Which would probably be a great relief for the ACC and Pac 12.
SportsIllustrated: Big Ten, Pac 12 and ACC in talks to create "alliance"
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I almost hope it screws the SEC more than it benefits others.
There is some truth to what you say. One of the purposes of this alliance is to form a large enough voting block to determine the direction of such issues as the CFP, bowls, etc. Assuming these three conferences vote the same way, the vote count could be 41-16 (SEC represents 16). So, the seemingly unending power grab by the SEC might not be so easy.
The fact that the SEC commissioner was engaging in secretive talks to bring in TX and OK at the same time he was strategizing on the expansion of the CFP has apparently pi$$ed some people off in the other P5 conferences.
The SEC was just answering for that Maryland-Rutgers coup the B1G pulled a few years ago. All even. B1G needs to be careful here. It is the biggest and most profitable league right now. Diluting its brand thinking that whatever hurts the SEC helps the B1G is stupid. Costs will increase and nobody is going to buy commercials for East Coast vs. West Coast middle card games. B1G is much better off being Pepsi to the SEC's Coke than being a leader of some alliance that doesn't make anyone better. If they pool votes just to screw the SEC or limit slots in the playoffs, the SEC schools can leave and viewers will tune out. Then PSU and others are simply left subsidizing what is left.
If this new super conference comes to pass there should be two divisions for football. The first should be for the top echelon teams like Ohio State, USC, Penn State, Oregon, Clemson, etc. The teams in this division would play each other frequently. This will result in many top games with a great deal of national exposure. Then there should be a lower division of bottom feeders. This division would have teams like Wake Forest, Illinois, Arizona, pitt, NC State, Rutgers, etc. These teams would play each other often and once in a while would play the big boys. I think a setup like this would result in a league better than the SEC.
Last edited:
That's not going to happen. TV deal for a combined B1G/ACC/Pac12 would suck major hog.
But, but, but, think of all of the major markets being served
Power football's answer to "if you don't want to get anything done, but want the appearance of getting something done, form a committee"?
But, but, but, think of all of the major markets being served
Yes, indeed. And the new conference can sell the BTN (at $1/subscriber/mo) where the PAC 12 network failed and the ACC version gets no traction.
How would the big ten be diluting their brand? The ACC and PAC12 are iconic P5 conferences. It’s not like an alliance with MAC and Patriot League.
Rather than simply combining the Big, PAC, and ACC it would be much better to cherry pick the best teams in each and make them into a new conference. The problem with a simple combining of the 3 conferences is that the bottom feeders come along for the ride. They will add little to the new conference while sapping money. Teams like Wake Forest, Arizona, pitt, NC State, etc. will just be a drain on the new conference. The Big would entice Clemson, USC, Stanford, Oregon, Florida State, etc. to join the Big while eliminating Rutgers, Maryland, and Illinois. The resulting conference would be on par or even better than the SEC.
The ACC is under contract with ESPN until 2035 but the boys in Bristol are just going to give them more money, particularly when it's questionable if ACCNet ever gets more than two feet off the ground.
Dude.... You need to have your sarcasm detector fixed.
You're thinking defensively and if the commissioners are doing that their leagues will continue to lose ground. One day Dabo will wake up, if he hasn't already, and realize that he'll need more than nappie pods and putt-putt courses to compete. Never thought he'd leave Clemson for Bama when Saban retires, but with the resource gap that is going to get perilously wider, he just might decide that he musxt.
I meant fan bases overreacting. Like suggesting the B1G should add Kansas, ISU, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse and BC. These three conferences should definitely be in discussions. They should actually include the SEC as well and come up with a plan that improves everyone’s take (except those left out of the new alliance of course).
Dabo may tell Clemson that he is gonna be in the SEC one way or the other at some point, so they may want to figure out how to join the SEC sooner than later and spend accordingly.
And if FSU goes with them to the party, which it would, the ACC is scrambling football-wise. (Who would replace those two? Coastal Carolina and App State?! Yikes. Cincinnati?) Any 3-way Alliance that includes the ACC is weaker at that point, so the B1G and Pac12 would have to re-think.
I just don't see the SEC allowing an Alliance to flirt with two big football revenue drivers in its own backyard, like Clemson and FSU, and not have a counter-offer or two ready.
Football may soon be better off with re-thinking the whole conference structure as we now perceive it. Ask ESPN to lead the charge, and maybe the contract-breaking negotiations get easier.
Agreed. Unless the "alliance" does something to address the revenue gap between the ACC and SEC, any team in the ACC is a target, particularly Clemson & FSU.
Stripping weak sisters from conferences and reconstituting them with nothing but haves would improve the revenue of the haves. Not sure that the people running the new look of college football are anywhere near prepared to navigate the political storm that would result.
The frame of reference in this discussion are schools that bring in TV dollars, not necessarily those that win, though they tend to overlap.
In a situation like this, the only time that a specific team will be evaluated individually will be on inception of the new league. After that, the conference rises or falls as a whole.
A&M and OU like to blame their problems on The Alliance- they wouldnt even be in those situations if they just beat Alabama.
LOL, its ALWAYS about money and when they say it isn't its EVEN MORE ABOUT MONEY.
Similar threads
