Started By
Message
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:47 pm to Ole Ag
another possible schedule solution
4 years
drop Texas into the East or West and Oklahoma onto the other side as permanent rivals.
8 games
play division + 1 perm across
Texas and Oklahoma Flip sides every year, allowing all 14 teams to play them home and away over a 4 year period.
That buys time to make the 8 vs 9 game decision.
4 years
drop Texas into the East or West and Oklahoma onto the other side as permanent rivals.
8 games
play division + 1 perm across
Texas and Oklahoma Flip sides every year, allowing all 14 teams to play them home and away over a 4 year period.
That buys time to make the 8 vs 9 game decision.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:47 pm to BigBro
I get the feeling you don't the significance of games against Florida and Auburn if you think games against A&M and Arkansas are equally valued
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:49 pm to BhamTigah
quote:
I guarantee neither Kramer nor Slive would have left themselves with no leverage. Kramer was too powerful and Slive was too smart to let that happen.
These guys negotiated the gift that was the old CBS deal, granted it was a different time in TV rights, but Slive didn’t cover himself with glory on that one
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:53 pm to FlagshipTexasAggie
quote:
Sankey has been careful not to say what he favors, but many believe he's in the nine-game category, and he could make his case in the room to the holdouts, pleading for the greater good
I am failing to see what the “greater good” is here. If there is no new money, then what is the benefit to the additional game? It can’t be that it will help with making the playoff. For one thing, clearly SOS isn’t that big a factor, they let TCU in with a loss. Not to mention the 12 team expansion renders this concern near moot.
Also if I’m one of the non “traditional powers” then I certainly won’t vote for 9 games because it would make it that much harder for me to possibly break into the playoff mix. Also Florida (an “traditional power”) and SC have good OOC rivals already, so adding the extra game does not help them (Louisville is also usually good so UK is in this camp too). UGA probably does not care because GT is so bad, but if they were good I am sure that they’d be unenthusiastic too.
So what am I missing here, what is the benefit to the nine game schedule from the schools standpoint if there is no new money?
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:55 pm to molsusports
quote:
I get the feeling you don't the significance of games against Florida and Auburn if you think games against A&M and Arkansas are equally valued
Considering that A&M is going to be one of your permanent opponents in pretty much any schedule out there with permanent opponents, and that Florida and Auburn are most likely not going to be permanent opponents.. I think you better get used to not playing them every year.
I didn’t choose your permanent opponents.
I could care less who you play each year.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:57 pm to Oswald31
quote:
So Alabama would only play LSU once every 7-8 years? Lmao
I have LSU playing Alabama every year in every schedule that I have posted.. not sure why you thought otherwise.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 1:59 pm to MondayNightPavs
quote:
I am failing to see what the “greater good” is here. If there is no new money, then what is the benefit to the additional game?
Exactly
quote:
clearly SOS isn’t that big a factor, they let TCU in with a loss
And there may be 12 teams in the next playoff model.
I hate the nine game and weird rotations ideas just because I know these end up being tools to manipulate outcomes.
Eight games is the standard. If there's a financial advantage to more than 8 then go to 10 to make sure the home/away stuff is as balanced as possible
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:09 pm to molsusports
Agree that it’s better when home/away balanced. But I really would like someone to explain the advantage to mine games, because I genuinely don’t see it.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:10 pm to MondayNightPavs
quote:
So what am I missing here, what is the benefit to the nine game schedule from the schools standpoint if there is no new money?
The main three options being discussed.
Option #1 - the 1/7
1 Permanent Opponent
7 Rotating Games
Alabama or Auburn
Florida or Georgia
Texas or Oklahoma
LSU or Texas A&M
Vanderbilt or Tennessee
Arkansas or Missouri
Miss State or Ole Miss
South Carolina or Kentucky
So SC would play Kentucky
and then the left or right each year
Option #2 - the 3/6
3 Permanent Opponent
6 Rotating Games
Same format as Option #1 but with 9 games
SC perms Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee
Rotate the other 12.. 6 and 6
Both options play all other teams home and away every 4 years.
Option #3
Keep divisions and 8 games
Only crossover is your 1 permanent
ie SC will never play anyone from the west but Texas A&M
There are other options being discussed, but these are the main ones.
This post was edited on 5/3/23 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:17 pm to BigBro
There seem to be a few people planting stories trying to railroad the process along faster and further than it really is.
Depending on who you believe there are still eight different scheduling proposals on the table and there are vehement disagreements about what should be done.
Especially when extra games won't generate extra money this will get ugly.
LINK
Depending on who you believe there are still eight different scheduling proposals on the table and there are vehement disagreements about what should be done.
Especially when extra games won't generate extra money this will get ugly.
LINK
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:18 pm to BigBro
quote:
Both options play all other teams home and away every 4 years.
I get that it’s preferable to play as many teams as often as possible. But that’s an issue of making match ups and, as you point out, an 8 game model does allow for this. And I understand that no one will be perfectly happy regarding who plays who.
What I don’t get is what is the advantage to 9 conference games with no new money, irrespective of the match up model used.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:21 pm to BhamTigah
quote:
Why would ESPN pay more if they don't have to. Perhaps Greg should have read the contract
Because the SEC could (I believe) not allow ESPN to televise any OU or Texas football games due to the original contract that didn't include them?
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:25 pm to MondayNightPavs
I do agree that an argument can be made to stay at 8 until the money is right to go to 9.
From a non money standpoint, the benefit of going to 9 games is that you can play more of the teams you want to play each year.
For example.
Georgia
The 1/7 gives them Florida
which means they don’t play Auburn each year
The 3/6 gives them Florida, Auburn & Kentucky
LSU
the 1/7 - A&M
the 3/6 - A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss
etc etc
The current schedule y’all have is dumb imo.
Playing each non division team once every 7 years is basically two different leagues. So even if Texas and OU weren’t added, going to 9 games would mean that you played all teams home and away over 7 years.
It just adds more games against teams you don’t get to play.
From a non money standpoint, the benefit of going to 9 games is that you can play more of the teams you want to play each year.
For example.
Georgia
The 1/7 gives them Florida
which means they don’t play Auburn each year
The 3/6 gives them Florida, Auburn & Kentucky
LSU
the 1/7 - A&M
the 3/6 - A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss
etc etc
The current schedule y’all have is dumb imo.
Playing each non division team once every 7 years is basically two different leagues. So even if Texas and OU weren’t added, going to 9 games would mean that you played all teams home and away over 7 years.
It just adds more games against teams you don’t get to play.
This post was edited on 5/3/23 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:33 pm to BigBro
So I guess in this case the greater good is effectively, Alabama wants to play both Tenn and Auburn each season or UGA wants Auburn and Florida or Tenn wants Bama and Florida, etc), so for example, Kentucky, make your schedule harder to accommodate that and do so with out any new money to sweeten the deal.
Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a tough pill to swallow for some schools.
Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a tough pill to swallow for some schools.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:34 pm to molsusports
quote:
There seem to be a few people planting stories trying to railroad the process along faster and further than it really is.
Oh I’m sure people are planting stories on all sides to fit their agenda.
I’m guessing people weren’t real happy with the new schedule when A&M and Missouri joined either.
I like the 3/5 option best for 8 games.
I prefer the 3/6 option for 9 games.
Yes, it could get ugly.
And it will be Texas’s fault. Count on it.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:37 pm to MondayNightPavs
Yes, generally speaking, that is the argument.
However, I don’t know which side of the fence teams are on. Supposedly, the vote is 8 to 8.
I think some teams want to keep the division setup as it is.. some want 1 permanent, some want 3 perm, others wants something else.
A lot of mouths to feed.
However, I don’t know which side of the fence teams are on. Supposedly, the vote is 8 to 8.
I think some teams want to keep the division setup as it is.. some want 1 permanent, some want 3 perm, others wants something else.
A lot of mouths to feed.
This post was edited on 5/3/23 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:42 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:I understand your thought process, but I think that you (and Sankey) are wrong about this. Texas certainly would have told Sankey that they would go to the Big Ten if the SEC turned them down, but that would have been an empty threat, in my opinion.
Texas would've ended up in the B1G alongside USC/UCLA had the SEC not taken the Longhorns. And as much as I hate stroking the Texas ego, that's not a brand you can allow to fall into your rival's lap. That would be a lot more money for those B1G schools over SEC schools in the years to come. See what's happening with the ACC now? FSU soon to be receiving about one third of the media dollars that Vanderbilt receives each year. We don't want to end up in a similar situation, where Alabama and Georgia jealous about Northwestern's annual B1G media revenue. It's unfortunately just the way things are in this landscape.
First off, when you think back in time before OU and Texas announced they were leaving, the Big Ten was still trying to figure out how they ended up with Rutgers and Maryland. The appetite for further expansion at that time was pretty much zero. Only once the SEC made a move for OU and Texas did the Big Ten do something even more radical in response by adding USC and UCLA. But, that was a reactionary move. If Kevin Warren had gone to the Big Ten presidents and asked them to kill off the Big XII, they likely would not have been willing to make the first move towards the realignment final solution.
Second, Texas was encumbered by a contract with ESPN for the LHN. ESPN was more than happy to let them out of that contract to go from the Big XII (where ESPN only has half the rights) to the SEC (where ESPN has all the rights), but they would not have been willing to play ball had Texas wanted to go to the Big Ten, where ESPN has none of the rights.
So, while I understand the argument that it's better to have Texas in the SEC than the Big Ten, I don't really believe there was any realistic prospect for that to happen this decade. Sankey got played.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:44 pm to BigBro
As a rule of thumb?
The original 10 members need to be playing at least half of their games against the other 9 original teams.
History matters. Or if it doesn't there's no reason to give a shite about the SEC as an entity.
The original 10 members need to be playing at least half of their games against the other 9 original teams.
History matters. Or if it doesn't there's no reason to give a shite about the SEC as an entity.
Posted on 5/3/23 at 2:50 pm to BigBro
frick ESPN, and Disney as a whole. Don't give 'em anything for free.
This post was edited on 5/3/23 at 2:57 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News