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

[Archbold44]

The ACC should take 4/4/2/2/1 and run with it. But ask for long-term... 10 years. That way, if anyone bolts in 2030, we keep 2 bids. Worrying about whether we get a 3rd team in is somewhat absurd. Most years, we will not have 3 teams in top 16. But that is a small price to pay for keeping the conference afloat for all members for several years after several top defections. Seems to me a good way to protect all ACC teams. If FSU/Clemson want to bolt to go try to be a top 4 team or play the same at-large game as the #3 ACC team... have at. Nebraska makes more money, but is now irrelevant. FSU/Clemson... meet your destiny. Say hello to USC and UCLA.

Not to mention... if we had 3 top 10 teams. I would think that 2 of t

I would agree. I think this solidifies ACC gets 2 every year instead of the 1 AQ and maybe a 2nd.

My previous comment is more about where the wind will blow rather than where I (and you) want it to.


SEC/B1G getting more than 2 AQ opens the door for more conference championship weekend games as well. SEC/BIG can have a 1v2 for the conference championship (both are AQ), then play-in games of 3v6 and 4v5 to get the other 2 AQ spots.

ACC/B12 can only not punish you if you lose your championship game. So 1v2 both AQ.

The ACC could do 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Or just 2 vs 3.

 

[NJneer12]

Not to mention... if we had 3 top 10 teams. I would think that 2 of t

The ACC could do 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3. Or just 2 vs 3.

Then who wins ACC CG?

Or is it just #1 is regular season champ then ACC AQ weekend is your options?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Then who wins ACC CG?

Or is it just #1 is regular season champ then ACC AQ weekend is your options?

The promoted solution is CCGs go away and just AQ games are played. So ACC/B12 have 2 vs 3 and B1G/SEC have 4 vs 5.

 

[javadoc]

Not entirely sure what you're asking (are/when athletic departments taxed?) and what the context of this is relative to congressional involvement in conferences potentially in collusion.

Congress as a whole is not likely to care IMO unless there is money to be made. Is all this money untaxable due to the non-profit status of the schools? Maybe time for that charade to go away, if so.

 

[NJneer12]

Fox could be the big loser of College Football Playoff expansion

Fox Sports could find itself the big loser of College Football Playoff expansion as the new format devalues the regular season.

awfulannouncing.com

The promoted solution is CCGs go away and just AQ games are played. So ACC/B12 have 2 vs 3 and B1G/SEC have 4 vs 5.

Interesting. It seems here they sort of want to keep it because Fox is kinda just a regular season avenue with any CCG..which they wouldnt exactly like.

Maybe ACC/B12 do differently as you say.

Let's the chips fall...

 

[NJneer12]

Congress as a whole is not likely to care IMO unless there is money to be made. Is all this money untaxable due to the non-profit status of the schools? Maybe time for that charade to go away, if so.

Well if senators/representatives from states of schools get left out of the big conferences, tournaments and playoffs, thus the big money, they will probably care when their constituents are ringing like crazy. I mean the link I posted already has 1 complaining. It's coming.

And Kentucky did just announce their Athletics department will be an LLC, not sure the details there.

 

[StLouisCuse]

The ACC should take 4/4/2/2/1 and run with it. But ask for long-term... 10 years. That way, if anyone bolts in 2030, we keep 2 bids. Worrying about whether we get a 3rd team in is somewhat absurd. Most years, we will not have 3 teams in top 16. But that is a small price to pay for keeping the conference afloat for all members for several years after several top defections. Seems to me a good way to protect all ACC teams. If FSU/Clemson want to bolt to go try to be a top 4 team or play the same at-large game as the #3 ACC team... have at. Nebraska makes more money, but is now irrelevant. FSU/Clemson... meet your destiny. Say hello to USC and UCLA.

I'm in the same line of thinking on this. I'm taking the 4/4/2/2/1 proposal if I'm the ACC.

Two auto-bids to the Playoffs gives the league two seats at the table every year then let the chips fall as they will once the Playoffs start.

From a Syracuse standpoint, this gives us a tangible path & I have full faith Fran will get us into the top two of the ACC standings in the near future.

 

[baggerbob]

Well if senators/representatives from states of schools get left out of the big conferences, tournaments and playoffs, thus the big money, they will probably care when their constituents are ringing like crazy. I mean the link I posted already has 1 complaining. It's coming.

And Kentucky did just announce their Athletics department will be an LLC, not sure the details there.

That's why I said states losing money will cause them to go to court if schools get left out. Texas has a good number of schools besides Texas, and Texas A@M.
Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, and SMU.
The Governor, and congressional officials won't just sit back and let those schools get gutted. They will go to the courts and there will be congressional hearing and if they don't get the answers they like, then they will decide for the schools how things will be run.

 

[NJneer12]

That's why I said states losing money will cause them to go to court if schools get left out. Texas has a good number of schools besides Texas, and Texas A@M.
Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, and SMU.
The Governor, and congressional officials won't just sit back and let those schools get gutted. They will go to the courts and there will be congressional hearing and if they don't get the answers they like, then they will decide for the schools how things will be run.

Not sure what laws conferences are breaking for courts to actually do something. These injunctions state by state don't seem to be working. It's just an avenue to settle..see ACC and FSU.

The hearings will help bring clarity to the potential collusion and then create actual legislation with a commissioner that protects CFB and all these teams.

We want the same thing, just there's steps to these to solidify this forever ala NFL and such.

 

[Hoo's That]

The promoted solution is CCGs go away and just AQ games are played. So ACC/B12 have 2 vs 3 and B1G/SEC have 4 vs 5.

There would need to be a solid revenue stream to get rid of CGs. They are huge moneymakers that aren't shared with any other conference. Plus dropping CGs could negatively affect TV contracts unless Fox and ESPN are equal partners in each conference's discussion.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There would need to be a solid revenue stream to get rid of CGs. They are huge moneymakers that aren't shared with any other conference. Plus dropping CGs could negatively affect TV contracts unless Fox and ESPN are equal partners in each conference's discussion.

The would be replaced by the AQ games, which are actually more interesting to most.

 

[Hoo's That]

The would be replaced by the AQ games, which are actually more interesting to most.

"Interesting" doesn't matter, money does. Unless the conferences can get at least as much TV money and share of the gate that they get now they won't go along with getting rid of the CGs. If they're getting $X from their TV partner and $Y from the gate for the CG, why would they agree to any system that doesn't get them at least $X+$Y?

 

[NJCuse97]

"Interesting" doesn't matter, money does. Unless the conferences can get at least as much TV money and share of the gate that they get now they won't go along with getting rid of the CGs. If they're getting $X from their TV partner and $Y from the gate for the CG, why would they agree to any system that doesn't get them at least $X+$Y?

Presumably because it would protect their CFP status and maximize their opportunities for at-large entries.

 

[Sherman20]

But why would Congress do this to the ACC/B12 merger? Which would be a reaction to the SEC and B1G essentially creating their own 2 conference power league.

They’re talking about Congressional action AGAINST the SEC and Big 10 collusion and those leagues creating a monopoly that locks out other schools.

 

[Sherman20]

The ACC should take 4/4/2/2/1 and run with it. But ask for long-term... 10 years. That way, if anyone bolts in 2030, we keep 2 bids. Worrying about whether we get a 3rd team in is somewhat absurd. Most years, we will not have 3 teams in top 16. But that is a small price to pay for keeping the conference afloat for all members for several years after several top defections. Seems to me a good way to protect all ACC teams. If FSU/Clemson want to bolt to go try to be a top 4 team or play the same at-large game as the #3 ACC team... have at. Nebraska makes more money, but is now irrelevant. FSU/Clemson... meet your destiny. Say hello to USC and UCLA.

This is where i think schools and conferences are really missing the boat and where there’s potential to break up the super league idea. Fans and boosters want to be relevant, at least in their conferences, and to play regional rivals. A decade+ ago, it’s been revealed that the Big 10 was worried about the ACC trying to poach Penn State. That’s one of the reasons why they went after Maryland and Rutgers. What if the ACC had been more proactive in the late aughts and tried to put on a full court press to pull in Penn State, Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt and UConn from the northeast? A football conference with Florida State, Miami and Penn State at the top (with Pitt, Louisville, and Syracuse as solid adds) would have been formidable at the time and locked down the Eastern half of the country. And the basketball would have been stellar. Or if Penn State couldn’t have been persuaded, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Kansas (or other combo from the Big 12) would have given the ACC five football powers.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

"Interesting" doesn't matter, money does. Unless the conferences can get at least as much TV money and share of the gate that they get now they won't go along with getting rid of the CGs. If they're getting $X from their TV partner and $Y from the gate for the CG, why would they agree to any system that doesn't get them at least $X+$Y?

Why do you assume a playoff playin game wouldn’t generate major money and in some cases MORE money?

 

[Hoo's That]

Why do you assume a playoff playin game wouldn’t generate major money and in some cases MORE money?

A. I'm not assuming anything. It may be bigger. It may be smaller. No one will know for certain unless and until it happens.

B. What I said was the conferences have to receive at least as much money from the playoff as they get from holding their championship games now for it to make any sort of economic sense for them to give up their championship games. And it's not just the ACC and Big XII that you need to think about. Why would the SEC and B1G give up their championship games for a smaller payout?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

A. I'm not assuming anything. It may be bigger. It may be smaller. No one will know for certain unless and until it happens.

B. What I said was the conferences have to receive at least as much money from the playoff as they get from holding their championship games now for it to make any sort of economic sense for them to give up their championship games. And it's not just the ACC and Big XII that you need to think about. Why would the SEC and B1G give up their championship games for a smaller payout?

This isn’t my idea this is what is rumored to be what the B1G and SEC want. It isn’t coming from the ACC or B12.

If there are 4 auto bids the CCG becomes like the conference BBall tournaments. A playin game that the conference owns the rights to is bigger for a network.

 

[Archbold44]

This isn’t my idea this is what is rumored to be what the B1G and SEC want. It isn’t coming from the ACC or B12.

If there are 4 auto bids the CCG becomes like the conference BBall tournaments. A playin game that the conference owns the rights to is bigger for a network.

Two play-in games of this nature would be HUGE. Imagine... the ACC last year having Miami vs Duke and Syracuse vs Louisville, with the winners making the playoffs. That is 3-6/4-5 (depending on tie breakers). How many more people would watch it vs. the Clemson/SMU game where SMU had a reasonable likelihood of making it in even if they just lost close? A lot of people watched because it was Clemson's lifeline. Imagine two lifelines at stake.

The one thing that would water it down is letting the loser be at-larges.

 

[Moontan]

This isn’t my idea this is what is rumored to be what the B1G and SEC want. It isn’t coming from the ACC or B12.

If there are 4 auto bids the CCG becomes like the conference BBall tournaments. A playin game that the conference owns the rights to is bigger for a network.

Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta sells out for the SEC and it's a crazy scene.
If they had two games there (Friday & Saturday night?)... it would be even more crazy.

We can talk about it there this coming August.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta sells out for the SEC and it's a crazy scene.
If they had two games there (Friday & Saturday night?)... it would be even more crazy.

We can talk about it there this coming August.

If they had their way the SEC would have 1v2 for the Championship, 3v6 for one auto, and 4v5 for the other auto.

 

[NJneer12]

If they had their way the SEC would have 1v2 for the Championship, 3v6 for one auto, and 4v5 for the other auto.

So there's both for a CCG and AQ games during championship weekend.

That would be great for additional content for Fox who is out of the CFP (that's all Disney).

How do you think the ACC/B12 would utilize 2 AQ bids and maximize championship weekend?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So there's both for a CCG and AQ games during championship weekend.

That would be great for additional content for Fox who is out of the CFP (that's all Disney).

How do you think the ACC/B12 would utilize 2 AQ bids and maximize championship weekend?

It isn't allowed under the current rules. But B1G/FOX would love a Big Noon 4v5, 330 3v6, and a 730 1v2. While that is a great weekend of FB, it opens up the door for bad teams getting AQs. For instance last year...

CG: 1. Oregon vs 3. Penn State
3v6: 9. Indiana vs NR Iowa
4v5: 6. Ohio State vs 21. Illinois

Iowa being able to play their way into an AQ would be awful. Even Illinois would stink. The SEC wouldn't have been a big deal as #6 was ranked 14th.

As to the ACC/B12 there isn't much you can do. Having 1v2 does nothing for the playoffs. Both teams are already in. I suppose #2 can improve their seeding. #1 likely isn't moving up much with a win, and could fall with a loss. For example last year SMU fell from 8 to 10, and Clemson rose from 17 to 16. With different rules SMU maybe even drops to 12. If SMU had won, I don't think they move past 7. So what was the point in the ACC CG?

Having an AQ game (2v3) likely makes more TV $, but then you could hurt your chances at getting a 3rd at large. For example if #3 is Top 15, then an AQ loss could knock them outside the playoffs. That wasn't the case in the B12 last year but it WAS in the ACC...

2v3: 17. Clemson vs 12. Miami

Miami at 12 is getting an at large without an AQ game. If they play an AQ game vs Clemson and lose, do they stay in the Top 16? Or does it knock them out of the playoffs? I think last year they still make it, but why risk that? If Miami wins the AQ game that knocks Clemson out of the playoffs and the ACC only gets two teams. How is that good?

I am not a fan of these AQ games as it would risk bad teams getting in. Although it would be a great day of Championship week FB having the games. Also these AQ games risk missing out on at large bids. If you aren't a lock and play in the AQ, your conference risks losing an at large bid. Essentially there are 2 at large bids (assuming Notre Dame is Top 15 most years). So in the case of the B1G/SEC the 5th or even 6th place team can go from an at large to out, and in the case of the ACC/B12 the 3rd place team can go from an at large to out. Since TV money for the B1G/SEC is likely huge, they can take that risk. Not so much for the ACC/B12.

Selfishly in SU's case we want an AQ game. It is easier for us to finish 3rd than to finish Top 15. Which makes it easier to make the playoffs.

 

[NJneer12]

The would be replaced by the AQ games, which are actually more interesting to most.

If they had their way the SEC would have 1v2 for the Championship, 3v6 for one auto, and 4v5 for the other auto.

It isn't allowed under the current rules. But B1G/FOX would love a Big Noon 4v5, 330 3v6, and a 730 1v2. While that is a great weekend of FB, it opens up the door for bad teams getting AQs. For instance last year...

CG: 1. Oregon vs 3. Penn State
3v6: 9. Indiana vs NR Iowa
4v5: 6. Ohio State vs 21. Illinois

Iowa being able to play their way into an AQ would be awful. Even Illinois would stink. The SEC wouldn't have been a big deal as #6 was ranked 14th.

As to the ACC/B12 there isn't much you can do. Having 1v2 does nothing for the playoffs. Both teams are already in. I suppose #2 can improve their seeding. #1 likely isn't moving up much with a win, and could fall with a loss. For example last year SMU fell from 8 to 10, and Clemson rose from 17 to 16. With different rules SMU maybe even drops to 12. If SMU had won, I don't think they move past 7. So what was the point in the ACC CG?

Having an AQ game (2v3) likely makes more TV $, but then you could hurt your chances at getting a 3rd at large. For example if #3 is Top 15, then an AQ loss could knock them outside the playoffs. That wasn't the case in the B12 last year but it WAS in the ACC...

2v3: 17. Clemson vs 12. Miami

Miami at 12 is getting an at large without an AQ game. If they play an AQ game vs Clemson and lose, do they stay in the Top 16? Or does it knock them out of the playoffs? I think last year they still make it, but why risk that? If Miami wins the AQ game that knocks Clemson out of the playoffs and the ACC only gets two teams. How is that good?

I am not a fan of these AQ games as it would risk bad teams getting in. Although it would be a great day of Championship week FB having the games. Also these AQ games risk missing out on at large bids. If you aren't a lock and play in the AQ, your conference risks losing an at large bid. Essentially there are 2 at large bids (assuming Notre Dame is Top 15 most years). So in the case of the B1G/SEC the 5th or even 6th place team can go from an at large to out, and in the case of the ACC/B12 the 3rd place team can go from an at large to out. Since TV money for the B1G/SEC is likely huge, they can take that risk. Not so much for the ACC/B12.

Selfishly in SU's case we want an AQ game. It is easier for us to finish 3rd than to finish Top 15. Which makes it easier to make the playoffs.

Oh for sure. Totally aware of the pros and cons of whats probablygoing to happen.

Was just wondering if they did the 4/4/2/2/1/1/2 model, how would ACC and B12 utilize their bids.

(I dont think they will, it's going to be 5+11).

 

[TexanMark]

This isn’t my idea this is what is rumored to be what the B1G and SEC want. It isn’t coming from the ACC or B12.

If there are 4 auto bids the CCG becomes like the conference BBall tournaments. A playin game that the conference owns the rights to is bigger for a network.

Yup with 4 autobids the SEC/B1G can generate 2 extra TV ratings winners vs 1 Televised conference championship.

#3 plays #6, #4 plays #5

1 and 2 are guaranteed playoff spots despite who wins a conference championship, the other 4 play for the other two spots...and maybe one of the losers actually can steal a 5th playoff spot.