Expansion Talk 2021

[bobongo]

I'd argue that the deterioration of regionalism is actually a great thing. Sure, we need to keep some rivalries intact, but some of the best games are when great college brands play each other for the first time ever or in a long time. I'd love to see a GT-Michigan game, or GT vs Stanford (settle that debate on the field). I would have loved to see GT-Oregon when CPJ was here just for the offensive power show. Regionally, your conference games would dictate 8-9 per year. If you keep the mutts on the schedule, you have 2-3 games to draw an opponent from the other Alliance conferences. Having OoC games against real programs is a huge win for both TV and the fan base.

Side note, that's a huge concept right there. Forcing the Alliance teams to schedule tougher OoC games would improve the TV inventory and could lead to a better TV deal.

Once in a while, I think it's a good thing to play cross-country matchups. But having conferences span half way across the continent is not a good idea.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Once in a while, I think it's a good thing to play cross-country matchups. But having conferences span half way across the continent is not a good idea.

But is the conference going to do that? My understanding is that we will simply be in alignment with two other conferences and utilizing that alliance to schedule better and more meaningful OoC games. I'd much rather see GT play Oregon ST, Wash ST, Rutgers, et al, than see more NIU, Kennesaw State, Mercer, Citadel match ups.

 

[stech81]

But is the conference going to do that? My understanding is that we will simply be in alignment with two other conferences and utilizing that alliance to schedule better and more meaningful OoC games. I'd much rather see GT play Oregon ST, Wash ST, Rutgers, et al, than see more NIU, Kennesaw State, Mercer, Citadel match ups.

I agree and I would think the players would like it better

 

[RonJohn]

But is the conference going to do that? My understanding is that we will simply be in alignment with two other conferences and utilizing that alliance to schedule better and more meaningful OoC games. I'd much rather see GT play Oregon ST, Wash ST, Rutgers, et al, than see more NIU, Kennesaw State, Mercer, Citadel match ups.

I don't think it will get rid of those matchups entirely. If the reports are accurate, the Big10 and Pac12 will go from 9 conference games to 8. All three conferences will require every team play a game against the other two conferences. ND will count as an cross-conference game. The article didn't say, but I would assume that ND would also count as an ACC cross-conference game. That would get all three of the conferences with 8 conference games and 2 additional P4 games, for 10 games total. That would leave 2 games that would most likely be like the NIU/KSU games. The article didn't have any speculation about the ACC/SEC rivalry games, but those will probably also have to count as a cross-conference game. If they don't then GT, FSU, Clemson, and Louisville would all be required to play 11 P4 games while probably no other team would.

Another word about marketing language and fan talk. The Pac12 and Big10 fans have been complaining for a long time that the ACC and SEC do not play 9 conference games, so schedules are not fair. The ACC has required an additional P5 game, so there was a requirement in place that each ACC team had to play the same number of required P5 games as those two conferences. GT's stated policy has been in addition to 8 ACC games and the mutt game to schedule 1 FCS, 1 G5 and 1 additional P5 team. Didn't always work out when the ACC and SEC cleared schedules for planned 9 conference games in their respective conferences. 8 conference games plus 1 additional P5 is no different than 9 conference games from a difficulty perspective. Most of the Big10, Pac12, and ACC teams scheduled 1 additional P5 game anyway for a total of 10.

The schedules won't really be much different under the reports about the alliance agreement. It will still be 10 P4 games. It will just be structured to get a more structured and distributed rotation for the OOC games. It will also just about eliminate OOC games for the SEC except for the four rivalry games. I think there would still be some possibility that the SEC would pull out of those rivalry games in that scenario. Except for the USCe/Clemson game, winning those games wouldn't mean much for the conference hype. Being swept in those four games would look extremely bad if they are the only OOC comparisons for the entire conference.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I don't think it will get rid of those matchups entirely. If the reports are accurate, the Big10 and Pac12 will go from 9 conference games to 8. All three conferences will require every team play a game against the other two conferences. ND will count as an cross-conference game. The article didn't say, but I would assume that ND would also count as an ACC cross-conference game. That would get all three of the conferences with 8 conference games and 2 additional P4 games, for 10 games total. That would leave 2 games that would most likely be like the NIU/KSU games. The article didn't have any speculation about the ACC/SEC rivalry games, but those will probably also have to count as a cross-conference game. If they don't then GT, FSU, Clemson, and Louisville would all be required to play 11 P4 games while probably no other team would.

Another word about marketing language and fan talk. The Pac12 and Big10 fans have been complaining for a long time that the ACC and SEC do not play 9 conference games, so schedules are not fair. The ACC has required an additional P5 game, so there was a requirement in place that each ACC team had to play the same number of required P5 games as those two conferences. GT's stated policy has been in addition to 8 ACC games and the mutt game to schedule 1 FCS, 1 G5 and 1 additional P5 team. Didn't always work out when the ACC and SEC cleared schedules for planned 9 conference games in their respective conferences. 8 conference games plus 1 additional P5 is no different than 9 conference games from a difficulty perspective. Most of the Big10, Pac12, and ACC teams scheduled 1 additional P5 game anyway for a total of 10.

The schedules won't really be much different under the reports about the alliance agreement. It will still be 10 P4 games. It will just be structured to get a more structured and distributed rotation for the OOC games. It will also just about eliminate OOC games for the SEC except for the four rivalry games. I think there would still be some possibility that the SEC would pull out of those rivalry games in that scenario. Except for the USCe/Clemson game, winning those games wouldn't mean much for the conference hype. Being swept in those four games would look extremely bad if they are the only OOC comparisons for the entire conference.

Oh I agree it won't get rid of them altogether, but look at it this way, with 8 conference games, 2 cross conference games, and uga on the schedule, we only have to suffer through one craptastic match up a year.

 

[RonJohn]

Oh I agree it won't get rid of them altogether, but look at it this way, with 8 conference games, 2 cross conference games, and uga on the schedule, we only have to suffer through one craptastic match up a year.

That article didn't address the four rivalry games. I tend to think that they would likely be considered part of the "alliance-cross-games". If not, those four teams would be required to play more P4 games than any other team is required to play. IF the CFP is limited to conference champions, then this wouldn't be that big of a deal. The OOC game wouldn't affect conference standings, so any of those teams would be able to make it to the CFP even if they lose the extra P4 game. However, I am sure Clemson will throw a fit if they are required to play 11 P4 games every year and compete for rankings against other teams who only play 10 in order to make it into the playoffs.

 

[bobongo]

But is the conference going to do that?

I hope not, but conferences are expanding much larger and reaching much farther than ever, now.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That article didn't address the four rivalry games. I tend to think that they would likely be considered part of the "alliance-cross-games". If not, those four teams would be required to play more P4 games than any other team is required to play. IF the CFP is limited to conference champions, then this wouldn't be that big of a deal. The OOC game wouldn't affect conference standings, so any of those teams would be able to make it to the CFP even if they lose the extra P4 game. However, I am sure Clemson will throw a fit if they are required to play 11 P4 games every year and compete for rankings against other teams who only play 10 in order to make it into the playoffs.

Now that there are only 4 remaining "power" conferences, I am fairly certain that when the current playoff expansion is finally approved, we will see auto bids for conference champions included, and that it will also be revised to put ND at a disadvantage unless they join a conference. I think everyone but ND is tired of the "independent" bit...

 

[Pointer]

I'd argue that the deterioration of regionalism is actually a great thing. Sure, we need to keep some rivalries intact, but some of the best games are when great college brands play each other for the first time ever or in a long time. I'd love to see a GT-Michigan game, or GT vs Stanford (settle that debate on the field). I would have loved to see GT-Oregon when CPJ was here just for the offensive power show. Regionally, your conference games would dictate 8-9 per year. If you keep the mutts on the schedule, you have 2-3 games to draw an opponent from the other Alliance conferences. Having OoC games against real programs is a huge win for both TV and the fan base.

Side note, that's a huge concept right there. Forcing the Alliance teams to schedule tougher OoC games would improve the TV inventory and could lead to a better TV deal.

Another fun idea would be every team in the alliance keeps a predetermined open date on the schedule. Then at the beginning of the season, a random drawing occurs to match the teams up. Kind of like a sample platter of what the alliance has to offer.

 

[RamblinRed]

I think what we are seeing in this alliance, more than anything, is the other 3 P4 conferences do not trust ESPN, even more than they do not trust the SEC.

it sounds like they are pretty adamant that they are not going to allow ESPN to just up its rights to the college football playoffs. Sounds like they want them on multiple platforms, like the NFL does.

it also is forward looking in realizing that the NCAA is going away and so these conferences want to make sure they have a major say in how the future of college football is setup and not just let SEC/ESPN dictate terms to everyone else. I think they are trying to make sure they have a major say in everything from scholarship limits to how any future CFP expansion is handled.

I think the scheduling piece may be the least important part of the talks to the alliance.

 

[Vespidae]

I thought we were in Auburn's fight song?

Auburn had a great Wreck Tech parade. But we are in Alabama's fight song.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

I think what we are seeing in this alliance, more than anything, is the other 3 P4 conferences do not trust ESPN, even more than they do not trust the SEC.

as they shouldn’t after the back door job they did to the big12. ESPN has been fluffing SEC for so long and it’s time that other networks like Fox step up and grab some more of the pie. Not a huge fan of Gus Johnson but I’ll get over it.

 

[Vespidae]

I'd argue that the deterioration of regionalism is actually a great thing.

Attendance in general is declining. Most fans will watch the game on TV or stream it. So AD's are looking at total eyeballs, not just paid attendance. If you further reduce regionalism, you will be streaming content from mostly empty stadiums.

And I'm not a fan of that ... I do enjoy a live game.

 

[stech81]

I'm going to say something that will made most ( all ) on here pissed off. If the idea to havt more teams in the playoffs and everyone doesn't want 3 or 4 SEC teams in the playoff than make it a rule that all conferences must play 10 conference games . ( and yes I know as great as the SEC is at cheating they would work it out where 4 teams get an easy schedule)

 

[Coloradojacket]

I'm going to say something that will made most ( all ) on here pissed off. If the idea to havt more teams in the playoffs and everyone doesn't want 3 or 4 SEC teams in the playoff than make it a rule that all conferences must play 10 conference games . ( and yes I know as great as the SEC is at cheating they would work it out where 4 teams get an easy schedule)

Well, for us it would make our schedule hard enough to the point we may no win more than 8 games but I do think 9 is alright. But that said If we move to 9 I want an extra SEC game every year. Of course the real damage of a 10 game schedule is to the Group of 5 and FCS programs.

 

[WreckinGT]

Announcement is official now. Although a little short on details.

ACC, Big Ten and PAC-12 Announce Historic Alliance

41 World-Class Institutions Across Three Autonomy 5 Conferences to Collaborate on the Future Evolution of College Athletics and an Inter-Conference Scheduling Alliance

theacc.com

Scheduling wise it seems that mens and womens basketball will start adding alliance games pretty soon. Football seems like it will be over time due to contractual obligations. All in all the voting block does seem to still be the biggest part of the deal.

 

[stech81]

Well, for us it would make our schedule hard enough to the point we may no win more than 8 games but I do think 9 is alright. But that said If we move to 9 I want an extra SEC game every year. Of course the real damage of a 10 game schedule is to the Group of 5 and FCS programs.

Dillon Davis

@dillondavis3
·
4h

Fox Sports analyst and former Pitt football coach Dave Wannstedt went on
@670TheScore
in Chicago this morning and said he heard the following Big 12 news at the Fox meetings last week in Phoenix: - OSU and KSU to the Pac-12 - WVU to the ACC - KU and Iowa State to the Big Ten

 

[gville_jacket]

Dillon Davis
@dillondavis3
·
4h

Fox Sports analyst and former Pitt football coach Dave Wannstedt went on
@670TheScore
in Chicago this morning and said he heard the following Big 12 news at the Fox meetings last week in Phoenix: - OSU and KSU to the Pac-12 - WVU to the ACC - KU and Iowa State to the Big Ten

IF IF IF true... the ACC taking just 1 might a good sign that you know who is joining as well..... Probably wishful thinking

 

[stech81]

IF IF IF true... the ACC taking just 1 might a good sign that you know who is joining as well..... Probably wishful thinking

Not sure why this would be true more teams same money would be less per team

 

[gville_jacket]

Not sure why this would be true more teams same money would be less per team

ND is the team I was referring to. They would bring the per team $$ number up, not WV.