| NEWS The Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 are expected to formally announce an alliance between the three leagues in the next 7-10 days

The Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 are expected to formally announce an alliance between the three leagues in the next seven to 10 days, according to multiple sources involved in the conversations, but the substance of that agreement remains in flux.

A confluence of seismic shifts within the college sports landscape -- including name, image and likeness (NIL), playoff expansion, a Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to antitrust litigation against the NCAA and its membership, and the SEC's addition of Texas and Oklahoma -- has created a desire among the three leagues to find philosophical common ground to chart a path forward.

"Is that about philosophy, governance, scheduling?" one athletic director asked. "It could be all of those things."

News of the planned announcement was first reported by The Athletic.

After Texas and Oklahoma announced their intentions to move to the SEC last month, the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 each began exploring options for a countermove. That led to an "alliance committee" that includes several athletic directors from each league, along with the three commissioners, to determine whether an alliance would be an optimal path forward. Members of those subcommittees are expected to hold a phone call in the coming days to determine the specific language of a formal announcement, according to multiple administrators with direct knowledge of the talks.

The scope of the alliance remains uncertain, according to one AD. While initial conversations involved all sports, recent discussions have focused solely on football and men's and women's basketball. Creating a nonconference scheduling partnership could also create lucrative TV opportunities, but there may not be agreement among all schools on how best to execute that -- even within the same conferences. Currently, the ACC plays eight league football games, while the Big Ten and Pac-12 each play nine. Several ACC schools have annual rivalries against SEC schools, too. As one ACC athletic director said, "No one is tearing up future scheduling contracts yet."

The alliance also serves as an opportunity for Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren, who's been on the job less than two years, and the ACC's Jim Phillips and Pac-12's George Kliavkoff, both hired this spring, to siphon some political clout away from the well-established SEC.

The most immediate concern might be the expansion of the College Football Playoff. A working group helmed by Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson designed the proposed 12-team expansion, but several sources said members of the Pac-12 and Big Ten had expressed concern over the scope of expansion, preferring a six- or eight-team model. Two of the ACC's most influential coaches, North Carolina's Mack Brown and Clemson's Dabo Swinney, both criticized the 12-team approach, too. When news broke about the SEC's flirtations with Texas and Oklahoma, the backlash intensified, with Kliavkoff expressing his opinion that the leagues might benefit most by waiting until the playoff's TV rights can go to market in 2025.

 
I find this funny and a bit on the "shooting themselves in the foot" kind of news.

Three power five conferences need to get together, start an alliance, to compete with the draw and monies of one power five conference. How's that for a recruiting spill for SEC coaches?

"We can't have college football all run out of the Southeast part of the country," an AD in one of the three leagues said”



Here's one that Peter Burns picked up on:

“The Big Ten, ACC & Pac-12 all sponsor a lot of sports. We all celebrated our Olympians,” the administrator said. “The SEC is so football-dominant. Their philosophy is not on the same page”

The SEC won 79 Medals at this year's Olympics, more than Big 10 & ACC.




More from Burns:


Stunning but sadly not surprising….

“There is hope with all 3 that they can align to delay the implementation of an expanded playoff”

The “Alliance” alleged issues with the proposed CFB Playoff expansion proposal seem to be more a PR play than actual grievances

This detailed piece from @RossDellenger shows that the framework for 12 teams was built pre pandemic (March 2020)

si.com/.amp/college/2…Image
As to who came up w/ CFB Playoff expansion proposal

The CFB Playoff Board of Managers decided to build a working group of 4 to explore potential playoff changes

The CFB Playoff Board that selected the working group had 3 members from the “alliance”

They helped picked the groupImage
 
IMO, it’s only going to be a scheduling promise. They’ll drop an FCS or New Mexico State and pick up a team from the other two conferences on their schedule. Pac12 will add Big10+ACC; ACC will add Pac12+Big10; Big10 will add Pac12+ACC. The fight will be for who gets Rutgers, Wake Forest and Oregon State first.

The SEC is going to a nine-game SEC schedule so the other conferences need to boost the quality of their schedules to hope for a playoff bid (regardless of how many teams will be in the playoff). This new scheduling does that without having to expand the conference or distribute more money.

The losers will be the FBS and New Mexico States that funded their athletic programs from big paydays for losing.
 
Well, it’s now official … sort of anyway. They have a “gentleman’s agreement” but nothing in writing. I’m sure the Pac 12 spokesman who made that statement will be slapped silly by the gender police … as will I. Nonetheless, I predict in their attempt to wage war against the SEC, they will use this scheduling alliance as a weapon. By that I mean, SEC teams will have a hard time scheduling future games with the alliance members. If so, it will be interesting to see what ESPN will do in response.
 
Haven't followed this at all, so I ask this not knowing how dumb of a question it is, but.... Has anyone indicated what this "alliance" will mean for schools that play rivalry games with SEC teams... Clemson/South Carolina, FSU/UF, Louisville/UK, Ga Tech/UGA, etc.?

Only thing I'm sure of, is they aren't going to beat Sankey and the SEC in a game of Stratego.
 
Haven't followed this at all, so I ask this not knowing how dumb of a question it is, but.... Has anyone indicated what this "alliance" will mean for schools that play rivalry games with SEC teams... Clemson/South Carolina, FSU/UF, Louisville/UK, Ga Tech/UGA, etc.?

Only thing I'm sure of, is they aren't going to beat Sankey and the SEC in a game of Stratego.
The SEC may have to go to 10 games and then allow UK to cull L'Ville, UGA to stop playing GT, USCe stop playing Clemson and UF do the same with FSU.

Setup 2 best you can get cupcakes for the other 2 games. Cancel any games with the PAC12 (do that today regardless) as well as the Big 10. With 10 SEC games and now UT and OU you just don't need all those OOC games. Fight fire with a larger fire.
 
The SEC may have to go to 10 games and then allow UK to cull L'Ville, UGA to stop playing GT, USCe stop playing Clemson and UF do the same with FSU.

Setup 2 best you can get cupcakes for the other 2 games. Cancel any games with the PAC12 (do that today regardless) as well as the Big 10. With 10 SEC games and now UT and OU you just don't need all those OOC games. Fight fire with a larger fire.
Most conferences play 8-9 conference games which leaves 3-4 "others" to play. They could drop the number of conference games to 8 and add one game from each of the other alliance conferences. This would still boost the quality of their schedule (no more Akrons) that helps with CFP consideration (regardless how many teams are included).
 
Most conferences play 8-9 conference games which leaves 3-4 "others" to play. They could drop the number of conference games to 8 and add one game from each of the other alliance conferences. This would still boost the quality of their schedule (no more Akrons) that helps with CFP consideration (regardless how many teams are included).
I may be off base but from my seat this alliance is going to be about countering the SEC in anyway they can. I doubt those conferences will want to schedule SEC teams and fact is the SEC don't need them.
 
Haven't followed this at all, so I ask this not knowing how dumb of a question it is, but.... Has anyone indicated what this "alliance" will mean for schools that play rivalry games with SEC teams... Clemson/South Carolina, FSU/UF, Louisville/UK, Ga Tech/UGA, etc.?

Only thing I'm sure of, is they aren't going to beat Sankey and the SEC in a game of Stratego.
I don’t think the “alliance” has even thought of this one!!
 
This is a PR only move really. They are not doing much of anything until current contractual obligations are done, which for the ACC might be a long time. Some of those games are not going to be allowed to end once the state legislature get involved (if they aren't already legally required).
 
It’s a flex - pure and simple. The SEC is making moves and have the leverage for television dollars and these clowns are holding the bag wondering what just happened. Circle the wagons - come out with some asinine “gentlemen agreement” where nothing is contractual and hopefully scare the SEC that they’ll all vote together on issues like playoff expansion/number of teams, mandates for conference champions, television revenue steams (I.e. which network gets the first scoop at those lucrative playoff game contracts), and any other of a litany of crap the 10 conferences (but primarily the Power 5) meet and vote on. Look at us - we’re important too!
 
I may be off base but from my seat this alliance is going to be about countering the SEC in anyway they can. I doubt those conferences will want to schedule SEC teams and fact is the SEC don't need them.
The alliance doesn’t mean they’ll schedule teams outside of the alliance (SEC). The “gentlemen’s agreement” means they’ll look to schedule teams from conferences in the alliance. However, nothing is binding (nobody signed anything). It’s a pinky promise.
 
Back
Top Bottom