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

[kcsu]

Yeah but my fanbase is telling me be patient. So don’t worry. It doesn’t matter none of the agreements were put on a signed paper.
Let’s just wait and watch everything will work.
USC will actually do the right thing.
Don’t worry.

The leagues have been in discussions for approximately 1 month. There was never going to be a signed agreement in that short of a time period.
I expect That the next step will be to formally announce a standard when it comes to governance.
This is not going to happen overnight. It is going to evolve overtime. Last point the comment about an honors agreement between the 3 conferences was a direct shot at the underhanded way the SEC was trying to stack the deck. Patience my fellow SU fan. The Alliance will end up being much more than talk.

 

[Killdozer]

Swofford turned down Fox. He never let them make a final offer. Total negligence.

ACC ratings on ESPN vs. Big 12/PAC 12 FOX ratings

When the ACC inked their now-reviled 2010 media deal with ESPN, it was roundly hailed as a monster success. Negotiated during a recession, and during a pathetic stretch of ACC football...

www.tomahawknation.com

It was a big time mistake in 2010.
You ignored that. Fox wanted Raycom gone in the deal.
Swofford didn’t do that and went with ESPN which okayed keeping Raycom.
Cry more I don’t have faith. Swofford taking a chitty ESPN deal hurt the ACC in 2010.

You say the schedule could get expanded.
If you actually listened to the ACC commissioner yesterday he emphatically said expansion of the regular season was off the table.

Great point on Swofford turning down Fox. He totally botched the best deal the ACC could have gotten. Of course, that is just my opinion.

 

[gbo]

I have been waiting to see another fan of a charter ACC school wonder if perhaps Jim Phillips is the wrong guy for this time because he might have deeply embedded pro-Big Ten instincts, who would then wonder if perhaps Phillips was chosen by some cabal to succeed Swofford and move the ACC toward some kind of arrangement with the BT.

And now I have seen that on another board.

My guess is that both the BT and Pac have many power brokers who will not want to cut back league games to 8. My guess is that both the BT and Pac will assert that any ND games played against their team must count as ACC games. And only a damned fool will give the BT the benefit of the doubt in any area that involves money and/or TV coverage. Likewise, only a damned fool is not already aware that the Pac has the most outsized, unrealistic sense of self in all of college sports.

So I am leaning hard to the doomed side. The history of the BT tells me that the odds are high that the BT is doing this only to make the BT richer and better able to attract more top football recruits to try to pull even with SEC football. You know precious little about the game today if you think the BT can do that in any way other than taking the key pieces of the ACC and planing the BT flag down the southeast coast.

Charter member checking in. I'm not sure how I feel about him to be honest. He seems to be one of the architects of "The Alliance" and it appears to be nothing but a pointless agreement between the conferences.

 

[Toga]

Great point on Swofford turning down Fox. He totally botched the best deal the ACC could have gotten. Of course, that is just my opinion.

A split in the universe.

 

[Chris02M]

Please state what Notre Dame has done for the ACCN?
You stated they were a key.

Disney/ESPN did the ACCN for what I described. Not because of Notre Dame.
What you said was factually inaccurate. You wanted to give them credit for the fact Clemson/Florida State agreed to sign a GOR and commit to the ACC along with the fact Swofford gave ESPN an extension for an additional 6 years on a great contract for them to incentivize Disney’s cable muscle.

None of this was because Notre Dame agreed to play 5 ACC games annually.
Notre Dame benefits WAY more than the ACC does with this agreement and you way smarter than to spin that Notre Dame was a big part why the ACCN happened.
The ACC doesn’t own the rights to replays of ND home games. NBC does.
When the SECN happened ESPN got rights to CBS SEC replays.
NBC wouldn’t agree to it.
ND didn’t care to help with that.

You don’t need to give them credit for chit that didn’t do.

your misremembering again as i never said they were a big part, i said there inclusion helped get espn to spend time and money to get the network to launch and for espn to get it bundled into new agreements so that it would be widely distributed at launch because like it or not the acc football brand was/is really week when we wanted to start a linear one. The olympic sports for the acc and nd are more important than other networks because ours are the best and our week football brands. We didnt plan this well in the beginning so we had a ton of contracts already in place that had to be bought out or modified by espn to make it profitable thats why we had to extend the deal by 7 or 8 years. The fox issue means nothing to me as fox isnt big time college football and espn is the place everybody knows that has the majority of college football and fox is still new at it and they put there best games at noon to avoid espn. Should the commish have got into a bidding war between fox and espn probably but im guessing the presidents and ad's said to stay with espn Your hatred for ND is clouding sanity on the subject

 

[javadoc]

This is doomed unless all three conferences go to 8 league games.

So I guess the idea is that each conference would play teams from the other conferences annually? For us, 8 games against ACC opponents, one game against a Big 10 opponent, one against a PAC-12 opponent, and then 2 freebies? If we were an ACC opponent of ND, given the existing agreement, would that have to be in one of the "freebie" slots?

I think about teams like Clemson and GT, who have an existing annual in-state game. So GT would play 8 ACC teams, a Big 10, a PAC-12, Georgia, and then have one freebie? What do you expect that freebie would be? I would guess a D-1AA @GT.

The ACC games would be a 4-@4 split. I imagine that the inter-conference games within the alliance would be stipulated as H/A agreements, and would be structured so that teams would generally be 5/@5. I would expect all teams to schedule a D-1AA from the local soup, so that's 6-@5. That makes it very interesting, IMO, on what happens with that final game. Will teams chase 2-@1 deals to try to get to 7 home games? What is the financial impact of losing a home game and going 6-@6 every year?

With 9 conference games I think everyone is stuck with no scheduling flexibility outside the association. Playing 2 mandated games against association partners (I believe) makes it crucial to play a 1AA. And that's 12 games.

Agree with Mark's sentiment.

 

[Alsacs]

So I guess the idea is that each conference would play teams from the other conferences annually? For us, 8 games against ACC opponents, one game against a Big 10 opponent, one against a PAC-12 opponent, and then 2 freebies? If we were an ACC opponent of ND, given the existing agreement, would that have to be in one of the "freebie" slots?

I think about teams like Clemson and GT, who have an existing annual in-state game. So GT would play 8 ACC teams, a Big 10, a PAC-12, Georgia, and then have one freebie? What do you expect that freebie would be? I would guess a D-1AA @GT.

The ACC games would be a 4-@4 split. I imagine that the inter-conference games within the alliance would be stipulated as H/A agreements, and would be structured so that teams would generally be 5/@5. I would expect all teams to schedule a D-1AA from the local soup, so that's 6-@5. That makes it very interesting, IMO, on what happens with that final game. Will teams chase 2-@1 deals to try to get to 7 home games? What is the financial impact of losing a home game and going 6-@6 every year?

With 9 conference games I think everyone is stuck with no scheduling flexibility outside the association. Playing 2 mandated games against association partners (I believe) makes it crucial to play a 1AA. And that's 12 games.

Agree with Mark's sentiment.

You are forgetting also Georgia Tech would have to play Notre Dame as part of their ACC games.
So this type of deal would mean
Georgia Tech plays 8 ACC, ND, UGA, 1 B1G, 1 P-12 every 3 years.
That is nuts.

Same for Louisville, Florida State, Clemson.

This schedule agreement isn’t going to be as iron clad as many think plus the P-12 has only 12 teams and the ACC/B1G have 14 and if ND counts then the ACC has 15.

We aren’t going to see annual P-12 and B1G for every ACC team every season.

 

[TheCusian]

You are forgetting also Georgia Tech would have to play Notre Dame as part of their ACC games.
So this type of deal would mean
Georgia Tech plays 8 ACC, ND, UGA, 1 B1G, 1 P-12 every 3 years.
That is nuts.

Same for Louisville, Florida State, Clemson.

This schedule agreement isn’t going to be as iron clad as many think plus the P-12 has only 12 teams and the ACC/B1G have 14 and if ND counts then the ACC has 15.

We aren’t going to see annual P-12 and B1G for every ACC team every season.

The bottom line is to increase TV inventory so everyone makes more money and to apply pressure to the SEC. This accomplishes that. Those who are saying the alliance is toothless are missing that it's a shot across the bow of SEC/ESPN (not you, others in the thread). That and CFB playoff expansion is the leverage.

 

[TheCusian]

So I guess the idea is that each conference would play teams from the other conferences annually? For us, 8 games against ACC opponents, one game against a Big 10 opponent, one against a PAC-12 opponent, and then 2 freebies? If we were an ACC opponent of ND, given the existing agreement, would that have to be in one of the "freebie" slots?

I think about teams like Clemson and GT, who have an existing annual in-state game. So GT would play 8 ACC teams, a Big 10, a PAC-12, Georgia, and then have one freebie? What do you expect that freebie would be? I would guess a D-1AA @GT.

The ACC games would be a 4-@4 split. I imagine that the inter-conference games within the alliance would be stipulated as H/A agreements, and would be structured so that teams would generally be 5/@5. I would expect all teams to schedule a D-1AA from the local soup, so that's 6-@5. That makes it very interesting, IMO, on what happens with that final game. Will teams chase 2-@1 deals to try to get to 7 home games? What is the financial impact of losing a home game and going 6-@6 every year?

With 9 conference games I think everyone is stuck with no scheduling flexibility outside the association. Playing 2 mandated games against association partners (I believe) makes it crucial to play a 1AA. And that's 12 games.

Agree with Mark's sentiment.

No 1AA. I think it makes it more likely those games will become obsolete or carved out as a exhibition game. Our "easy" games will be G5 games. It's about increasing the value of our schedule and dropping those games cuts the fat.

 

[Chris02M]

hasnt there been talk of sec going to 10 conference games at some point?

 

[javadoc]

The bottom line is to increase TV inventory so everyone makes more money and to apply pressure to the SEC. This accomplishes that. Those who are saying the alliance is toothless are missing that it's a shot across the bow of SEC/ESPN (not you, others in the thread). That and CFB playoff expansion is the leverage.

What is the process whereby increased inventory results in higher conference revenues? Is that contingent on existing TV contracts being renegotiated?

 

[javadoc]

No 1AA. I think it makes it more likely those games will become obsolete or carved out as a exhibition game. Our "easy" games will be G5 games. It's about increasing the value of our schedule and dropping those games cuts the fat.

Without the 1AA I think the rules about bowl eligibility would have to change, or some bowls are going to end up with no one to fill the slots.

Also, playing a schedule loaded with P5 teams is desirable, I think, but it is also going to increase coaching churn.

 

[TheCusian]

What is the process whereby increased inventory results in higher conference revenues? Is that contingent on existing TV contracts being renegotiated?

I'd bet that this type agreement comes first, followed by adding a school to the PAC12 (B12 remnant) and the ACC (WVU?) thus triggering a bump via look-in for the ACC and a decent deal (anything is better than where they are at) for the PAC12. The ACC would love to pressure ND into a full deal too, as that would require a bump too.

These conferences are trying to a.) get a better deal by increasing quality of inventory and b.) apply pressure to the SEC all to try to push towards more parity in money and on the field.

 

[TheCusian]

Without the 1AA I think the rules about bowl eligibility would have to change, or some bowls are going to end up with no one to fill the slots.

Also, playing a schedule loaded with P5 teams is desirable, I think, but it is also going to increase coaching churn.

Yep. That was a footnote in some of the articles about an alliance. The bowls are exhibition games at the end of the season and another way to create more compelling inventory. Making it easier for mediocre P4 teams to play and to push out lesser brands is in the best interests of the P4 and their TV partners.

EDIT: Not to mention it applies pressure to the SEC to drop the FCS games too. The arguments over who is deserving of a playoff spot will get more interesting if the 3rd best team in the SEC is up against the 2nd best team in the B1G for a final playoff spot and the B1G team has no FCS team on the schedule.

 

[javadoc]

I'd bet that this type agreement comes first, followed by adding a school to the PAC12 (B12 remnant) and the ACC (WVU?) thus triggering a bump via look-in for the ACC and a decent deal (anything is better than where they are at) for the PAC12. The ACC would love to pressure ND into a full deal too, as that would require a bump too.

These conferences are trying to a.) get a better deal by increasing quality of inventory and b.) apply pressure to the SEC all to try to push towards more parity in money and on the field.

Adding teams opens up more fun discussions. I'd be happy if we could get Army, Navy, and AFA into the fold.

While I have no dog in the hunt, it makes elegant sense for BYU to join the PAC-12, to give them an intra-Utah pairing, which is a very nice feature of the conference. I think they'd bring more value than Utah State.

 

[Alsacs]

Yep. That was a footnote in some of the articles about an alliance. The bowls are exhibition games at the end of the season and another way to create more compelling inventory. Making it easier for mediocre P4 teams to play and to push out lesser brands is in the best interests of the P4 and their TV partners.

EDIT: Not to mention it applies pressure to the SEC to drop the FCS games too. The arguments over who is deserving of a playoff spot will get more interesting if the 3rd best team in the SEC is up against the 2nd best team in the B1G for a final playoff spot and the B1G team has no FCS team on the schedule.

The SEC gauntlet is going to be strong enough they can still play their one cupcake.
Texas/Oklahoma/Alabama/LSU/ Florida/Georgia is going to command 2 spots a year in an 8 team playoff.
The question is if they go 12 teams will get 3-4.

I think 8 teams. 4 automatic bids B1G, ACC, P-12, SEC, 4 at-large bids.
End of process.

 

[KaiserUEO]

You are forgetting also Georgia Tech would have to play Notre Dame as part of their ACC games.
So this type of deal would mean
Georgia Tech plays 8 ACC, ND, UGA, 1 B1G, 1 P-12 every 3 years.
That is nuts.

Same for Louisville, Florida State, Clemson.

This schedule agreement isn’t going to be as iron clad as many think plus the P-12 has only 12 teams and the ACC/B1G have 14 and if ND counts then the ACC has 15.

We aren’t going to see annual P-12 and B1G for every ACC team every season.

the more i think about it, the more i think that the ACC will go 9 to join the B1G & PAC.

it will be 9-1 (1)

the year when a team has 4H 5A conf games...the Alliance will step in and give them 1 more H.

in return, when you have your H set, then you will be the A team.

i also expect there could be some neutral site games at Giants Stadium implemented as well as at other larger venues.

for hoop, look for an ACC-B1G 'tournament' of 4 teams at the Garden, same thing at Staples in LA with the PAC...and charlotte, indianapolis etc.

this is what the 'alliance' will bring.

also, the 3 commissioners have also defied ND by putting the brakes on their 12 team playoff idea.

imo ND is 41 for hoop and olympic sports, not for football.

i dont expect the alliance to work against ND, but i dont expect them to work with them either.

i would expect ND's independence to remain through phase 1 of this...

 

[Alsacs]

the more i think about it, the more i think that the ACC will go 9 to join the B1G & PAC.

it will be 9-1 (1)

the year when a team has 4H 5A conf games...the Alliance will step in and give them 1 more H.

in return, when you have your H set, then you will be the A team.

i also expect there could be some neutral site games at Giants Stadium implemented as well as at other larger venues.

for hoop, look for an ACC-B1G 'tournament' of 4 teams at the Garden, same thing at Staples in LA with the PAC...and charlotte, indianapolis etc.

this is what the 'alliance' will bring.

also, the 3 commissioners have also defied ND by putting the brakes on their 12 team playoff idea.

imo ND is 41 for hoop and olympic sports, not for football.

i dont expect the alliance to work against ND, but i dont expect them to work with them either.

i would expect ND's independence to remain through phase 1 of this...

The ACC won’t go to 9.
It’s because of the stupid ND 5 game deal.
Clemson/Florida State need 7 home games a year.
They can’t play 9 ACC+ SEC rivalry games + at ND.
Which they would have to do every 5 years.
Clemson isn’t giving up all that revenue for the conference it carries.
Which is why the ACC didn’t go to 9 games in 2013.
Clemson/Florida State aren’t going to agree to it. Even if it means more TV revenue. They need 7 home games.

The SEC could go 10 conference games because their TV money will be double close to triple annually what the ACC will make.

 

[Chris02M]

a simple solution would be to just allow 13 games to be scheduled for everyone not just hawaii opponents by making week zero like this week a optional week for teams to schedule a 13th game

 

[TheCusian]

The SEC gauntlet is going to be strong enough they can still play their one cupcake.
Texas/Oklahoma/Alabama/LSU/ Florida/Georgia is going to command 2 spots a year in an 8 team playoff.
The question is if they go 12 teams will get 3-4.

I think 8 teams. 4 automatic bids B1G, ACC, P-12, SEC, 4 at-large bids.
End of process.

If the end game is an 8 team playoff, that 1 FCS game will be an issue. They don’t want two spots. That’s a given. They want half the field. An FCS game would keep them out especially when the rest of the conferences are playing each other an extra game.

I think the press conference was a nothing burger, but the idea that there are no bullets in the chamber is an SEC talking point. Even going to an 8 team playoff and ESPN not having rights to it automatically would be a win against the SEC and ESPN (who want expansion and the rights to it, exclusively).

 

[TheCusian]

a simple solution would be to just allow 13 games to be scheduled for everyone not just hawaii opponents by making week zero like this week a optional week for teams to schedule a 13th game

FCS exhibition. Doesn’t count, TV cameras still roll, inventory generated for die hards.

 

[KaiserUEO]

The ACC won’t go to 9.
It’s because of the stupid ND 5 game deal.
Clemson/Florida State need 7 home games a year.
They can’t play 9 ACC+ SEC rivalry games + at ND.
Which they would have to do every 5 years.
Clemson isn’t giving up all that revenue for the conference it carries.
Which is why the ACC didn’t go to 9 games in 2013.
Clemson/Florida State aren’t going to agree to it. Even if it means more TV revenue. They need 7 home games.

The SEC could go 10 conference games because their TV money will be double close to triple annually what the ACC will make.

so if they need 7 home games, there is no sense crying over ND wanting to be independent, theyre giving them the path in multiple ways.

and yes, the 13th exhibition game would work to go to 9.

 

[TheCusian]

The ACC won’t go to 9.
It’s because of the stupid ND 5 game deal.
Clemson/Florida State need 7 home games a year.
They can’t play 9 ACC+ SEC rivalry games + at ND.
Which they would have to do every 5 years.
Clemson isn’t giving up all that revenue for the conference it carries.
Which is why the ACC didn’t go to 9 games in 2013.
Clemson/Florida State aren’t going to agree to it. Even if it means more TV revenue. They need 7 home games.

The SEC could go 10 conference games because their TV money will be double close to triple annually what the ACC will make.

I think the way to mitigate the 9 game schedule including ND is just to consider them an ACC game. So the teams with ND on the schedule for a given year play 8+1. Everyone else plays 9. Just make it so ND counts in conference standings, but they can't win the conference or play in the conference title game (it's what they want anyways - all the non-fun stuff of conference membership, cut out of the fun stuff lol).

If you have to bow to Clemson/FSU's home schedule, you do it as a way of respecting what they bring to the conference.

 

[TheCusian]

The biggest immediate problem is scheduling contracts that go out 15 years, IMO. Without those, the "alliance" would have a lot more flexibility to really push on the inventory button.

 

[Scooch]

This thread needs more Notre Dame talk. Like, a lot more.

Also, I'm hoping that somewhere in the past 118 pages someone mentioned that the three "alliance" conferences would assuredly incur a mountain of legal wrath if they signed anything formalizing a "deal".