Does the notion of "alliance" happen without Jim Phillips at the ACC? And what now?

[PURPLE Book Cat]

Dr. Jim made a few interesting comments during the press announcement of the ACC-Pac12-Big10 alliance.

ACC, B1G, Pac-12 announce 'historic' alliance

The Pac-12 has been the most aggressive in forming and encouraging the alliance with the ACC and Big Ten that was announced Tuesday, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

These comments at least emphasized the need to avoid further conference-swapping among the members of the "allied" conferences. I wonder if his presence as a former Big 10 AD at the helm of the ACC (which previously had a closer relationship with the SEC) is what facilitated this movement.

The alliance was primarily driven by the Pac 12, which I believe has to do in no small part with the Big 10 entertaining the prospect of adding a few Pac 12 teams. There were clear overtures from USC, and smoke coming out of Boulder. This alliance likely pre-empts that move in exchange for a better TV leverage position for the Big 10 in partnership with the Pac 12.

I also don't think that this alliance would have been entertained by the Big 10 if Jim Delaney still led the conference as commissioner. If any of the three conferences had anything to lose in the grand scheme, it was the Big 10. The per school payout per Big 10 team still dwarfs that of the Pac 12 and the ACC. It likely could have poached schools from the Pac 12 if it wanted to - though the history between the two conferences might have been a casualty. At the end of the day, perhaps there was something more than (or at least in addition to) money that drove the decision for the Big 10.

On the topic of money, there is some sense to the Big 10 of creating joint leverage by working with the Pac 12, whose TV contracts are likewise up for renegotiation in a few years. CBS will be an interesting player now that ESPN will own the SEC rights. The ACC inclusion was curious in this regard, as the ACC is locked into a TV contract until 2036. It will be interesting if Dr. Jim can create some sort of carve out for out-of-conference "alliance" games to get them a bump until 2036.

I expect that the Pac 12, which has incentive to expand eastward, will pick up a significant remnant of the Big 12 conference. The Texas market is too important to ignore, so I would expect to see at least two of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU (probably not the latter) join the Pac 12, as Texas has two of the top ten media markets. After that, either Kansas or Kansas State delivers the Kansas City market (and ok, Wichita). It makes some sense for the Pac 12 to likewise pick up Oklahoma State with Oklahoma City, but mainly to solidify access to Texas markets.

I have a hard time believing that the Pac 12 will allow the Mountain West to potentially pick up these higher profile teams and compete with it for the Texas media market (and to a lesser extent, Kansas and Oklahoma).

The Pac 12 then becomes the Pac 16 with Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma. What would be fascinating is whether the Pac 12 and one of its member schools would work out a "trade" with the Big 10 to allow a school to switch from the Pac 12 to the Big 10.

If that happens - the likely member would be Colorado. The Big 10 - which could see some marginal benefit from the Kansas City market - would probably pick up the University of Kansas in this scenario to lock in its 16 team slate.

The ACC obviously has to pick up West Virginia. Given the alliance - Penn State is off the block. It means they probably have to pick off an AAC team to get to 16... possibly Houston or Temple, but I would bet on Cincinnati.

There are your four 16 team conferences?

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Dr. Jim made a few interesting comments during the press announcement of the ACC-Pac12-Big10 alliance.

ACC, B1G, Pac-12 announce 'historic' alliance

The Pac-12 has been the most aggressive in forming and encouraging the alliance with the ACC and Big Ten that was announced Tuesday, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

These comments at least emphasized the need to avoid further conference-swapping among the members of the "allied" conferences. I wonder if his presence as a former Big 10 AD at the helm of the ACC (which previously had a closer relationship with the SEC) is what facilitated this movement.

The alliance was primarily driven by the Pac 12, which I believe has to do in no small part with the Big 10 entertaining the prospect of adding a few Pac 12 teams. There were clear overtures from USC, and smoke coming out of Boulder. This alliance likely pre-empts that move in exchange for a better TV leverage position for the Big 10 in partnership with the Pac 12.

I also don't think that this alliance would have been entertained by the Big 10 if Jim Delaney still led the conference as commissioner. If any of the three conferences had anything to lose in the grand scheme, it was the Big 10. The per school payout per Big 10 team still dwarfs that of the Pac 12 and the ACC. It likely could have poached schools from the Pac 12 if it wanted to - though the history between the two conferences might have been a casualty. At the end of the day, perhaps there was something more than (or at least in addition to) money that drove the decision for the Big 10.

On the topic of money, there is some sense to the Big 10 of creating joint leverage by working with the Pac 12, whose TV contracts are likewise up for renegotiation in a few years. CBS will be an interesting player now that ESPN will own the SEC rights. The ACC inclusion was curious in this regard, as the ACC is locked into a TV contract until 2036. It will be interesting if Dr. Jim can create some sort of carve out for out-of-conference "alliance" games to get them a bump until 2036.

I expect that the Pac 12, which has incentive to expand eastward, will pick up a significant remnant of the Big 12 conference. The Texas market is too important to ignore, so I would expect to see at least two of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU (probably not the latter) join the Pac 12, as Texas has two of the top ten media markets. After that, either Kansas or Kansas State delivers the Kansas City market (and ok, Wichita). It makes some sense for the Pac 12 to likewise pick up Oklahoma State with Oklahoma City, but mainly to solidify access to Texas markets.

I have a hard time believing that the Pac 12 will allow the Mountain West to potentially pick up these higher profile teams and compete with it for the Texas media market (and to a lesser extent, Kansas and Oklahoma).

The Pac 12 then becomes the Pac 16 with Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma. What would be fascinating is whether the Pac 12 and one of its member schools would work out a "trade" with the Big 10 to allow a school to switch from the Pac 12 to the Big 10.

If that happens - the likely member would be Colorado. The Big 10 - which could see some marginal benefit from the Kansas City market - would probably pick up the University of Kansas in this scenario to lock in its 16 team slate.

The ACC obviously has to pick up West Virginia. Given the alliance - Penn State is off the block. It means they probably have to pick off an AAC team to get to 16... possibly Houston or Temple, but I would bet on Cincinnati.

There are your four 16 team conferences?

How about UCF to the ACC?

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

How about UCF to the ACC?

Florida is an important enough market for that to make sense, though they already have the bigger fish in FSU and Cincinnati might open up a significant Ohio market for the ACC.

 

[zeek55]

I don't see how this alliance changes anything tbh. Ohio State's already got marquee non-conference opponents lined up through 2033. A lot of schools are similarly lined up through at least 2030.

The talk of dropping a conference game for an alliance game also seems a bit unrealistic for the Big Ten; we'd have the most to lose from dropping a conference game because our conference games are the highest quality.

As far as not taking members from another member of the alliance, I just don't see how this prevents that. The Big Ten will be earning a lot more per school than the ACC or Pac-12; if we get to 2031-2033 and a couple ACC schools want to consider moving to the Big Ten or SEC, there's nothing this alliance would do to prevent that.


This mostly seems aimed at countering the SEC-ESPN power over college football, but the only realistic way to do that is to delay the CFP expansion to 2026 and open it up for bidding instead of letting ESPN extend the deal.

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

because our conference games are the highest quality.

It's more about capturing both the LA market and the Chicago market than the quality of Ohio State playing a Big Ten opponent rather than USC or UCLA

 

[phatcat]

to answer the original question: no, I don't think this gets done without Dr. Jim. As far as I can tell, Kevin Warren can't find his butt with either hand.

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

to answer the original question: no, I don't think this gets done without Dr. Jim. As far as I can tell, Kevin Warren can't find his butt with either hand.

Yeah I have also been generally unimpressed with Warren

 

[Sheffielder]

Yeah I have also been generally unimpressed with Warren

While I generally agree, Delany and Phillips cast humongous shadows over the guy...probably unfair to pass judgment just yet, especially since the COVID decision was clearly made by committee last season, he was just the talking head who had to announce it.

 

[phatcat]

While I generally agree, Delany and Phillips cast humongous shadows over the guy...probably unfair to pass judgment just yet, especially since the COVID decision was clearly made by committee last season, he was just the talking head who had to announce it.

While I don't give him a COVID pass, I agree it can be seen as a rookie mistake. My concern is that the $EC and OU/Texas have been speaking for months, and he appeared to be asleep at the switch. Sure, it is Monday Morning QBing, but I'm not paid his salary to know how to manage the conference. The SEC is clearly our #1 competitor, and for them to clean out the marquee Big 12 programs without a sniff from the B1G is a failure. The Alliance is a defensive reaction, and a good one, but it is a reaction, nonetheless. Further, I don't see his fingerprints on it. We're stuck with the guy, I hope he improves. So far...unimpressed. We'll see.

 

[Sheffielder]

While I don't give him a COVID pass, I agree it can be seen as a rookie mistake. My concern is that the $EC and OU/Texas have been speaking for months, and he appeared to be asleep at the switch. Sure, it is Monday Morning QBing, but I'm not paid his salary to know how to manage the conference. The SEC is clearly our #1 competitor, and for them to clean out the marquee Big 12 programs without a sniff from the B1G is a failure. The Alliance is a defensive reaction, and a good one, but it is a reaction, nonetheless. Further, I don't see his fingerprints on it. We're stuck with the guy, I hope he improves. So far...unimpressed. We'll see.

I won't fault the guy for not having enough old boy network relationships in place yet on the CFB landscape to sniff out the OU/Texas thing - no one in the network would have let him in as a rookie. If I'm pointing fingers there, I'd point them at the likes of Gene Smith, Alvarez, and yes Phillips who was still theoretically in the B1G family when the talks began.

Not that we'll ever truly know, but it wouldn't surprise me if Gene Smith had been approached - even in the most informal way - about SEC membership, which should have been intel he shared with the B1G brain trust immediately.

 

[willycat]

Yeah I have also been generally unimpressed with Warren

Fitz for Commissioner?

 

[PURPLE Book Cat]

While I generally agree, Delany and Phillips cast humongous shadows over the guy...probably unfair to pass judgment just yet, especially since the COVID decision was clearly made by committee last season, he was just the talking head who had to announce it.

The jury is still out on this, but I do not believe that Warren is fully leveraging the relative strength of the Big 10 against the Pac & ACC.

However, I do think that he deferred to the traditional and longstanding relationship between the Pac & Big 10 to take care to avoid animosity. The Pac drove the alliance and Warren was receptive.

The interesting wrinkle in this is the ACC's additional willingness to so closely align. Dr. Jim's fingerprints are all over that - particularly given that the ACC lost Maryland to the Big 10 only a few short years ago. I wonder whether this is more about the Pac and ACC collaborating to box in the Big 10, or whether this is more about the three of them working together to counter the SEC.

 

[zeek55]

It's more about capturing both the LA market and the Chicago market than the quality of Ohio State playing a Big Ten opponent rather than USC or UCLA

Yeah but you gotta weigh value regardless.

A set of lost Big Ten crossover games versus half of those Big Ten vs alliance matchups if you replace the 9th Big Ten game with an alliance game.

I'm just not sure why FOX would value that higher.

The value would go to the ACC and Pac-12 who would be getting better TV quality on average, not the Big Ten.

 

[hdhntr1]

Dr. Jim made a few interesting comments during the press announcement of the ACC-Pac12-Big10 alliance.

ACC, B1G, Pac-12 announce 'historic' alliance

The Pac-12 has been the most aggressive in forming and encouraging the alliance with the ACC and Big Ten that was announced Tuesday, sources told ESPN.

www.espn.com

These comments at least emphasized the need to avoid further conference-swapping among the members of the "allied" conferences. I wonder if his presence as a former Big 10 AD at the helm of the ACC (which previously had a closer relationship with the SEC) is what facilitated this movement.

The alliance was primarily driven by the Pac 12, which I believe has to do in no small part with the Big 10 entertaining the prospect of adding a few Pac 12 teams. There were clear overtures from USC, and smoke coming out of Boulder. This alliance likely pre-empts that move in exchange for a better TV leverage position for the Big 10 in partnership with the Pac 12.

I also don't think that this alliance would have been entertained by the Big 10 if Jim Delaney still led the conference as commissioner. If any of the three conferences had anything to lose in the grand scheme, it was the Big 10. The per school payout per Big 10 team still dwarfs that of the Pac 12 and the ACC. It likely could have poached schools from the Pac 12 if it wanted to - though the history between the two conferences might have been a casualty. At the end of the day, perhaps there was something more than (or at least in addition to) money that drove the decision for the Big 10.

On the topic of money, there is some sense to the Big 10 of creating joint leverage by working with the Pac 12, whose TV contracts are likewise up for renegotiation in a few years. CBS will be an interesting player now that ESPN will own the SEC rights. The ACC inclusion was curious in this regard, as the ACC is locked into a TV contract until 2036. It will be interesting if Dr. Jim can create some sort of carve out for out-of-conference "alliance" games to get them a bump until 2036.

I expect that the Pac 12, which has incentive to expand eastward, will pick up a significant remnant of the Big 12 conference. The Texas market is too important to ignore, so I would expect to see at least two of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU (probably not the latter) join the Pac 12, as Texas has two of the top ten media markets. After that, either Kansas or Kansas State delivers the Kansas City market (and ok, Wichita). It makes some sense for the Pac 12 to likewise pick up Oklahoma State with Oklahoma City, but mainly to solidify access to Texas markets.

I have a hard time believing that the Pac 12 will allow the Mountain West to potentially pick up these higher profile teams and compete with it for the Texas media market (and to a lesser extent, Kansas and Oklahoma).

The Pac 12 then becomes the Pac 16 with Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma. What would be fascinating is whether the Pac 12 and one of its member schools would work out a "trade" with the Big 10 to allow a school to switch from the Pac 12 to the Big 10.

If that happens - the likely member would be Colorado. The Big 10 - which could see some marginal benefit from the Kansas City market - would probably pick up the University of Kansas in this scenario to lock in its 16 team slate.

The ACC obviously has to pick up West Virginia. Given the alliance - Penn State is off the block. It means they probably have to pick off an AAC team to get to 16... possibly Houston or Temple, but I would bet on Cincinnati.

There are your four 16 team conferences?

When you see the moves that the SEC is trying to make, it makes sense to form an alliance.

 

[Katatonic]

Just a short-term reaction to the SEC taking the financial foundation of the B12.

The B1G may see a slight bump in payout due to an increase in the # of marquee games with the likes of Clemson, FSU, USC and Oregon - but it's not like B1G teams weren't already playing them or like programs (and it's really matchups with dOSU, UM, PSU that will bring the most eyeballs) - so, all in all, doesnt really change much (the ACC and P12 benefit more out of this informal agreement).

Don't think expansion west was really feasible due the distance and time zone.

Plus, not a good situation to have USC (or Oregon) on an island, and really, what does CU bring to the table any more than Mizzou and they didn't make the cut.

Only road to expansion that really makes any sense is taking the cream of the ACC (and by that, talking taking 7-8 schools).

Does Phillips being the commish of the ACC preclude the B1G from taking certain ACC schools if they show an interest?

It shouldn't (wouldn't mind seeing Phillips become the commish of the conference that combines the B1G with much of the original ACC).

 

[BarefootCat]

The Alliance protects the ACC the most, and possibly to the detriment of the B1G.

1) The ACC is a weird mashup of
Large state schools: FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVa
And small privates: BC, Cuse, Duke, Wake, Miami

Some are good academic schools, some not so good

2) With their weird mash-up, their TV revenues are smaller and lopsided (i.e. UNC eyeballs vs Pitt eyeballs) which creates instability.

Kevin Warren seems oblivious, but now would have been the perfect time to grab UVa, and perhaps a UNC.

Jim Phillips was smart enough to recognize the threat, and sign the alliance to protect his teams from joining the B1G. It will work great until Clemson and FSU join the SEC.

 

[zeek55]

Kevin Warren seems oblivious, but now would have been the perfect time to grab UVa, and perhaps a UNC.

The problem is just that the ACC has a Grant of Rights in place for the next 15 years; it runs through 2036. They're all held hostage by that at the moment.

This alliance can likely get us through the next 10 years or so, and then the Big Ten will look hard at at adding ACC schools again.

Alliance makes sense for the short term at least. After 10 years passes, then it will start to arrive at the time when schools like Clemson/FSU start thinking about leaving the ACC and then a bunch of schools will be in play most likely.

 

[dillonpgp]

It’s a good thing that the original post on this thread called “the alliance” a “notion”.

One day after this cornucopia of verbal masturbation, USC announced it would open the 2024 season with a one-off game in Las Vegas against LSU, a game to be televised (and largely paid for) by ESPN.