Jump to content


Big 10/PAC-12/ACC Alliance


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

the cultural argument was pretty solid, until the Texas boys decided to take orders from the red necks. 

I'm not sure we quite understand the texas move at this point. they lose all their power, the money can not be more than in the big12 or even as an independent.

 

its still a big "????" 

Link to comment

1 hour ago, internetman said:

I'm not sure we quite understand the texas move at this point. they lose all their power, the money can not be more than in the big12 or even as an independent.

 

its still a big "????" 

Probably tired of losing in state kids to A and M bc kids want to go play in the sec. Big enough brand for SEC to double up state of Texas.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, man eating mastodon said:

If Kansas does jump to the b10 frost will have another "winnable game" , maybe even post a winning record for once 


I chuckled when I saw this because that was one of the "benefits" I saw ... but I didn't want it to come off as negative.  I'd rather have Kansas on the schedule than Fordham.  For me, I'd rather see as an non-conference schedule of those four games, teams from the main conferences.  To me, it wouldn't be too tough.

Out of the Big 12, you could rotate Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa State and Oklahoma State.
Out of the Pac, get in Colorado, Washington St, UCLA.
Out of the ACC, get Duke, NC State or Georgia Tech.
Out of the $EC, take on Missouri, Kentucky, Miss St or Tenn.

Sure, throw in a fluff team from another conference for one week if you like, but having a rotation of those kind of teams would not be daunting but are teams that are at least playing the Big Boys each year and there can be a gauge of how we might measure up to the them without playing them.

For me, I could play Kansas, Colorado and Missouri every year and be fine with it.  It's better than the current trend.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

So what would a "scheduling alliance" even look like? 

 

1 - Do we play one Pac-12 team each year? 

2 - Does that replace the usual "marquee" non-con game each year? 

3 - Do we go back to an eight-game league schedule, the Pac-12 game replaces the current ninth league game and the other three non-cons stay the same?

 

It's either a lot of contracts to get out of for #2 or a long time before it actually goes into effect if it's not #3.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, internetman said:

I'm not sure we quite understand the texas move at this point. they lose all their power, the money can not be more than in the big12 or even as an independent.

 

its still a big "????" 

 

With the TV contract the SEC will be able to sign with Texas and OU in the fold it's probably going to be a lot more money than the Big 12, at least.

Link to comment

22 minutes ago, Mavric said:

So what would a "scheduling alliance" even look like? 

 

1 - Do we play one Pac-12 team each year? 

2 - Does that replace the usual "marquee" non-con game each year? 

3 - Do we go back to an eight-game league schedule, the Pac-12 game replaces the current ninth league game and the other three non-cons stay the same?

 

It's either a lot of contracts to get out of for #2 or a long time before it actually goes into effect if it's not #3.

That's a huge question.

 

Not thinking about contracts and the difficultly of adjusting future schedules, I would think it would be a combination of 2 and 3.  I could see us going to an 8 game schedule for Big Ten games.  Then, schedule two Pac 12 games that would take up the marquee non-con game and the 9th conference game.  Then, each has a CCG to see who plays in the Rose Bowl....that is, unless one or both of those teams are in the playoffs.

 

Now, to make this work better, each conference would adde enough teams to have equal members.  Right now, B1G has 14 and Pac has 12.  So, maybe the Pac takes 4 of the old Big 12 and the B1g takes 2 so each has 16 teams.  

 

To me, if you're just going to schedule one game per year, why bother?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

With the TV contract the SEC will be able to sign with Texas and OU in the fold it's probably going to be a lot more money than the Big 12, at least.

I heard with OU and Texas the annual tv revenue would be around 1.2 billion for the conference. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's a huge question.

 

Not thinking about contracts and the difficultly of adjusting future schedules, I would think it would be a combination of 2 and 3.  I could see us going to an 8 game schedule for Big Ten games.  Then, schedule two Pac 12 games that would take up the marquee non-con game and the 9th conference game.  Then, each has a CCG to see who plays in the Rose Bowl....that is, unless one or both of those teams are in the playoffs.

 

Now, to make this work better, each conference would adde enough teams to have equal members.  Right now, B1G has 14 and Pac has 12.  So, maybe the Pac takes 4 of the old Big 12 and the B1g takes 2 so each has 16 teams.  

 

To me, if you're just going to schedule one game per year, why bother?

 

Even one game a year is 14-16 games so that's decent inventory.  Bascially the B1G/Pac-12 Challenge like the B1G/ACC Challenge in basketball, which is only one game per year even though basketball plays three times as many games as football.

 

I guess it could be one game a year for now - maybe the next 10 years or something to catch up with the current non-con contracts.  Drop to 8 conference games and this replaces the ninth.  I could see it go to two games per year later but it seems like they usually like to cover all regions of the country with that marquee non-con game so I don't know if they'd want to get rid of that.  Of course, the choice may also be limited going forward.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/3/2021 at 11:08 PM, VectorVictor said:


You can make the point that Warren is incompetent without having to use thinly (and poorly) veiled racist critique. 
 

 

And he does it over and over. We get it dude.....you are "I'm not racist but......" guy.  It's tired. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

15 hours ago, GSG said:

 

 

do-you-want-to-form-an-alliance-with-me.

Finally some positive news on the realignment front... I'd be very supportive of something like this instead of a mass change to the conferences... would love to preserve the geographical footprint right now while also finding a way to gain access to new markets + stay a step ahead of the SEC fukbois.  

Link to comment
On 8/3/2021 at 3:25 PM, Nebraska55fan said:

How dare you- Kevin Warren has done a stellar job- the best BIG Commissioner ever. St Kevin (blessed be his name) can't be criticized.  He made it his number one priority to make sure all the athletes were registered to vote. then he put together a diversity council with players from each school. This priority was accomplished with flying colors. Everything else really was just filler- doesn't really count for much. He deserves a big raise and a lengthy extension. We are so fortunate to have him leading the conference during these very challenging times. 

 

So, (slightly obfuscated) racism is flourishing in this particular Husker forum.  How interesting.  I see you were called on it.  That's good.  But you're still here. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
  • Mavric changed the title to Big 10/PAC-12/ACC Alliance

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...