(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

At the same time, if ESPN isn’t willing to throw in more money to the SEC to ensure that they get games like UT-A&M annually and having UT and OU play all of the SEC powers more often, then I don’t want to hear a single thing about the ESPN supposedly putting more money into having FSU, Clemson or other ACC schools to move to the SEC early. ESPN has 2 bigger brands in UT and OU already in the league, so if they’re not willing to pay for better matchups in this case, then the notion that they think they’ll make more money off of, say, FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama games is out the window when they’re willing to let games like UT-A&M or Alabama-Tennessee go by the wayside. ESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

I haven't done the math, but without divisions requiring a round robin, you could probably designate any number of annual rivalry games (less than 8) per school, and have the rest of the schedule rotate around those.

Much like the flex scheduling plan the Big Ten is looking at, where some teams have 1, 2 or 3 annual opponents locked in.

Your point about this being a window into ESPN's ability or willingness to spend money is valid though -- with 9 conference games, 3-6-6 you get say Georgia - LSU every other year (or at least twice in four years). With 8 games and 3 rivals locked in, you get that game an average of twice in five years. Which is less.

But we just saw Ohio State dump their Washington home-and-home series for an extra body-bag game, because the gate revenue makes it worth it. (And maybe because the @ Washington game wasn't going to be on TV anyway, so you might as well play Directional Tech at home on BTN.)

(05-26-2023 10:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

At the same time, if ESPN isn’t willing to throw in more money to the SEC to ensure that they get games like UT-A&M annually and having UT and OU play all of the SEC powers more often, then I don’t want to hear a single thing about the ESPN supposedly putting more money into having FSU, Clemson or other ACC schools to move to the SEC early. ESPN has 2 bigger brands in UT and OU already in the league, so if they’re not willing to pay for better matchups in this case, then the notion that they think they’ll make more money off of, say, FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama games is out the window when they’re willing to let games like UT-A&M or Alabama-Tennessee go by the wayside. ESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

I haven't done the math, but without divisions requiring a round robin, you could probably designate any number of annual rivalry games (less than 8) per school, and have the rest of the schedule rotate around those.

Much like the flex scheduling plan the Big Ten is looking at, where some teams have 1, 2 or 3 annual opponents locked in.

Your point about this being a window into ESPN's ability or willingness to spend money is valid though -- with 9 conference games, 3-6-6 you get say Georgia - LSU every other year (or at least twice in four years). With 8 games and 3 rivals locked in, you get that game an average of twice in five years. Which is less.

But we just saw Ohio State dump their Washington home-and-home series for an extra body-bag game, because the gate revenue makes it worth it. (And maybe because the @ Washington game wasn't going to be on TV anyway, so you might as well play Directional Tech at home on BTN.)

To maintain a schedule of playing every school in the league every other year, under an 8 conference game format you would have only 1 permanent opponent with 7 alternating opponents. Under a 9 game schedule, you have 3 permanent opponents with 6 alternating opponents.

However, what's the magic of playing everyone every other year? If you can accept every three years, you could have 2 permanent opponents, 5 rotating opponents, and 1 wild card opponent. The wild card opponent could be used to create made for tv matchups and/or to balance the schedule. Alternatively, it could be a multiyear rotation that results in playing everyone in one extra game over time.

(05-26-2023 10:05 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:51 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:44 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:40 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  The neutral site era had some positives but it ultimately kept us from playing any significant home and homes with other big programs, and it ended with the 2021 Miami game in Atlanta. We've already scheduled home and homes for the next decade (beginning with the Texas games last year and this year and also including Notre Dame and Ohio State, among others) so the 9 game schedule isn't the reason those have stopped.

You are right, but now those home-and-homes will be the games that are eliminated if we go to nine league games.

I disagree but we'll see. There may be some shuffling to account for having to play 5 in-conference road games every other year, but I think those marquee non-conference games will remain.

The CFP expansion to 12 incentivizes playing a hard schedule and teams that do will get credit IMO. If we go 10-2 or even 9-3 playing a 9 game SEC schedule and another major non-conference game, particularly on the road, there's no way we miss the CFP. That wouldn't be an acceptable risk with 4 but the additional spots make it possible.

I'm not concerned about the competitive aspect of things: A three-loss team very easily could make the playoff field. I am concerned that Alabama would be losing five home games every decade.

As I'm typing this, though, I realize that there would very likely be at least two playoff games in Tuscaloosa over that decade as well. Those playoff games would sell for substantially more the guarantee games, so it may work out.

"Why not both" though?

(05-26-2023 11:05 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 10:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

At the same time, if ESPN isn’t willing to throw in more money to the SEC to ensure that they get games like UT-A&M annually and having UT and OU play all of the SEC powers more often, then I don’t want to hear a single thing about the ESPN supposedly putting more money into having FSU, Clemson or other ACC schools to move to the SEC early. ESPN has 2 bigger brands in UT and OU already in the league, so if they’re not willing to pay for better matchups in this case, then the notion that they think they’ll make more money off of, say, FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama games is out the window when they’re willing to let games like UT-A&M or Alabama-Tennessee go by the wayside. ESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

I haven't done the math, but without divisions requiring a round robin, you could probably designate any number of annual rivalry games (less than 8) per school, and have the rest of the schedule rotate around those.

Much like the flex scheduling plan the Big Ten is looking at, where some teams have 1, 2 or 3 annual opponents locked in.

Your point about this being a window into ESPN's ability or willingness to spend money is valid though -- with 9 conference games, 3-6-6 you get say Georgia - LSU every other year (or at least twice in four years). With 8 games and 3 rivals locked in, you get that game an average of twice in five years. Which is less.

But we just saw Ohio State dump their Washington home-and-home series for an extra body-bag game, because the gate revenue makes it worth it. (And maybe because the @ Washington game wasn't going to be on TV anyway, so you might as well play Directional Tech at home on BTN.)

To maintain a schedule of playing every school in the league every other year, under an 8 conference game format you would have only 1 permanent opponent with 7 alternating opponents. Under a 9 game schedule, you have 3 permanent opponents with 6 alternating opponents.

However, what's the magic of playing everyone every other year? If you can accept every three years, you could have 2 permanent opponents, 5 rotating opponents, and 1 wild card opponent. The wild card opponent could be used to create made for tv matchups and/or to balance the schedule. Alternatively, it could be a multiyear rotation that results in playing everyone in one extra game over time.

Right. We've gone for about a decade with matchups like Mizzou- Ole Miss or LSU-Tennessee being twice-every-twelve years, if I counted correctly on my fingers. twice in five years would be more. Of course, matchups that were division matchups that aren't protected rivals go from "every year" to twice-in-five or six years.

(05-26-2023 10:55 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

At the same time, if ESPN isn’t willing to throw in more money to the SEC to ensure that they get games like UT-A&M annually and having UT and OU play all of the SEC powers more often, then I don’t want to hear a single thing about the ESPN supposedly putting more money into having FSU, Clemson or other ACC schools to move to the SEC early. ESPN has 2 bigger brands in UT and OU already in the league, so if they’re not willing to pay for better matchups in this case, then the notion that they think they’ll make more money off of, say, FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama games is out the window when they’re willing to let games like UT-A&M or Alabama-Tennessee go by the wayside. ESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

I haven't done the math, but without divisions requiring a round robin, you could probably designate any number of annual rivalry games (less than 8) per school, and have the rest of the schedule rotate around those.

Much like the flex scheduling plan the Big Ten is looking at, where some teams have 1, 2 or 3 annual opponents locked in.

Your point about this being a window into ESPN's ability or willingness to spend money is valid though -- with 9 conference games, 3-6-6 you get say Georgia - LSU every other year (or at least twice in four years). With 8 games and 3 rivals locked in, you get that game an average of twice in five years. Which is less.

But we just saw Ohio State dump their Washington home-and-home series for an extra body-bag game, because the gate revenue makes it worth it. (And maybe because the @ Washington game wasn't going to be on TV anyway, so you might as well play Directional Tech at home on BTN.)

Just did some quick math for an 8 game conference schedule, obviously 1 rival annually results in playing everyone every other year.

2 rivals annually results in playing everyone twice in 5 years with either 4 teams a 3rd time or 2 teams 4 times out of 5 years.

3 rivals annually results in playing everyone twice in 5 years with a 4th team playing a 3rd time in 5 years.

4 rivals annually results in playing everyone twice every 6 years with either 2 teams playing 3 times or 1 team playing 4 times in 6 years.

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

At the same time, if ESPN isn’t willing to throw in more money to the SEC to ensure that they get games like UT-A&M annually and having UT and OU play all of the SEC powers more often, then I don’t want to hear a single thing about the ESPN supposedly putting more money into having FSU, Clemson or other ACC schools to move to the SEC early. ESPN has 2 bigger brands in UT and OU already in the league, so if they’re not willing to pay for better matchups in this case, then the notion that they think they’ll make more money off of, say, FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama games is out the window when they’re willing to let games like UT-A&M or Alabama-Tennessee go by the wayside. ESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

ESPN is in cost saving mode regarding the SEC b/c the contracts are signed and they have us locked down until 2034. However, that doesn't mean that they can't or won't consider paying a bit more if we go to a 9 game schedule. It's a negotiation, and ESPN has most of the negotiating power. We're just trying to introduce doubt into their minds about whether we'd actually stick to an 8 game schedule, which would annoy a bunch of our players and fans, but probably please a bunch of our coaches and Presidents. Will ESPN end up paying a bit for a 9 game schedule? They probably will, but I don't know. It's possible that we stick with 8 games until 2034 and then use that 9th game as a negotiating tool in the next contract.

(05-26-2023 09:15 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Everyone can calm down. I'll believe it when I see it.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. We're getting an occasional glimpse of the sausage getting made here. We didn't end Bama/Tenn or Auburn/Georgia 30 years ago or 12 years ago when we expanded and we aren't going to now.

It'll be 9. The process will play out.

I'm not sure what's going to happen, but regardless of what the final schedule looks like, I'll bet that we end up not playing Georgia again until 2057.

(05-26-2023 09:41 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not having a 9-game SEC schedule after having added UT and OU is straight up worse for college football. We should be getting and reinstating more great games and rivalries as opposed to actually seeing a bunch potentially eliminated.

Larger conferences eliminate rivalries and makes it harder for rivalries to develop.

At this point I would prefer a pod system with crossover permanent rivals. So Alabama could be in a pod with Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss, and then have a permanent rival with Tennessee while Auburn had a permanent rivalry with Georgia, who is in a pod with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.

Pods could work ok in an 8 game schedule scenario. We could be in a pod with LSU, Ms St, and Arky, then have Texas as permanent, or maybe in a pod with Texas, OU and Arky with LSU as rival. Either of those is regional for us and hits everybody we need to hit.

I think the SEC will end up at 9 games but certain models of permanent opponents will change.

I think Sankey has a decent idea that ESPN will boost the pot by x amount but the schools feel it should be more and are fine playing chicken over it.

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  IESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

ESPN just coughed up an obscene amount of money for Pat McAffee. They have the funds for this inventory. Negotiation tactic on the SEC behalf.

(05-26-2023 11:37 AM)CFBLurker Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  IESPN is clearly in pure cost saving austerity mode here if this ends up being true.

ESPN just coughed up an obscene amount of money for Pat McAffee. They have the funds for this inventory. Negotiation tactic on the SEC behalf.

Talent and league rights are different orders of magnitude. Pat McAfee's big fat $30M a year contract? Yeah that's MAC money, that's Sun Belt money. That's one Big 12 school added at full pro rata.

The SEC is not adding a 9th conference game to get an extra $30M a year. They might add a 9th game because they want a 9th game, or they might add a 9th game for a lot more than $30M.

(05-26-2023 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:41 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not having a 9-game SEC schedule after having added UT and OU is straight up worse for college football. We should be getting and reinstating more great games and rivalries as opposed to actually seeing a bunch potentially eliminated.

Larger conferences eliminate rivalries and makes it harder for rivalries to develop.

At this point I would prefer a pod system with crossover permanent rivals. So Alabama could be in a pod with Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss, and then have a permanent rival with Tennessee while Auburn had a permanent rivalry with Georgia, who is in a pod with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.

Pods could work ok in an 8 game schedule scenario. We could be in a pod with LSU, Ms St, and Arky, then have Texas as permanent, or maybe in a pod with Texas, OU and Arky with LSU as rival. Either of those is regional for us and hits everybody we need to hit.

Hopefully A&M & Texas play TECH & Baylor annually. This is why I support the 8 game schedule. It would allow Texas to play TECH one year and Baylor the next, same for A&M.

Rivalries matter.

(05-26-2023 11:45 AM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:41 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not having a 9-game SEC schedule after having added UT and OU is straight up worse for college football. We should be getting and reinstating more great games and rivalries as opposed to actually seeing a bunch potentially eliminated.

Larger conferences eliminate rivalries and makes it harder for rivalries to develop.

At this point I would prefer a pod system with crossover permanent rivals. So Alabama could be in a pod with Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss, and then have a permanent rival with Tennessee while Auburn had a permanent rivalry with Georgia, who is in a pod with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.

Pods could work ok in an 8 game schedule scenario. We could be in a pod with LSU, Ms St, and Arky, then have Texas as permanent, or maybe in a pod with Texas, OU and Arky with LSU as rival. Either of those is regional for us and hits everybody we need to hit.

Hopefully A&M & Texas play TECH & Baylor annually. This is why I support the 8 game schedule. It would allow Texas to play TECH one year and Baylor the next, same for A&M.

Rivalries matter.

But just think, if they go to nine - you get those UT-South Carolina and UT - Kentucky and UT- Mississippi State games that we've all been clamoring for.

Plus, Texas will be absolutely forced to schedule more home games to cope, which does mean the rivalries with Rice, SMU, and UNT will continue to thrive.

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

I think ESPN is calling the SEC’s bluff. Are they really going to discontinue Auburn-Georgia? A schedule that features every team twice in every 5 or 6 years is fine for the SEC; they floated the “only 1 rival” idea to extort more money from ESPN.

Will the SEC go to 9 without a pay increase? Maybe. Although doing so Year 1 of OU/UT may not be guaranteed this late in the game.

(05-26-2023 11:56 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’ve said this before: it is absolutely asinine to me that the SEC would add Texas and Oklahoma but then have a schedule that would not reinstate UT-A&M as annual game and actually having games like Alabama-Tennessee being eliminated as annual rivalries. It shouldn’t matter whether ESPN is offering more money or not (as they are not obligated to do so). The Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 all went to 9 conference games in the middle of their respective TV contracts and didn’t seek an increase - at a certain point, the long-term preservation of important games is what matters the most to the value of the league.

I think ESPN is calling the SEC’s bluff. Are they really going to discontinue Auburn-Georgia? A schedule that features every team twice in every 5 or 6 years is fine for the SEC; they floated the “only 1 rival” idea to extort more money from ESPN.

Will the SEC go to 9 without a pay increase? Maybe. Although doing so Year 1 of OU/UT may not be guaranteed this late in the game.

I hope that you’re right. I’m more worried about the Kentucky-types that legitimately seem to want the extra non-P5 home game as opposed to playing Georgia/Alabama/Texas/Florida more.

(05-26-2023 11:45 AM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:41 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not having a 9-game SEC schedule after having added UT and OU is straight up worse for college football. We should be getting and reinstating more great games and rivalries as opposed to actually seeing a bunch potentially eliminated.

Larger conferences eliminate rivalries and makes it harder for rivalries to develop.

At this point I would prefer a pod system with crossover permanent rivals. So Alabama could be in a pod with Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss, and then have a permanent rival with Tennessee while Auburn had a permanent rivalry with Georgia, who is in a pod with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.

Pods could work ok in an 8 game schedule scenario. We could be in a pod with LSU, Ms St, and Arky, then have Texas as permanent, or maybe in a pod with Texas, OU and Arky with LSU as rival. Either of those is regional for us and hits everybody we need to hit.

Hopefully A&M & Texas play TECH & Baylor annually. This is why I support the 8 game schedule. It would allow Texas to play TECH one year and Baylor the next, same for A&M.

Rivalries matter.

If you wanted to play Tech and Baylor ever year, Texas should have stayed in the Big 12.

I have never understood why conferences choose to do a 9 game schedule.

Even though no one wants to admit it the first 4 games of the season are what really matters in college football. If you want to make it to the playoff you are better off playing an FCS team, a lower-tier G5 team, a winnable game against an FBS team, and another game against a top that is usually in the top 25.

When the vast majority of your conference is starting the season 3-1 or better like the SEC you go in with like 6+ teams ranked. And this basically ensures that 1-2 teams are going to make it to the playoff from your conference.

(05-26-2023 11:53 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 11:45 AM)DC Texan Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:41 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Not having a 9-game SEC schedule after having added UT and OU is straight up worse for college football. We should be getting and reinstating more great games and rivalries as opposed to actually seeing a bunch potentially eliminated.

Larger conferences eliminate rivalries and makes it harder for rivalries to develop.

At this point I would prefer a pod system with crossover permanent rivals. So Alabama could be in a pod with Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss, and then have a permanent rival with Tennessee while Auburn had a permanent rivalry with Georgia, who is in a pod with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida.

Pods could work ok in an 8 game schedule scenario. We could be in a pod with LSU, Ms St, and Arky, then have Texas as permanent, or maybe in a pod with Texas, OU and Arky with LSU as rival. Either of those is regional for us and hits everybody we need to hit.

Hopefully A&M & Texas play TECH & Baylor annually. This is why I support the 8 game schedule. It would allow Texas to play TECH one year and Baylor the next, same for A&M.

Rivalries matter.

But just think, if they go to nine - you get those UT-South Carolina and UT - Kentucky and UT- Mississippi State games that we've all been clamoring for.

Well, South Carolina was 8-5 last year, finished the regular season with back-to-back wins over top ten teams to crack the top 25. Kentucky was in the top 25 for most of the year. Mississippi State ended up ranked. So yeah, ESPN would be pretty happy with those games.

Sure the UT-Tech game went to overtime last year, but the year before that the score was 70-35.

(05-26-2023 10:01 AM)goofus Wrote:  Maybe there is another way

8-game conference schedule
3 permanent rivals every year
6 teams you play every 2 years
6 teams you play every 3 years

That seems fine. It could also be done:
4 permanent rivals every year
2 teams you play every 2 years
9 teams you play every 3 years

Better still would be allowing teams to mix and match between these two, depending on if they want a 4th rival. Instead of having X rivals played every 2 years, play every non-rival every 3 years with extra flex spots as needed.

And, finally, I still believe that 4-team divisions produce the MOST regular season competition; the 3-year cycle is then perfect for ensuring division mates play 88% identical schedules. That is 3 rivalries each; add Auburn-Georgia, A&M-UT, and maybe LSU-Alabama as cross-division annuals and the other spots can be flexed.

(05-26-2023 12:07 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I have never understood why conferences choose to do a 9 game schedule.

Even though no one wants to admit it the first 4 games of the season are what really matters in college football. If you want to make it to the playoff you are better off playing an FCS team, a lower-tier G5 team, a winnable game against an FBS team, and another game against a top that is usually in the top 25.

When the vast majority of your conference is starting the season 3-1 or better like the SEC you go in with like 6+ teams ranked. And this basically ensures that 1-2 teams are going to make it to the playoff from your conference.

At least in the case of the Big Ten, it became clear that the most valuable games that they had from a media perspective were their own conference games as opposed to non-conference games. As a result, they were ultimately giving that value away to other leagues when they ought to have been retaining it for themselves. (You could argue that this wasn’t the case for the Pac-12 where the ND games against USC/Stanford and the better non-conference games for Oregon/USC/Washington we’re comparatively more important value-wise compared to conference games.)

You’re looking at it through the prism of what’s the optimal schedule to make it to the playoff, but that generally hasn’t been how conferences approach things at all. They care about maximizing money (and specifically media money).