More on The Alliance™ from Andy Staples
If you don't have a subscription to the Athletic, it's probably worth your time & money.
Andy Staples has an article about the proposed alliance and it's relation to the 4 million club. It's behind a paywall, so I'll post some highlights.
From 2015-2019 there were 1,593 rated telecasts
198 had 4 million viewers or more.
55 SEC only, 49 Big Ten only, 13 ACC only, 58 interconference/independent games
Only 13 schools had more than 10, Michigan is 3rd with 26, behind Bama (35) OSU (31)
6 SEC schools, 4 Big Ten schools(UM, OSU, PSU, MSU), Clemson, ND, Oklahoma. NOT Texas. only 3 of th5 Red River Shootouts during that span cracked the 4M mark.
The alliance helps create more of those games for the inventory. Also of note, apparently NBC & CBS are interested in the Big Ten, when renegotiation takes place. It's likely they'll have to bid if for no other reason than to have something to compete with ESPN. An alliance would intend to put more games ON CAMPUS while placing a premium on big matchups.
It's a really good article..go check it out.
#1 rated game during that time? 2016 UM vs Ohio
#2 LSU Bama 2019
#4 2018 UM vs OSU
#6 2019 UM vs OSU
#12 2015 UM vs OSU
#14 2017 UM vs OSU
Every game in the top 15 features Alabama or OSU except 1...Texas vs ND 2016
August 16th, 2021 at 12:39 PM ^
This is all really nice in terms of optics and meaningless in terms of impact. Cool they will agree to schedule more games. How does that change the calculus for Clemson or Florida St when the SEC comes calling with double the annual revenue than their ACC deal? Is the Big ten in its contract negotiations going to drag along the entirety of the ACC and Pac 12? How does revenue sharing work across the conferences? Its basically a glorified big ten-acc basketball challenge, not a legitimate strategy as it relates to stopping conference re-alignment
August 16th, 2021 at 12:41 PM ^
In what I'm reading so far, I agree.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:06 PM ^
It will have a GREAT impact if ACC/B1G/PAC agree to their own playoff format. Nothing else matters. Pre-conf matchups mean very little. What they need to agree on is the playoff format.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:12 PM ^
They aren't going to do that and it would be dumb to do that. And even if they do that it wouldn't change the fiscal realities which is what drives all of this and those fiscal realities would still lead to the good ACC programs being willing to bolt to the SEC for double the money. And the Big ten isn't going to negotiate a joint tv deal with the pac 12 and acc as whole because that will just reduce the amount of money per school the big ten gets.
And it wouldn't really be that exciting from a fan perspective, is playing Miami really more interesting than playing Texas? Going back to a world where people argue whether an 11-1 Michigan is the national champion or an 11-1 Alabama because there is no frame of reference across the league sucks too. The fan experience piece is somewhat arbitrary and can be debated but I wouldn't like it, the fiscal piece is how you know it will never happen.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:18 PM ^
There's no real good incentive for Clemson to move to the SEC -- at least not now. Yes they would get more money, but that's not THAT important when they have an easy path to the playoff ever single year. The bump they get in terms of exposure from being in the playoff every year which in turn leads to better recruiting, isn't worth an extra $20M or whatever every season.
Now for Florida State...they are broke as a program, and might take the gamble on moving to the SEC just to get more money even if it means they are in the bottom quarter of SEC teams every season. The rationale there would be we can get more money, improve facilities, hire better coaches, get better recruits, and return to the old winning ways.
August 16th, 2021 at 2:34 PM ^
It's not just a money move. It's also a recruiting move.
Texas and Oklahoma both have MORE than enough money. They aren't hurting for funding. Why did they leave the Big 12 where they clearly had an easy path to the playoff for heavy competition in the SEC? Because they were losing recruits to SEC programs. So now they can say "play for us AND you can still play in the best league against the best competition".
Clemson and FSU are in the same boat. Little to no resistance to getting to the playoff in their current conference and neither program is hurting for funding. So what would be the draw besides bonus cash? Recruiting advantages. Top players want to play against other top players. Which is why you're seeing such heavy talent pooling in the SEC lately.
So I think there would be a VERY REAL threat of Clemson and FSU jumping over to the SEC in the future. Which leaves UM, OSU, WISC, PSU, USC, ND, WASH, OR, and UCLA as the only programs left with anything resembling a big, national brand. That's not good for the Big 10, the PAC 12, the ACC, or what's left of the Big 12, let alone the smaller conferences. The SEC is making a power grab which would encompass: The Money, The TV Deals, The Big Football Brands, and The Best Recruits. Either the Big 10 and the other conferences get their act together and fast or they might as well roll over and cede everything to the SEC right now.
August 16th, 2021 at 3:35 PM ^
Could have easily written the exact same post about Oklahoma. The reality is that no run lasts forever. At some point they are going to have a few years in a row they aren't making the playoff, even in the ACC, and in the SEC they will still be getting double the money when that happens.
August 16th, 2021 at 5:20 PM ^
Yes they would get more money, but that's not THAT important ...
I want you to think about what country this is and then read this part slowly. You'll get it, eventually.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:41 PM ^
Clemson & FSU can't leave until 2036. Or they can, but their SEC money would still go to the ACC.
Home team/conference gets to broadcast the game. Let's say CBS picks up the ACC, a scheduling agreement would put Clemson at OSU on Fox, and OSU at Clemson on CBS. An agreement would guarantee a certain number of these games per year for each conference and would be part of the rights deal.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:56 PM ^
Right.
The ACC-B1G basketball challenge is a nice thing, but (1) opposing fans don't travel to those games, and (2) location of those games isn't particularly important as a recruiting tool.
Those things aren't true for football games. And if you're the ACC, scheduling OOC football games with SEC schools still has generally more up-side than scheduling OOC games with the B1G and especially the Pac-12.
This scheduling alliance may result in more B1G vs. Pac-12 games. But I don't think it leads to more B1G vs. ACC games, or leads to any reduction in ACC vs. SEC games.
ESPN also has ACC broadcasting rights through 2036. They definitely have a vested interest in ACC vs. SEC games as opposed to ACC vs. B1G/Pac-12 games (in the latter, FOX would get up to 50% of the games. in the former, ESPN/ABC get up to 100%).
August 16th, 2021 at 12:48 PM ^
USC, Oregon, Clemson are the only names that provide exciting matchups from those two leagues combined. Maybe FSU also if it ever becomes good again.
August 16th, 2021 at 12:54 PM ^
FSU and UCLA are both pretty big national brands, and Washington is exciting (but we already have it scheduled) but I'd agree that outside of USC there isn't a single team in either league I'd rather have a home and home with than Texas and Oklahoma if we are forced in to replacing those series
August 16th, 2021 at 12:55 PM ^
Michigan vs. Stanford could be good (Harbaugh story but with time Harbaugh's connection to Stanford matters less and less).
Michigan vs. UCLA would move the needle for me.
Michigan vs. Anybody with a pulse and history would be great too! [Except the service academies]
August 16th, 2021 at 5:18 PM ^
Interesting. Admittedly, as a West Coast guy, I may be biased...but I would love to see UM play USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington regularly. Not only are those really fun campuses to visit, they all have some level of brand equity that's pretty high. Granted, in the case of Cal, that brand equity may not necessarily be in football specifically, but there's no questioning the brand equity of the institution as a whole.
To each their own, I suppose.
August 16th, 2021 at 12:59 PM ^
How much is a win over OSU worth? I keep on asking that question, but it is a lot. There are so many eyes on this game.
Taking this game seriously with hate and vitriol is extremely important.
OSU has been a thorn in our ass. Stifles any good will or momentum built during the season. And even worse, a loss lingers into the bowl game and subsequent season.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:54 PM ^
this...there were 5 opportunities and nearly 60M eyeballs on those games...wins would be huge.
August 16th, 2021 at 1:52 PM ^
JT was short
August 16th, 2021 at 2:40 PM ^
the schedule pact to try to add more games to that 4 Million club... marquee matchups with schools in the ACC and Pac12 on a regular basis would do that.
While the scheduling pact isn't giving out 'full shares' to the Pac12/ACC, presumably there is going to revenue sharing as this package would be separated out for the purposes of having a 'clean' understanding of what the TV deal is with the scheduling alliance.
fun note - Teams that are part of that 4 Million Club:
TEAM APPEARANCES
Alabama 35
Ohio State 31
Michigan 26
Auburn 17
Notre Dame 17
Ratings matter. Adding Pac12/ACC scheduling brings those game with the most eyeballs
August 16th, 2021 at 3:02 PM ^
Honestly, that pretty much says it all as far as what the top rivalries in college sports (and maybe sports in general) are. We have sucked at our rivalry for years but they still carry huge ratings and both schools care huge viewerships. Iron Bowl is right behind us which makes sense too.
August 16th, 2021 at 4:26 PM ^
I am pretty sure that most of the Auburn rated games are only against 'Bama.....
Some would say the same thing about us with OSU though....
August 16th, 2021 at 2:42 PM ^
If I'm the Big 10 and the Pac 12, I do everything in my power to get off Fox. Their coverage is terrible, having your games be on FS1 is like putting your games on Starz or something.
Being on CBS who actually did a great job as SEC's game of the week for 20 years is a huge improvement.
August 16th, 2021 at 3:12 PM ^
CBS is probably hungry to get back into the mix after losing out to ESPN.
August 16th, 2021 at 6:57 PM ^
The Big Ten used to be on CBS before the SEC was.
August 16th, 2021 at 2:59 PM ^
Sad face for 2016 OSU. That was our chance and we had it....that will forever hurt. I still wonder where the program might be with that huge momentum boost if we'd won that one.
The idea of 4MM+ viewer games being a big bargaining chip is interesting. You could use this alliance to guarantee a few huge non-con games a year. Fans like it and it gets you some money leverage without rocking everyone's boat too much. Like if everyone agreed to say one 'alliance' non conference game per year, you could setup some huge games every fall
August 16th, 2021 at 4:05 PM ^
Love the rivalry between our respective teams. Now just think what UM vs ND and OSU vs ND would do if it was a yearly thing. Talk about some real $$$$.
August 16th, 2021 at 6:22 PM ^
If teams play 9 conference games, and two cross conference games, one against each conference, leaving one MAC type opponent each season I would expect the TV contracts for each the alliance should be see a nice bump up. For me it does more to increase, PAC, ACC and Big Ten interest than Texas and Oklahoma do for my SEC interest.
August 16th, 2021 at 6:53 PM ^
I like the idea of the Alliance locking the SEC out of the rest of the country by refusing to schedule any SEC teams.
While the Alliance is coast-to-coast and north-to-south, the SEC is locked into only the southeast and Texas/Oklahoma.
That's a lot of the country to be locked out of in terms of playing quality competition. And you are not going to just make that up by scheduling Memphis.