From the Tuscaloosa News

Quote:A little more than a century ago, when the doughboys of the American Expeditionary Forces marched off to war in Europe, the question was posed in a popular song: “How You Going to Keep ‘em Down on the Farm after They’ve Seen Paris?” Ultimately, you couldn’t, and America, for many reasons, became an urban society rather than an agrarian one.

The 2021 version currently in the news would phrase a similar question in a different way: “How You Going to Keep 'em from Buying GameStop after They’ve Been Day Traders?”

The point is that big events – whether wars or pandemics or financial uncertainty – create ripples. They are catalysts for change, even among established institutions or vast swaths of the country that are usually resistant to change. People or governments try something different, and sometimes people like it.

We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

(02-02-2021 08:13 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

I think there are some creative ways to make up those home games.

For one, a better schedule will lead to higher ticket prices so you don't have to make up every dollar in media revenue.

Secondly, I like the idea of a tuneup game. Play a local FCS squad in the late Summer and it will simply act as a preseason game. That way, you can get a lot of reps in for guys that won't necessarily be starting. That or maybe determine some position battles. Either way, fans will turn out for that after a long offseason. That's one game you don't have to lose.

Third, in my high school days schools used to play jamborees. That's 3 or 4 schools from the same area coming together and playing a quarter against each other or something like that. Schools could host events like this in the Spring and make it a fun atmosphere. It wouldn't be the same as an extra home game, but every little bit helps.

(02-03-2021 03:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:13 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

I think there are some creative ways to make up those home games.

For one, a better schedule will lead to higher ticket prices so you don't have to make up every dollar in media revenue.

Secondly, I like the idea of a tuneup game. Play a local FCS squad in the late Summer and it will simply act as a preseason game. That way, you can get a lot of reps in for guys that won't necessarily be starting. That or maybe determine some position battles. Either way, fans will turn out for that after a long offseason. That's one game you don't have to lose.

Third, in my high school days schools used to play jamborees. That's 3 or 4 schools from the same area coming together and playing a quarter against each other or something like that. Schools could host events like this in the Spring and make it a fun atmosphere. It wouldn't be the same as an extra home game, but every little bit helps.

Hi ATU, et. al. I'd like to comment on this. I'll try to get through this. Recently I had cataract surgery, and the new eyeglasses are over two weeks past due. That with a dexterity challenge, I find blurriness and an ache are not an endearing combination.

I can understand for Alabama, and perhaps a few others in the SEC, a ten game conference schedule in football would be profitable and preferred. For Alabama, due largely to their central location, all their frequent and prime rivalries dwell in the SEC. For schools more on the outer edges of the SEC, that characterization applies less so. We acknowledge the in-state rivalry games with ACC schools, for example.

I endorse requiring each school scheduling ten P-5 games per season. What I have not thought through extensively, is the structuring. Here are several points on this:

1. I'd like to see primary in-conference and out-of-conference games be maintained. These are the games with in-state and neighboring state schools that have solid fan interest, are well attended and traditional, and are viewed as lucrative.

2. I support "flex" scheduling. Perhaps for a school such as Vanderbilt, allow them to have fewer in-conference fb games; and permit substitute scheduling with schools such as Wake Forest, Duke, Army, and G-5 types such as Tulane, Rice, and SMU.
Let all members have a reasonable, compatible schedule, at least in terms of intent.
How to prevent such an arrangement being abused in practice, I won't try to explain here.

3. Can there be a clever way to devise a conference championship eligibility format whereby not all member schools are playing an in-conference schedule of ten games plus two free choices? I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly.

4. Could championship eligibility move to being based more on polling and pre-established criteria rather than reliance solely/predominantly on in-conference W-L records? Could, somehow, a non-conference P-5 game, or an added game with a SEC opponent, be calculated in conference standings, or become more purposeful in assessing a school's strength for a playoff spot? Let me say though, on the field performance is a critical determinant.

Here is what I vaguely suggest, knowing it has flaws to be rectified:

*All SEC member schools continue to play the established eight games with conference opponents.

*Require two additional games with approved P-5 type schools, in OR out of conference.

*Allow for two free-choice games to be scheduled yearly. No more than one FCS game would be acceptable as with the current policy. Place an added criteria on approval with a game per a FCS school (in-state, regional, scholarship awards, etc.).

*Permit a school to opt-out for a season, or a longer designated period, to do alternate scheduling but maintain a minimum of six conference divisional games. However, the school would not be eligible for the conference championship, and would receive a proportional reduction in conference and TV revenue for football.

*There is value in playing P-5 schools from other conferences. Some intersectional games draw strong ratings. Pressing forward just internally for a conference may reduce the number of inter-conference battles and opportunities for comparative analysis of conference strength.

This wouldn't be perfection; nothing would be.

(02-05-2021 01:51 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 03:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:13 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

I think there are some creative ways to make up those home games.

For one, a better schedule will lead to higher ticket prices so you don't have to make up every dollar in media revenue.

Secondly, I like the idea of a tuneup game. Play a local FCS squad in the late Summer and it will simply act as a preseason game. That way, you can get a lot of reps in for guys that won't necessarily be starting. That or maybe determine some position battles. Either way, fans will turn out for that after a long offseason. That's one game you don't have to lose.

Third, in my high school days schools used to play jamborees. That's 3 or 4 schools from the same area coming together and playing a quarter against each other or something like that. Schools could host events like this in the Spring and make it a fun atmosphere. It wouldn't be the same as an extra home game, but every little bit helps.

Hi ATU, et. al. I'd like to comment on this. I'll try to get through this. Recently I had cataract surgery, and the new eyeglasses are over two weeks past due. That with a dexterity challenge, I find blurriness and an ache are not an endearing combination.

I can understand for Alabama, and perhaps a few others in the SEC, a ten game conference schedule in football would be profitable and preferred. For Alabama, due largely to their central location, all their frequent and prime rivalries dwell in the SEC. For schools more on the outer edges of the SEC, that characterization applies less so. We acknowledge the in-state rivalry games with ACC schools, for example.

I endorse requiring each school scheduling ten P-5 games per season. What I have not thought through extensively, is the structuring. Here are several points on this:

1. I'd like to see primary in-conference and out-of-conference games be maintained. These are the games with in-state and neighboring state schools that have solid fan interest, are well attended and traditional, and are viewed as lucrative.

2. I support "flex" scheduling. Perhaps for a school such as Vanderbilt, allow them to have fewer in-conference fb games; and permit substitute scheduling with schools such as Wake Forest, Duke, Army, and G-5 types such as Tulane, Rice, and SMU.
Let all members have a reasonable, compatible schedule, at least in terms of intent.
How to prevent such an arrangement being abused in practice, I won't try to explain here.

3. Can there be a clever way to devise a conference championship eligibility format whereby not all member schools are playing an in-conference schedule of ten games plus two free choices? I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly.

4. Could championship eligibility move to being based more on polling and pre-established criteria rather than reliance solely/predominantly on in-conference W-L records? Could, somehow, a non-conference P-5 game, or an added game with a SEC opponent, be calculated in conference standings, or become more purposeful in assessing a school's strength for a playoff spot? Let me say though, on the field performance is a critical determinant.

Here is what I vaguely suggest, knowing it has flaws to be rectified:

*All SEC member schools continue to play the established eight games with conference opponents.

*Require two additional games with approved P-5 type schools, in OR out of conference.

*Allow for two free-choice games to be scheduled yearly. No more than one FCS game would be acceptable as with the current policy. Place an added criteria on approval with a game per a FCS school (in-state, regional, scholarship awards, etc.).

*Permit a school to opt-out for a season, or a longer designated period, to do alternate scheduling but maintain a minimum of six conference divisional games. However, the school would not be eligible for the conference championship, and would receive a proportional reduction in conference and TV revenue for football.

*There is value in playing P-5 schools from other conferences. Some intersectional games draw strong ratings. Pressing forward just internally for a conference may reduce the number of inter-conference battles and opportunities for comparative analysis of conference strength.

This wouldn't be perfection; nothing would be.

1. You have to have a baseline to establish conference finish for purposes of championships and playoff consideration.

2. You can do this with 8 conference games and 2 OOC P games, but if you choose to play additional conference foes for the OOC P games those games cannot count toward conference records. Back in the day Bear sometimes scheduled a 7th conference game when everyone else played 6 and if Alabama went 7-1 and everyone else in contention was 6-1 then Alabama was declared the champion. If you aren't emphatic about not counting these games against the conference record people will job the system.

3. If you want to be a partial get your azz out of the conference, unless the relationship you seek is that of a permanent partial in which case you will not be eligible for championships. What you suggest for Notre Dame would be a gaming of the system against Clemson and Florida State in the ACC. We can't have that anywhere. But if the Irish play 10 P games they can be considered for the CFP but not for the ACC championship.

4. Anyone who has played the game in high school or college will tell you they want the chance to win a title on the field. So no polls, no committees, no politics with which to screw young men out of their shot when they've won their conference and want to play for it all.

(02-05-2021 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 01:51 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 03:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:13 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

I think there are some creative ways to make up those home games.

For one, a better schedule will lead to higher ticket prices so you don't have to make up every dollar in media revenue.

Secondly, I like the idea of a tuneup game. Play a local FCS squad in the late Summer and it will simply act as a preseason game. That way, you can get a lot of reps in for guys that won't necessarily be starting. That or maybe determine some position battles. Either way, fans will turn out for that after a long offseason. That's one game you don't have to lose.

Third, in my high school days schools used to play jamborees. That's 3 or 4 schools from the same area coming together and playing a quarter against each other or something like that. Schools could host events like this in the Spring and make it a fun atmosphere. It wouldn't be the same as an extra home game, but every little bit helps.

Hi ATU, et. al. I'd like to comment on this. I'll try to get through this. Recently I had cataract surgery, and the new eyeglasses are over two weeks past due. That with a dexterity challenge, I find blurriness and an ache are not an endearing combination.

I can understand for Alabama, and perhaps a few others in the SEC, a ten game conference schedule in football would be profitable and preferred. For Alabama, due largely to their central location, all their frequent and prime rivalries dwell in the SEC. For schools more on the outer edges of the SEC, that characterization applies less so. We acknowledge the in-state rivalry games with ACC schools, for example.

I endorse requiring each school scheduling ten P-5 games per season. What I have not thought through extensively, is the structuring. Here are several points on this:

1. I'd like to see primary in-conference and out-of-conference games be maintained. These are the games with in-state and neighboring state schools that have solid fan interest, are well attended and traditional, and are viewed as lucrative.

2. I support "flex" scheduling. Perhaps for a school such as Vanderbilt, allow them to have fewer in-conference fb games; and permit substitute scheduling with schools such as Wake Forest, Duke, Army, and G-5 types such as Tulane, Rice, and SMU.
Let all members have a reasonable, compatible schedule, at least in terms of intent.
How to prevent such an arrangement being abused in practice, I won't try to explain here.

3. Can there be a clever way to devise a conference championship eligibility format whereby not all member schools are playing an in-conference schedule of ten games plus two free choices? I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly.

4. Could championship eligibility move to being based more on polling and pre-established criteria rather than reliance solely/predominantly on in-conference W-L records? Could, somehow, a non-conference P-5 game, or an added game with a SEC opponent, be calculated in conference standings, or become more purposeful in assessing a school's strength for a playoff spot? Let me say though, on the field performance is a critical determinant.

Here is what I vaguely suggest, knowing it has flaws to be rectified:

*All SEC member schools continue to play the established eight games with conference opponents.

*Require two additional games with approved P-5 type schools, in OR out of conference.

*Allow for two free-choice games to be scheduled yearly. No more than one FCS game would be acceptable as with the current policy. Place an added criteria on approval with a game per a FCS school (in-state, regional, scholarship awards, etc.).

*Permit a school to opt-out for a season, or a longer designated period, to do alternate scheduling but maintain a minimum of six conference divisional games. However, the school would not be eligible for the conference championship, and would receive a proportional reduction in conference and TV revenue for football.

*There is value in playing P-5 schools from other conferences. Some intersectional games draw strong ratings. Pressing forward just internally for a conference may reduce the number of inter-conference battles and opportunities for comparative analysis of conference strength.

This wouldn't be perfection; nothing would be.

1. You have to have a baseline to establish conference finish for purposes of championships and playoff consideration.

2. You can do this with 8 conference games and 2 OOC P games, but if you choose to play additional conference foes for the OOC P games those games cannot count toward conference records. Back in the day Bear sometimes scheduled a 7th conference game when everyone else played 6 and if Alabama went 7-1 and everyone else in contention was 6-1 then Alabama was declared the champion. If you aren't emphatic about not counting these games against the conference record people will job the system.

3. If you want to be a partial get your azz out of the conference, unless the relationship you seek is that of a permanent partial in which case you will not be eligible for championships. What you suggest for Notre Dame would be a gaming of the system against Clemson and Florida State in the ACC. We can't have that anywhere. But if the Irish play 10 P games they can be considered for the CFP but not for the ACC championship.

4. Anyone who has played the game in high school or college will tell you they want the chance to win a title on the field. So no polls, no committees, no politics with which to screw young men out of their shot when they've won their conference and want to play for it all.

No, what I said was: " I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly." I am not in favor of Notre Dame even being in the ACC with partial/reduced football. I said that from the get-go.

The point: An editorial writer in Alabama has advocated that the SEC move to a required conference game slate of ten. In concept, I embrace the idea with certain exceptions/accommodations available to all conference members. I was unclear and uncertain how this goal could be achieved taking into consideration the interests and preferences of all conference members. I acknowledged this more than once. There is a record how the spectrum of members positioned themselves on this matter. It is not new.

The practice of some members playing eight conference games and four cupcake games does need constrained in my opinion. Complaining about the brutality of the SEC schedule as a justification for three or four cupcake games sounds counter to the argument to increase the in-conference games by two. My fundamental argument was to reach a point, at least, that all members play a minimum of ten P-5 type games.

I'll admit, the "partial" or "alternate" option for a school such as Vanderbilt was not given a meaningful rationale for how such could be implemented or even accepted. I want such schools to have a meaningful avenue to success, and their entire schedule has some level of compatibility that does not assume every game will be a loss. Vanderbilt has largely played by the rules; others have not.

Alabama is going to dominate the SEC for decades. Their recruiting classes are superior to all others. They set the standards for others to aspire, not necessarily reach. Eight conference games, or ten, Alabama will dominate.

Equity will not be forced by in-conference scheduling or necessarily coaching hiring.
Is the conference/P-5 ready for scholarship portals and drafting? I don't think so.

(02-06-2021 09:33 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 01:51 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 03:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 08:13 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  We can hope all we want, but the SEC will move to 9 or 10 conference games when the most predictable thing happens...someone is willing to make an offer we can't refuse in terms of $$$ to broadcast it. It will have to be hefty to potentially sacrifice a home game or two from the season schedule

I think there are some creative ways to make up those home games.

For one, a better schedule will lead to higher ticket prices so you don't have to make up every dollar in media revenue.

Secondly, I like the idea of a tuneup game. Play a local FCS squad in the late Summer and it will simply act as a preseason game. That way, you can get a lot of reps in for guys that won't necessarily be starting. That or maybe determine some position battles. Either way, fans will turn out for that after a long offseason. That's one game you don't have to lose.

Third, in my high school days schools used to play jamborees. That's 3 or 4 schools from the same area coming together and playing a quarter against each other or something like that. Schools could host events like this in the Spring and make it a fun atmosphere. It wouldn't be the same as an extra home game, but every little bit helps.

Hi ATU, et. al. I'd like to comment on this. I'll try to get through this. Recently I had cataract surgery, and the new eyeglasses are over two weeks past due. That with a dexterity challenge, I find blurriness and an ache are not an endearing combination.

I can understand for Alabama, and perhaps a few others in the SEC, a ten game conference schedule in football would be profitable and preferred. For Alabama, due largely to their central location, all their frequent and prime rivalries dwell in the SEC. For schools more on the outer edges of the SEC, that characterization applies less so. We acknowledge the in-state rivalry games with ACC schools, for example.

I endorse requiring each school scheduling ten P-5 games per season. What I have not thought through extensively, is the structuring. Here are several points on this:

1. I'd like to see primary in-conference and out-of-conference games be maintained. These are the games with in-state and neighboring state schools that have solid fan interest, are well attended and traditional, and are viewed as lucrative.

2. I support "flex" scheduling. Perhaps for a school such as Vanderbilt, allow them to have fewer in-conference fb games; and permit substitute scheduling with schools such as Wake Forest, Duke, Army, and G-5 types such as Tulane, Rice, and SMU.
Let all members have a reasonable, compatible schedule, at least in terms of intent.
How to prevent such an arrangement being abused in practice, I won't try to explain here.

3. Can there be a clever way to devise a conference championship eligibility format whereby not all member schools are playing an in-conference schedule of ten games plus two free choices? I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly.

4. Could championship eligibility move to being based more on polling and pre-established criteria rather than reliance solely/predominantly on in-conference W-L records? Could, somehow, a non-conference P-5 game, or an added game with a SEC opponent, be calculated in conference standings, or become more purposeful in assessing a school's strength for a playoff spot? Let me say though, on the field performance is a critical determinant.

Here is what I vaguely suggest, knowing it has flaws to be rectified:

*All SEC member schools continue to play the established eight games with conference opponents.

*Require two additional games with approved P-5 type schools, in OR out of conference.

*Allow for two free-choice games to be scheduled yearly. No more than one FCS game would be acceptable as with the current policy. Place an added criteria on approval with a game per a FCS school (in-state, regional, scholarship awards, etc.).

*Permit a school to opt-out for a season, or a longer designated period, to do alternate scheduling but maintain a minimum of six conference divisional games. However, the school would not be eligible for the conference championship, and would receive a proportional reduction in conference and TV revenue for football.

*There is value in playing P-5 schools from other conferences. Some intersectional games draw strong ratings. Pressing forward just internally for a conference may reduce the number of inter-conference battles and opportunities for comparative analysis of conference strength.

This wouldn't be perfection; nothing would be.

1. You have to have a baseline to establish conference finish for purposes of championships and playoff consideration.

2. You can do this with 8 conference games and 2 OOC P games, but if you choose to play additional conference foes for the OOC P games those games cannot count toward conference records. Back in the day Bear sometimes scheduled a 7th conference game when everyone else played 6 and if Alabama went 7-1 and everyone else in contention was 6-1 then Alabama was declared the champion. If you aren't emphatic about not counting these games against the conference record people will job the system.

3. If you want to be a partial get your azz out of the conference, unless the relationship you seek is that of a permanent partial in which case you will not be eligible for championships. What you suggest for Notre Dame would be a gaming of the system against Clemson and Florida State in the ACC. We can't have that anywhere. But if the Irish play 10 P games they can be considered for the CFP but not for the ACC championship.

4. Anyone who has played the game in high school or college will tell you they want the chance to win a title on the field. So no polls, no committees, no politics with which to screw young men out of their shot when they've won their conference and want to play for it all.

No, what I said was: " I am not trying to impose an idea, for example, such as making Notre Dame eligible in the ACC for a championship by playing traditionally just five games with ACC schools yearly." I am not in favor of Notre Dame even being in the ACC with partial/reduced football. I said that from the get-go.

The point: An editorial writer in Alabama has advocated that the SEC move to a required conference game slate of ten. In concept, I embrace the idea with certain exceptions/accommodations available to all conference members. I was unclear and uncertain how this goal could be achieved taking into consideration the interests and preferences of all conference members. I acknowledged this more than once. There is a record how the spectrum of members positioned themselves on this matter. It is not new.

The practice of some members playing eight conference games and four cupcake games does need constrained in my opinion. Complaining about the brutality of the SEC schedule as a justification for three or four cupcake games sounds counter to the argument to increase the in-conference games by two. My fundamental argument was to reach a point, at least, that all members play a minimum of ten P-5 type games.

I'll admit, the "partial" or "alternate" option for a school such as Vanderbilt was not given a meaningful rationale for how such could be implemented or even accepted. I want such schools to have a meaningful avenue to success, and their entire schedule has some level of compatibility that does not assume every game will be a loss. Vanderbilt has largely played by the rules; others have not.

Alabama is going to dominate the SEC for decades. Their recruiting classes are superior to all others. They set the standards for others to aspire, not necessarily reach. Eight conference games, or ten, Alabama will dominate.

Equity will not be forced by in-conference scheduling or necessarily coaching hiring.
Is the conference/P-5 ready for scholarship portals and drafting? I don't think so.

Sports isn't about equity and shouldn't be. It's about teamwork, excellence in performance and winning. Seeking equity is destructive of all of that.

If Vanderbilt can't compete they should drop down to the next level of competition. Levels exist to provide a semblance of equity. Pride is why schools choose to remain at levels in which they cannot compete.

My answer #2 fully addressed 10 P games and how to implement them fairly. It allowed for those fringe footprint issues you discussed.

I'm fine with 12 P games under the same parameters.

The article addressed fans not wanting to watch sacrificial lambs and not wanting to pay 60 bucks a ticket for what is not exciting football, let alone competitive football. I'm one of them.

You posited N.D. playing for an ACC championship in your original post and referenced them playing 5 games.

My point remains you have to have a baseline of counting conference games which are equal in number for championships to be fairly decided on the field. If you choose to play 10 conference teams then in a system that requires 8 conference games minimally two of those games will not count against or for conference record. That way Alabama can choose to play Kentucky and Tennessee as their 2 extra games and South Carolina can choose Clemson and N.C. State but none of them count as conference games with both schools playing 8 of those. But obviously both would play 10 conference games. I think you could easily do that with 12 P games and make more revenue from the added content. The reason we don't already do that is that so far the networks haven't been willing to pay more for it so we aren't giving that perk away for free. When the networks offer more for that kind of schedule you will see that kind of schedule.

I am trying to avoid a new post, same topic, running too long with script.

JRsec wrote:

"My point remains you have to have a baseline of counting conference games which are equal in number for championships to be fairly decided on the field. If you choose to play 10 conference teams then in a system that requires 8 conference games minimally two of those games will not count against or for conference record. That way Alabama can choose to play Kentucky and Tennessee as their 2 extra games and South Carolina can choose Clemson and N.C. State but none of them count as conference games with both schools playing 8 of those. But obviously both would play 10 conference games. I think you could easily do that with 12 P games and make more revenue from the added content. The reason we don't already do that is that so far the networks haven't been willing to pay more for it so we aren't giving that perk away for free. When the networks offer more for that kind of schedule you will see that kind of schedule."

I really see no problem with the first segment. It could be done with some grumbling. It is the 12 P games that would be incredibly upending.
In the ACC, Wake Forest and North Carolina count some of their games as external to conference standings to meet the 9th P game policy. It appears to work fine. They want to play each other, preferably yearly.

P 12 games would cancel rivalry games, if across the board, such as TCU-SMU, Mississippi State-Southern Miss, Ole Miss-Memphis, Vanderbilt-MTSU, South Carolina-East Carolina, etc. While some are not scheduled yearly, they are frequent enough. Eliminating such an option would have profound ramifications, economically, politically, and the sustainability for multiple schools. As to playing FCS schools, personally I would not favor eliminating that option totally. Both South Carolina and Clemson rotate playing most in-state schools. Whether that is a good rationale, may be debatable, but there is a reason.

Here is the general SC model with eight conference games:

8 games - SEC opponents
1 game- Clemson (in-state archrival)
1 game- A FBS game vs a North Carolina school (a recent pattern of holding this game in Charlotte).
1 game- An in-state FCS school in rotation
1 game- At large, probably a G-5 type

Thus, South Carolina could go to 9 conference games, continue with Clemson, and continue with playing a NC school and an in-state FCS school. If say, Purdue, wanted to come play USC, that is not an option with just one change in the pattern.

At ten, USC would need to eliminate playing Clemson which won't happen, which means eliminate playing a NC school during every regular season or no additional in-state opponents.

At 12, playing in-state rival Clemson becomes terminated.

Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, and potentially Texas A&M could face similar dilemmas.

Who could adapt the easiest to 10 plus: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Mizzou (perhaps less so). It would be a nightmare for Vandy.

Frankly, going for 9 conference games would be better to ease into such a situation if it comes to that.

The Notre Dame situation in the ACC is a contract and not pertinent and is a bad example since they are not technically a member of ACC football. They will refuse to add three games with conference members unless forced by the overall system.

I detest the situation whereby a school (ND) has the resources to deliver conference fb, but refuses, and the conference adds them as members anyway. That differs with Wichita State in the AAC, or Navy only being fb in the AAC. The perplexity per Vandy in the SEC is more in terms of resources. But Vandy will plug along as they always have done. The situation for SC, MSU, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Arkansas, maybe Tennessee, are better, but are significantly out-paced by some other schools in the SEC (for now).

(02-07-2021 04:00 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am trying to avoid a new post, same topic, running too long with script.

JRsec wrote:

"My point remains you have to have a baseline of counting conference games which are equal in number for championships to be fairly decided on the field. If you choose to play 10 conference teams then in a system that requires 8 conference games minimally two of those games will not count against or for conference record. That way Alabama can choose to play Kentucky and Tennessee as their 2 extra games and South Carolina can choose Clemson and N.C. State but none of them count as conference games with both schools playing 8 of those. But obviously both would play 10 conference games. I think you could easily do that with 12 P games and make more revenue from the added content. The reason we don't already do that is that so far the networks haven't been willing to pay more for it so we aren't giving that perk away for free. When the networks offer more for that kind of schedule you will see that kind of schedule."

I really see no problem with the first segment. It could be done with some grumbling. It is the 12 P games that would be incredibly upending.
In the ACC, Wake Forest and North Carolina count some of their games as external to conference standings to meet the 9th P game policy. It appears to work fine. They want to play each other, preferably yearly.

P 12 games would cancel rivalry games, if across the board, such as TCU-SMU, Mississippi State-Southern Miss, Ole Miss-Memphis, Vanderbilt-MTSU, South Carolina-East Carolina, etc. While some are not scheduled yearly, they are frequent enough. Eliminating such an option would have profound ramifications, economically, politically, and the sustainability for multiple schools. As to playing FCS schools, personally I would not favor eliminating that option totally. Both South Carolina and Clemson rotate playing most in-state schools. Whether that is a good rationale, may be debatable, but there is a reason.

Here is the general SC model with eight conference games:

8 games - SEC opponents
1 game- Clemson (in-state archrival)
1 game- A FBS game vs a North Carolina school (a recent pattern of holding this game in Charlotte).
1 game- An in-state FCS school in rotation
1 game- At large, probably a G-5 type

Thus, South Carolina could go to 9 conference games, continue with Clemson, and continue with playing a NC school and an in-state FCS school. If say, Purdue, wanted to come play USC, that is not an option with just one change in the pattern.

At ten, USC would need to eliminate playing Clemson which won't happen, which means eliminate playing a NC school during every regular season or no additional in-state opponents.

At 12, playing in-state rival Clemson becomes terminated.

Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, and potentially Texas A&M could face similar dilemmas.

Who could adapt the easiest to 10 plus: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, Mizzou (perhaps less so). It would be a nightmare for Vandy.

Frankly, going for 9 conference games would be better to ease into such a situation if it comes to that.

The Notre Dame situation in the ACC is a contract and not pertinent and is a bad example since they are not technically a member of ACC football. They will refuse to add three games with conference members unless forced by the overall system.

I detest the situation whereby a school (ND) has the resources to deliver conference fb, but refuses, and the conference adds them as members anyway. That differs with Wichita State in the AAC, or Navy only being fb in the AAC. The perplexity per Vandy in the SEC is more in terms of resources. But Vandy will plug along as they always have done. The situation for SC, MSU, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Arkansas, maybe Tennessee, are better, but are significantly out-paced by some other schools in the SEC (for now).

You are confusing P games with conference games. If we play 8 conference games and 10 P games South Carolina is covered for playing Clemson and N.C. State plus 2 buy games. If we play all 12 as P games and play 9 conference games then South Carolina is free to play Clemson and N.C. State and one more they would like to play annually.

I wouldn't call Miss State vs Southern Miss a key game as it is seldom played. L.S.U. no longer plays Tulane. Those games are more about providing a payday to another school in state than they are about rivalries and where the real rivalry is with Southern Miss and Miss State is on the Diamond and that could still be played due to baseball's ample non conference schedule. So for football those are small sacrifices.

Every school in the P conference would earn significantly more with a 12 P game slate and if Spring Games go away and are replaced by a late August Pre-Season game that's where games between Southern Miss and Miss State can be played, or Tulane and L.S.U. because it would essentially be game #13 and the 7th home ticket in the Season book.