Big 10/PAC-12/ACC Alliance

T

tmfr15

New member
With conference realignment changing the face of college football and threatening tradition, the Big and PAC should be proactive. How about a merger of the two leagues for a 32 team super conference? The Big and PAC could be the names of the two divisions. The Big could add Kansas and Iowa State.
 

The PAC could add KState, Oklahoma State, Boise and BYU. Scheduling would involve 10 conference games and two out of league games to allow for teams to play group of five or FCS teams in order to fill out home slates.  The 10 conference games would seek tradition as first priority.

Ohio State would play Michigan every year. The old Big 8 teams would clash. Traditional Big 10 matches and Iowa Vs Iowa State would be considered. The division winners could be based on rating from the college football playoff and would meet for the Rose Bowl trophy at Pasadena.

So no more playoff interruptions or changes of Rose Bowl matches between Big and PAC winners. Teams that didn’t make it to the title game could still be selected at large for the playoffs or go to a bowl (provided those still exist. If the bowls were ended in favor of some super playoff in the future, the Big and PAC will still have effectively saved the Rose Bowl tradition. 

 
I appreciate the fan led thoughts and great ideas.  Do we think that the B1G and Pac-12 leadership has the balls to make this move?  I think it is great, but Kevin Warren is too busy screwing up the day to day running of the conference to work on something like this.

I love your thoughts.

 
My biggest issue with a B1G PAC merger is for selfish reasons.  I don't want to wait all day for a 9PM kickoff to see the Huskers.  However, playing at USC, Stanford, UCLA would make it worth it, I suppose.  But still, it would be near midnight late in the 4th quarter.

 
admo said:
My biggest issue with a B1G PAC merger is for selfish reasons.  I don't want to wait all day for a 9PM kickoff to see the Huskers.  However, playing at USC, Stanford, UCLA would make it worth it, I suppose.  But still, it would be near midnight late in the 4th quarter.
Click to expand...
Late night is preferable to the 10 AM Mountain/11AM Central kicks.  College football should not be played in the morning.  Anticipation needs to build, tailgating needs to happen and the lights should be on. Mid afternoon kick minimum in my eyes.

 
I've gotten used to the early games, and I kinda like them  :dunno

But once we become one of the better teams in the league, 2:30 or later for sure.

 
BigRedN said:
Tell me how this leads to more money per team?  The $EC is adding TX & OU for money and quality, so, I'm curious how adding all the PAC 12 achieves the same objectives.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
32 may be too many. FOX would pay for  more matchups between Mich, OSU, NU, PSU and USC, UCLA, Wash, Oregon...But I doubt it’s enough to support 32 teams. As it stands now the PAC12 would dilute the BIG 10 revenue, unless we just took a couple of the big boys like USC.

 
Crusader Husker said:
I appreciate the fan led thoughts and great ideas.  Do we think that the B1G and Pac-12 leadership has the balls to make this move?  I think it is great, but Kevin Warren is too busy screwing up the day to day running of the conference to work on something like this.

I love your thoughts.
Click to expand...
so true.

 
there are many ways realignment could happen. someone(s) going to end up on the short side of the revenue stick, that's for sure.

lawyers will be involved as well, many losers will protest loudly and resolution will be a long time coming. 

this is the new ugly side of college football.

 
I don’t really have an answer to the financial side. It’s more about preservation of Big and PAC. And I understand that might not be the best motivation. Oklahoma is leaving it’s in state rival behind for greener pastures $$$$. 
 

Money driven decisions for conference changes do make the ultimate sense, but maybe that’s not a prime mover for the PAC or the Big. What sense do the additions of Colorado and Utah make  or Rugers and Maryland for that matter. 

 
tmfr15 said:
I don’t really have an answer to the financial side. It’s more about preservation of Big and PAC. And I understand that might not be the best motivation. Oklahoma is leaving it’s in state rival behind for greener pastures $$$$. 
 

Money driven decisions for conference changes do make the ultimate sense, but maybe that’s not a prime mover for the PAC or the Big. What sense do the additions of Colorado and Utah make  or Rugers and Maryland for that matter. 
Click to expand...
Regarding the bold - strictly the TV markets

 
tmfr15 said:
I don’t really have an answer to the financial side. It’s more about preservation of Big and PAC. And I understand that might not be the best motivation. Oklahoma is leaving it’s in state rival behind for greener pastures $$$$. 
 

Money driven decisions for conference changes do make the ultimate sense, but maybe that’s not a prime mover for the PAC or the Big. What sense do the additions of Colorado and Utah make  or Rugers and Maryland for that matter. 
Click to expand...
The reports are that the conference absolutely took notice of the massive ratings our recent games against Colorado got. They want more of that. And the conference wants the mountain time zone. And they are both desirable road game travel locations for a lot of teams in our conference. Stanford doesn’t move the needle to me outside of some silly academic boasting the conference wants to do. Same with UCLA.
 

At risk of complimenting Colorado too much, I do think they’d be much more relevant with Big10 money but they’d still be our little brother and that’s okay with me.

 
runningblind said:
Late night is preferable to the 10 AM Mountain/11AM Central kicks.  College football should not be played in the morning.  Anticipation needs to build, tailgating needs to happen and the lights should be on. Mid afternoon kick minimum in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Agree, being pst...a 9am kickoff on a Saturday is a day killer

 
Back
Top