....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
(06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
If OU and OSU are locked down, then the play has to be Texas. If OU with OSU pays its way then Texas and Tech probably do as well. If Texas still refuses, would KU and WVU cover spots 17 and 18?
(06-14-2017 07:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
If OU and OSU are locked down, then the play has to be Texas. If OU with OSU pays its way then Texas and Tech probably do as well. If Texas still refuses, would KU and WVU cover spots 17 and 18?
If Texas was willing to move to the PAC with OU and OSU and initially A&M and later Tech then why shouldn't they be willing to move to the SEC with OU and OSU now? The question is will they insist upon Tech or will they be satisfied with A&M? If they are content with A&M then Kansas would do nicely. If not we make room for Tech. Who knows if we go beyond that?
Could we possibly see something like this:
Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Ole Miss, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
(06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
So we're a few years yet from this being a reality. Makes sense.
I could see the OU/OSU combo as the first volley. Everything after that might be the ripple effect of that decision.
For Texas, it's hard to see them leaving both a collection of TX schools and their old regional rivals unless they were going independent. I don't think independence is a real option though as even Notre Dame will probably abandon that at some point in the future and they are much better equipped to handle the challenges of it.
Personally, I think Texas will try to angle for more of their in-state buddies to be included so that it's easier to play them annually.
(06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
There is no such rule. Never has been. Never will be. It's a matter of whether or not we get paid for them. It won't ultimately matter to a network as long as they have access to the product.
(06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
No real reason not to go past 16. It's an arbitrary number.
If the money is right and there's no other reasonable obstruction then I don't see a reason it couldn't happen.
These conferences have already grown to a point where geography and scheduling frequency are somewhat out the window. The sweet spot for that was 10-12.
(06-14-2017 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]If Texas was willing to move to the PAC with OU and OSU and initially A&M and later Tech then why shouldn't they be willing to move to the SEC with OU and OSU now? The question is will they insist upon Tech or will they be satisfied with A&M? If they are content with A&M then Kansas would do nicely. If not we make room for Tech. Who knows if we go beyond that?
Could we possibly see something like this:
Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Ole Miss, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
I like 20 better than 18 myself.
I think the advantage is that if you have smaller divisions then you can create more flexibility in the scheduling. That and it's easier to do a conference semi-final.
(06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
(06-14-2017 09:06 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
Okay, tell me why we won't go past 16? What authority has said this? Where is the rule to prevent it? Slive himself said the size of the conference is only limited by profitability. There's your damn rule! And what profits us, and prevents our competitors from keeping pace is fair game.
(06-14-2017 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:06 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
Okay, tell me why we won't go past 16? What authority has said this? Where is the rule to prevent it? Slive himself said the size of the conference is only limited by profitability. There's your damn rule! And what profits us, and prevents our competitors from keeping pace is fair game.
Slive also stated that he wanted to see every athlete experience every stadium at every school in their chosen sport during their college career. It was important for a amateur athlete to see and be part of this history. The SEC can do that with 16 programs. It actually creates a balance. But getting past that number. The math starts to get funny to make it work. Someone has to sacrifice something and no one want to sacrifice anything.
One thing to think about is academic standing. OU is okay at 111 on US News and OSU is 152. OU is middle of the pack tied with Missouri but OSU would be next to last with only Mississippi State being behind them. I still think the SEC should focus on Texas and Oklahoma.
15, 16, 18, 20, there are ways to make them all work but they require some changes. Adding a SF to CCG's just makes sense & cent$.
If the rules were changed to allow conference semi-finals, why in the world wouldn't the SEC do this? The SEC would own all of the rights and $$$$ to the SEC semi-finals and championship, which essentially becomes a defacto part of the CFP - as the SEC champion is almost guaranteed a spot in the CFP. (Or it perhaps the SEC champ, in fact, gets the guaranteed spot!).
This is the way for the power conferences to control more of the money - because they don't have to share SEC playoff money with the G5 like they do the CFP money.
Regarding the ideal number, I still stand by 18. This gives you the ability to have a conference playoff that allows for a wild card. And it will be very easy for the second best team in the conference to be a divisional runner-up. You have to include the wild card in any semi-final championship. Also, 18 allows for everyone to play more often than in the 20-game scenario. With 18, you have to go to at least 9 conference games.
Play 5 against your division and then rotate 4 among the other 12. Play everyone at least once in 3 years - although you might need to protect some cross-division games, like Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, Texas-A&M. Also, you can stack the schedules to make sure that every gets a marquee cross-division home game each year.
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, LSU, Texas A&M
WEST: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma State
With 18 schools, you have like 125 games of inventory, with a bunch of marquee matchups. SEC would basically add the Big 12 contract value (or at least 75% of it) to the SEC pot. You likely also have another couple games of inventory each week for the SECN. (although, how do you involve the LHN?).
With Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and OSU, SEC basketball gets a nice bump. With Texas and Kansas, you add a couple of AAU institutions to bolster the SEC academic profile.
(06-15-2017 06:05 AM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:06 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
Okay, tell me why we won't go past 16? What authority has said this? Where is the rule to prevent it? Slive himself said the size of the conference is only limited by profitability. There's your damn rule! And what profits us, and prevents our competitors from keeping pace is fair game.
Slive also stated that he wanted to see every athlete experience every stadium at every school in their chosen sport during their college career. It was important for a amateur athlete to see and be part of this history. The SEC can do that with 16 programs. It actually creates a balance. But getting past that number. The math starts to get funny to make it work. Someone has to sacrifice something and no one want to sacrifice anything.
At 18: You have 5 divisional games, 2 crossovers from the other two divisions annually. For 9 conference games. Add a permanent rival and it's 10. You play everyone every three years.
At 20: You have 4 divisional games. You play 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions. You play 1 rotational game from each division annually. That's 10 games. You play everyone every four years.
At 16: you actually have more problems. If you divide into 4 divisions you play 3 divisional games (not enough to determine a true winner in a weak division) and you play 2 each from the other four divisions and that equals 9 games. You can have division winners with losing records.
You could break into 2 divisions of 8. Now you have 7 division games and if you rotate 2 from the other division annually you can play everyone in 4 years. That's 9 games. If you want a permanent rival it's 10.
So actually at 18 you have better flexibility and can play everyone more quickly.
(06-15-2017 11:32 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]At 18: You have 5 divisional games, 2 crossovers from the other two divisions annually. For 9 conference games. Add a permanent rival and it's 10. You play everyone every three years.
At 20: You have 4 divisional games. You play 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions. You play 1 rotational game from each division annually. That's 10 games. You play everyone every four years.
At 16: you actually have more problems. If you divide into 4 divisions you play 3 divisional games (not enough to determine a true winner in a weak division) and you play 2 each from the other four divisions and that equals 9 games. You can have division winners with losing records.
You could break into 2 divisions of 8. Now you have 7 division games and if you rotate 2 from the other division annually you can play everyone in 4 years. That's 9 games. If you want a permanent rival it's 10.
So actually at 18 you have better flexibility and can play everyone more quickly.
From a scheduling perspective, I've always thought that 16 allows for the perfect scenario - 4 scheduling divisions (often called pods) and then the 3-2-2-2 format. Play 3 division games each year and play everyone else in the conference twice in 4 years - and visit every stadium in the conference in the 4-year span.
For this to work, you would need complete CCG deregulation, where the CCG would simply be the top-2 teams, regardless of divisions.
(06-15-2017 12:26 PM)YNot Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2017 11:32 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]At 18: You have 5 divisional games, 2 crossovers from the other two divisions annually. For 9 conference games. Add a permanent rival and it's 10. You play everyone every three years.
At 20: You have 4 divisional games. You play 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions. You play 1 rotational game from each division annually. That's 10 games. You play everyone every four years.
At 16: you actually have more problems. If you divide into 4 divisions you play 3 divisional games (not enough to determine a true winner in a weak division) and you play 2 each from the other four divisions and that equals 9 games. You can have division winners with losing records.
You could break into 2 divisions of 8. Now you have 7 division games and if you rotate 2 from the other division annually you can play everyone in 4 years. That's 9 games. If you want a permanent rival it's 10.
So actually at 18 you have better flexibility and can play everyone more quickly.
From a scheduling perspective, I've always thought that 16 allows for the perfect scenario - 4 scheduling divisions (often called pods) and then the 3-2-2-2 format. Play 3 division games each year and play everyone else in the conference twice in 4 years - and visit every stadium in the conference in the 4-year span.
For this to work, you would need complete CCG deregulation, where the CCG would simply be the top-2 teams, regardless of divisions.
That would be a simple solution, but TN-Alabama and the like are not going away.
(06-15-2017 01:17 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:06 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 06:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]....."Do you think the SEC would offer both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?" Paul replied, "Sure, Oklahoma State is a very competitive program in their own right." Caller's second question was, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Because we are probably 4 or 5 years away from them being able to respond due to the GOR." Caller is Oklahoma interested? Finebaum, "I hear they are very interested."
Who knows but it occurred to me the hay may be in the barn on this pair. If so it could open up other product. It will be interesting to see where we go from here.
Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
Okay, tell me why we won't go past 16? What authority has said this? Where is the rule to prevent it? Slive himself said the size of the conference is only limited by profitability. There's your damn rule! And what profits us, and prevents our competitors from keeping pace is fair game.
Cultural assimilation.
Assimilation will occur. Resistance is futile.
(06-15-2017 02:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2017 01:17 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 09:06 PM)hawghiggs Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2017 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody is going past 16....NOBODY!
I whole heartedly agree with this. But you aren't going to stop people coming up with crazy ass scenarios to support their agenda on a message board.
Okay, tell me why we won't go past 16? What authority has said this? Where is the rule to prevent it? Slive himself said the size of the conference is only limited by profitability. There's your damn rule! And what profits us, and prevents our competitors from keeping pace is fair game.
Cultural assimilation.
Assimilation will occur. Resistance is futile.
I was totally resistant to assimilation until I laid eyes on Jeri Ryan, then it became futile, very futile!