I think the Big 10 and PAC 12 should partner to do a week 1 “Rose Bowl” neutral site game, with the caveat that in return for the Big 10 sending a team to Pasadena, they send a team to play a Big 10 squad in Chicago.

(08-15-2021 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 01:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 12:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First I want to say that Wilner is one of the few sports journalists worth reading. He tells me the 3 things I want to hear:
What he knows
What he doesn't know
What he thinks

And he is usually accurate.

Now as to your post X.

Texas and Oklahoma are football schools joining a football conference. "People will come Ray, people will come."

Notre Dame visiting Chapel Hill and Winston-Salem is a football school in alien corn. Football is not the sport of charm at those 2 venues. Tallahassee and Blacksburg and Clemson would be much better indicators.

I still don't think that USC risks moving away from their base.....too much risk.

I don't anticipate any movement away from the PAC unless we have a breakaway upper tier and some remain loyal to the NCAA.

All that is left in this round of realignment moves would be this:
1. B1G ascertains Notre Dame's present interest in moving and finds there is none and they stand pat.
2. The ACC picks up a couple of B12 schools for ACCN market numbers and to re-open their contracts valuation.
3. The PAC 12 picks up a couple, maybe 4, B12 schools for PACN market numbers and new time slots and do so for no other reason than revenue because they can't afford to fall behind the ACC and must keep pace.
4. OU and UT integrate into the SEC.

We wait for time, economic disparity, and pressure to continue to heighten schools' awareness of their need to seek more capital. It consolidates further or into an ACC/SEC breakaway from the NCAA.

Could you see just those two breaking away, or would they just be leading the way for the B1G and PAC to follow? Good as their teams are, it's hard to style your champ as the National Champ when you exclude half the country.

We are headed for 2 separate and distinct pathways from NIL and stipend rulings, IMO. One makes the other possible. The semi-professional league must first come into existence as it will provide the option by complying with the SCOTUS ruling on NIL, will by its nature be other in governance from the NCAA, and will lineup with the likeliest ruling on stipends being uncapped, which would be wholly in keeping with the Court's reasoning in the ruling on NIL.

In the wake of this "breakaway" which will likely take top brands from each of the remaining conferences, a new league will be formed, which will actually be an embracing and reaffirmation of the NCAA's notion on amateurism. It will be able to exist w/o conflict from the SCOTUS ruling precisely because a compliant league was formed giving athletes a choice.

The SEC, and I should say, and part of the ACC will form the nucleus of the semi-professional league. Given the NRLB's ability to organize private schools, most small privates and academically focused state schools will likely choose an amateur league. Some ACC / B1G and PAC schools will likely form the nucleus of this league.

So if the SEC plus Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State (if you have the desire and clearance from your state) could join with Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State and possibly Indiana along with Notre Dame, B.Y.U., USC, Arizona State and possibly Washington and Oregon to form a new semi-professional league. It would work well at 24, but would be more balanced at 32.

You would have 2 legitimate national champions each year and each in a different classification.

JR, the coalition formed with the trio of the ACC, B1G and PAC should successfully keep the SEC from forming their own breakaway conference.
Your talk about the SEC reaching out to Ohio State was probably more fact than fiction.
I still think there will be two distinct divisions in P conferences (24 & 36 ?), but the upper echelon won't be controlled completely by the SEC, and the other division will help determine how championship(s) are decided.
There will be movement out of current SEC membership as well as movement out of the ACC, B1G and PAC into the upper level division of 24.
I do think that the two Florida schools in the ACC will be a part of the new upper level. Florida like California and Texas has huge population, but it's probably more diverse and would require all three major football schools.

(08-15-2021 02:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 01:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  I still don't think that USC risks moving away from their base.....too much risk.

I don't anticipate any movement away from the PAC unless we have a breakaway upper tier and some remain loyal to the NCAA.

All that is left in this round of realignment moves would be this:
1. B1G ascertains Notre Dame's present interest in moving and finds there is none and they stand pat.
2. The ACC picks up a couple of B12 schools for ACCN market numbers and to re-open their contracts valuation.
3. The PAC 12 picks up a couple, maybe 4, B12 schools for PACN market numbers and new time slots and do so for no other reason than revenue because they can't afford to fall behind the ACC and must keep pace.
4. OU and UT integrate into the SEC.

We wait for time, economic disparity, and pressure to continue to heighten schools' awareness of their need to seek more capital. It consolidates further or into an ACC/SEC breakaway from the NCAA.

Could you see just those two breaking away, or would they just be leading the way for the B1G and PAC to follow? Good as their teams are, it's hard to style your champ as the National Champ when you exclude half the country.

We are headed for 2 separate and distinct pathways from NIL and stipend rulings, IMO. One makes the other possible. The semi-professional league must first come into existence as it will provide the option by complying with the SCOTUS ruling on NIL, will by its nature be other in governance from the NCAA, and will lineup with the likeliest ruling on stipends being uncapped, which would be wholly in keeping with the Court's reasoning in the ruling on NIL.

In the wake of this "breakaway" which will likely take top brands from each of the remaining conferences, a new league will be formed, which will actually be an embracing and reaffirmation of the NCAA's notion on amateurism. It will be able to exist w/o conflict from the SCOTUS ruling precisely because a compliant league was formed giving athletes a choice.

The SEC, and I should say, and part of the ACC will form the nucleus of the semi-professional league. Given the NRLB's ability to organize private schools, most small privates and academically focused state schools will likely choose an amateur league. Some ACC / B1G and PAC schools will likely form the nucleus of this league.

So if the SEC plus Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and possibly N.C. State (if you have the desire and clearance from your state) could join with Nebraska, Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State and possibly Indiana along with Notre Dame, B.Y.U., USC, Arizona State and possibly Washington and Oregon to form a new semi-professional league. It would work well at 24, but would be more balanced at 32.

You would have 2 legitimate national champions each year and each in a different classification.

JR, the coalition formed with the trio of the ACC, B1G and PAC should successfully keep the SEC from forming their own breakaway conference.
Your talk about the SEC reaching out to Ohio State was probably more fact than fiction.
I still think there will be two distinct divisions in P conferences (24 & 36 ?), but the upper echelon won't be controlled completely by the SEC, and the other division will help determine how championship(s) are decided.
There will be movement out of current SEC membership as well as movement out of the ACC, B1G and PAC into the upper level division of 24.
I do think that the two Florida schools in the ACC will be a part of the new upper level. Florida like California and Texas has huge population, but it's probably more diverse and would require all three major football schools.

X, the SEC will do what it damn well pleases and no vote by a cadre of whiners will stop it. Do you really think this would be happening had OU and UT headed to the Big10? Hell no. The PAC and B10 are whining and playing gang up because they lost out on the cash "cow" and because all recruiting and 17 of the last 20 national champions are from the Deep South. What do any of them have that we need? We have the best Football, Baseball, Softball (w/OU), and darn good hoops (more titles in last 30 years than the B10). We have the best ratings and earn the most revenue.

What would the Big 10 be worth in football w/o the SEC as a rival and goal? What would those Florida bowls be worth? It's your hubris that leads you to believe we would care what PAC and B10 officials think. They are grousing because between them they only have 1 relevant program, Ohio State. They have several that could be a lot more relevant if half their conference wasn't holding them back: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State and Indiana for hoops would be great.

They only have any power over us in the NCAA. They can do nothing if we leave. And you are nuts if you think ESPN leaves any schools they want in the ACC if you take any part in any such alliance.

(08-15-2021 11:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 08:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The PAC 12 picks up a couple, maybe 4, B12 schools for PACN market numbers and new time slots and do so for no other reason than revenue because they can't afford to fall behind the ACC and must keep pace. ...

It seems like if the PAC-12 goes to "11 major conference school" scheduling to boost the value of their rights, they can get new time slots a lot more cheaply by doing a scheduling and rights agreement with a twelve member Big12 for a game a year per school with crossover rights by the visiting team, giving the PAC-12 six annual ETZ noon slots ... especially in September / October, when Fox may have MLB evening game responsibilities.

I do not foresee USC and Stanford dropping the Notre Dame game for this purpose.

USC (CA)-ND & Stanford-ND are to USC (CA), Stanford, and Notre Dame fans what UGa-GT and Clemson-USC (SC)are to Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and SC fans!!! Nobody is talking about replacing those games. They're just automatically figured into the equation.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(08-15-2021 03:40 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 11:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 08:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The PAC 12 picks up a couple, maybe 4, B12 schools for PACN market numbers and new time slots and do so for no other reason than revenue because they can't afford to fall behind the ACC and must keep pace. ...

It seems like if the PAC-12 goes to "11 major conference school" scheduling to boost the value of their rights, they can get new time slots a lot more cheaply by doing a scheduling and rights agreement with a twelve member Big12 for a game a year per school with crossover rights by the visiting team, giving the PAC-12 six annual ETZ noon slots ... especially in September / October, when Fox may have MLB evening game responsibilities.

I do not foresee USC and Stanford dropping the Notre Dame game for this purpose.

USC (CA)-ND & Stanford-ND are to USC (CA), Stanford, and Notre Dame fans what UGa-GT and Clemson-USC (SC)are to Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and SC fans!!! Nobody is talking about replacing those games. They're just automatically figured into the equation.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Dawg,
It's not necessary to type USC (CA). Everybody knows that USC is Southern Cal, just like they also know that Carolina is in Chapel Hill.

(08-15-2021 03:40 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 11:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I do not foresee USC and Stanford dropping the Notre Dame game for this purpose.

[USC]-ND & Stanford-ND are to [USC], Stanford, and Notre Dame fans what UGa-GT and Clemson-SC are to Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and SC fans!!! Nobody is talking about replacing those games. They're just automatically figured into the equation.

Exactly ... those games are taken for granted. The upgraded scheduling requirement plus the rights swap would tacitly imply USC scheduling one game harder than the minimum for the conference ... as they typically do.

Of course, it's not limited to the PAC-12 and Big12 ... consider the sequence of actions by the PAC-12:

1. The PAC-12 publicly calls for a "collective response" in response to the SEC raid of the Big12
2. The PAC-12 and Big12 commissioners have a meetup
3. We hear about an "Alliance" among the PAC-12, Big10, and ACC

The Big10, PAC-12 and Big12 rights are coming up for renegotiation all in the same two year window ... so carving out a separate contract for a one game OOC scheduling arrangement is an option. The interesting thing is whether being included in the scheduling arrangement may be enough to help the ACC get a higher value in a look-in, since while the ACC is not eligible to be part of a common rights pool, it could still be included in the scheduling agreement on the basis of home/away rights with it's away games then being included in the common rights pool.

Indeed, if the ACC is a "tack on" member of the scheduling agreement, it might not entail all schools participating. They have an eight game conference schedule, five Notre Dame games that circulate through the conference on a slightly more than once per three years pace, and four schools with fixed annual OOC rivalry games. So it could be their participants in the scheduling agreement are six schools that have neither a Notre Dame game that year nor a locked interconference rivalry game.

Of course, the Big Ten also has a school with a locked inter-conference rivalry game, so if they bring in 13, the ACC brings in 6 and PAC-12 brings in 11 or 12 (without USC it doesn't work, but Stanford is more optional), then they can determine how many Big12 schools they want to bring in and split the pooled rights 40:40:20.

(08-15-2021 03:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 03:40 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 11:46 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 08:52 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The PAC 12 picks up a couple, maybe 4, B12 schools for PACN market numbers and new time slots and do so for no other reason than revenue because they can't afford to fall behind the ACC and must keep pace. ...

It seems like if the PAC-12 goes to "11 major conference school" scheduling to boost the value of their rights, they can get new time slots a lot more cheaply by doing a scheduling and rights agreement with a twelve member Big12 for a game a year per school with crossover rights by the visiting team, giving the PAC-12 six annual ETZ noon slots ... especially in September / October, when Fox may have MLB evening game responsibilities.

I do not foresee USC and Stanford dropping the Notre Dame game for this purpose.

USC (CA)-ND & Stanford-ND are to USC (CA), Stanford, and Notre Dame fans what UGa-GT and Clemson-USC (SC)are to Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and SC fans!!! Nobody is talking about replacing those games. They're just automatically figured into the equation.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Dawg,
It's not necessary to type USC (CA). Everybody knows that USC is Southern Cal, just like they also know that Carolina is in Chapel Hill.

South Carolina is NOT USC. Maybe you can call it USCe. Just as everyone outside Tennessee understands UT is the University of Texas.

OSU is the one that has different regional connotations. Oregon St., Oklahoma St. or Ohio St. But those 3 don't use OSU that much.

(08-15-2021 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  South Carolina is NOT USC. Maybe you can call it USCe. Just as everyone outside Tennessee understands UT is the University of Texas.

OSU is the one that has different regional connotations. Oregon St., Oklahoma St. or Ohio St. But those 3 don't use OSU that much.

Officially, the University of South Carolina is "U of SC", not "USC".

(08-16-2021 06:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 09:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  South Carolina is NOT USC. Maybe you can call it USCe. Just as everyone outside Tennessee understands UT is the University of Texas.

OSU is the one that has different regional connotations. Oregon St., Oklahoma St. or Ohio St. But those 3 don't use OSU that much.

Officially, the University of South Carolina is "U of SC", not "USC".

One thing to keep in mind with the Arizona schools - they share a Board of Regents, and they are not going to approve a separation of the two, especially if one would be perceived as in a better conference than the other.


I also doubt that the UC schools (UCLA/Cal) would ever be separated.