ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[djorange1989]

The alliance will start out as two things.

A voting block and scheduling. The leagues will vote together and form a majority consensus on playoffs, compliance, NIL, transfer rules ect. The money will come via the scheduling which will feature not only in season match ups but bowl match ups and exclusivity as to non conf games.

Game Set Match.

This. 100%.

 

[Orijinal]

West VA can play someone else. I want more Syracuse Penn State. It makes too much sense

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

West VA can play someone else. I want more Syracuse Penn State. It makes too much sense

The two are not exclusive.

 

[sutomcat]

Rutgers sucks on the field but they paid for their inclusion into the conference.

NJ has 9 million population.
55% of NJ has cable.
That is 4.95 million.

BTN gets one 1 dollar a month for all cable subscribers by the contract the Big Ten negotiatied under Delaney.
That 5 million dollar a month x12
= 60 million.
So while Rutgers sucks they aren’t losing the Big Ten money.
It’s why the Big Ten took Rutgers over UConn.
Rutgers had more population.
That doesn’t include NYC which Big Ten used YES and Fox to get them a dollar a month there as well.

It’s why Big Ten was somewhat interested in us. NY population would have paid for our inclusion.

Rutgers did NOT pay for their inclusion into the B1G.

The citizens of NJ? Maybe. Most very unwillingly.

Rutgers? Nope.

And it certainly wasn’t the dozens of actual Rutgers fans in the Garden State.

On a related note, Rutgers is last in the B1G and NJ is last in the US in cord cutting.

Report: 48% of Texans Have Canceled Cable - El Paso Herald Post

The pandemic has contributed to this shift, with more viewers opting for on-demand content and original series while at home. With many customers “cutting

elpasoheraldpost.com

 

[Alsacs]

Rutgers did NOT pay for their inclusion into the B1G.

The citizens of NJ? Maybe. Most very unwillingly.

Rutgers? Nope.

And it certainly wasn’t the dozens of actual Rutgers fans in the Garden State.

On a related note, Rutgers is last in the B1G and NJ is last in the US in cord cutting.

Report: 48% of Texans Have Canceled Cable - El Paso Herald Post

The pandemic has contributed to this shift, with more viewers opting for on-demand content and original series while at home. With many customers “cutting

elpasoheraldpost.com

You know what I meant.
The Big Ten took Rutgers not for its athletic teams.
They knew the money was there and it gave NYC alums an easy away game and made Pennsylvania State happy.

 

[CousCuse]

The primary purpose is putting together a voting bloc (40 votes, 41 with ND) to limit what the SEC tries to do. Any extra regular season scheduling and bowl game tie-ins are of secondary importance to not letting the SEC run roughshod over college football. As much as I loved having UVa schedule USC-w, Orygun, and UCLA, our parochial fanbase screamed about not being able to drive to the away games. (Which is why a sizeable chunk of our fanbase wants WVU in the ACC, seriously.)

A sizeable chunk of almost every fanbase in the ACC wants WVU.

 

[Qbobby]

 

[Chris02M]

Not sure what the PAC 12 brings to the table except 10pm games and lots of travel.

If you want to expand and plan for SEC domination I’m all for working with the Big 10 and adding say a Cincy or Memphis over a Washington State or Oregon State.

Heck grab some Big 12 scraps Texas schools like TCU over Cal.

At the end of the day I still say Kansas and Iowa State are announced to the Big10 before the year is over

acc network on west coast as in market ?

 

[WoadBlue]

have at it Alsacs

Thoughts on this should start with knowing that until the SEC took Texas and OU, the BT never would have included the ACC in such talks. The BT has long seen the northeast as its auxiliary territory, and the ACC moving into the northeast pissed off a host of BT power brokers. The deal with ND then infuriated those people. The BT desire to make the ACC pay for getting in the way of the BT forcing ND to join the BT meant the BT was caught totally flat footed and snickering about how the 12 team playoff would mean the ACC has 0 chance to land ND as full football member when Sankey reeled in the Red River Shootout. The BT was revealed, yet again, as a super rich, vindictive fool.

The worst case scenario for BT football is Texas in the SEC along with OU, and a 12 team playoff with no restrictions on the number of teams per league that can get invited. And that is where we are. BT 'country' has fewer top recruits than does Pac 'country,' which has fewer than ACC 'country,' which has fewer than 'SEC' country. Over time, that could handicap BT football, no matter how rich the BT is.

It seems to me that the ACC, BT, and Pac all should agree now to oppose a 12 team playoff, offering instead an 8 team playoff with champs of the 4 Major/Power leagues getting auto bids, and an auto bid to the highest ranked champ of a non-Major/Power conference. The committee also then would pick 3 at-large teams, and no league could have more than 2 members in the playoff.

ND won't like it, but ND pushing hard for that 12 team playoff did heavy lifting to get Texas and OU into the SEC while thinking of nothing but ND. So ND should be ignored as the 3 of us conferences act to keep SEC football from becoming a virtual monopoly.

The BT and Pac both must agree to end the NCAA restriction on Conference Championship Games so we all can end divisions. I think most people here are fully on board for the ACC going to 3+5(5) scheduling as soon as the NCAA allows it. The BT would also benefit from such scheduling. The Pac would benefit from 5+3(3) scheduling without divisions. All 3 of us then could guarantee that every season we get our 2 best teams into our CCG, which would maximize our chances to have 2 playoff teams. All 3 of us playing 8 conference games would allow us to play each other OOC much more often than now happens.

Now for the rest -

The BT is rich as Croesus and has huge TV audiences for both revenue sports. The BT needs more games against teams from, games played in, states rich with talent: CA, FL, GA, NC, VA, TX.

The Pac needs many more games against teams from Eastern Time and Central Time.

The ACC needs OOC games against foes in other regions that bring large numbers of guaranteed fans to stadiums and, especially, TV sets.

Both ACC and BT need the northeast to see a big increase in interest in CFB. Penn St playing Pitt at least half the time (say, 2 years on and 2 off) should be the obvious first step, with Penn St playing Syracuse fairly often the second step. Syracuse versus Rutgers as a neutral site game in Yankee Stadium could help. BC playing BT teams in Foxboro, Yankee Stadium, Giants Stadium could prove beneficial in building a consistent CFB audience in the northeast, because it would be the huge Land Grant bully from the midwest taking on the scrappy little northeastern team.

 

[Hoo's That]

A sizeable chunk of almost every fanbase in the ACC wants WVU.

I'm not part of that chunk. I don't want to play them once in a blue moon OOC, let alone regularly as a member of the ACC.

 

[WoadBlue]

And the Mafia

Keep your friends close (ESPN) and your enemy closer (B1G)

You nailed it.

 

[WoadBlue]

The primary purpose is putting together a voting bloc (40 votes, 41 with ND) to limit what the SEC tries to do. Any extra regular season scheduling and bowl game tie-ins are of secondary importance to not letting the SEC run roughshod over college football. As much as I loved having UVa schedule USC-w, Orygun, and UCLA, our parochial fanbase screamed about not being able to drive to the away games. (Which is why a sizeable chunk of our fanbase wants WVU in the ACC, seriously.)

If Wake is ready to step down because a school that size (just ask Rice) simply cannot keep up this game of Big Time football, then I'm all for WVU in the ACC.

 

[Hoo's That]

If Wake is ready to step down because a school that size (just ask Rice) simply cannot keep up this game of Big Time football, then I'm all for WVU in the ACC.

I hope that doesn't happen. IIRC, at least at one time, Wake was the smallest school in the FBS.

 

[WoadBlue]

The B1G is not the same B1G.
Jim Delaney was a good commissioner.
Kevin Warren is not.
I don’t trust the Big Ten just because but I sure as hell don’t trust ESPN and SEC.

But Phillips is sharp and knows the BT inside and out, and is highly respected by the BT. And you Swofford will be involved, as will Jim Delaney.

 

[Moontan]

The Alliance will still schedule some games against SEC opponents. UGA-GA Tech, Florida-FSU, Tennessee-Louisville and Clemson-SC are not going away. I’m also looking forward to the Syracuse-Tennessee game.

Bowl games will also still offer SEC matchups.

The 8-team playoff format outlined above sounds good as well. The SEC would likely oppose the 2-team cap.

 

[Alsacs]

The Alliance will still schedule some games against SEC opponents. UGA-GA Tech, Florida-FSU, Tennessee-Louisville and Clemson-SC are not going away. I’m also looking forward to the Syracuse-Tennessee game.

Bowl games will also still offer SEC matchups.

The 8-team playoff format outlined above sounds good as well. The SEC would likely oppose the 2-team cap.

They aren’t going to freeze out the SEC schedule wise. This is just working together as a voting bloc and shutting down SEC/ESPN influence.

I hope ESPN loses the CFB playoffs in 4 years. It would be a huge message to them.

 

[CousCuse]

I'm not part of that chunk. I don't want to play them once in a blue moon OOC, let alone regularly as a member of the ACC.

The people who want another potent football program in the conference see it differently. They competed at the top of the Big12 and would in the ACC as well.

 

[orange79]

The people who want another potent football program in the conference see it differently. They competed at the top of the Big12 and would in the ACC as well.

Personally, I'm on the fence. If I had to choose one way or another, I'd push them to the have-nots. Another mouth to feed that doesn't move the needle.

 

[CousCuse]

Personally, I'm on the fence. If I had to choose one way or another, I'd push them to the have-nots. Another mouth to feed that doesn't move the needle.

Maybe they can raise the bar for competitiveness and improve the conference. I think the Big12 has been better overall than the ACC and they played tough out there.

 

[DoctorBombay]

i was thinking the same thing lol. ESPN owns the SEC &ACC networks so i was thinking or hoping at least that ESPN would look out for us

They’ve invested $600 million into the ACCN. It wouldn’t be prudent to let the conference fail. They have about 10 years to set things right, or Clemson/FSU et al all leave on or before 2036.

 

[HtownOrange]

Rutgers sucks on the field but they paid for their inclusion into the conference.

NJ has 9 million population.
55% of NJ has cable.
That is 4.95 million.

BTN gets one 1 dollar a month for all cable subscribers by the contract the Big Ten negotiatied under Delaney.
That 5 million dollar a month x12
= 60 million.
So while Rutgers sucks they aren’t losing the Big Ten money.
It’s why the Big Ten took Rutgers over UConn.
Rutgers had more population.
That doesn’t include NYC which Big Ten used YES and Fox to get them a dollar a month there as well.

It’s why Big Ten was somewhat interested in us. NY population would have paid for our inclusion.

Respectfully, your math needs work. 4.95 million people with cable are not all subscribers. You need to factor in the average family size. Ex: If the average family is 2*, then Rutgers brings $30MM, if the average is 3* per family, Rutgers brings in $20MM. Assuming a similar coverage brought in by Rutgers without any credit to PSU, UM, tOSU, et al., for NYC**, at best Rutgers brings in $60MM, but probably closer to $40MM.

Further, there is no proof that Rutgers carries NYC. PSU is more likely to carry NYC than Rutgers. Then factor in the age groups who have cable and you will see that the older people are more likely to have cable while younger people are likely to stream, thus cable subscribers are likely to pass away (and cease subscriptions) at a much higher rate. Realistically, Rutgers may bring in $20MM, far less than they get - and they still don't get a full share.

There are many more reasons that Rutgers does not carry their weight and were gifted a lifeline, mostly PSU was threatening to leave which would have weakened the BTN, kept them out of the northeast and mid-atlantic states and would have strengthened the ACC.

This is not a slam on you personally, just the misguided "common knowledge" that Rutgers actually brings any substantive value to the B1G/BTN.


*See: New Jersey Population 2021 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs) For NJ population, per this site: Average Household Size By State 2021, the average NJ household size is 3 or more.
**See: Number of households in New York City, New York by household income 2019 | Statista
total NYC households was 3.21MM, equal to about 2.7 members per household

 

[ottodaorange]

And the Mafia

Keep your friends close (ESPN) and your enemy closer (B1G)

Actually, that sentiment was first made by Niccolo Machiavelli.

 

[Alsacs]

Respectfully, your math needs work. 4.95 million people with cable are not all subscribers. You need to factor in the average family size. Ex: If the average family is 2*, then Rutgers brings $30MM, if the average is 3* per family, Rutgers brings in $20MM. Assuming a similar coverage brought in by Rutgers without any credit to PSU, UM, tOSU, et al., for NYC**, at best Rutgers brings in $60MM, but probably closer to $40MM.

Further, there is no proof that Rutgers carries NYC. PSU is more likely to carry NYC than Rutgers. Then factor in the age groups who have cable and you will see that the older people are more likely to have cable while younger people are likely to stream, thus cable subscribers are likely to pass away (and cease subscriptions) at a much higher rate. Realistically, Rutgers may bring in $20MM, far less than they get - and they still don't get a full share.

There are many more reasons that Rutgers does not carry their weight and were gifted a lifeline, mostly PSU was threatening to leave which would have weakened the BTN, kept them out of the northeast and mid-atlantic states and would have strengthened the ACC.

This is not a slam on you personally, just the misguided "common knowledge" that Rutgers actually brings any substantive value to the B1G/BTN.


*See: New Jersey Population 2021 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs) For NJ population, per this site: Average Household Size By State 2021, the average NJ household size is 3 or more.
**See: Number of households in New York City, New York by household income 2019 | Statista
total NYC households was 3.21MM, equal to about 2.7 members per household

When you are wrong say you are wrong.
I am wrong.

 

[AlaskaSU]

Nothing is enforceable unless there are penalties for rebellion.

 

[HtownOrange]

When you are wrong say you are wrong.
I am wrong.

Apologies if this came off as against you. I did not intend it to be personal. It was intended to be viewed as dispelling the B1G/Rutgers myth that Rutgers actually adds benefit to the B1G. I fully understand why the B1G wants to propagate the myth, they don't want to admit that was a foolish mistake.* However, they invited Rutgers to their dance and now they must dance with her.


*My own take is that PSU was far more serious regarding their threat to leave if there were no eastern partners brought on board than many believe and recognizing they missed the boat on SU/Pitt, they took UMD (a solid choice - some history, but not too much for the powers) and were forced to accept Rutgers, or as you pointed out, UConn. (or WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Buffalo, etc.) At least Rutgers was close to NYC and they could blow smoke about haw bad they wanted NYC.