From the article:

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Southeastern Conference plans to make a decision in the next month on future football scheduling.

Commissioner Mike Slive said the league plans to do so before the league's meetings in Destin, Fla. in late May.

The potential options are to have eight or nine games, with our without permanent crossover opponents. Ole Miss and Mississippi State play Vanderbilt and Kentucky, respectively, under the current eight-game format.

Alabama coach Nick Saban has pushed for a nine-game schedule, arguing that an athlete should be able to play every SEC school during the course of his career. That is not the case now, after the SEC added Missouri and Texas A&M in 2012. But not all his peers feel the same way, and it is the largest remaining problem caused by expansion.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...s/7973285/

It's coming sooner or later, but due to the playoff format I'm thinking sooner. If we don't make that move look for us to add a second OOC P5 game to the line up so that each schedule will have 10 P5 games.

(04-21-2014 09:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's coming sooner or later, but due to the playoff format I'm thinking sooner. If we don't make that move look for us to add a second OOC P5 game to the line up so that each schedule will have 10 P5 games.

I'd love to know where UGA, USC, UF and UK stand on the 9 game schedule because they would seem to be the ones most likely to object given their non-conference obligations. I could see Ole Miss and Miss State and maybe Arkansas and Vandy objecting as well arguing that it hurts their ability to schedule for success.

From a historic standpoint (yes I know everyone is shocked I'm going there). When 10 was the limit for regular season games, most conferences played 7 conference games and 3 non-conference. When the season was extended to 11 games, larger conferences added another game or in the case of the SWC and Pac-8, they added a team or teams and went to 8 league games and 3 non-conference. It is fairly consistent with past history for a conference to expand the conference schedule in order to only play 3 non-conference games.

From a TV standpoint, adding a game to the schedule reduces overall inventory but improves the quality of that inventory but from a historic perspective it means the sacrifice of one harder to sell home game each year in return for one easier to sell higher demand game every other year.

Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

(04-22-2014 01:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

I have posted this link way too many times, but no one really takes into account all the issues with this type of setup hence the reason I keep posting it.
http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

-the 8 conf. games w/ 3 fixed rivals is really the only option. If you want to work any additional conference games into the schedule it must use the 8/3 format as a base.

-Teams will play their non fixed rivals 2x every 4 years

definitely like the freedom that no divisions bring up. 2-4 "every year" games and then rotate everybody else. You get your annual rivalries and then get to see everyone else more frequently.

I have been for providing a 14th game to conferences with 12 or more teams if they will schedule a 10 game conference schedule with only one bye Week. That still allows three OOC games, providing schools to keep UGA - GT, USC - Clemson and FSU -UF type situations and allows for two more OOC games. That way it is proper number of conference Home vs Away and still allows for a team to chose the cupcake home game if they wish.

Or conferences can let their members handle their own scheduling of 2 to 4 slots on the conference schedule and let TV pick the remaining match-ups.

Playing everyone in the conference is only an issue if most of the schools actually care whether they regularly play everyone in the conference.

SEC stays at 8, this is a business now
you can not be adding anymore games, these kids are taxed enough with their sch
I get rid of OT & playoffs. if you want to pretend thier college students
then pretend their college students

The bigger issue at hand with a 9 game schedule is how many years you get only 4 home conference games and 5 road conference games.

(04-22-2014 09:15 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC stays at 8, this is a business now
you can not be adding anymore games, these kids are taxed enough with their sch
I get rid of OT & playoffs. if you want to pretend thier college students
then pretend their college students

The net number of games would remain constant, it would just reduce the number of games where a team pounds on a physically mis-matched opponent.

As to OT, I'm not following your logic even though I don't like OT.

(04-22-2014 08:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Or conferences can let their members handle their own scheduling of 2 to 4 slots on the conference schedule and let TV pick the remaining match-ups.

Playing everyone in the conference is only an issue if most of the schools actually care whether they regularly play everyone in the conference.

I could easily see some of the Big Boys exploiting a set-up like that to soften their schedules, and it might make the conference look bad. Say, if it's left entirely up to the teams themselves, Ohio State makes deals to play Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, and Maryland every year, and pays them each $1.5 million/game to play in Columbus every year, and OSU never plays Wisconsin, Nebraska, or Penn State.

(04-22-2014 01:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

I have posted this link way too many times, but no one really takes into account all the issues with this type of setup hence the reason I keep posting it.
http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

-the 8 conf. games w/ 3 fixed rivals is really the only option. If you want to work any additional conference games into the schedule it must use the 8/3 format as a base.

-Teams will play their non fixed rivals 2x every 4 years

Not really. There's nothing that makes a 9-game schedule any more difficult to work out than an 8-game schedule. Assuming you keep the 3 permanent rivals, you'll play every non-rival 6 times in 10 years instead of 2 times in 4 years.

(04-22-2014 10:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 08:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Or conferences can let their members handle their own scheduling of 2 to 4 slots on the conference schedule and let TV pick the remaining match-ups.

Playing everyone in the conference is only an issue if most of the schools actually care whether they regularly play everyone in the conference.

I could easily see some of the Big Boys exploiting a set-up like that to soften their schedules, and it might make the conference look bad. Say, if it's left entirely up to the teams themselves, Ohio State makes deals to play Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, and Maryland every year, and pays them each $1.5 million/game to play in Columbus every year, and OSU never plays Wisconsin, Nebraska, or Penn State.

TV would want those match-ups though.

(04-22-2014 01:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

That isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how you decide who will play whom. If you stick with the idea that there will be permanent rivals, then it depends on how many permanent rivals you designate. Currently, the practice is to call you plus your permanent rivals a "division". That is likely to change.

If you eliminate the concept of permanent rivals and just rotate all other conference opponents equally, you will maximize the frequency that you will face some of them, and reduce the frequency you play your rivals. But nowhere is it written that maximizing the frequency of facing all opponents is a goal. Maximizing revenue might be a goal in scheduling. Maximizing "fairness" might be a goal. Maximizing alumni happiness might be a goal. Each conference will have to decide for themselves what their scheduling goals are.

(04-22-2014 10:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

That isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how you decide who will play whom. If you stick with the idea that there will be permanent rivals, then it depends on how many permanent rivals you designate. Currently, the practice is to call you plus your permanent rivals a "division". That is likely to change.

If you eliminate the concept of permanent rivals and just rotate all other conference opponents equally, you will maximize the frequency that you will face some of them, and reduce the frequency you play your rivals. But nowhere is it written that maximizing the frequency of facing all opponents is a goal. Maximizing revenue might be a goal in scheduling. Maximizing "fairness" might be a goal. Maximizing alumni happiness might be a goal. Each conference will have to decide for themselves what their scheduling goals are.

If you eliminate divisions, you reduce the "fairness" as the schedules will be more diverse in a 14 team "division" as opposed to a 7 team one.

(04-22-2014 11:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 10:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 01:36 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Wouldn't the changes in divisional play rules impact the necessity of switching to 9 games just to play everyone in the conference. If divisional round robins were no longer necessary, playing everyone in the conference within a 2-3 year cycle while still servicing each teams rivalry obligations should still be possible without going to a 9 game schedule.

Right.

If each team gets 3 permanent FB opponents, then with 8 conference games, you rotate the other 10 teams through the 5 other slots on the conference schedule, and play each of those 10 teams twice every 4 years. Or, play 2 permanent opponents and rotate the other 11 teams through 6 slots on the conference schedule.

Nine conference games would mean that each team sees every other conference FB team even more often, obviously, but once freed from the restriction of the FB divisions, even 8 conference games would be satisfactory for either the SEC or ACC in terms of playing every other team in the league "often enough".

That isn't necessarily true. It all depends on how you decide who will play whom. If you stick with the idea that there will be permanent rivals, then it depends on how many permanent rivals you designate. Currently, the practice is to call you plus your permanent rivals a "division". That is likely to change.

If you eliminate the concept of permanent rivals and just rotate all other conference opponents equally, you will maximize the frequency that you will face some of them, and reduce the frequency you play your rivals. But nowhere is it written that maximizing the frequency of facing all opponents is a goal. Maximizing revenue might be a goal in scheduling. Maximizing "fairness" might be a goal. Maximizing alumni happiness might be a goal. Each conference will have to decide for themselves what their scheduling goals are.

If you eliminate divisions, you reduce the "fairness" as the schedules will be more diverse in a 14 team "division" as opposed to a 7 team one.

Having permanent football rivals makes the scheduling less "fair". If Georgia Tech's permanent FB rivals are Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech, and North Carolina's permanent rivals are Duke, Virginia, and NC State, and all the other opponents rotate, then Georgia Tech will consistently have a more difficult conference schedule. Maybe it's an unfairness or imbalance that teams are willing to live with, but it's definitely going to be there.

(04-22-2014 09:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The bigger issue at hand with a 9 game schedule is how many years you get only 4 home conference games and 5 road conference games.

Misouri played eight straight SEC games last year. We can handle it. Don't the opposing schools split the gate anyway?

(04-22-2014 11:35 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 09:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The bigger issue at hand with a 9 game schedule is how many years you get only 4 home conference games and 5 road conference games.

Misouri played eight straight SEC games last year. We can handle it. Don't the opposing schools split the gate anyway?

Depends, I think there is just a minimum guarantee. However, having 5 home conference games while some have 4 benefits more schools than others...especially those who usually are at the top of the conference for the home field advantage. I know its rotated but still that is an issue to overcome for most schools in the conference.