New Round of Realignment Now Following UT & OU Action

[Affirm]

I think it sort of goes like this. The SEC likes to crow about how tough their conference schedule is. Then they play maybe one hard ooc game and some patsies. The other conferences have recognized that their conference games are mostly patsies. So they will play 2 or 3 good teams from other conferences and end up with stronger schedules than the SEC. This will be fun to watch.

So if you are Clemson maybe you play Ohio State instead of Georgia and Stanford instead of UConn . The legislature will probably force them to play that other patsy from Columbia. If you have to play a third game against an alliance team (Washington or Michigan or somebody) then there wouldn’t be much room for SC State or FU.

Or if Clemson or FSU or GT has to play a third game against a lower tier FBS (non-alliance) then there wouldn’t be much room for FCS on the schedule.
Yes it will be fun to watch and interesting to see how it plays out and how it trickles down.
Looking forward at least getting big $$ when the alliance teams and SEC teams we’re already in contracts with have to buy out of our contract.

[Affirm]

ACC - BIG TEN - PAC 12 alliance announcement is expected today.

[Affirm]

Not necessarily soon, but sometime, I can envision the PAC 12 getting 2 more teams. And I can see the BIG TEN, ACC, and the PAC 12 each expanding to a total of 16 instead of 14. Likely possible additions:
Iowa State
Kansas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
UConn
WVU
Baylor
SMU
Cincinnati
TCU
Kansas State
ND will want to stay independent in football.
Whoever is left out will possibly align with UCF, Boise State, BYU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, USF, Appalachian State, Coastal Carolina, and whoever else, to make another 14- or 16–school conference.
Again, these additions may take years.
But the alliance announcement IS expected today.

[Furmanoid]

If they do the alliance thingy, is there any reason to add teams?

[Affirm]

If they do the alliance thingy, is there any reason to add teams?

Yes. At least 2 or 3 reasons.
PAC needs 14 to balance the other 2 for scheduling & money.
All 3 leagues may need to proactively match SEC at 16 to keep SEC from going to 20 and loading up with all of the remaining best available teams (e.g., with some combination of “1 to 4 Texas teams” and/or Oklahoma State and/or WVU). (I think Iowa State and Kansas are good fits in the Big Ten, though I do not know if the Big Ten wants them. Likewise with UConn and WVU in ACC. Likewise with Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU in PAC 12.)

[Furmanoid]

Why would the SEC want 20? That’s just more guys to split up the TV contract. Why would Miss State want to donate money to SMU or Baylor? And there’s a point where the conference is too bid to be a conference. It’s really just 2 conferences that play maybe 1 game against each other every year. Not much different from the Alliance only not as intriguing.

[Affirm]

Why would the SEC want 20? That’s just more guys to split up the TV contract. Why would Miss State want to donate money to SMU or Baylor? And there’s a point where the conference is too bid to be a conference. It’s really just 2 conferences that play maybe 1 game against each other every year. Not much different from the Alliance only not as intriguing.

1. Consider: 20-team SEC = Four 5-team pods. The scheduling itself may be intriguing, just as the alliance scheduling may be intriguing.
2. More big teams in SEC (20 instead of 16) gives SEC chance to better compete against alliance, especially if alliance conferences all increase to 16. The “right” teams in the SEC, if 20 total, makes SEC more interesting and more competitive in media negotiations than they would be otherwise; more of the nationally highest-ranking teams any given season. Thus even more money, enough to more than make up for it being divided by 20 instead of 16.
3. SEC wants to totally dominate the college football landscape. SEC wants to have even more good/attractive teams than they already have.

[Affirm]

But, yeah, I don’t see why SEC would want Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and SMU or Houston, which is what they’d be left with is ACC takes WVU, and PAC 12 takes OSU and KSU.
And this question: would ACC stay with ND as ACC member but independent in FB, and if so, what does that do to the alliance’s balance for scheduling and money distribution? will ACC end up adding a 16th full member (such as possibly UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, or UCF), depending on what ND wants to do, or taking possibly Rutgers or Penn State or Maryland from BIG 10 in exchange for giving ND to BIG 10?

[Furmanoid]

But, yeah, I don’t see why SEC would want Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and SMU or Houston, which is what they’d be left with is ACC takes WVU, and PAC 12 takes OSU and KSU.
And this question: would ACC stay with ND as ACC member but independent in FB, and if so, what does that do to the alliance’s balance for scheduling and money distribution? will ACC end up adding a 16th full member (such as possibly UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, or UCF), depending on what ND wants to do, or taking possibly Rutgers or Penn State or Maryland from BIG 10 in exchange for giving ND to BIG 10?

I suspect the Bearcats are in good position to be courted by the B1G and ACC. Top tennish in football, basketball and research. Just visited there. A really cool school.

[Affirm]

Now reading that “SEC Snickering” about the alliance. Not surprising in any case. Even less surprising when also reading that the alliance is not a contract but instead a “gentlemen’s agreement”, and that even the PAC 12 may choose to stand pat and not expand, and that the BIG 10 and PAC 12 had an agreement 10 years ago that evaporated, and that the ACC adding WVU could be 15 years in the future (or that could be never if SEC were to choose to take in WVU). The biggest part to snicker over though is that the alliance seems like an informal agreement rather than a formal contract, and even if the agreement holds it may have nothing to do with conference expanding or even scheduling but instead nothing more than an agreement to vote as a bloc regarding rules changes of various sorts including recruiting and scholarships limits, etc.

[Roundball]

The “Alliance” looks like a joke. It’s the ACC, Big 10 and PAC 12 firing a blank back at the SEC.

[Furmanoid]

I don’t think it’s a joke. No the specifics of scheduling haven’t been worked out, but that would be impossible. Too many games are already scheduled. And they would be pretty stupid to throw together a contract this complicated in a couple of weeks. In fact making everybody surrender to a contract would probably impede the progress.

This agreement just means you’ll start seeing more ACC vs PAC12 or B1G games while constant expansion will mean the SEC is limited to playing with themselves. I guess SEC fans will get all fired up for the Vanderbilt OU game or Miss State Texas but I don’t see how that’s more appealing than UNC Penn State, Wisconsin Clemson, Stanford Miami, etc. The SEC will be very blah, compared to the Alliance (unless you’re a redneck).