So Much For The Vaunted "Alliance" | The Boneyard

So Much For The Vaunted "Alliance"

Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,282
Reaction Score
50,333
SEC 6 Alliance 0

(6-0 because 1-0 is not sufficient to describe the arse whipping here)
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,282
Reaction Score
50,333
Don't be so sure about the SEC winning just yet.

The B1G may actually have a Billion reasons to pay 9 conference games instead of 8

I didn’t say the SEC beat the BiG. I said the alliance — a group that was set up to check the SECs growing power — has fallen apart before it even got started.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
924
Reaction Score
2,067
I didn’t say the SEC beat the BiG. I said the alliance — a group that was set up to check the SECs growing power — has fallen apart before it even got started.
The Alliance accomplished it's 1st goal which was to slow the CFP expansion so that the SEC & ESPN didn't rush it through. All 3 Commissioners made it clear they were not ready to rubber stamp the SEC/ESPN proposal.

We will see what the Alliance does going forward as the new NCAA rulebook is being written.

Most think that the SEC wants to essentially eliminate most "other" sports outside of football and basketball and push things towards a "pro" model. The Alliance conferences have so far claimed that they are interested in retaining more of the traditional student/athlete model. Whether this is real or not we will see going forward.

IMO, the real issue going forward is how will the SEC & B1G align themselves being the 2 elephants in the room compared to the other 3. The money gap is going to be massive and SEC & B1G schools will in some cases be making $30-40MM more per year than schools in the other 3 conferences. As i said in the other thread, when the money gap is that big, it will force the ACC, PAC, B12 schools to listen to any advances from the SEC & B1G.

Does UNC & UVA decide it's time to make a move? Do some PAC schools think about playing games in different time zones because it means $30MM more?

These are going to be real questions school & athletic administrators at some schools will be faced with
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
4,925
Reaction Score
19,069
The Alliance accomplished it's 1st goal which was to slow the CFP expansion so that the SEC & ESPN didn't rush it through. All 3 Commissioners made it clear they were not ready to rubber stamp the SEC/ESPN proposal.
Now that we see all the media companies seem to be bidding on the Big 10 media rights, it's pretty clear that waiting to expand the CFP was the smart move.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,301
Wait, the Alliance is falling apart?

12F430A7-C463-4C46-84CE-EC094C7CE63E.jpeg
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,568
Reaction Score
19,335
Alliance. Maybe it should simply be referred to as boycott. All they really want to do is not schedule SEC, would that be a correct take? Between conference games, G5 games, and some historical rivals, how much "alliance" scheduling would really be going on?
 

WestHartHusk

$3M a Year With March Off
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,559
Reaction Score
13,680
Alliance. Maybe it should simply be referred to as boycott. All they really want to do is not schedule SEC, would that be a correct take? Between conference games, G5 games, and some historical rivals, how much "alliance" scheduling would really be going on?
Other than the fact that they cited scheduling 2 SEC teams as a reason the Alliance fell apart, sure, good point.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
1,290
Reaction Score
2,686


And there you have it, folks! Battle lines drawn!

I think without details this is a simplistic view. I think the vote in question was the vote for the 6+6 highest model, and not the 5 p5+ 1 g5 + 6 model. If it were the latter the vote would have been 3-8. The Pac-12 openly said they would vote for any expansion plan. Whether that was a lie is to be seen.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,568
Reaction Score
19,335
I think without details this is a simplistic view. I think the vote in question was the vote for the 6+6 highest model, and not the 5 p5+ 1 g5 + 6 model. If it were the latter the vote would have been 3-8. The Pac-12 openly said they would vote for any expansion plan. Whether that was a lie is to be seen.
Excellent point. At first I thought it was a strange vote, but the devil is in the details. So yes, battle lines most likely drawn drawn given the model.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
2,047
Reaction Score
5,702
As much as I hate the NCAA, I am amused by the future cartel college athletics leadership
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
Well....the Alliance did throw a monkey wrench into Sankey's expansion plan...it was the B1G, ACC, and PAC that voted NO and kicked the can down the road.

I think it was just a knee jerk to being muscled by the SEC....

Maybe the PAC voted as an Alliance block...or maybe the SEC wanted to ditch the auto bids to P5 conference champs.

Sankey seems to think that the SEC will have maybe five of the best teams in the country and may want to maximize the chance to put all five into the CFP.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
339
Reaction Score
317
This should scare anyone who clings to the current model of college sports:

3. The SEC/Big Ten future
Here’s where it gets dicey, and potentially devastating to those who cling to the idea of college sports as it has always been.

The SEC and Big Ten don’t need the other conferences, and at some point will see them for what they are: a small collection of football-playing schools in each of the other 3 Power 5 conferences available to strengthen their own leagues.

That’s right, expansion.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told Sports Illustrated last week expansion isn’t off the table. An SEC athletic director told me this weekend: “The landscape is constantly changing. Our presidents have made it clear to (Sankey) that we will do whatever it takes to ensure opportunity for our student-athletes and our future financial stability:”

The SEC and Big Ten don’t need the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 to hold a Playoff.

They might need USC, UCLA, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame and Florida State to make their product deeper and stronger.


The rules of engagement will change in 4 years. Kliavkoff knew it, and so did Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, who quickly got over the hurt of Texas and OU leaving for the SEC when it became clear the alternative was no Power 5 conference at all.

The ACC – and I don’t place all blame on new commissioner Jim Phillips; this ultimately is a presidential-level decision led by a commissioner – is still living in the last century when basketball meant something more to television.

The ACC had a chance to keep – at least for the near future – college athletics intact. Now everyone is in self-preservation mode. Guess who wins there?

The SEC and Big Ten – and anyone they decide to carry along for the ride.

 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,568
Reaction Score
19,335
Let them continue to F it all up. Everything is uncertain except for one thing: We are loving college basketball again. Not many of our former conference mates can say that. Carpe diem.

The more the cartel continues to chase dollars and ruin college football, the more collateral damage there will be. We have already been forced to look in the abyss and we have found our character.

 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
And the SEC is now basketball as well...six mens teams in AP Top 25 (if you count Texas, five if not).
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
2,113
Reaction Score
8,480
JMO but the end game has not changed. The Alliance may have bought some conferences a stay of execution but that will be temporary.

The reality is that The B1G did not want to see its influence diminished even further by agreeing to expansion while ESPN alone held the rights to broadcasting the playoff.

It’s even more precarious while they’re negotiating a new deal that potentially takes all of their product off of the network. Nobody in B1G HQ was going to allow ESPN to stack the deck of an expanded playoff with essentially their own product.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
339
Reaction Score
317
Perhaps they were looking at these projections and figured out, "Hey, why not see how we could change our composition?"


V2-Chart.png
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
Perhaps they were looking at these projections and figured out, "Hey, why not see how we could change our composition?"


V2-Chart.png

That is an unbelievable, incredible chart.

Let's underline one thing WE said as the AAC was doing their longterm deal and UCONN left that sad conference. Flatline at around $6m a year was silly. Look at all the unknowns and ... yes ... the AAC and us are a derivative of this largesse in the big P5; particularly drafting off our neighboring State U's in the B1G and ACC; and the others.

We (UCONN) will do better as a outlier to what is going on through these years. We will have opportunities to grab big game; big tournaments; be the team BRAND that they want to pay/play as their foil. Particularly if we keep the WBB dominance as that just opens up a little extra. Still we are a long way revenue wise from these others. Rutgers landed in a sweet pathway.
 

Online statistics

Members online
457
Guests online
3,478
Total visitors
3,935

Forum statistics

Threads
155,796
Messages
4,031,978
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom