The latest development in college football realignment is once again pushing the boundaries of how we view the sport and reinforces the need for leagues to constantly be evaluating how to obtain (or keep) power.

The Athletic reported Friday night that the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC are in “high-level discussions” about forming an alliance, which would be an effective response to the SEC poaching Texas and Oklahoma from the Big 12. The leagues are in discussions about formulating a scheduling agreement to create enticing nonconference games and essentially freeze out the SEC.

The bigger-picture goal is ultimately to create a voting bloc to prevent the SEC from completely taking over the sport. The Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC would have 41 athletic directors to work together and vote together on big-picture decisions affecting college athletics, like College Football Playoff expansion and changes to the NCAA. It gives the 3 leagues power over the 16-team SEC.

With how much the sport is changing, there is value in that. For instance, would this allow them to limit the number of bids the SEC receives in a 12-team CFP? The SEC would obviously love 4 or 5 bids, but maybe the other athletic directors vote in a way that would handicap the SEC. That remains to be seen, but it’s certainly a possibility. (Wouldn’t that be quite a way to screw over Texas and Oklahoma!)

After the bombshell report that Texas and Oklahoma were fleeing the Big 12 for the SEC, the other Power 5 conferences had to respond, and it appears they are, though they are cutting out the leftover Big 12 teams. At the very least, it’s evidence that these Power 5 commissioners aren’t just sitting on their hands and waiting for the next domino to fall.

There are many questions still to be answered, like whether these 3 conferences would be completely shunning the SEC, when it would start and how else they would work together. But from the Big Ten’s perspective, it makes sense.

For one, forming this alliance would put the SEC in a tough spot, as the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC would presumably play each other in the nonconference portion of the schedule. If the SEC can’t schedule with those 3 leagues and all that’s left is the remaining Big 12 teams and the Group of 5, would it force the SEC move to a 9- or 10-game conference schedule in order to make sure it has enough quality games on the schedule? The Big Ten should have no problem getting its teams enough quality games, which will become even more important whenever a 12-team CFP is instituted.

It’s easy to understand the motivation of the Pac-12 and ACC here. The Big Ten is the clear No. 2 conference (even though it has the largest per-school revenue payout), and in the aftermath of the SEC’s big move, the discussion was always about what the Big Ten would do next, since it is the more attractive landing spot for any school looking for a change.

I look at this as a peace offering from first-year Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff. Basically, he’s saying, “Look, you can play USC and Oregon every year if you want, just don’t take them from us.”

For the Big Ten, this is understandable. If poaching schools like USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington and Stanford ultimately wasn’t possible, this is a viable alternative. They could still create marquee matchups every year (Ohio State vs. Oregon could be more of the norm) and sell those games to networks in a few years when it’s time to negotiate TV deals. Who wouldn’t want to see storied programs like Michigan or Penn State play USC? The biggest focus for the Big Ten is making sure it doesn’t water down the conference and reduce the revenue payouts to its members. This would seemingly be a way around that.

Maybe this becomes college football’s version of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball, where the leagues all match up for 2 weeks out of the season to create enticing matchups. Each league could go down to 8 conference games, get 1 game against the other 2 leagues and still have 2 games for Group of 5 or FCS opponents.

In the bigger picture, this alliance is interesting because it is 3 inexperienced commissioners (Kevin Warren is the most senior, and he’s only in his second year) banding together and trying to ensure the more-savvy Greg Sankey doesn’t pull another fast one on them while they are still learning the ropes. Warren, in particular, was caught completely off guard by Oklahoma and Texas joining the SEC in a way that former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany probably wouldn’t have been. This is them hitting the “pause button” on the changing landscape of college football and prevent each other from being taken advantage of.

The loser in all of this, of course, would be the fans. They are always the ones who are screwed over by the power plays and money grabs. If the SEC is shunned, what happens to great rivalries like Clemson/South Carolina, Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech and Kentucky/Louisville? That’s not the B1G’s problem, but it’s hard to imagine fans in Gainesville, Athens, Columbia or Lexington liking that possibility much.

One thing that stinks about realignment is that it can water down the league. Michigan, for example, played Minnesota every year except one from 1919 to 2015, but they’ve played only twice in the past 5 years and won’t meet again until 2023. Instead, Michigan plays Rutgers and Maryland every year.

By forming an alliance, this would “create stability without schools moving conferences,” according to ESPN. There wouldn’t be cross-country flights every other week.

When I think of the word “alliance,” my mind flashes to the episode of The Office where Dwight believes he’s in a real alliance with Jim, but Jim doesn’t take it seriously at all, and Dwight bails on him at the end. It was a flimsy agreement at best. Is that what this is and any of these 3 conferences will bail at the first moment of adversity?

Time will tell if these 3 conferences are serious about working together and protecting each other’s interests, but if they are, it could be a smart move that limits the SEC’s power.