CSNbbs

Full Version: Imagine an SEC schedule with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I'm going to assume we get a 9 game schedule for one. It'll be hard not to go that way.

Let's also say we split into pods and the divisions line up like this...


West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky



You play everyone in your pod annually = 3 games

You play one permanent opponent from each of the other 3 pods = 3 games

You play one rotating opponent from each of the other 3 pods = 3 games

That's 9 total. You also rotate through everyone at least once every 3 years and twice every 6 years. That's a pretty good clip and much better than what we've got now.

Now, here's the problem with 9 games. Someone is getting 4 home games while someone else is getting 5. As competitive as we all are in this league, the moaning and gnashing of teeth would be endless unless we do something to make the system more equitable.

We could go to 10 conference games so that everyone gets 5 and 5. That's fair, right? Yes, but it also means extra losses and teams have to give up extra home games in non-conference. Now one of these days we're going to end up playing nothing but Power schools for all 12 games, but that might still be some distance away.

How about conference semis? Each grouping of 4 gets a participant in the semis so we get our needed 9th conference game and in a way we get that 10th game, but it doesn't cost everyone an arm and a leg on and off the field. We get the best of the both worlds in a way. Necessary here is to assure that each grouping gets the same number of home and away games in a single season.

So let's say in Year 1, the West and South get 5 home games while the Central and East get 5 home games in Year 2. It rotates every year obviously. No one gets an advantage over your pod mates in determining who gets into the conference semis. At the end of the regular season, we play semis and every division winner has an equal chance at the conference championship. There's additionally more money in the coffers for those extra games at that.
I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

You saying 8 conference games or 9?
(08-09-2017 04:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

You saying 8 conference games or 9?

8 with 14 conference members, 9 with 16.

Follow a similar format like this:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...s-rotation
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

Absolutely agree with this.

Solves all our division problems (i.e. Auburn can finally let it go) and you get the full conference experience for every player and student there for 4 years.

Now I still refuse to believe we will waste the most valuable thing in CFB (a SEC realignment slot) on Okie State but if even if it's say OU and Kansas then getting rid of divisions is still a must
(08-09-2017 10:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

Absolutely agree with this.

Solves all our division problems (i.e. Auburn can finally let it go) and you get the full conference experience for every player and student there for 4 years.

Now I still refuse to believe we will waste the most valuable thing in CFB (a SEC realignment slot) on Okie State but if even if it's say OU and Kansas then getting rid of divisions is still a must

I'm one of the biggest Kansas to the SEC supporters on here, but I may be starting to see the light for OK St.

1) They could theoretically win the Big 12/Sugar Bowl/make it to the playoffs this year right before an announcement of a move (or whichever year it is).
2) OK St. vs. Ole Miss, vs. LSU, etc. would be higher rated than Kansas vs. LSU, etc.
3) OK St. "brings" OK with them. (I know its the other way around, but we could easily invite State first.
4) Kansas doesn't have a Boone Pickens to help invest in programs.

On the other hand:
1) Our weak sport is basketball, and Kansas brings Kansas-Kentucky, Kansas-Florida, Kansas-Missouri basketball games (and a Kansas-Missouri football rivalry back).
2) Kansas is a much better academic school.
3) Another state/population, and a barrier to the Big 10.
I certainly don't mind the idea of Kansas.

I argue though that their announcement of such a huge investment in their football program was in a way an admission that they aren't quite as attractive as they need to be to a football league. They're pumping money into football to show their commitment and to get ready for the next iteration of Power conferences.
(08-10-2017 11:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly don't mind the idea of Kansas.

I argue though that their announcement of such a huge investment in their football program was in a way an admission that they aren't quite as attractive as they need to be to a football league. They're pumping money into football to show their commitment and to get ready for the next iteration of Power conferences.

Definitely. Kansas would be a solid addition for the SEC or B1G. Kansas needs to develop their football program regardless. They stink bad.

Kansas basketball would be an upgrade to either the SEC or B1G, but moreso the SEC which is why I think they would choose the SEC. In the B1G they would for sure have to compete with Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Ohio St, Purdue, and Maryland. Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois are not slouches either. In the SEC they would compete with Kentucky (better than any B1G school) and Florida. Missouri is okay, and a couple others are decent but it is a stiff drop off after the top 2 or 3.
(08-10-2017 08:19 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 10:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

Absolutely agree with this.

Solves all our division problems (i.e. Auburn can finally let it go) and you get the full conference experience for every player and student there for 4 years.

Now I still refuse to believe we will waste the most valuable thing in CFB (a SEC realignment slot) on Okie State but if even if it's say OU and Kansas then getting rid of divisions is still a must

I'm one of the biggest Kansas to the SEC supporters on here, but I may be starting to see the light for OK St.

1) They could theoretically win the Big 12/Sugar Bowl/make it to the playoffs this year right before an announcement of a move (or whichever year it is).
2) OK St. vs. Ole Miss, vs. LSU, etc. would be higher rated than Kansas vs. LSU, etc.
3) OK St. "brings" OK with them. (I know its the other way around, but we could easily invite State first.
4) Kansas doesn't have a Boone Pickens to help invest in programs.

On the other hand:
1) Our weak sport is basketball, and Kansas brings Kansas-Kentucky, Kansas-Florida, Kansas-Missouri basketball games (and a Kansas-Missouri football rivalry back).
2) Kansas is a much better academic school.
3) Another state/population, and a barrier to the Big 10.

SEC basketball is a sleeper that is just starting to wake up. South Carolina and Florida are improving. L.S.U. has been down for too long but has potential. Alabama and Auburn are just starting to reinvest in it. If we could separate for the NCAA and the schools could earn their true tournament revenue instead of the skimmed credits that have allowed the NCAA to squirrel away 1 Billion in endowed funds from the tournament (70 million a year) then you would see a much bigger emphasis placed on the game.

After Iger's announcement yesterday it will be interesting to see if the SEC and ACC stop at 16, 18, or 20. As Disney moves toward streaming their own product, especially since Iger said they would invest more in original programming (including sports which means more rights purchases) it calls many things into question and I would suspect the ACCN is one of them. They'll get their network, but how much more of a market will ESPN want to secure for them before the 2019 launch? Will they enhance the linear channel aspect, or seek to maximize the more selective streaming aspects for these games? It could yet get very interesting.
(08-10-2017 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-10-2017 08:19 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 10:19 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2017 04:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]I would rather see the school select 3 permanent yearly rivals. The other schools rotated through every other year. Single table conference standings used to select top 4 schools to sec playoffs. Conference champions go to national playoffs.

No divisions allows every school to play everyone within two years.

Absolutely agree with this.

Solves all our division problems (i.e. Auburn can finally let it go) and you get the full conference experience for every player and student there for 4 years.

Now I still refuse to believe we will waste the most valuable thing in CFB (a SEC realignment slot) on Okie State but if even if it's say OU and Kansas then getting rid of divisions is still a must

I'm one of the biggest Kansas to the SEC supporters on here, but I may be starting to see the light for OK St.

1) They could theoretically win the Big 12/Sugar Bowl/make it to the playoffs this year right before an announcement of a move (or whichever year it is).
2) OK St. vs. Ole Miss, vs. LSU, etc. would be higher rated than Kansas vs. LSU, etc.
3) OK St. "brings" OK with them. (I know its the other way around, but we could easily invite State first.
4) Kansas doesn't have a Boone Pickens to help invest in programs.

On the other hand:
1) Our weak sport is basketball, and Kansas brings Kansas-Kentucky, Kansas-Florida, Kansas-Missouri basketball games (and a Kansas-Missouri football rivalry back).
2) Kansas is a much better academic school.
3) Another state/population, and a barrier to the Big 10.

SEC basketball is a sleeper that is just starting to wake up. South Carolina and Florida are improving. L.S.U. has been down for too long but has potential. Alabama and Auburn are just starting to reinvest in it. If we could separate for the NCAA and the schools could earn their true tournament revenue instead of the skimmed credits that have allowed the NCAA to squirrel away 1 Billion in endowed funds from the tournament (70 million a year) then you would see a much bigger emphasis placed on the game.

After Iger's announcement yesterday it will be interesting to see if the SEC and ACC stop at 16, 18, or 20. As Disney moves toward streaming their own product, especially since Iger said they would invest more in original programming (including sports which means more rights purchases) it calls many things into question and I would suspect the ACCN is one of them. They'll get their network, but how much more of a market will ESPN want to secure for them before the 2019 launch? Will they enhance the linear channel aspect, or seek to maximize the more selective streaming aspects for these games? It could yet get very interesting.

I wanted to start a thread on the new Disney/ESPN service coming next year, but there wasn't enough enough to properly debate about. Disney did announce that the season packages involving baseball, NHL and MLS would be Available through their app. The live streaming content was very vague, so it's basically a measure where ESPN could offer a separate service from the cable/satellite companies if they do choose. NCAA conference networks have to be a huge part of this formula.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reference URL's