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

[SU68]

I agree, any business wants to control costs. Your example of OU is spot on* in that they cannot afford an “arms race” with UT, Alabama, Michigan, an tOSU. The issue is whether an agreement between various state entities from several states can supersede the various states laws.

Application: Assume Tennessee goes off the rails, by contract, they get the death penalty ( no money, booted from their conference, cannot play teams within the agreement), the State of Tennessee has an interest in protecting the University of Tennessee and declares the agreement null and void as against state interest. What then? Generally, states are sovereigns and aside from the federal constitution, have free reign, the State of Tennessee would win and the agreement fails. X the number of affected states. Unless each sate legislature binds themselves to the agreement there is not much meat to the agreement when it comes to enforcement. (This assumes no federal oversight as that is the real goal, self governing by the schools and conferences)

Essentially, any agreement is only as good as the people upholding the agreement. Does anyone believe the SEC and B1G have abided by NCAA rules thes past decades? Not a chance, everyone knows that half or more of the SEC athletes couldn’t qualify to graduate middle school let alone get into college; and let’s not get started on the illegal money. It is safe to presume the issue will arise, and soon.

Besides, FSU has proved that embarrassing partners (shaming) will get you what you want, in spite of legally sound agreements. All UT would have to do is threaten to expose all of the documents, everyone will cave, even third parties like ESPN.

I know the schools, conferences, networks, and NCAA want to keep the government out of the picture, but without a true means of enforcement of the agreement, the agreement means nothing. The individual state schools cannot obligate the state to self harm.

This issue is a good find on your part. It opens up a can of worms.

P.S. I reserve the right to revise my opinion as more facts and information are made available.



*OU has more Texas talent than most schools, 25-30 players.

In your Tennessee scenario, if UT obeys the state law, and other non-Tennessee partners no longer play schools in that state, what recourse does it have? The agreement consortium could tell the state to go pound sand since the state law would have no standing in other states.

 

[richmondcuse03]

Hoops don't matter

more focused on big fanbases with lots of eyeballs who will buy streaming services. Think the markets matter less and less.

a Kansas would do that, especially on BB side. Their football program has gotten more respectable and has on average done decently in tv ratings when they're good. Besides them, only Iowa State, West Virginia and Kansas State would really be meaningful adds in my opinion from a fanbase/ratings/streaming buyers perspective. Maybe TCU. None of this matters for a few years anyways.

Lot of things will change between now and then.

 

[Archbold44]

If the B1G and SEC would agree to the rules...and assuming the ACC/B12 fall in line... what do they care what anyone else does? Are they that worried about Memphis and UNLV?

 

[SU94]

I agree, any business wants to control costs. Your example of OU is spot on* in that they cannot afford an “arms race” with UT, Alabama, Michigan, an tOSU. The issue is whether an agreement between various state entities from several states can supersede the various states laws.

Application: Assume Tennessee goes off the rails, by contract, they get the death penalty ( no money, booted from their conference, cannot play teams within the agreement), the State of Tennessee has an interest in protecting the University of Tennessee and declares the agreement null and void as against state interest. What then? Generally, states are sovereigns and aside from the federal constitution, have free reign, the State of Tennessee would win and the agreement fails. X the number of affected states. Unless each sate legislature binds themselves to the agreement there is not much meat to the agreement when it comes to enforcement. (This assumes no federal oversight as that is the real goal, self governing by the schools and conferences)

Essentially, any agreement is only as good as the people upholding the agreement. Does anyone believe the SEC and B1G have abided by NCAA rules thes past decades? Not a chance, everyone knows that half or more of the SEC athletes couldn’t qualify to graduate middle school let alone get into college; and let’s not get started on the illegal money. It is safe to presume the issue will arise, and soon.

Besides, FSU has proved that embarrassing partners (shaming) will get you what you want, in spite of legally sound agreements. All UT would have to do is threaten to expose all of the documents, everyone will cave, even third parties like ESPN.

I know the schools, conferences, networks, and NCAA want to keep the government out of the picture, but without a true means of enforcement of the agreement, the agreement means nothing. The individual state schools cannot obligate the state to self harm.

This issue is a good find on your part. It opens up a can of worms.

P.S. I reserve the right to revise my opinion as more facts and information are made available.



*OU has more Texas talent than most schools, 25-30 players.

I hear you. This new paradigm would be fantastic, sort of like CFB in the 1980s/early 90s, ... so I am naturally skeptical that it can work. Same as you.

But (hang with me!), what if each school/conference chooses to opt in, of their own free will? Not unlike the Grant of Rights. Tennessee does not have to sign the document and join the others 15 SEC teams. They can hold out and search for a crooked system that they can dominate via volume of boosters and ultimately money. But the ridicule would be strong and pronounced, especially if Stankey, Bama, LSU and others were on board.

I believe that most schools, school ADs/Presidents and reasonable alumni would rather shoulder reasonable degrees of disappointment ("we went 8-4, when in the old days it would've been 11-1") than the alternative. Remember, optimism can be as sudden as next season (it works in the NFL and every other pro sport).

Isn't "opting in" better than to willfully paint your school/program as reliant upon a corrupt/rigged ecosystem. Isn't "opting in" better than to be alone (no conference) with no one to play? Isn't "opting in" better than to be mired in years or litigation to claim monies that might not be relevant if you're not on TV and a part of the SEC/CFB landscape?

If everyone wants modern college football to be "NFL Lite," well, an even playing field/parity is the secret sauce. Not the same 5-6 teams playing every year.

I see this proposal as logically prudent and sturdy, which is a nice starting point.
That said, the truest tests will be can this become legally sound/sturdy and will the enforcement officials have the chops and backing to uphold the rules. TBD, but Greg Stankey will have a heavy say in all that if I had to guess.

 

[HtownOrange]

In your Tennessee scenario, if UT obeys the state law, and other non-Tennessee partners no longer play schools in that state, what recourse does it have? The agreement consortium could tell the state to go pound sand since the state law would have no standing in other states.

The other schools were under agreement to play, cancelled and caused a loss of revenue. If there are escape clauses or liquidated damages, they would be resolved or litigated.

Your argument is really that the Tennessee schools cannot join the consortium to begin with. Further, multiple states, if not all, are likely to be protective of their own schools, NY not withstanding. If this is the case, we can assume the Tennessee delegation, and likely others, in Washington will push hard for hearings and propose bills to protect the Tennessee schools. Which is what the consortium is attempting to avoid.

 

[HtownOrange]

I hear you. This new paradigm would be fantastic, sort of like CFB in the 1980s/early 90s, ... so I am naturally skeptical that it can work. Same as you.

But (hang with me!), what if each school/conference chooses to opt in, of their own free will? Not unlike the Grant of Rights. Tennessee does not have to sign the document and join the others 15 SEC teams. They can hold out and search for a crooked system that they can dominate via volume of boosters and ultimately money. But the ridicule would be strong and pronounced, especially if Stankey, Bama, LSU and others were on board.

I believe that most schools, school ADs/Presidents and reasonable alumni would rather shoulder reasonable degrees of disappointment ("we went 8-4, when in the old days it would've been 11-1") than the alternative. Remember, optimism can be as sudden as next season (it works in the NFL and every other pro sport).

Isn't "opting in" better than to willfully paint your school/program as reliant upon a corrupt/rigged ecosystem. Isn't "opting in" better than to be alone (no conference) with no one to play? Isn't "opting in" better than to be mired in years or litigation to claim monies that might not be relevant if you're not on TV and a part of the SEC/CFB landscape?

If everyone wants modern college football to be "NFL Lite," well, an even playing field/parity is the secret sauce. Not the same 5-6 teams playing every year.

I see this proposal as logically prudent and sturdy, which is a nice starting point.
That said, the truest tests will be can this become legally sound/sturdy and will the enforcement officials have the chops and backing to uphold the rules. TBD, but Greg Stankey will have a heavy say in all that if I had to guess.

Like you, I like the intent of the proposal. History shows that certain schools will not abide by any rules or laws that may hinder their success. Unless there are serious teeth with the will and the bite to enforce the rules, you've merely provided more Byzantine paperwork to pretend to abide by the rules.

UNC has no classes for decades, besmirching the Dean Smith record. Alabama and Auburn have never not paid players, much the same for the SEC. If Big State U had a violation, the NCAA looks the other way and then gets tough on a minor infraction at Directional State U or a private university.

Unless there is a disinterested third party who will force the issues (like a good baseball or football commissioner) or a government that can make everyone play well with others, you have the same system under a new guise.

It makes sense for every major school to opt in, but only if it is as strong as intended. I think Sankey sees the writing on the wall but with Tennessee's legislature, I am not sure they agree. As stated in another post, if you can get each state legislature to agree, then you'd have a chance.

Your suggestion for Tennessee to opt out is a possible outcome. However, I think the legislature's action indicates otherwise. Recall how the PA administration was willing to fight for JoePa's criminal concealment of child s e x ual assault, think this on steroids unless Tennessee can drag in a large number of others to opt out.

These are just my assessments with what little we have at the moment. I am sure this issue is much further along by now and more developed. Don't forget I also thought ESPN and the ACC would not have to FSU's whims so this should be viewed as speculation. Good fodder for a fan site, we know too little to guess where it really is at this time or where it is going.

 

[cuseincincy]

I have a hard time believing any governor would allow one of their schools to join a group that requires them to invalidate state law. Regional governors tend to stick together sometimes and if the Governor of TN gets his buddies in AL, GA, MS and TX to not care for some organization attempting to trump their laws they'd be fine and say "Well then don't play our schools then." NCAA brought this on themself and in my opinion they're not going to be successful strong arming institutions that ultimately are controlled by an elected official.

 

[SU68]

I have a hard time believing any governor would allow one of their schools to join a group that requires them to invalidate state law. Regional governors tend to stick together sometimes and if the Governor of TN gets his buddies in AL, GA, MS and TX to not care for some organization attempting to trump their laws they'd be fine and say "Well then don't play our schools then." NCAA brought this on themself and in my opinion they're not going to be successful strong arming institutions that ultimately are controlled by an elected official.

NCAA has nothing to do with this. It would be a P-4 consortium.

 

[FloridaCuse]

Extensive article.

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Scooch]

Extensive article.

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

No one can do business with the SEC, and to a lesser extent the Big Ten. They don’t operate in good faith.

There’s no end state that doesn’t see those two leagues end up with 40-45 teams in total and become the professional league of college sports. Congress will hold hearings and pound the table in fury. But we all know nothing will be done.

 

[Newhouser]

No one can do business with the SEC, and to a lesser extent the Big Ten. They don’t operate in good faith.

There’s no end state that doesn’t see those two leagues end up with 40-45 teams in total and become the professional league of college sports. Congress will hold hearings and pound the table in fury. But we all know nothing will be done.

Agreed and that truth has been barreling at us for a while. We won't be alone and our future is going to be determined how agile we are when we are forced to move.

 

[Scooch]

Agreed and that truth has been barreling at us for a while. We won't be alone and our future is going to be determined how agile we are when we are forced to move.

That Yahoo piece notes that ACC and Big 12 schools have had a couple meetings with Smash Capital. The positive is that those 2 conferences are talking and assessing the future together.

Because the reality is that is the most likely home for SU in the future. That being, a combined "left behind" conference that remains after the SEC & B1G pick off the half-dozen or so most attractive schools of the ACC.

My hunch is that it'll end up being a ~30 team mega-conference with members from the B12, leftover ACC and a few high-profile remnants from the G5.

 

[baggerbob]

That Yahoo piece notes that ACC and Big 12 schools have had a couple meetings with Smash Capital. The positive is that those 2 conferences are talking and assessing the future together.

Because the reality is that is the most likely home for SU in the future. That being, a combined "left behind" conference that remains after the SEC & B1G pick off the half-dozen or so most attractive schools of the ACC.

My hunch is that it'll end up being a ~30 team mega-conference with members from the B12, leftover ACC and a few high-profile remnants from the G5.

The states and the courts will keep any super conference of less then 60 schools in court forever.
And there is no chance of congress giving them an anti-trust exemption.

 

[Scooch]

The states and the courts will keep any super conference of less then 60 schools in court forever.
And there is no chance of congress giving them an anti-trust exemption.

I doubt that. We already have 18 team conferences. Getting to 30-ish from a merger of two left-behind leagues doesn’t seem like it’d invoke Congressional action. Particularly when it would be as a reaction to the B1G and SEC plundering the last remaining high-value teams from the ACC.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

SEC is the minority in the NCAA. It is everyone’s best interest to cap conferences at 10 teams. If the SEC wants to take their ball and leave, so be it. I don’t think they will because that hurts their non FB sports. If they just leave for FB, that is happening anyway.

 

[baggerbob]

I doubt that. We already have 18 team conferences. Getting to 30-ish from a merger of two left-behind leagues doesn’t seem like it’d invoke Congressional action. Particularly when it would be as a reaction to the B1G and SEC plundering the last remaining high-value teams from the ACC.

Congress doesn't need to do anything, the courts and the states would sue and keep it in the court system forever.
And Congress would just let the courts do what they want.
And without an Anti- Trust exemption from Congress, it would be tied up in courts forever.

 

[Scooch]

Congress doesn't need to do anything, the courts and the states would sue and keep it in the court system forever.
And Congress would just let the courts do what they want.
And without an Anti- Trust exemption from Congress, it would be tied up in courts forever.

Why would this happen?

 

[NJneer12]

Congress doesn't need to do anything, the courts and the states would sue and keep it in the court system forever.
And Congress would just let the courts do what they want.
And without an Anti- Trust exemption from Congress, it would be tied up in courts forever.

Congress can call hearings and investigate basically anything they can agree to and agree who should be on the special committee. They can feel if private enterprises (media companies and conferences) are colluding with state schools and private institutions (schools). They can hold hearings to investigate if any laws or conspiracy may have been broken OR (and this is the big one) to see if legislation should be passed based on the hearing. Can they press charges? No, that's DOJ...but they have done stuff like this for sports in the past (steroids, gambling, concussions all ring a bell).

 

[Scooch]

Congress can call hearings and investigate basically anything they can agree to and agree who should be on the special committee. They can feel if private enterprises (media companies and conferences) are colluding with state schools and private institutions (schools). They can hold hearings to investigate if any laws or conspiracy may have been broken OR (and this is the big one) to see if legislation should be passed based on the hearing. Can they press charges? No, that's DOJ...but they have done stuff like this for sports in the past (steroids, gambling, concussions all ring a bell).

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.

 

[SU68]

Regardless of which party is in control, Congress has not shown interest in doing anything except cashing their paychecks and getting reelected.

 

[NJneer12]

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.

My mistake. I must have misread the msg. chain that included that. Congress is already peaking around the corner before the SEC/BIG try anything funny.

Congressman wants Big Ten, SEC investigated for collusion

As they attempt to bend the CFP to their liking, the Big Ten and SEC are getting called out by a congressman for possible collusion.

awfulannouncing.com

The 5 +11 Model is going to be the "solution" and they will flood the CFP committee with SEC/B1G cronies to get their desired number of teams in. So 5 each SEC/B1G (10) + 1.5 each ACC/B12 (3) + 1.5G5/ND (3) on average I'd say.

 

[javadoc]

My mistake. I must have misread the msg. chain that included that. Congress is already peaking around the corner before the SEC/BIG try anything funny.

Congressman wants Big Ten, SEC investigated for collusion

As they attempt to bend the CFP to their liking, the Big Ten and SEC are getting called out by a congressman for possible collusion.

awfulannouncing.com

The 5 +11 Model is going to be the "solution" and they will flood the CFP committee with SEC/B1G cronies to get their desired number of teams in. So 5 each SEC/B1G (10) + 1.5 each ACC/B12 (3) + 1.5G5/ND (3) on average I'd say.

Is conference revenue (TV money in particular) taxed? At which stage of the process? When the money is distributed to the conference? To the schools?

 

[Archbold44]

My mistake. I must have misread the msg. chain that included that. Congress is already peaking around the corner before the SEC/BIG try anything funny.

Congressman wants Big Ten, SEC investigated for collusion

As they attempt to bend the CFP to their liking, the Big Ten and SEC are getting called out by a congressman for possible collusion.

awfulannouncing.com

The 5 +11 Model is going to be the "solution" and they will flood the CFP committee with SEC/B1G cronies to get their desired number of teams in. So 5 each SEC/B1G (10) + 1.5 each ACC/B12 (3) + 1.5G5/ND (3) on average I'd say.

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.

 

[NJneer12]

Is conference revenue (TV money in particular) taxed? At which stage of the process? When the money is distributed to the conference? To the schools?

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.

 

[NJneer12]

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 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.