest instead of Michigan?
 
#3      
I still don’t see how replacing one game against a BIG Ten East Division opponent with a PAC 12 or ACC opponent adds much, if anything, to Illinois’ financial bottom line. I mean, yeah maybe if we’re swapping out Rutgers for Oregon, but what about the year when we get, I dunno, Wake Forest instead of Michigan?
I think the point is to stop thinking in terms of short term profitability rather than long term survivial. If the SEC succeeds in it's objective, Illinois football is going to be worth just a little more than Gonzaga football.
 
#4      
New Alliance dropping tomorrow. Get in, losers, we're going to fight the SEC.

"The new scheduling should create additional marquee games and perhaps increased television money, while potentially squeezing the SEC in non-conference scheduling.

Four ACC teams have annual games with in-state SEC rivals — Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia Tech-Georgia, Florida State-Florida and Louisville-Kentucky. Those games would continue, but there would be a decided lack of available non-conference dates for other SEC teams seeking major opponents."

"The Alliance is wary of ESPN, who has exclusive rights to all SEC games starting in 2024, also having full control of the playoff. ESPN has rights to the playoff through 2025 and an exclusive negotiating window. There has long been a strong feeling within the sport that multiple networks broadcasting the playoff would be better financially and for exposure."

First impression over the basics in the article, I think I like it all.
 
#5      
I still don’t see how replacing one game against a BIG Ten East Division opponent with a PAC 12 or ACC opponent adds much, if anything, to Illinois’ financial bottom line. I mean, yeah maybe if we’re swapping out Rutgers for Oregon, but what about the year when we get, I dunno, Wake Forest instead of Michigan?
I'm excited for a home and home with BC so I can easily so the Illini play.
 
#7      
So I think the critical points:

An agreement where each football team in the three conferences would play one opponent from each of the other two leagues on an annual basis. In most cases, the opponents would rotate.
Under such a plan, the Big Ten could drop its conference schedule from nine games to eight, and require each school to play one game against an ACC and a Pac-12 team each year.

ACC teams, which already play eight conference games, would schedule a Big Ten and a Pac-12 opponent annually.

The Pac-12, which currently has nine league games, would consider dropping down to eight as well, or just use two of the three non-conference games in the Alliance.
In terms of the College Football Playoff, the leagues appear to prefer a 12-team field like the one that has been proposed, but the Alliance wants more of a say in how that model unfolds.

A possible wrinkle the group could propose would be a push for some playoff games to be controlled by conferences, not necessarily bowl games.

That would allow, say, the Big Ten to stage a playoff game at a neutral site within its footprint. That could happen inside the domed stadiums of Indianapolis and Detroit, or maybe outdoors in Cleveland or Chicago. This would replace using only traditional bowl games, which are located in the South or West.

We don't all agree on this, as we've seen, but I would hope there would be consensus on a few points.

1. The vision here is the NFL-iziation of college football. 12 team playoff using geographically dispersed sites, structured intra-divisional play, it's extremely unambiguous that as a competitive structure, college football as we know it must go and a NFL-like structure must replace it, with the idea that that NFL-style structure is a more lucrative product.

2. Football is the sole thing driving every last iota of this. There is not a single moment's consideration of anything other than what the next TV bids look like.

3. The eight remaining Big XII schools have been thrown to the wolves. Note that this is a structure that is the opposite of what I spitballed earlier, it's filling up the available non-conference spots to the exclusion of the SEC, but also the remainder Big XII. In some sense that leaves the SEC and Big XII to play each other (bring back Kansas-Mizzou!, maintain Bedlam!), but overall this is three conferences leaving the Big XII for dead and huddling together to avoid the same happening to them.

4. The ACC is an uncomfortable fit in this plan because of their handcuffs to ESPN as well as all the rivalry games they have with the SEC.
 
#8      
There are so few specifics that it’s difficult to react one way or the other. This could be a big nothing or could radically alter the face of college football.
 
#9      
The fact that the PAC12 are s driving this per the ESPN article plus the conspicuous absence of the remaining Big 12 schools makes me wonder if the the PAC12’s next step will be to grab up the four most attractive Big12 schools.

Secure their flank before going on the offensive, so to speak.
 
#10      
The only thing I will request is that the Fighting Illini aren't warmup games for Clemson & Oregon. Scheduling should reflect conference standings; i.e. we play Syracuse, Wazzu and the like. the Ohio State can deal with the juggernauts.
 
#11      
The only thing I will request is that the Fighting Illini aren't warmup games for Clemson & Oregon. Scheduling should reflect conference standings; i.e. we play Syracuse, Wazzu and the like. the Ohio State can deal with the juggernauts.
You can't avoid these teams if you ever want to be anything but the bottom feeder we currently are. These are the matchups recruits look at and dream about. The 4-star guys who weren't even looked at by Clemson, Oregon, or OSU and want to prove they belong at the top. Playing well against Rutgers or Purdue doesn't get you NFL attention, but against those 3 it would turn heads. Give me all the power house programs.
 
#12      
You can't avoid these teams if you ever want to be anything but the bottom feeder we currently are. These are the matchups recruits look at and dream about. The 4-star guys who weren't even looked at by Clemson, Oregon, or OSU and want to prove they belong at the top. Playing well against Rutgers or Purdue doesn't get you NFL attention, but against those 3 it would turn heads. Give me all the power house programs.
We have struggled enough with the Rutgers and Purdues. Signing us up for 99.9999% losses does not seem like a way to build up the program. Obviously the goal is to compete with tOSU, Clemson, Oregon. We need to get there first and we aren't there... yet.
 
#13      
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Johns Creek, GA
So I think the critical points:





We don't all agree on this, as we've seen, but I would hope there would be consensus on a few points.

1. The vision here is the NFL-iziation of college football. 12 team playoff using geographically dispersed sites, structured intra-divisional play, it's extremely unambiguous that as a competitive structure, college football as we know it must go and a NFL-like structure must replace it, with the idea that that NFL-style structure is a more lucrative product.

2. Football is the sole thing driving every last iota of this. There is not a single moment's consideration of anything other than what the next TV bids look like.

3. The eight remaining Big XII schools have been thrown to the wolves. Note that this is a structure that is the opposite of what I spitballed earlier, it's filling up the available non-conference spots to the exclusion of the SEC, but also the remainder Big XII. In some sense that leaves the SEC and Big XII to play each other (bring back Kansas-Mizzou!, maintain Bedlam!), but overall this is three conferences leaving the Big XII for dead and huddling together to avoid the same happening to them.

4. The ACC is an uncomfortable fit in this plan because of their handcuffs to ESPN as well as all the rivalry games they have with the SEC.
All levels of NCAA football EXCEPT FBS have an expanded playoff structure of at least 8 teams (DII has 28, DIII has 32), so calling it "NFL-ization" seems disingenuous to me since it's already ingrained in college sport. So the NFL/DIII format may be more lucrative, but it's also more competitive and way more fun for the fans.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing 6-6 teams playing in poorly-attended bowl games, tired of seeing certain programs (ND!!!) over-ranked, and even more tired of teams being chosen for the FBS playoff series based on the opinions of sportswriters and coaches. If DIII schools can support and travel through a 5 week playoff, there's no reason FBS schools couldn't. I get that DIII generally plays a 9 game schedule and FBS 12 plus a conf championship, but the guys in FBS aspire to play in a league that has 4 pre-season games, 16 regular season games, and up to 4 post-season games. An extra game or 3 in college is going to prepare them better, not to mention give us fans a lot more good football in December and January rather than the half-dozen decent bowls and then the FBS.
 
#14      
Cary, IL
All levels of NCAA football EXCEPT FBS have an expanded playoff structure of at least 8 teams (DII has 28, DIII has 32), so calling it "NFL-ization" seems disingenuous to me since it's already ingrained in college sport. So the NFL/DIII format may be more lucrative, but it's also more competitive and way more fun for the fans.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing 6-6 teams playing in poorly-attended bowl games, tired of seeing certain programs (ND!!!) over-ranked, and even more tired of teams being chosen for the FBS playoff series based on the opinions of sportswriters and coaches. If DIII schools can support and travel through a 5 week playoff, there's no reason FBS schools couldn't. I get that DIII generally plays a 9 game schedule and FBS 12 plus a conf championship, but the guys in FBS aspire to play in a league that has 4 pre-season games, 16 regular season games, and up to 4 post-season games. An extra game or 3 in college is going to prepare them better, not to mention give us fans a lot more good football in December and January rather than the half-dozen decent bowls and then the FBS.
Good points, however, the NFL season has changed to 3 pre-season and 17 regular season.
 
#17      
We have struggled enough with the Rutgers and Purdues. Signing us up for 99.9999% losses does not seem like a way to build up the program. Obviously the goal is to compete with tOSU, Clemson, Oregon. We need to get there first and we aren't there... yet.
Have a feeling it would be a tiered alliance cross over. 1st against 1st last year and so on so on
 
#18      
I mean, fine.

but is anybody really looking forward to playing Virginia this year? Haven’t seen a lot of chatter. Probably because a big ten team Neb is on the schedule first week of season.
 
#19      
All levels of NCAA football EXCEPT FBS have an expanded playoff structure of at least 8 teams (DII has 28, DIII has 32), so calling it "NFL-ization" seems disingenuous to me since it's already ingrained in college sport. So the NFL/DIII format may be more lucrative, but it's also more competitive and way more fun for the fans.

Personally, I'm tired of seeing 6-6 teams playing in poorly-attended bowl games, tired of seeing certain programs (ND!!!) over-ranked, and even more tired of teams being chosen for the FBS playoff series based on the opinions of sportswriters and coaches. If DIII schools can support and travel through a 5 week playoff, there's no reason FBS schools couldn't. I get that DIII generally plays a 9 game schedule and FBS 12 plus a conf championship, but the guys in FBS aspire to play in a league that has 4 pre-season games, 16 regular season games, and up to 4 post-season games. An extra game or 3 in college is going to prepare them better, not to mention give us fans a lot more good football in December and January rather than the half-dozen decent bowls and then the FBS.
For me it's not so much the expanded playoff that's the issue, as much as the form in which the playoff is coming. It seems clear to me the goal here, at least for ESPN and the SEC is to swallow up as much of the postseason football market share as possible. If the playoff were expanded today to 8 games, I would expect 3-4 of those teams to come from the SEC, as it currently stands. 8 game playoff means a total of 7 playoff games. Let's say it's 3, and Bama makes it to the championship game, and another SEC team makes it to the semis, then SEC teams could be featured in as many as 6 of those 7 games. And when the SEC comes to dominate the playoff, guess whose regular season is going to command more eyeballs and revenue dollars?

Contrast that with the traditional bowl structure. You would never see one conference in 6 of the 7 most watched bowl games. The major bowls featured roughly equal representation between the major conferences. In essence, the traditional bowl structure was a mechanism to drive college football toward parity, whereas the playoff appears to have become a driver towards monopoly.

The difference between FBS and lower levels of the sport is that the incentives to consolidate talent are just not there. There's not enough money or exposure to push DIII football towards this conundrum.
 
#20      
Richmond, VA
I mean, fine.

but is anybody really looking forward to playing Virginia this year? Haven’t seen a lot of chatter. Probably because a big ten team Neb is on the schedule first week of season.
The only reason I care is that it would be an 1 drive to see the boys play vs 11 1/2!
 
#21      
Washington, DC
#22      
Just a note, basketball is being included, too, in the alliance. I realize that doesn't alleviate your concerns, but good to know. We'll find out more in a little over an hour.

Fair enough.

I'm a bit torn, on one hand it was cool when the ACC/B1G Challenge was its own singular unique thing. On the other hand, that was never going to be a cat easily kept in the bag and a B1G/PAC Challenge would also be a lot of fun.

Within reason I don't really object to the centralization of non-conference basketball scheduling away from the individual teams.
 
#23      
All levels of NCAA football EXCEPT FBS have an expanded playoff structure of at least 8 teams (DII has 28, DIII has 32), so calling it "NFL-ization" seems disingenuous to me since it's already ingrained in college sport. So the NFL/DIII format may be more lucrative, but it's also more competitive and way more fun for the fans.
At the end of the day, the levels below FBS are just very different operations from a business perspective.

Of course it's the NFL they're aiming at. The NFL is the sports revenue king of the world, and they play the same sport. I get why they have that attitude, they're just tragically misguided, unfortunately.
 
#24      
Washington, DC
For me it's not so much the expanded playoff that's the issue, as much as the form in which the playoff is coming. It seems clear to me the goal here, at least for ESPN and the SEC is to swallow up as much of the postseason football market share as possible. If the playoff were expanded today to 8 games, I would expect 3-4 of those teams to come from the SEC, as it currently stands. 8 game playoff means a total of 7 playoff games. Let's say it's 3, and Bama makes it to the championship game, and another SEC team makes it to the semis, then SEC teams could be featured in as many as 6 of those 7 games. And when the SEC comes to dominate the playoff, guess whose regular season is going to command more eyeballs and revenue dollars?
I've not done the math myself, but I've seen it stated that if the previous years' playoffs were expanded, the B1G would have had the most teams involved. That's actually why the B1G's stance when it comes to playoff expansion is to not limit the number of teams per conference. Obviously, there's plenty to debate when it comes to the wisdom of that decision. Note, I have no idea if that changes with the addition of Oklahoma (Texas, needless to say, isn't bringing any more playoff bids).
 
#25      
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Johns Creek, GA
At the end of the day, the levels below FBS are just very different operations from a business perspective.

Of course it's the NFL they're aiming at. The NFL is the sports revenue king of the world, and they play the same sport. I get why they have that attitude, they're just tragically misguided, unfortunately.
I'm still not clear on why you believe this.