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

[All4SU]

IMO, the time for non-football teams. For example, USC plays WLax. Each year they will most probably have 3 games in the Eastern time zone. I can see the schedule's being split into H-A pairings for them as OSU-Michigan, PSU-Rutgers, and Maryland-Hopkins, with Northwestern thrown in with one or the other group. All of the B1G plays softball, but that means USC and UCLA will each have one literal coast-to-coast trip each year when they play Rutgers or Maryland (flying from LAX to Newark or Dulles). They do pick up more games in the Central time zone, though.

Perhaps the next phase will be the mega conferences reducing all of the non-profit sports to new, regional conferences, and reserving the big money alliances to just football and basketball.

 

[Hoo's That]

Perhaps the next phase will be the mega conferences reducing all of the non-profit sports to new, regional conferences, and reserving the big money alliances to just football and basketball.

Agree. The superleagues will leave the NCAA and only involve football, basketball, and baseball/softball because the SEC cares about them most and the B1G can agree to that concept. The non-rev sports will remain in the NCAA and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the competition in them return to the conference structure in existence in the 90s before the SEC started realignment mania.

 

[HtownOrange]

The 9 teams are not playing each other every year. Having 8 other top programs is the same as being in a smaller conference with 4 other top programs. Over a 4 year period you will play 4 hard games per year and 16 total. It doesn't matter if those games are divided by 8 teams or 4 teams the difficulty is the same.

Yes, not everyone can be a conference champ but now with an expanded playoff that isn't as big of a deal. Over a 4 year period all 9 teams can make the playoffs at least once. It won't matter if they are 3rd in the SEC every year.

These teams will be fluctuating between 10-2 and 8-4. You act like they will be going 4-8. If teams are winning 8-10 games a year and making the playoffs 3/4 of the time, the fan base won't disappear.

How many games are played by the SEC in conference? Hint: 64. Now divvy the wins and prove all nine big dogs can be competing annually for the SEC championship and make the playoffs.

If you really believe that all none schools will be happy to just make the CFB playoff once every three years I think you are sadly mistaken. As has been pointed out the SEC fan bases are delusional. They EXPECT to be serious contenders annually.

 

[longtimefan]

How many games are played by the SEC in conference? Hint: 64. Now divvy the wins and prove all nine big dogs can be competing annually for the SEC championship and make the playoffs.

If you really believe that all none schools will be happy to just make the CFB playoff once every three years I think you are sadly mistaken. As has been pointed out the SEC fan bases are delusional. They EXPECT to be serious contenders annually.

Something that hasn't been mentioned--

If the SEC schedules 4 guaranteed wins in the non-con in order to puff up their records, they will hurt their strength of schedule, and thus reduce the chances of being included in the 12-team tournament.

 

[TexanMark]

Something that hasn't been mentioned--

If the SEC schedules 4 guaranteed wins in the non-con in order to puff up their records, they will hurt their strength of schedule, and thus reduce the chances of being included in the 12-team tournament.

Jaded Mark sez the eye test will take precedent.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

How many games are played by the SEC in conference? Hint: 64. Now divvy the wins and prove all nine big dogs can be competing annually for the SEC championship and make the playoffs.

If you really believe that all none schools will be happy to just make the CFB playoff once every three years I think you are sadly mistaken. As has been pointed out the SEC fan bases are delusional. They EXPECT to be serious contenders annually.

1. Do the math. With 8 games they will see everyone roughly 2x over a 5 year span. For the SEC West things will be slightly easier. For the East slightly harder. For Texas and Oklahoma it will be a shock.

2. It used to be Top 4 nationally or bust. You need to be 11-2 or better to have any shot at the Top 4. Now you can go 8-4 and be in the playoffs.

3. Yes, just making the playoffs isn’t enough and the HC will be fired for never doing better. But the attendance will still be 90k whether they are 8-4 or 11-2. They won’t go down to 60k.

4. Of those 9 teams only two have been consistent contenders the last 5 years. So what exactly is changing for the other 7?

 

[NJCuse97]

Agree. The superleagues will leave the NCAA and only involve football, basketball, and baseball/softball because the SEC cares about them most and the B1G can agree to that concept. The non-rev sports will remain in the NCAA and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the competition in them return to the conference structure in existence in the 90s before the SEC started realignment mania.

I would think hard about letting them back to the 90’s status quo. Why bail them out of the mess they made?

 

[WoadBlue]

Agree. The superleagues will leave the NCAA and only involve football, basketball, and baseball/softball because the SEC cares about them most and the B1G can agree to that concept. The non-rev sports will remain in the NCAA and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the competition in them return to the conference structure in existence in the 90s before the SEC started realignment mania.

The SEC did not start this mania. The BT did, and there ND was second. In the old TV deal for all, the BT always gained the most, in part because the BT was granted the entire Northeast, down too DC, as its territory. So when that type TV funding was wiped away, the BT acted to secure the northeast for itself by taking PSU. That ND to make a deal just for itself. The two combined led the SEC to decided to go to 12 by harming the bordering SWC and gambling that a CCG would pay off huge for them.

By that point, the wild race was on.

 

[WoadBlue]

How many games are played by the SEC in conference? Hint: 64. Now divvy the wins and prove all nine big dogs can be competing annually for the SEC championship and make the playoffs.

If you really believe that all none schools will be happy to just make the CFB playoff once every three years I think you are sadly mistaken. As has been pointed out the SEC fan bases are delusional. They EXPECT to be serious contenders annually.

Tommy Tuberville at Auburn beat Bama 6 consecutive years and when he lost to Bama, the majority of Auburn fans wanted him fired then and there.

 

[Hoo's That]

The SEC did not start this mania. The BT did, and there ND was second. In the old TV deal for all, the BT always gained the most, in part because the BT was granted the entire Northeast, down too DC, as its territory. So when that type TV funding was wiped away, the BT acted to secure the northeast for itself by taking PSU. That ND to make a deal just for itself. The two combined led the SEC to decided to go to 12 by harming the bordering SWC and gambling that a CCG would pay off huge for them.

By that point, the wild race was on.

Everything took off when the SEC went to 12 teams, thereby qualifying under NCAA rules to have a championship game. When that game raked in the bucks, all the conferences began to look for new people to get up to 12 so they could have a championship game, too. If it had flopped, I don't think the demand would have been as high to bring in more teams. What's ironic is that the NCAA hierarchy didn't think any D-1 conference would try to qualify to have a championship game, otherwise they would have limited it to conferences selecting a team to get their bid to the NCAA championships, the original purpose.

I really don't think Penn State's migration to the B1G moved the needle much on conference expansion, getting more TV money, or locked up TV screens for the B1G. The money really started coming in when the BTN started and PA cable systems had to pay the higher rate. NY didn't pay that higher rate and neither did any New England state, VA, the Carolinas, Georgia, or FL.

 

[IthacaMatt]

they could also make the bowls like little league where everyone gets a trophy, or gets to go to a bowl game regardless of record

They already did that 20 years ago. Teams that go 3-5, or even 2-6 in conference can still make a "bowl game".

 

[HtownOrange]

I don’t live in Texas, but I believe all of the Texas teams you have mentioned had down cycles recently. I imagine their fanbase survived those cycles.

As HRE mentions above, all the teams in the new SEC won't be terrible at once. The conference is very cyclical. There are probably 7/8 teams teams in the SEC who think they should win the conference title. All of them have competed for the conference (and even a national championship) in the past 20 years and all have also had bad seasons in that same time frame.

Unlike your perception (i assume biased towards SU), if it gets really bad for a while, the programs won't sit there and do nothing. Even in the ACC, FSU pulled a quick decision on Taggart (with the help of a very small group of boosters), Miami is stepping up with significant investment, etc.

Back to a Texas school (i looked this one out to make sure my memory was correct). Texas A&M fired Sumlin due to the downward trajectory after entering the SEC, despite his worst season of 7-6. Their fanbase seems back and louder than ever (based on media coverage)


Speaking of your reply to "football is a religion in Texas", that appears to actually be anecdotal. I think that saying is derived from Texas High School Football. NCAA Football is not the most popular sport in Texas (i know that might be hard to believe based on your said experience). NFL or MLB is, depending on source.

Do the math. Explain in detail how 9 of sixteen teams end up ruling the roost simultaneously. As you note, and agree with me, the schools will NOT tolerate losing or mediocre performance, yet, not all nine can be the champion or runner-up every year. Your Sumlin argument proves my point.

Nobody claimed the nine top dogs would be bad at once, only that they cannot all be champions at once. I believe that I have reasonably been clear that I generally expect a few to compete for the SEC championship, assuming three, that leaves six who will be mediocre or worse; if you wish to assume 4 teams compete for the championship, that leaves five to be mediocre or worse. Please do NOT extrapolate positions I have not posted. Because you misread something or just want to twist an argument does not validate your position nor help your credibility.

The baseball comment is a red herring and a throw away argument to distract form the point. Besides, just as we have many religions, we have many sports. My analogy stands.

 

[HtownOrange]

Something that hasn't been mentioned--

If the SEC schedules 4 guaranteed wins in the non-con in order to puff up their records, they will hurt their strength of schedule, and thus reduce the chances of being included in the 12-team tournament.

I haven't mentioned it as a few SEC teams play some big name OOC opponents. Yes, they all have a cupcake game, usually played the week before rivalry week. And yes, most play at least one more patsy game, usually two and some play all four OOC games as body bag games.

From my days in B1G territory in the 1990s, the argument was the same as the SEC's, they dominate OOG games and beat each other up in conference.

You make a valid point, but often the press, and more importantly the AP and Coaches Polls vote with this in mind. Just an observation from another fan.

 

[HtownOrange]

1. Do the math. With 8 games they will see everyone roughly 2x over a 5 year span. For the SEC West things will be slightly easier. For the East slightly harder. For Texas and Oklahoma it will be a shock.

2. It used to be Top 4 nationally or bust. You need to be 11-2 or better to have any shot at the Top 4. Now you can go 8-4 and be in the playoffs.

3. Yes, just making the playoffs isn’t enough and the HC will be fired for never doing better. But the attendance will still be 90k whether they are 8-4 or 11-2. They won’t go down to 60k.

4. Of those 9 teams only two have been consistent contenders the last 5 years. So what exactly is changing for the other 7?

1) See ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment HINT: I show you how mathematically the SEC can look great with the four OOC wins, assuming they get the four OOC wins top to bottom, which to my knowledge has never happened. I will gladly stand corrected if someone has data to prove otherwise.

2) Explain exactly how many SEC teams with 8-4 records will be in the playoffs. Then explain how they are elite, top dogs with four losses.

3) Many SEC teams sell out in the preseason. Fans in the seats is not as full as you believe. Nor will it remain high is a team does not correct the ship. Further, the big donors will not lay down big money for losing teams.

4) Your math is already faulty, both UT and OU were contenders over the last five years in the Big12. You left out LSU in the SEC. That is five teams without considering the number 3 and if applicable the number 4 teams. However, that was never my argument, rather that is your attempt to change the parameters to suit your arguments. You have failed to consider the argument that nine teams expect to be in the title hunt annually. Yes, it is mathematically possible to rotate the the annual winners, but you defeat that argument with this post because, as you point out, there are only a few slots at the top to be elite over time, which is and has been my argument, too many teams vying for the top, all with the delusional expectation. Failure will create a reality check and discouragement in the fanbases that are not at the top.

 

[HtownOrange]

Tommy Tuberville at Auburn beat Bama 6 consecutive years and when he lost to Bama, the majority of Auburn fans wanted him fired then and there.

Proof of the delusional SEC fans. Oy vey!

 

[mscanlo]

Do the math. Explain in detail how 9 of sixteen teams end up ruling the roost simultaneously. As you note, and agree with me, the schools will NOT tolerate losing or mediocre performance, yet, not all nine can be the champion or runner-up every year. Your Sumlin argument proves my point.

Nobody claimed the nine top dogs would be bad at once, only that they cannot all be champions at once. I believe that I have reasonably been clear that I generally expect a few to compete for the SEC championship, assuming three, that leaves six who will be mediocre or worse; if you wish to assume 4 teams compete for the championship, that leaves five to be mediocre or worse. Please do NOT extrapolate positions I have not posted. Because you misread something or just want to twist an argument does not validate your position nor help your credibility.

The baseball comment is a red herring and a throw away argument to distract from the point. Besides, just as we have many religions, we have many sports. My analogy stands.

Apologies if I am misunderstanding your argument, but I believe your argument is that there will be some SEC fan bases uncomfortable with the new reality of being a perennial loser

My argument is that won’t happen because the SEC runs in mini cycles. I believe there have been 5 or 6 different conference champions over the past 20ish years. Similarly, all those teams had bad years and made changes. The fans know they can’t win every year (I.e. Alabama’s run an exception).

LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas A&M (and maybe even South Carolina) all think they should be able to win a title, yet they all can’t. That’s 7/8 out of 14 today. And then you throw in a program like Ole Miss who might even be able to make a run with Kiffin.

I predict the same thing will happen going forward (as does today)…. They will all be bad at different points and be good at different points

Throw in Texas and Oklahoma, that’s at least 9/10 programs who will do whatever it takes to win. Texas has made several changes. Oklahoma is in a new era of not having a stable HC situation

With the 12 team playoff, 3-4 will make it. A higher percentage than today

 

[hoopsupstate]

Tommy Tuberville at Auburn beat Bama 6 consecutive years and when he lost to Bama, the majority of Auburn fans wanted him fired then and there.

I wish we could fire him now!

 

[SmilinBob]

I just think it's quite odd for a state and its flagship schools that preach renewable energy constantly and the like would fly their teams out to the east coast for sports.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Apologies if I am misunderstanding your argument, but I believe it’s that there will be some SEC fan bases uncomfortable with the new reality of being a perennial loser

My argument is that won’t happen because the SEC runs in mini cycles. I believe there have been 5 or 6 different conference champions over the past 20ish years. Similarly, all those teams had bad years and made changes. The fans know they can’t win every year (I.e. Alabama’s run an exception).

LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas A&M (and maybe even South Carolina) all think they should be able to win a title, yet they all can’t. That’s 7/8 out of 14 today. And then you throw in a program like Ole Miss who might even be able to make a run with Kiffin.

I predict the same thing will happen going forward (as does today)…. They will all be bad at different points and be good at different points

Throw in Texas and Oklahoma, that’s at least 9/10 programs who will do whatever it takes to win. Texas has made several changes. Oklahoma is in a new era of not having a stable HC situation

With the 12 team playoff, 3-4 will make it. A higher percentage than today

He is making a false premise. These SEC teams aren't good every year. So what exactly is changing for them? Looking at the Top 15 (in the playoff hunt) of the CFP rankings:

9 times- Bama
7 times- UGA
3 times- Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss
2 times- LSU
1 time- A&M, Kentucky, Miss State, Tennessee

Eventually Saban will retire and Bama will come down a bit and some of those Top 15s will be spread out amongst the other SEC teams. Most of these SEC teams are already outside of the Top 15 over 65% of the time. Yes they will add Texas and Oklahoma to the schedule, but they will also get each other less which evens out.

The team that will be in for a shock is Oklahoma. They have been Top 15 six times feasting on the weak B12. They are like Kansas BBall winning the B12 every year but a no show in the playoff. Texas has ONE Top 15 so they are already used to it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

He is making a false premise. These SEC teams aren't good every year. So what exactly is changing for them? Looking at the Top 15 (in the playoff hunt) of the CFP rankings:

9 times- Bama
7 times- UGA
3 times- Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss
2 times- LSU
1 time- A&M, Kentucky, Miss State, Tennessee

Eventually Saban will retire and Bama will come down a bit and some of those Top 15s will be spread out amongst the other SEC teams. Most of these SEC teams are already outside of the Top 15 over 65% of the time. Yes they will add Texas and Oklahoma to the schedule, but they will also get each other less which evens out.

The team that will be in for a shock is Oklahoma. They have been Top 15 six times feasting on the weak B12. They are like Kansas BBall winning the B12 every year but a no show in the playoff. Texas has ONE Top 15 so they are already used to it.

Might as well do the B16 too.

9x - Ohio State
6x - Michigan
5x - Penn State
3x - Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin
2x - Northwestern
1x - Indiana

The big 3 will no longer play each other every year. So adding USC and UCLA won't be some big adjustment.

USC was Top 15 only 3x. So let's not act like they were a playoff team every year. UCLA only had ONE Top 15.


Both the B16 and SEC schools have strong conference schedules. They have no incentive to play anyone of note OOC, especially with the expanded playoffs. Although the SEC kind of has been that way anyway. So an SEC power can go 5-3 in conference and have a good year, while a B16 power can go 6-3.

Also you have bias in the polls. People will rank these teams higher than they will the B12 or P10 teams, and most ACC teams. They will put a 9-3 SEC team ahead of a 10-2 ACC/B12/P10 team.

Of the six at large spots, we will most likely see the B16/SEC grabbing 5 of them. In the past if you ain't first (in your division), you are last. Now without divisions if you ain't Top 3-4, you are last (2 of 14 < 3-4 of 16).

 

[Chris02M]

They already did that 20 years ago. Teams that go 3-5, or even 2-6 in conference can still make a "bowl game".

I mean even more like from 5 or 6 wins to less

 

[WoadBlue]

I just think it's quite odd for a state and its flagship schools that preach renewable energy constantly and the like would fly their teams out to the east coast for sports.

M y wife made the same point.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

College football's new landscape: How conference realignment has changed the map

The calendar is flipping from June to July, and that means the makeup of several college football conferences is changing.

sports.yahoo.com

BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF to the Big 12

Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Rice, UAB and UTSA. to the AAC.

Southern Miss, Old Dominion, Marshall, and James Madison to the Sun Belt.

Liberty, New Mexico State, Jacksonville State, Sam Houston and Kennesaw State (2024) to CUSA.

 

[MSOrange]

 

[WoadBlue]

Is that because the Pac cannot get a TV deal for more than 10 members? A San Diego without the NFL should be worth more than a Denver TV market team that is a nobody compared to the Broncos.