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

[HRE Otto IV]

IMO the B16 broken down by tiers:

Tier 1 (31%)
Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska, USC

Tier 2 (19%)
Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa

Tier 3 (19%)
Purdue, UCLA, Minnesota

Tier 4 (31%)
Indiana, Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern


That is well balanced. If the B16 were to expand evenly, it would not be any harder for the 1st Tier.

Tier 1 (goes down to 25%)
Notre Dame

Tier 2 (goes up to 25%)
Washington, Miami, GA Tech

Tier 3 (goes up to 25%)
UNC, Pitt, UVA

Tier 4 (goes down to 25%)
Stanford


There is now an equal amount in each tier. Yes, the Tier 1 teams will have slightly harder schedules with less Tier 4 games and more Tier 2/Tier 3 games. But they should still win those games, and get the other Tier 1 games slightly less often. The top programs won't all of a sudden go 8-4 now.


Same goes for the SEC. If they are adding FSU, Clemson, VA Tech, BYU, NC State, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas then they are adding an equal amount of teams in each Tier and they will play the Tier 1 teams LESS often. There is no reason to think that 8-4 will win the conference.

 

[HtownOrange]

You are not following the math at all. The bigger the conference goes the less the big name teams have to play. Is Bama not better off playing Texas once in four year vs every other year?


Edit

This would be a typical Bama 4 year stretch:

Year 1: LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, BYU, Kentucky, NC State, Mizzou, Vandy, Houston, UAB, Tulsa

Year 2: LSU, Texas, Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, VA Tech, Colorado, Vandy, Houston, Jacksonville State, LA Tech

Year 3: UGA, A&M, Tennessee, Auburn, Clemson, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Kansas, Vandy, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky

Year 4: Oklahoma, FSU, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Kentucky, Miss State, Vandy, Memphis, Arkansas State, Troy

This would be a typical Ohio State 4 year stretch:

Year 1: Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Iowa, GA Tech, Purdue, Illinois, Stanford, Indiana, Duke, Toledo, Marshall

Year 2: Michigan, Penn State, USC, Mich State, Purdue, Minn, Pitt, UNC, Indiana, Duke, Bowling Green, ODU

Year 3: Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Washington, Purdue, UVA, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, USF, Akron, Southern Miss

Year 4: Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Miami, UCLA, Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, Indiana, Kent State, James Madison

Both teams are easily getting 10 Ws and making the playoffs vs those schedules. And it is actually easier than the current schedules they play. Although I made the assumption that FCS games will eventually go away. That might not be the case. Also I made the assumption that both the B16 and SEC will require 10 power games total. If it is only 9 then you can replace those OOC ACC/B12/P10 games with G5s or FCSs.

Therein lies the difference,nyou limit the top dogs to Bama and Texas. At least nine teams see themselves as annual contenders each pre-season.

Bama
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
UT
OU
TAMU

None of their fanbases will tolerate perpetual mediocre performance, let alone losing seasons. That does not address the mediocre teams being pushed down further. USC, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss. State, Mizzou will not be happy as annual losers. Only KU and Vandy will be content to be doormats.

Considering only two big dogs under your scenario may be the outcome, my argument was and is that nobody else will be happy.

The SU fanbases is not happy being mediocre, why would any fanbases be happy being mediocre?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Therein lies the difference,nyou limit the top dogs to Bama and Texas. At least nine teams see themselves as annual contenders each pre-season.

Bama
LSU
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
UT
OU
TAMU

None of their fanbases will tolerate perpetual mediocre performance, let alone losing seasons. That does not address the mediocre teams being pushed down further. USC, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss. State, Mizzou will not be happy as annual losers. Only KU and Vandy will be content to be doormats.

Considering only two big dogs under your scenario may be the outcome, my argument was and is that nobody else will be happy.

The SU fanbases is not happy being mediocre, why would any fanbases be happy being mediocre?

I am not limiting, I was using an example. Do I need to list every scenario?

Again you are missing the math of it. You are ignoring the fact that under the current system the schedule is HARDER. Adding more teams will ease things. The SEC schools aren't going to leave because it is too hard and they are getting too many Ls. So wouldn't you want to make it easier by adding more beatable teams?

The Top Tiered teams will have 2 hard home games and 2 hard road games. They should go 8-0 in the other games. So if they split their hard games they are looking at 10-2 and the playoffs, not being losers. Really making the playoffs at 10-2 will be fine. It won't matter that they are not 11-1 as there are now 12 playoff teams.

The 2nd Tiered teams will likely be looking at 8-4 type seasons. Then Tier 3, 6-6 type seasons. And the Tier 4, 4-8 type seasons. That will be a slight step down in Ws for each. The real losers will be the Tier 4 teams, but that is the cost of admission.

 

[WoadBlue]

I am not sure it will take 25 years to resolve several issues. We know that the winners/losers ratio remains the same, it will always be a zero sum gain.

With the B1G and SEC trying to support so many big names, their balance of power will have to shift several to mediocrity or loser status. The shift will likely cause a loss in fan support and big dollar donors.

Think of it like economics, the larger the middle class, the stronger the economy. The B1G and SEC cannot have all the power schools on top. The conferences will need to grow to accommodate the power schools or the conferences will break up to keep the big names in business.

If you prefer, think of it as the bell curve. The champion is on the right, the worst team on the left with the masses in the middle.

While most teams can take a hit for a year or two, when fans see their team perpetually behind the proverbial eight ball, they will lose interest. Something will have to give.

Is the GOR sufficiently long enough to ride out the shift or not? I think it is when you have so many arrogant big dogs in two conferences. Some will be exposed as terriers and Chihuahuas as opposed the their historical perception as German shepherd and retrievers.

Just another fan's opinion.

All the BT fans to whom I, and others, have explained this seem more than OK with it because they assume that such is normal: the BT in many ways remains the Big 2, Little 8 (but with more than 8). And the * always are glad just to get occasional leftovers. Even PSU long ago accepted being a Little within the BT.

The SEC is another matter. It is not 2 Alphas. It is Bama, UGA, UF, Tenn, LSU, and now Texas and OU -with Auburn and A&M always screaming that they too are truly Big Time. And then we have all the football history and fan passion at places like Ole Miss and Arkansas. That is going to be one crazy mess, and the schools that are bottom third of the league in terms of wins/losses and attendance are eventually goingbto become true bottom feeders. Their fans will lose a good deal of interest. And they will become Losers in every sense.

 

[WoadBlue]

I am not limiting, I was using an example. Do I need to list every scenario?

Again you are missing the math of it. You are ignoring the fact that under the current system the schedule is HARDER. Adding more teams will ease things. The SEC schools aren't going to leave because it is too hard and they are getting too many Ls. So wouldn't you want to make it easier by adding more beatable teams?

The Top Tiered teams will have 2 hard home games and 2 hard road games. They should go 8-0 in the other games. So if they split their hard games they are looking at 10-2 and the playoffs, not being losers. Really making the playoffs at 10-2 will be fine. It won't matter that they are not 11-1 as there are now 12 playoff teams.

The 2nd Tiered teams will likely be looking at 8-4 type seasons. Then Tier 3, 6-6 type seasons. And the Tier 4, 4-8 type seasons. That will be a slight step down in Ws for each. The real losers will be the Tier 4 teams, but that is the cost of admission.

So the SEC has expanded to grab as close to a top football monopoly as possible, and it will only mean that the bottom half of SEC football programs when it had 12 will get pushed down ever harder. Within the SEC they will become peasants, and some will become serfs.

 

[SU94]

Even PSU long ago accepted being a Little within the BT.

Isn't it sad?

They've lost 10 of 11 to Ohio State and are 8-22 against the Buckeyes since joining the B10 (2-13 in Columbus with an average margin of defeat of 21 points!!).

For the baseball fans out there, PSU's .267 winning percentage against OSU (again, since joining the B10) is nestled between the winning percentages of the two worst teams in MLB:

• KC Royals (.280)
• Oakland A's (.247)

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So the SEC has expanded to grab as close to a top football monopoly as possible, and it will only mean that the bottom half of SEC football programs when it had 12 will get pushed down ever harder. Within the SEC they will become peasants, and some will become serfs.

If the SEC stays as is then it will hurt everyone's record. If the schools do not mind, then they should stay at 16. But if they were to go to 24, they can make the top half school records all better.

Take a look at Mizzou. Would you rather play Florida, UGA, Tennessee, Bama, Auburn, LSU, A&M 2x each over 4 years (14 games total). Or would you rather the SEC go to 24 (with FSU and Clemson included in that) and play each of those prior teams 1x each (7 games total + FSU, Clemson). They would be getting one less hard game a year (14-9 over 4 years), which means an easier schedule.

 

[longtimefan]

If the SEC stays as is then it will hurt everyone's record. If the schools do not mind, then they should stay at 16. But if they were to go to 24, they can make the top half school records all better.

Take a look at Mizzou. Would you rather play Florida, UGA, Tennessee, Bama, Auburn, LSU, A&M 2x each over 4 years (14 games total). Or would you rather the SEC go to 24 (with FSU and Clemson included in that) and play each of those prior teams 1x each (7 games total + FSU, Clemson). They would be getting one less hard game a year (14-9 over 4 years), which means an easier schedule.

But--

Florida, Auburn, Tennessee will play Missouri less, which arguably will make their schedules tougher.

Take Oklahoma. One year they will play Florida, UGA, Tenn., the next they meet Bama, Auburn, LSU. There's a really good possibility they will lose 4 of those six games.

How about USC? They will have major problems vs OSU, Mich, and Ped St. Plus, they will have to play Iowa, Wisc, Purdue half of the time in temperatures 20 to 30 degrees below what they're used to. Not to mention traveling more than halfway across the country on a regular basis.

In other words, some of these "traditional" powers, and their fans, are in for a shock.

 

[SU94]

But--

Florida, Auburn, Tennessee will play Missouri less, which arguably will make their schedules tougher.

Take Oklahoma. One year they will play Florida, UGA, Tenn., the next they meet Bama, Auburn, LSU. There's a really good possibility they will lose 4 of those six games.

How about USC? They will have major problems vs OSU, Mich, and Ped St. Plus, they will have to play Iowa, Wisc, Purdue half of the time in temperatures 20 to 30 degrees below what they're used to. Not to mention traveling more than halfway across the country on a regular basis.

In other words, some of these "traditional" powers, and their fans, are in for a shock.

This is the right answer. Adding more teams will equate to more challenging games. Period. They will make up a higher percentage of the league games. When Auburn goes from the (let's say) 6th-best program to No. 7 or 8, how can it get easier? Answer, it cannot.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

But--

Florida, Auburn, Tennessee will play Missouri less, which arguably will make their schedules tougher.

Take Oklahoma. One year they will play Florida, UGA, Tenn., the next they meet Bama, Auburn, LSU. There's a really good possibility they will lose 4 of those six games.

How about USC? They will have major problems vs OSU, Mich, and Ped St. Plus, they will have to play Iowa, Wisc, Purdue half of the time in temperatures 20 to 30 degrees below what they're used to. Not to mention traveling more than halfway across the country on a regular basis.

In other words, some of these "traditional" powers, and their fans, are in for a shock.

They will play Mizzou less because of the added teams to the SEC. They will not play the top of the SEC instead.

I will do it from LSU's perspective. Would you rather play A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida, UGA, Auburn 14x in 4 years or 7x and also play FSU and Clemson. It is still the 14 vs 9.

If the SEC stays at 16, then I agree some are in for a shock. There are too many whales. Right now expansion has only been about making more money. Who adds more value to the contract. IMO eventually the SEC will realize that they need to expand with some guppies to water down the conference schedules. That might keep the per school TV payout the same, but it will be worth it competitively.

Also if the SEC is a national conference, they don't have to play anyone OOC. There is enough quality in conference. So they can play 3 cupcakes. There is no need for LSU vs FSU OOC.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

This is the right answer. Adding more teams will equate to more challenging games. Period. They will make up a higher percentage of the league games. When Auburn goes from the (let's say) 6th-best program to No. 7 or 8, how can it get easier? Answer, it cannot.

Wrong. See the math. You are assuming that any other teams added will be whales. If the SEC went to 24 it would be mainly programs worse than Auburn.

 

[SouthernCuse]

swimming focused but you might find some of the overall revenue and profit numbers interesting

conference leaders and laggards revenue

 

[HtownOrange]

I am not limiting, I was using an example. Do I need to list every scenario?

Again you are missing the math of it. You are ignoring the fact that under the current system the schedule is HARDER. Adding more teams will ease things. The SEC schools aren't going to leave because it is too hard and they are getting too many Ls. So wouldn't you want to make it easier by adding more beatable teams?

The Top Tiered teams will have 2 hard home games and 2 hard road games. They should go 8-0 in the other games. So if they split their hard games they are looking at 10-2 and the playoffs, not being losers. Really making the playoffs at 10-2 will be fine. It won't matter that they are not 11-1 as there are now 12 playoff teams.

The 2nd Tiered teams will likely be looking at 8-4 type seasons. Then Tier 3, 6-6 type seasons. And the Tier 4, 4-8 type seasons. That will be a slight step down in Ws for each. The real losers will be the Tier 4 teams, but that is the cost of admission.

It will be 13 years before the SEC can get the ACC teams and they have already rejected everyone else, there is no basis to believe they will take anyone else.

As for the B1G, while possible, it is hard to believe Fox wants to pay additional PAC teams the B1G money when ESPN valued them at a little over $20MM each. That is bad business. Again, they are not getting any ACC teams for 13 years.

SU lost roughly 40-50%of the fan base because of the little engine that could. Die hard fan bases in the SEC are far more punitive than we are. They will not wait out 13 years for new teams to join and be whipping boys. Even the money loaded die hard fan base at TAMU will drop support if the team is not winning late in the season. I've seen it in person and talked with some of the donors, a couple with big money.


We can draw up fantasy leagues but that has no impact on what others will do. Even if the few items we discuss get resolved, there are far more criteria to be met and metrics be to be analyzed that we fans have no clue matter to the decision makers.

I'm O.K. with having fun for amusement's sake, but don't confuse amusement with logic, that is a recipe for bad decisions.

 

[TexanMark]

I'm thinking the USC/UCLA add will be an albatross for the B1G

 

[WoadBlue]

I'm thinking the USC/UCLA add will be an albatross for the B1G

Like adding Rutgers, it was a desperate move to try to 'have' a massive TV market. At least the LA market is filled with football talent and both LA schools have major sports history. But that distance is going to prove a killer.

 

[sutomcat]

Like adding Rutgers, it was a desperate move to try to 'have' a massive TV market. At least the LA market is filled with football talent and both LA schools have major sports history. But that distance is going to prove a killer.

Warren wanted a big win on his resume. Surprised the B1G presidents okayed this senseless money grab. No surprise Warren was gone shortly after the deal went down and no surprise many problems have popped up that were not discussed when the deal was negotiated.

 

[sufandu]

Like adding Rutgers, it was a desperate move to try to 'have' a massive TV market. At least the LA market is filled with football talent and both LA schools have major sports history. But that distance is going to prove a killer.

Do you think that simply because of all the travel required? If so, what do you think will hurt more, the time aspect or the expense?

 

[mscanlo]

IMHO, I think SEC fans are looking forward to having more great matchups on a regular basis. Despite one conference, the two division format resulted in a lot of subpar scheduling (e.g look at UGA’s home football schedule the past few years…. not that exciting)

I believe the SEC only schedule in 2020 has great reviews, because there were good matchups every week as opposed to the one or two games a year against {insert directional state university here}

On that note, wouldn’t be surprised to see Florida and UGA fans push for a 9 game conference schedule, as the current 8 game schedule results in only 3 home conference games every other year since the neutral game counts as a home game every year for one of them

I might be in a small bubble where I live but the fans want more elite matchups every year, regardless of impact to record (as of now)

 

[HtownOrange]

IMHO, I think SEC fans are looking forward to having more great matchups on a regular basis. Despite one conference, the two division format resulted in a lot of subpar scheduling (e.g look at UGA’s home football schedule the past few years…. not that exciting)

I believe the SEC only schedule in 2020 has great reviews, because there were good matchups every week as opposed to the one or two games a year against {insert directional state university here}

On that note, wouldn’t be surprised to see Florida and UGA fans push for a 9 game conference schedule, as the current 8 game schedule results in only 3 home conference games every other year since the neutral game counts as a home game every year for one of them

I might be in a small bubble where I live but the fans want more elite matchups every year, regardless of impact to record (as of now)

The SEC just voted down the 9 conference game schedule.

Teams cannot be “elite” if their records prove otherwise.

While some fans think they want better matchups, they will soon be tired of the beatdowns. Further, they will not draw new fans. See Rutgers. Losing teams lose fans and financial support.

It’s easy to think your team is the exception while wanting tougher schedules until the losing happens. Besides, the SEC has not proved its depth in post season play over time. At the top, yes, but after that, not impressive for what is alleged to be the best and deepest conference.

The middle and bottom of the SEC need four OOC games to fluff up their record because they cannot get enough wins in conference to prove they are mediocre, let alone elite. Besides, the big dogs in the SEC need their opponents to look respectable, otherwise they will be deemed to be beating up on 90lb weaklings, and rightfully so.

 

[Chris02M]

The SEC just voted down the 9 conference game schedule.

Teams cannot be “elite” if their records prove otherwise.

While some fans think they want better matchups, they will soon be tired of the beatdowns. Further, they will not draw new fans. See Rutgers. Losing teams lose fans and financial support.

It’s easy to think your team is the exception while wanting tougher schedules until the losing happens. Besides, the SEC has not proved its depth in post season play over time. At the top, yes, but after that, not impressive for what is alleged to be the best and deepest conference.

The middle and bottom of the SEC need four OOC games to fluff up their record because they cannot get enough wins in conference to prove they are mediocre, let alone elite. Besides, the big dogs in the SEC need their opponents to look respectable, otherwise they will be deemed to be beating up on 90lb weaklings, and rightfully so.

They voted it down for next year, not forever

 

[HtownOrange]

They voted it down for next year, not forever

Correct. The logic defeating the 9 game schedule will hold true the following season and into the future. The SEC needs OOC games to puff up the bottom and middle of the conference.

Carry the increased conference game schedule to only conference games. If they only want to play the elite teams and only the SEC is elite, why not? Because some has to lose to have a winner in a zero sum gain format.

Again, you cannot claim elite status with losing records or even middle of the pack records. This fact alone defeats the argument that all SEC teams are elite - remember, this is the basis of the argument for increased conference games.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I'm thinking the USC/UCLA add will be an albatross for the B1G

Not as much as Rutgers/Maryland. Those two will never be consistently good at FB. Rutgers main + was TV subs which in the future will be obsolete. At least they have NJ recruits and access to the NYC market. What does Maryland add? Even in the TV subs environment they didn't add a whole lot. One has to wonder if SU didn't go to the ACC, would that have been our spot? In hindsight the B16 should have just gone to 13 and waited.

 

[TexanMark]

They voted it down for next year, not forever

The middling and bottom of the SEC just like other P5 conferences need to go 3-1 or better in their OOC schedule to try to get to 6-6. One more conference game is nice in theory but the extra TV money can't change math.

Several SEC schools also have long standing OOC rivals which further complicates scheduling.

Jacksonville is scheduled to upgrade the Gator Bowl in a bid to extend the Cocktail Party game too. Both schools will look to schedule more home games to make up the loss of a home game every other year. I expect they'll (UGA and UF) offer more money to get some better branded OOC opponents but still buy wins. For example UConn vs ULM, SDSU vs Sam Houston St.
It wouldn't surprise me in 5 years to see a couple M3 schools pop up as a buy game.

SEC and B1G schools will all try for 8 game home schedules most years.

 

[TexanMark]

Not as much as Rutgers/Maryland. Those two will never be consistently good at FB. Rutgers main + was TV subs which in the future will be obsolete. At least they have NJ recruits and access to the NYC market. What does Maryland add? Even in the TV subs environment they didn't add a whole lot. One has to wonder if SU didn't go to the ACC, would that have been our spot? In hindsight the B16 should have just gone to 13 and waited.

Rutgers and UMD serve as nice hosts for all the B1G diaspora and young grads living in the BOS-WASH

 

[longtimefan]

Not as much as Rutgers/Maryland. Those two will never be consistently good at FB. Rutgers main + was TV subs which in the future will be obsolete. At least they have NJ recruits and access to the NYC market. What does Maryland add? Even in the TV subs environment they didn't add a whole lot. One has to wonder if SU didn't go to the ACC, would that have been our spot? In hindsight the B16 should have just gone to 13 and waited.

Maryland adds the DMV as much as Rutgers brings Jersey. Very fertile recruiting area in many sports.