(04-27-2014 10:29 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 09:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 07:53 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Not to mention that they did NOT put a freeze on playing FCS teams. Such a sham.

Sham? Buffalo, San Diego State, Florida A&M and an OOC game against an extremely weak Cal team and perennial Big 10 losers Indiana and Purdue gave the Buckeyes an automatic bowl berth before you even had to defeat what was a majority sub par Big 10. Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Clemson were essentially the Buckeyes season. No matter which division an SEC school plays in they too will have three solid games or more per season, but it's the middle of the schedule that sets the SEC apart. This year there are only 4 SEC schools that won't be playing a decent P5 school. The only one that is a perennial winner that fails to play a strong OOC game is Texas A&M. Auburn plays at Kansas State, Alabama has West Virginia, South Carolina gets Clemson, Florida plays the Noles, Kentucky gets Louisville, Tennessee gets Virginia Tech, and so on.
There is little difference between most FCS schools and Florida A&M. Buffalo and San Diego State are steps up but not by a lot. The Buckeyes couldn't help that Cal was flat. So the scheduling between the SEC and Big 10 is a wash in attempt, but by virtue of the flagging middle of the Big 10 the edge goes to the SEC. The PAC is the one that plays a more aggressive schedule and the ACC is improving its approach. Unfortunately for them going to 9 games will probably reduce their SOS.

True, but at least the B1G put forth an edict to NOT play FCS teams. It just seems like there's more and more collusion for the P5 to not play the G5 at all - or at the very least, not home-and-home.

There isn't any "collusion", just simple economics. It's more financially viable to play a nobody at home than go on the road for just about all of the P5 programs because of the size of their stadiums. Cut a P5 school a check that makes up the difference and you'll get your home games. Until the G5 schools start doing that they look silly crying "collusion" or "conspiracy" in their team colored tin foil hats.

That is why most g5 will have to settle for 2-1 deals. Give the p5 two home games for one road game

It's also why SEC schools don't take those deals. When the conference average is 75,000 plus attendance per game for the year we can't even afford to cave on a 2 for 1 deal. Our conference away ticket allocation is between 15 to 20 thousand depending on the venue. For many G5 schools that would be 50% or more of a home sellout.

(04-27-2014 10:29 PM)billings Wrote:  That is why most g5 will have to settle for 2-1 deals. Give the p5 two home games for one road game

Doesn't have to be that way, it depends on who the G5 team wants to play and what deal they can make. Your team has a home/home with Oregon on its future schedules. G5 teams can get those deals if they deal with a P5 team that doesn't have a gigantic stadium and if they are willing to take a standard home/home deal where they keep the money from their own home game and get no money from the game in the P5 team's stadium.

Other times, G5 teams want the money from a P5 team that fills its large stadium, so they take $1 million or so to play in Columbus or Tuscaloosa.

Taking a quick look through future schedules, it looks like the 2-for-1 deals are going away, actually. Most future P5 v. G5 deals look to be either 1-for-1 or straight "buy games".

I cannot imagine Slive as an attorney ever having ANY comfort level in the league colluding to deny FCS games. If all 14 members were to determine individually it were in their best interest to not schedule them I'm sure he'd be happy.

(04-27-2014 10:21 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 08:44 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  SEC is banking on the flexibility proposal the ACC put forth. If it passes, divisions don't matter.

No one is banking on that proposal.

We shall see. With the P5 having more autonomy it may be a foregone conclusion.

Or just the opposite. The PAC, Big Ten and SEC have never spoken of liking the idea.

(04-27-2014 11:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Taking a quick look through future schedules, it looks like the 2-for-1 deals are going away, actually. Most future P5 v. G5 deals look to be either 1-for-1 or straight "buy games".

Its going to be harder for mid to lower tier Big Ten schools to schedule 2-1's going ahead, with only three OOC games.

With four conference home and four conference away games each year, the away commitment of a 2-1's series can lean against the home visit of an OOC P5 home and home series. So you could have, over a four year stretch, two home and away series, two 2-1 series and six buy games and have 7 home games every year.

But with 9 conference games, a home and home marquee match up locks in place with the 5 home / 4 home conference cycle, leaving two spots that have to be buy games for any school with a big enough home crowd that they can't justify dropping down to six home games.

Indeed, AFAIU, it's already put a squeeze on the back end of the MSU Spartans deal with the three MAC Michigan schools ... and they were 3-1's.

It doesn't eliminate the market for 2-1's, but it squeezes it down to a smaller group of schools, putting it in among the P5 schools where the financial bonus after paying the guarantee from buy games is lower, so 2/3 of a home gate minus 1/2 of the travel cost (for the away trip) is a bigger number than all of a home gate minus the guarantee payout.

If more P5 conferences cracked down on FCS games, it could actually have the effect of putting more P5 schools in the 2-1 market, because it would increase the price for buy games from Go5 schools.

Well of course Kansas wants Alabama after that easy win against the best of the former Big East, WVU. Pay us to come to your stadium and lose and then pay us to come to our stadium and win Alabama. What do you have to fear with Charlie at the helm? Only condition we put forth is the mercy rule at half.

(04-28-2014 12:15 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:21 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 10:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 08:44 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  SEC is banking on the flexibility proposal the ACC put forth. If it passes, divisions don't matter.

No one is banking on that proposal.

We shall see. With the P5 having more autonomy it may be a foregone conclusion.

Or just the opposite. The PAC, Big Ten and SEC have never spoken of liking the idea.

But nobody has spoken against the idea either. In fact, Bowlsby was quoted as saying there's been no pushback from any conference.

But even if there were, what would be the reason? Would the PAC, B1G, and SEC want the XII to expand and include more schools in "the club"? What do they have to gain by such a move? Seeing as it's FBS legislation, it wouldn't be a matter for just the P5 to vote on autonomously, but a vote of all FBS (weighted 2-1 in favor of the P5).

Here's how I see a possible vote on the matter:

ACC - Yes (sponsored idea)
XII - Yes (seconded idea)
AAC - Yes (would solve division split issue among schools and prevent further raids)
SBC - Yes (would eliminate need to add another school and prevent further raids)

That's 6 of a required 8 vote majority to pass. There would only need to be one more P5 conference (or 2 G5's) that would need to go along to get this approved. Given that the PAC, SEC, and B1G have each seen unbalanced CCG matchups (some due to NCAA sanctions), I can't see any of them really objecting to it, other than to try to push the XII into having more teams, but that theory doesn't really hold water for me.

The ACC wants to have the final say in what’s best for its postseason structure. Under the current regulations, the NCAA controls the guidelines for any conference championship game.

In the current system, a conference has to have at least 12 teams (the ACC has 14 for football), split into two divisions with the division winners meeting in the championship game.


In March, ACC commissioner John Swofford made an official request to the NCAA Board of Directors to give control of the championship game format to each conference. The other four major conferences – the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 – joined Swofford in support of the request.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/26/3...rylink=cpy

(04-28-2014 09:08 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  The ACC wants to have the final say in what’s best for its postseason structure. Under the current regulations, the NCAA controls the guidelines for any conference championship game.

In the current system, a conference has to have at least 12 teams (the ACC has 14 for football), split into two divisions with the division winners meeting in the championship game.


In March, ACC commissioner John Swofford made an official request to the NCAA Board of Directors to give control of the championship game format to each conference. The other four major conferences – the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 – joined Swofford in support of the request.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/26/3...rylink=cpy

If that the case by August the ACC request will be granted...

Exactly, if its got that kind of support it will happen and then look for the SEC to do something to the effect of 3-4 permanent rival games and then just rotate through everybody else.

I think that's how conferences should be because in every conference there are 3-4 teams you want to see every year and want to tour through everyone else as much as possible but necessarily need to play them every year.

For A&M, I'd love to see Arky, LSU, Ole Miss and either Bama or Auburn on the schedule every year and then rotate through everybody else so we can get teams like UT, UGA, USC, UF and UK at Kyle much more frequently.

(04-28-2014 02:51 AM)Groo Wrote:  Well of course Kansas wants Alabama after that easy win against the best of the former Big East, WVU. Pay us to come to your stadium and lose and then pay us to come to our stadium and win Alabama. What do you have to fear with Charlie at the helm? Only condition we put forth is the mercy rule at half.

If a touchdown's scored after the half and there's no one still around to see it, does it make any noise?

The SEC won't make me happy until they expel Vanderbilt and go to 12 conference games.

(04-28-2014 09:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly, if its got that kind of support it will happen and then look for the SEC to do something to the effect of 3-4 permanent rival games and then just rotate through everybody else.

I think that's how conferences should be because in every conference there are 3-4 teams you want to see every year and want to tour through everyone else as much as possible but necessarily need to play them every year.

For A&M, I'd love to see Arky, LSU, Ole Miss and either Bama or Auburn on the schedule every year and then rotate through everybody else so we can get teams like UT, UGA, USC, UF and UK at Kyle much more frequently.

I could see the SEC doing something like keeping divisions, but 4 division teams every year, 1 cross division team every year and the other 3 games against the 2 in the division and 6 in the other division remaining. So 5 teams every year and 8 teams 3 out of 8. Creates some tiebreak problems. You wouldn't have the same number of division games. I wouldn't see them doing away with divisions altogether, just adding to scheduling flexibility. Really don't see the Big 10 or Pac 12 adopting it. They have reasonable divisions. SEC has always had difficulty as their rivalries didn't split easily. Auburn traditionally played UGA, Tennessee and Florida and already gave up two of those.

I've thought the same thing for the ACC.
But, if you don't play everyone in the division, why have them at all?

"SEC has always had difficulty as their rivalries didn't split easily. Auburn traditionally played UGA, Tennessee and Florida and already gave up two of those."

When the split first came, each team played two teams from the other division. Our genius AD Hootie Ingram declared that Alabama's traditional rivals were Vanderbilt and Kentucky. The yellow rain's been falling on ticket holders here for a while now.

(04-28-2014 11:23 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I've thought the same thing for the ACC.
But, if you don't play everyone in the division, why have them at all?

I agree. That's why I oppose changing the rules.

Personally I wish the SEC would be forward thinking and go to a 10 game (5 home, 5 away) schedule. Wishful thinking I know...but not a fan of playing UGA, Tennessee and USCe once a decade.

(04-28-2014 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 11:23 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I've thought the same thing for the ACC.
But, if you don't play everyone in the division, why have them at all?

I agree. That's why I oppose changing the rules.

I think the flexibility the P5 are looking for is the ability to split their conferences however they see fit. For example, I think the SEC and B1G could manage a 15 school, 3 x 5 arrangement while the ACC and B12 would go without divisions.

(04-28-2014 11:23 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I've thought the same thing for the ACC.
But, if you don't play everyone in the division, why have them at all?

You are exactly right, T-P. Anything else is nonsense - a return to the unstructured days when the SEC played 6 conference games in a 12 team league (Ga Tech and Tulane included).

(04-28-2014 01:46 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Personally I wish the SEC would be forward thinking and go to a 10 game (5 home, 5 away) schedule. Wishful thinking I know...but not a fan of playing UGA, Tennessee and USCe once a decade.

I believe that within the span of the next two contracts we will get there. They want a boost for every concession so they won't jump to 10 conference games until they have agreed to a 9th. In the meantime I think we need to take Dabo's suggestion and move the Spring games to the middle of August, play against a lower level FBS school for a true preseason game and make our schedules 10 conference home and home games, two strong out of conference P5 games home and home and sell the preseason game as everyone's 7th home game in the season ticket booklet. When we get there we will have maxed out the little moves for boost in TV concessions and it will all be about content anyway.

Plus I favor leaving Spring alone so that two sport athletes can play unencumbered baseball, track, or other sport seasons. Start Spring camp at night indoors in July and culminate in the preseason game to work out kinks before the season officially opens. That also allows better time for recruiting which needs an off season as well.

Most of the SEC schools already have that type schedule for 2014. All but Vandy and the Miss. schools play an OOC P5 opponent. All play 1 FCS opponent. The rest are G5 games.