DucksReign wrote:

Wilner's column today notes what is happening.

Notice how it is the AD for the luckeyes who is talking and not the Big Ten Commissioner?

My interpretation...the luckeyes don't want 8 games because they would have to play a non-conference "Alliance" game which might be of greater jeopardy to their W-L record / playoff chances. If the SEC can do it so can the Big Ten.

Anyway not sure what Kliavkoff can do but as Wilner details, 8 games without the Big Ten is possible but more complicated.

Unlike the SEC, I don't think the Pac-12(or ACC and Big Ten) are in a position where going to 8 games and simply adding a cupcake game as a replacement for the 9th game helps on any level.

They all need each other to elevate the entire conferences with quality opposition...particularly as Wilner notes, for the Pac-12 and the impending media rights negotiations.

The luckeyes, being the arrogant program they are, probably believe they are above it all anyway.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50351047/pac-12-stock-report-the-alliance-takes-one-to-the-gut-the-future-of-football-schedules

I wouldn't mind an 8 game conference schedule if we had a home and home with a Big Ten team and another series with either the SEC or what's left of the Big Twelve. Tennessee came out here, and others would I imagine. Then add an FCS and a mid major.