Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks

[Bestaluckcy]

Doubt if Mizzou goes Big, but if they did in a timely timeframe, I think SEC may use the cowboys or T Tech to fill their void. That could only enhance the desire of PAC 12 to have ISU.

 

[clonedude]

Doubt if Mizzou goes Big, but if they did in a timely timeframe, I think SEC may use the cowboys or T Tech to fill their void. That could only enhance the desire of PAC 12 to have ISU.

It would be OSU over TT without question.

 

[Cyclonepride]

From what I heard about the alliance this weekend, from people quoting several articles about the subject.

The alliance is supposedly partially about agreeing to not Poach from each other at this time. It is not about them adding or not adding teams, whatever they decide just they agree not to take from each other.

If this is true that means the B1G is agreeing not to try to take teams from the PAC or the ACC at this time and vice versa.
Note the Big 12 was left out of this. This very well could be because they all 3 plan to take from the Big 12 and not from each other...or Not.

It was also noted the alliance was about the Playoff and that the Big 12 and SEC were the ones that drafted the plan to go to 12 and that the Big 12 already had their say and since Bowlsby was working with Sankey and the SEC he not only already got his say about the playoff, they dont necessarily trust him on the subject as it pertains to the SEC. And they plan to put the brakes on that plan at this time.

This is what I took from the information I got from some discussion on the major articles that came out this weekend on the subject.

I think this is the end goal that makes by far the most sense in an alliance. Such an agreement contributes a lot toward stability in the sport, and will allow them to decide how the landscape will look going forward (and they won't necessarily have to have bidding wars if they can agree on how they are going to divide up the Big 12 and other potential additions).

 

[erikbj]

This morning on ESPNU radio - Danny Kannel had an interesting twist to the Alliance.

PAC, B1G and ACC Alliance gets them 3 votes on the 12 team playoffs. They will vote that 3 teams from each conference make the playoffs (so the SEC cannot dominate it), then make the bidding for the playoffs go up for bid (piss off ESPN and generate more money). ONly play nonconference games against each other (make SEC nonconference games worthless)

Then SEC will come back and say "We have more teams - everyone should have 16". Then ND and WVU to ACC. ISU and KU to B!G and the balance to PAC.

Then they all can redo their TV contracts.

Actually think this makes a lot of sense. The product would be better - no more cupcakes. If 3 from each league make the playoffs - gives everyone a legit shot.

 

[BCClone]

This morning on ESPNU radio - Danny Kannel had an interesting twist to the Alliance.

PAC, B1G and ACC Alliance gets them 3 votes on the 12 team playoffs. They will vote that 3 teams from each conference make the playoffs (so the SEC cannot dominate it), then make the bidding for the playoffs go up for bid (piss off ESPN and generate more money). ONly play nonconference games against each other (make SEC nonconference games worthless)

Then SEC will come back and say "We have more teams - everyone should have 16". Then ND and WVU to ACC. ISU and KU to B!G and the balance to PAC.

Then they all can redo their TV contracts.

Actually think this makes a lot of sense. The product would be better - no more cupcakes. If 3 from each league make the playoffs - gives everyone a legit shot.

Except a G5 school. There are enough G5 votes to keep this idea from happening. So it is illogical.

 

[CYTUTT]

I don’t buy the “northern outpost” argument. Even under Pinkel they never recruited that great. Hell, his last Big 12 class was rated 11th in the league. That class as Jrs and SRs went on to go 7-1 in the SEC both years. People forget that while Pinkel was good in the Big 12, two of his best three win totals were in the SEC.

It’s what drives me nuts about the “I don’t know if it’s sustainable at ISU” argument. You’re right, you never know. You hire John Blake at Oklahoma and you win 4 games a year. You hire Mike Shula or Mike DuBose at Alabama and you have some 5 win seasons. You hire Charlie Strong at Texas and they suck. You hire Matt Campbell at ISU and they win a Fiesta Bowl.
Same goes for the dumb Big 10 and Nebraska argument. It has zero to do with the conference. The last 10 years of the Big 12 and first 10 years of the Big 10 have seen consistency in recruiting. The win totals are a bell curve with the peak crossing over both conferences with Riley and Frost on the right of the curve, Callahan on the left, and Pelini at the peak in the middle.

It’s all about the coach, with the odd one year flukes like Chiz sprinkled in.

This. And the fact that increases in monies to schools like ISU allow them to hire these coaches and keep them longer. I think that is what this is about - parity cannot be tolerated, so the table needs to be adjusted. Hurting non-blue bloods.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Notre Dame in the B1G makes perfect geographical sense, but there are reasons that hasn’t happened. I don’t have any insider information, but I’d be surprised if they move from their ACC partnership to the B1G. Not saying it won’t happen, I just think it’s extremely unlikely.

Also Missouri jumping from the SEC to the B1G. Why would they ever give up the financial advantage of being in the SEC to change conferences? That really doesn’t make sense to me … at the present, anyway, SEC membership is considered the pinnacle of college football, it seems outlandish to think any school would voluntarily give that up (sure, sure, regents and presidents saying academic prestige comes before the truckloads of money the SEC brings, that’s certainly a possibility … not).

Anyway, none of us really know anything, but it’s interesting to see the people who like building their own conferences in the NCAA football video games going to work.

 

[Clonehomer]

This morning on ESPNU radio - Danny Kannel had an interesting twist to the Alliance.

PAC, B1G and ACC Alliance gets them 3 votes on the 12 team playoffs. They will vote that 3 teams from each conference make the playoffs (so the SEC cannot dominate it), then make the bidding for the playoffs go up for bid (piss off ESPN and generate more money). ONly play nonconference games against each other (make SEC nonconference games worthless)

Then SEC will come back and say "We have more teams - everyone should have 16". Then ND and WVU to ACC. ISU and KU to B!G and the balance to PAC.

Then they all can redo their TV contracts.

Actually think this makes a lot of sense. The product would be better - no more cupcakes. If 3 from each league make the playoffs - gives everyone a legit shot.

It's an interesting idea, but I think this would require separation from the NCAA. The G5 conferences still have a vote and I don't think they'd go for that. For the P5 conferences to thumb their nose at them would pique the interest of a lot of politicians. Furthermore, doesn't this make the CCG's worthless, this diminishing their value to TV partners that provide a lot of money to the conferences for them.

I do think this could work if rather than saying everyone gets 3 teams, you just reword it to a max of 3 teams and leave a path for G5 and independents to make the playoffs.

Or...you just do the smart thing and limit the playoffs to 8 teams with a guaranteed spot for P5/4 conference champions and 1 G5 champion with a few wild cards. Still cap the max from each conference to 2 or 3 teams.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

It would be OSU over TT without question.

Yeah agreed. Maybe WVU, but I think OSU fans would be really happy if Mizzou went to the B1G and the SEC needed a new 16th.

And I don't think people realize that B1G and SEC money are basically the same. In fact the B1G could make MORE money than the SEC even after OU and UT jump.

I still don't expect Mizzou to go to the B1G. I don't expect the B1G to add any teams. The most realistic option is waiting to see if the Pac says that they are going to expand.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Notre Dame in the B1G makes perfect geographical sense, but there are reasons that hasn’t happened. I don’t have any insider information, but I’d be surprised if they move from their ACC partnership to the B1G. Not saying it won’t happen, I just think it’s extremely unlikely.

Also Missouri jumping from the SEC to the B1G. Why would they ever give up the financial advantage of being in the SEC to change conferences? That really doesn’t make sense to me … at the present, anyway, SEC membership is considered the pinnacle of college football, it seems outlandish to think any school would voluntarily give that up (sure, sure, regents and presidents saying academic prestige comes before the truckloads of money the SEC brings, that’s certainly a possibility … not).

Anyway, none of us really know anything, but it’s interesting to see the people who like building their own conferences in the NCAA football video games going to work.

Notre Dame can still make stacks of cash without going all-in with a conference. Right now, there are no conferences that it could join that would net them more money.

 

[Die4Cy]

I think it will come down to an 8 team playoff and no conference earning more than two bids in the end. There is an investment in these conference championship games, and making them irrelevant craters their value. I see the Big 12 ultimately folding into the other conferences so there will be four auto bids and four at large. In my mind the committee approach has been a disaster and the at larges would be better chosen by a BCS type of formula. I also think a consideration should be made to require the top G5 be given a slot, provided they meet some standards and have lost less than twice.

 

[Cyforce]

The Pac-12's best move is to keep USC and Oregon (obviously), and the league simply cannot compete with the B1G on $$$. So the Pac-12's best play is to get in this Alliance with the B1G that includes some sort of non-poaching agreement. Why the B1G would agree to this, I have literally no idea. Doesn’t seem to be in their best interest. But that's what the Pac-12 wants.

So now they are in a position where they have an agreement that they won't get raided. The question is what is best for them next. Staying at 12 and doing what they have been doing? Or expanding east and trying to do something new, maybe with some mid-tier media rights on a streaming service, and playing ISU vs. OSU and Tech vs. KU at 11:00am Central. Not to mention, getting Pac-12 Network on cable packages in those states, and also drawing more eyeballs to Pac-12 (Pac-16) games between like Utah and Washington. That’s a game I wouldn’t necessarily watch now but I’d be way more likely to watch it if we were in a conference with them.

I know there is a chance the Pac-12 will decide these schools don’t add value but I have a hard time seeing that being their best move for medium or long term. If they stand pat and do nothing, they basically exist as long as the B1G says they can exist. They should at least try to make a move, zig when the B1G is zagging, and see what happens. The other schools will also have more stability at 16 if USC etc. later bail.

If expansion is truly about getting games in better time slots having Kansas as one of the primary teams providing those slots seems detrimental.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I think it will come down to an 8 team playoff and no conference earning more than two bids in the end. There is an investment in these conference championship games, and making them irrelevant craters their value. I see the Big 12 ultimately folding into the other conferences so there will be four auto bids and four at large. In my mind the committee approach has been a disaster and the at larges would be better chosen by a BCS type of formula. I also think a consideration should be made to require the top G5 be given a slot, provided they meet some standards and have lost less than twice.

The original proposal was top six conference champs get a bid, with six at larges. I think the other power leagues would like to see the Big 12 go away so that they can change it to the top five conference champs and three at larges for an 8-team playoff. This way maintains the same level of G5 access as the earlier proposal, assuming that the Big 12 is dissolved.

I wonder if they will be able to limit it to only 2 teams per conference. The SEC would not be happy about that. I could see a compromise where it's a maximum of 3 teams per conference, basically ensuring the SEC doesn't sweep all three at-large slots.

 

[trajanJ]

I think this is the end goal that makes by far the most sense in an alliance. Such an agreement contributes a lot toward stability in the sport, and will allow them to decide how the landscape will look going forward (and they won't necessarily have to have bidding wars if they can agree on how they are going to divide up the Big 12 and other potential additions).

It depends on the next PAC TV contract. If the PAC makes something close to the BIG, then it will work. If not, the top teams in the PAC won’t be satisfied.

 

[KidSilverhair]

This morning on ESPNU radio - Danny Kannel had an interesting twist to the Alliance.

PAC, B1G and ACC Alliance gets them 3 votes on the 12 team playoffs. They will vote that 3 teams from each conference make the playoffs (so the SEC cannot dominate it), then make the bidding for the playoffs go up for bid (piss off ESPN and generate more money). ONly play nonconference games against each other (make SEC nonconference games worthless)

Then SEC will come back and say "We have more teams - everyone should have 16". Then ND and WVU to ACC. ISU and KU to B!G and the balance to PAC.

Then they all can redo their TV contracts.

Actually think this makes a lot of sense. The product would be better - no more cupcakes. If 3 from each league make the playoffs - gives everyone a legit shot.

This is just the height of arrogance (although coming from Kannell & ESPN, that’s a given) … saying “we’ll have a 12-team playoff but it will only be teams from our Special Four conferences, the rest of you can go play in your own little sandboxes.”

It’s so arrogant and unaware that it’s probably exactly what’s going to happen, considering the greed of the blue bloods and recent events.

 

[clonehome]

win one your own without having to be co-champs, and actually play the team you tied with. Oh, and win one where your SOS is decent. And what Big 10 title did Iowa win where they accomplished more than ISU did last year? 8-1, finish at the top of the league (ALONE) with a top 20 SOS while going round robin, not dodging the top teams. Iowa has 4 Big 10 titles in the modern era, they tied for 3 of them, and all for of those, they did not play the co-champ!!!. Oh and the one they won outright, Iowa won it by 1/2 a game because they had ties back then, no overtime. So if there was overtime Iowa would have tied for that one too. They only played 8 conference games. Anyway, finishing alone at the standings at the end of season, Iowa has only done that once, and it was because of two teams tying on the scoreboard.

Iowa backing their way into a conference title due to a favorable schedule was exposed in each Rose Bowl and in the Orange Bowl vs USC. In all 5 games going back to ‘81 they got destroyed. If Iowa State has a blow out year this year and wins marquee games at the end they will be the first great team in the state since maybe a couple of Evi’s Iowa teams in the 50s.

 

[Cyclonepride]

It depends on the next PAC TV contract. If the PAC makes something close to the BIG, then it will work. If not, the top teams in the PAC won’t be satisfied.

Well, they're not going to, and I think it's a somewhat safe assumption that the alliance of the PAC 12, Big Ten and ACC includes an agreement to not steal teams from each other. If that is true, they really don't have any other options than to expand their own conference.

 

[BCClone]

Well, they're not going to, and I think it's a somewhat safe assumption that the alliance of the PAC 12, Big Ten and ACC includes an agreement to not steal teams from each other. If that is true, they really don't have any other options than to expand their own conference.

How tight is the alliance though. If the big ten takes a couple, what can the PAC do? Not schedule them in non con? Call them names? It’s basically feeding the alligator if the big XII goes G5 or so.

 

[jdoggivjc]

This morning on ESPNU radio - Danny Kannel had an interesting twist to the Alliance.

PAC, B1G and ACC Alliance gets them 3 votes on the 12 team playoffs. They will vote that 3 teams from each conference make the playoffs (so the SEC cannot dominate it), then make the bidding for the playoffs go up for bid (piss off ESPN and generate more money). ONly play nonconference games against each other (make SEC nonconference games worthless)

Then SEC will come back and say "We have more teams - everyone should have 16". Then ND and WVU to ACC. ISU and KU to B!G and the balance to PAC.

Then they all can redo their TV contracts.

Actually think this makes a lot of sense. The product would be better - no more cupcakes. If 3 from each league make the playoffs - gives everyone a legit shot.

This would honestly be one of the best outcomes ISU could ever ask for in the current CFB climate. Whether this is what actually happens is TBD.

This is just the height of arrogance (although coming from Kannell & ESPN, that’s a given) … saying “we’ll have a 12-team playoff but it will only be teams from our Special Four conferences, the rest of you can go play in your own little sandboxes.”

It’s so arrogant and unaware that it’s probably exactly what’s going to happen, considering the greed of the blue bloods and recent events.

Pretty sure the whole goal of this thing is separation from the NCAA. I’m almost certain that’s the SEC’s goal. And if that is the goal, then what the G5 wants doesn’t matter because they won’t have a seat at the table. Which is why at minimum I want ISU in a recalibrated PAC 12 and not in a recalibrated Big 12 or AAC. Either of those two options means ISU is in the outside looking in, whereas in the PAC 12 we still have a seat at the table. And if it is the Big 10, that’s seriously the best case scenario.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

How tight is the alliance though. If the big ten takes a couple, what can the PAC do? Not schedule them in non con? Call them names? It’s basically feeding the alligator if the big XII goes G5 or so.

Nobody knows how tight it is. If the B1G wants USC/Oregon etc., and those schools are willing to put up with the travel to basically double their TV $$, then there’s nothing the Pac can do to keep them.

It sounds like the Alliance will at least head off the B1G poaching the Pac for now though. The open question is whether the Pac will just freeze and stay at 12 or try to grow with B12 leftovers in the meantime.