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

[longtimefan]

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.

And last season's emergency scenario showed that scheduling that far into the future is not a necessity.

 

[TheCusian]

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".

Assuredly why there was no contract. It works more as an alliance, legally too

 

[Alsacs]

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

That isn’t a simple solution.
Jim Philips said he is against expansion during the conference call.

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.

You’re smarter than this I hope. There’s a difference between Notre Dame being independent and getting all the benefits of partial membership in a conference and the ACC restricting the amount of home games it’s premier teams can play because they want to play nine conference game.

The ACC could go to nine conference games if they drop the Notre Dame road game requirement Clemson and Florida State. Which honestly I would be all for

 

[Alsacs]

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.

This is somewhat creative but it would be hard to schedule nine conference games for everybody if you’re including ND for five games that be an odd number total.

It would require Notre Dame playing six so it’s an even number.

 

[qdawgg]

Allegiance is already not working if what’s there name from the PAC just signed a deal to play LSU. The goal would be to kind of push the SEC out of being able to play any teams from the 3 conferences. That’s how you strengthen the “alliance”.

 

[TheCusian]

This is somewhat creative but it would be hard to schedule nine conference games for everybody if you’re including ND for five games that be an odd number total.

It would require Notre Dame playing six so it’s an even number.

Yeah, that’s the catch. It’s close to workable though.

 

[Alsacs]

Allegiance is already not working if what’s there name from the PAC just signed a deal to play LSU. The goal would be to kind of push the SEC out of being able to play any teams from the 3 conferences. That’s how you strengthen the “alliance”.

The alliance never said it was going to boycott the SEC,
Florida State, Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech are still going to play there SEC rivals every week.

USC and LSU are Going to get a huge payday. They are going to close these games down

 

[qdawgg]

The alliance never said it was going to boycott the SEC,
Florida State, Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech are still going to play there SEC rivals every week.

USC and LSU are Going to get a huge payday. They are going to close these games down

I never said it did. I made the point a long time ago when this first started that’s what they should do if they want this to have any success.

 

[KaiserUEO]

That isn’t a simple solution.
Jim Philips said he is against expansion during the conference call.

You’re smarter than this I hope. There’s a difference between Notre Dame being independent and getting all the benefits of partial membership in a conference and the ACC restricting the amount of home games it’s premier teams can play because they want to play nine conference game.

The ACC could go to nine conference games if they drop the Notre Dame road game requirement Clemson and Florida State. Which honestly I would be all for

what im saying is that the conference cant play hardball, if its 2 most important members are not playing along.

they are not, so imo...they are worse for the conference than any nd agreement.

 

[tep624]

Well building on Wannstedt's comments on expansion about 8 pages back -

TCU and Baylor being left out makes the most sense for the remaining Big 12 programs because there isn't a logical fit for either of them in the B1G, ACC or Pac 12. The Pac 12 isn't going to take a religious aligned school, it's the same reason why they'll never add BYU even though it's a logical fit. The only conference Baylor is logical for is the Pac 12 and again - just not a good fit for what they need.

WVU to ACC - doesn't really add a market per se but it's a good culture and geographic fit. With good sports programs. Academics leave a lot to be desired but I view WVU as more of a play on market protection than market expansion. It's basically like having a Louisville in your geographic footprint that isn't in your conference. So I can see this happening from the protection angle.

Kansas/Iowa State to B1G - again makes sense in the respect both are AAU programs, they fit the geographic footprint, academic footprint, and Kansas adds a new market as well. Kansas basketball is a blue blood brand. Iowa state can be respectable in both sports. Again a protective play as opposed to a expansive play from a market/geography perspective.

OK State/Kansas St - the Pac 12 wants a footprint in the Central timezone, Iv'e always thought they would target Big 12 teams. So not surprising to me. But I would be surprised if in doing this they didn't target Texas Tech as well. It's important that the alliance have some entry into the Texas market.

I view all of these moves as protective against the SEC moreso than geographic or market expansion like we've seen in the recent past, with the exception of the Pac 12 getting a footprint in the central timezone. With the announcement of the alliance, this would push the alliance closer to 50 teams, they would completely dominate the P5 as far as a voting block and almost be to the point where they would be a majority in BCS as a whole, the 3 conferences would protect their footprints at a minimum - it could make sense.

 

[Chris02M]

That isn’t a simple solution.
Jim Philips said he is against expansion during the conference call.

You’re smarter than this I hope. There’s a difference between Notre Dame being independent and getting all the benefits of partial membership in a conference and the ACC restricting the amount of home games it’s premier teams can play because they want to play nine conference game.

The ACC could go to nine conference games if they drop the Notre Dame road game requirement Clemson and Florida State. Which honestly I would be all for

your obsession with nd is ridiculous, there partial membership has zero to do with going to 9 game schedule or not. The sec is at 8 so thats why we are. The conference isnt restricting amount of home games as every team can scheule non conference as they see fit since the nd years are locked in thru 2036

 

[KaiserUEO]

Allegiance is already not working if what’s there name from the PAC just signed a deal to play LSU. The goal would be to kind of push the SEC out of being able to play any teams from the 3 conferences. That’s how you strengthen the “alliance”.

same with Cuse-tennessee

 

[Alsacs]

your obsession with nd is ridiculous, there partial membership has zero to do with going to 9 game schedule or not. The sec is at 8 so thats why we are. The conference isnt restricting amount of home games as every team can scheule non conference as they see fit since the nd years are locked in thru 2036

You are 100% wrong. The Notre Dame road game for Clemson and Florida State is why the conference can’t go to nine games. Florida State and Clemson are absolute about needing 7 home games Every single season.
The ACC voted on the 8vs. 9 game football schedule the eight game schedule won 8 to 6 because schools like Syracuse and Boston College sided with Florida State because we realized their needs.
It was originally going to be a 9 game schedule but the ND deal made schools like Florida State adamant it couldn’t be 9.

For somebody who is plugged in how you don’t know that is mine boggling ask the freaking Clemson fan in this thread.

 

[Alsacs]

gbo

 

[Alsacs]

ACC poised to change schedule format

The ACC football schedule is about to change. Whether that change means an increase to nine conference games is unclear at this moment.

www.espn.com

8-6 vote against expanding to 9 games.
Because of FSU/Clemson needs.

ACC votes to keep 8-game conference slate

The Atlantic Coast Conference will remain at eight league games, ACC commissioner John Swofford said Monday from the league's spring meetings.

www.espn.com

 

[qdawgg]

same with Cuse-tennessee

I agree. I think the only real power of the alliance is to put the SEC on their own island and create a version of the NCAA that doesn’t include the SEC. Otherwise all it is is a nice little public friendship that the SEC will pick apart when it feels like and still be the big dog everyone’s afraid of in CFB.

 

[sutomcat]

You are 100% wrong. The Notre Dame road game for Clemson and Florida State is why the conference can’t go to nine games. Florida State and Clemson are absolute about needing 7 home games Every single season.
The ACC voted on the 8vs. 9 game football schedule the eight game schedule won 8 to 6 because schools like Syracuse and Boston College sided with Florida State because we realized their needs.
It was originally going to be a 9 game schedule but the ND deal made schools like Florida State adamant it couldn’t be 9.

For somebody who is plugged in how you don’t know that is mine boggling ask the freaking Clemson fan in this thread.

Alsacs, are you sure Syracuse and BC voted for an 8 game schedule or is this something you are guessing?

The article identifies some schools on both sides:

pro 9 game schedule
North Carolina
Miami
NC State

pro 8 game schedule
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech

I would think Louisville would vote for an 8 game schedule for the same reason as Clemson, FSU and GT.

The reason I ask is because I believe I read some quotes from Dr Gross back around this time indicating he wanted to go to a 9 game schedule. I think it was largely to get more chances to play in Atlanta and Miami against GT and UM.

I could see Duke and Wake voting for an 8 game schedule to make for easier schedules and easier paths to bowl games. I would guess SU, Pitt and BC would all like to have more ACC conference games to get more chances to play in talent rich locations where southern ACC schools are.

Assuming everyone else was pro an 8 game schedule, that would give us...

pro 9 game schedule
North Carolina
Miami
NC State
Syracuse
Pitt
BC

pro 8 game schedule
Clemson
FSU
GT
UL
UVa
VT
Duke
WF

Anyone know for sure what the breakdown was?

 

[Chris02M]

ACC poised to change schedule format

The ACC football schedule is about to change. Whether that change means an increase to nine conference games is unclear at this moment.

www.espn.com

8-6 vote against expanding to 9 games.
Because of FSU/Clemson needs.

ACC votes to keep 8-game conference slate

The Atlantic Coast Conference will remain at eight league games, ACC commissioner John Swofford said Monday from the league's spring meetings.

www.espn.com

so clemson and fsu make up 8 votes?

 

[Alsacs]

Alsacs, are you sure Syracuse and BC voted for an 8 game schedule or is this something you are guessing?

The article identifies some schools on both sides:

pro 9 game schedule
North Carolina
Miami
NC State

pro 8 game schedule
Clemson
Florida State
Georgia Tech

I would think Louisville would vote for an 8 game schedule for the same reason as Clemson, FSU and GT.

The reason I ask is because I believe I read some quotes from Dr Gross back around this time indicating he wanted to go to a 9 game schedule. I think it was largely to get more chances to play in Atlanta and Miami against GT and UM.

I could see Duke and Wake voting for an 8 game schedule to make for easier schedules and easier paths to bowl games. I would guess SU, Pitt and BC would all like to have more ACC conference games to get more chances to play in talent rich locations where southern ACC schools are.

Assuming everyone else was pro an 8 game schedule, that would give us...

pro 9 game schedule
North Carolina
Miami
NC State
Syracuse
Pitt
BC

pro 8 game schedule
Clemson
FSU
GT
UL
UVa
VT
Duke
WF

Anyone know for sure what the breakdown was?

Dr. Gross voted with FSU.
UVA was with UNC and SU went with 8.
I am looking for the article I remember Gross was quoted in.

 

[Alsacs]

so clemson and fsu make up 8 votes?

When they are bleeping carrying the ACC football flag your damn right their needs matter a lot more than just themselves.

 

[Chris02M]

You are 100% wrong. The Notre Dame road game for Clemson and Florida State is why the conference can’t go to nine games. Florida State and Clemson are absolute about needing 7 home games Every single season.
The ACC voted on the 8vs. 9 game football schedule the eight game schedule won 8 to 6 because schools like Syracuse and Boston College sided with Florida State because we realized their needs.
It was originally going to be a 9 game schedule but the ND deal made schools like Florida State adamant it couldn’t be 9.

For somebody who is plugged in how you don’t know that is mine boggling ask the freaking Clemson fan in this thread.

1 game every 6 years wasn't the deciding factor between 8 and 9 games. At that time when the vote was done we had to go with fsu and clemson as the league was still vulnerable even with the nd partial membership. We didnt want to end up in uconn territory. The money was the real deciding factor for those schools as there sec rivals make way more and the bump from 8 to 9 games wasnt going to do enough to appease them and all other less valuable members had to go with there side of the argument.

 

[Chris02M]

When they are bleeping carrying the ACC football flag your damn right their needs matter a lot more than just themselves.

its mostly clemson since fsu was/is on the miami trajectory

 

[Chris02M]

Alsacs ill admit that part of your argument is accurate but so is mine but the way you speak matter of fact about the issues is not 100% true and thats the main reason i have to say the other side of the argument

 

[sutomcat]

Dr. Gross voted with FSU.
UVA was with UNC and SU went with 8.
I am looking for the article I remember Gross was quoted in.

Now that we are discussing it in detail, I think you are right.

I think there was an article in the PS around then where Dr Gross said he was initially leaning towards voting for the best interests of Syracuse (9 game schedule) but decided to please the big name football schools instead.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Syracuse voted for a 9 game schedule, and the vote was a 7-7 tie.

Gotta believe somehow Clemson and FSU would have gotten their way. Like they did getting UL into the ACC on the last boat out of the AAC instead of UConn.

 

[gbo]

Alsacs ill admit that part of your argument is accurate but so is mine but the way you speak matter of fact about the issues is not 100% true and thats the main reason i have to say the other side of the argument

You are correct on the money portion but it falls in with ND. Clemson likes the flexibility of USC, P5, G5, and in-state 1-AA school. With ND added as an away, the nine game schedule would cause less than 7 home games. The athletic department was 100% against that.