This Vanderbilt fan would want Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee every year. I also would prefer the SEC stay at eight conference games (so that we can have four contests that are winnable), but I admit that is selfish.

Alabama........Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas.......Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn......... Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Florida...........Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia..........Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky........Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee
LSU...............Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Miss St...........Kentucky, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Missouri..........Arkansas, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt
Oklahoma.......Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
Ole Miss..........LSU, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Sou. Carolina...Florida, Georgia, Kentucky
Tennessee.......Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas.............Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M......LSU, Mississippi State, Texas
Vanderbilt.......Missouri, Ole Miss, Tennessee

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

(02-11-2023 09:06 AM)Nevermoor Wrote:  

(02-10-2023 08:33 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Will reiterate my preference, presuming an 8-game schedule.



4 divisions, the champion of each tied to a top bowl (ya, ya, playoffs make that near pointless). Top 2 division champs play in SECCG. Divisions are paired for scheduling purposes only on a 3 year rotation (so divisional teams only have 1 unique opponent on their schedules). A team's 8th game is against a team from the same "line" on the graph. The only needed extra-divisional rivalry game is Auburn-Georgia (and, consequently, Texas-A&M) while the other 3 lines rotate against opponents 2 years on 1 year off.

I really like this. It keeps a lot rivalries. Plus it allows for the schedule to be rotated much quicker.

"Much quicker" than at present but with less velocity than the 9 game schedule most expect/want the SEC to go to. I think twice every five or six years isn't appreciably worse than every four.

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

Maybe - but there maybe more value in 8 games to inflate records & make the match ups even more of an event if they take place every other year instead of annually. 8 game SEC might get several more playoff teams when the Big 10, ACC & Big 12 play 9 games meaning more losses to each team.

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Our preference would be:

1. Texas

-huge gap-

2. LSU/Arky - if we get both that would be ideal, if we get one of them that's ok, too.

As for how much enthusiasm would A&M and Arky have when it's back on campus? We would both sell out every time and it would make for good TV ratings, too.

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

Agree - if I had a vote, I'd vote to keep 8 conference games. Enough of the major games can be played with 8 games and it maximizes playoff bids.

(02-11-2023 08:04 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  Saw an interview with Greg Sankey. Apparently all the scheduling has been figured out but volleyball, football and baseball postseason tourney.
And they've run every possible model in football. Didn't say what the leaders in the clubhouse were.

Saw an article that said 1-7-7 and 3-6-6 were the football leaders, but don’t know if that was just copy-paste from articles written when this was last discussed. Still hard for me to believe seeing teams 50% is more important that having more than 1 rival, for the 8-game schedule.

It depends on whether we are compensated fairly for going to a 9 game schedule. If ESPN is reluctant to pay more for more content, then we could go 1-7-7 until 2034, then do what the B1G did and ditch ESPN.

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

Larry Scott would like a word.

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

9th game garners more content and guarantees many more quality games every year instead of every other year. It's clearly worth something, and there is a strong contingent in the Conference that would prefer to stick to 8. If there's nothing to push consensus then the most likely outcome would be to continue with the status quo; ie, 8 games.

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

You guys are woofing over a non issue. The SEC will likely move to 9 conference games and mandate 1 OOC P game be scheduled by each school. That leaves two buy games (for now as I expect this to go away with a future contract or possibly sooner with a breakaway).

Smart AD's schedule the P OOC games home and away and place the home game in the season which has 4 conference games.. Everyone has 5 home P games and 2 home buy games and keeps 7 home games in the season ticket book. If we move at some point to 6 home and 6 away P games we'll likely add a preseason buy game for the 7th home game in the ticket book.

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 08:49 AM)schmolik Wrote:  SI's article, just posted yesterday:
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/10/se...reddit.com

I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I get this is how the sausage is made and different schools have different priorities, but it boggles my mind how whether ESPN increases revenue should have anything to do with the SEC choosing between 8 or 9 conference games.

If the SEC has one of the realignment coups of all-time - adding Texas and Oklahoma - and then turns around and says, “Upon further review, we’re not going to have Texas-Texas A&M as an annual game… and oh yeah we’re getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, make it impossible to restore Texas-Arkansas, etc.”, then these are the dumbest and most short-sighted people that I will have ever seen in college sports. This would be taking the most-watched product in college football and *actively* devaluing it. Whether or not ESPN does anything for the current TV contract, every league should be maximizing the value of their league at any given time… and there’s no freaking way that the SEC is going to maximize the value of its league by staying at 8 conference games. The fact that it’s even a debate and there are apparently schools within the SEC that *are* this dumb and short-sighted is frankly appalling. I hope that the main powers like Alabama that want the 9 conference games no matter what put their feet down here.

I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

(02-11-2023 03:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:01 PM)Crayton Wrote:  I have been pretty dense on how this argument works. How does 9 games maximize revenue? A 9th game reduces the number of overall home games, especially against other P5s, and increases the number of losses within the conference (resulting in 1 fewer bowl team). If there is 0 adjustment in the ESPN payout, where does this extra money come from?

Totally agree that your hypothetical statement (bolded) is a dumb attitude for the SEC to take and strikes me as disingenuous. Is that really the SEC's best plan for 8 games or is that a strawman used to threaten ESPN into paying for a 9th game? "Gosh, I sure hope you pay us for that ninth game, or look at all these games we'll actively deprive our fans of."

The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

If they go to 1 rival, they're not breaking up the Iron Bowl for Bama/Tennessee

(02-11-2023 03:34 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

If they go to 1 rival, they're not breaking up the Iron Bowl for Bama/Tennessee

1/7 is a nonstarter. They have to have at least two rivals.
There's nothing that says you have to get each school 50% of the time. 6/14ths with a 2/6 works just as effectively. You get them 6 times in 14 years instead of 7 times in 14 years vs. now you get them 2 out of 12.

(02-11-2023 03:34 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 01:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  The idea is that the ooc game is an unknown and could be Northwestern South Dakota College and so doesn't get valued in the contract.

Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

If they go to 1 rival, they're not breaking up the Iron Bowl for Bama/Tennessee

Alabama has only played Auburn 87 times, they've played Ms St and Tennessee much more. And I'd hazard to say that they care more about the Tennessee game than about the Auburn game. But maybe I'm wrong, hopefully some Auburn, Tennessee and/or Bama fans can chime in.

2 6/14 would be much, much better though, and wouldn't be tough to implement. Everyone gets #1 rival, with most secondary rivalries also accommodated. A&M still gets Texas, Bama gets both Tennessee and Auburn, etc etc. And 14 years is just about enough time to get us to the next contract in 2034, at which time we can actually go to market and see what Amazon, Fox, Comcast, Apple, CBS, etc etc etc would be willing to pay for the best College Football content with the highest ratings.

Is that the Best outcome? No, 3/6/6 is clearly the preference, and if we get paid commensurately with the additional content then I think that's the route we'll take.

(02-11-2023 04:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:34 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Exactly. That extra non-conference game in the vast majority of cases isn’t going to be scheduling Notre Dame, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., but rather some random G5/FCS payday home game.

I mean - I get that there are apparently some lower tier SEC schools that are more worried about guaranteeing an extra win for now eligibility than the SEC somehow adding Texas yet then NOT having UT-A&M every season… but that argument should be fired into the sun by the Alabamas of the world. Bama didn’t vote to add UT/OU to then lose one or more of its key rivalries when they’re among the ones subsidizing the Mississippi States of the world. The Big Ten didn’t play around with short-term TV contract concerns when it went to 9 conference games a few years ago. They understood that their best product was their own conference games (as opposed to non-conference games) and that paid off where they’re now getting paid more TV money than anyone (including the SEC).

At a minimum, 8 SEC conference games means choosing between OU-UT and UT-A&M, getting rid of Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, etc. If people actually think that’s a good idea simply because ESPN isn’t kicking in some more money (which ESPN isn’t obligated to pay just as ESPN/Fox didn’t give any extra money to the Big Ten for going up to 9 conference games a few years ago), then we’re suckers as fans. What’s the freaking point of expansion if we actually end up with *fewer* games that we care about? The fact that this is even a debate boggles my mind.

I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

If they go to 1 rival, they're not breaking up the Iron Bowl for Bama/Tennessee

Alabama has only played Auburn 87 times, they've played Ms St and Tennessee much more. And I'd hazard to say that they care more about the Tennessee game than about the Auburn game. But maybe I'm wrong, hopefully some Auburn, Tennessee and/or Bama fans can chime in.

2 6/14 would be much, much better though, and wouldn't be tough to implement. Everyone gets #1 rival, with most secondary rivalries also accommodated. A&M still gets Texas, Bama gets both Tennessee and Auburn, etc etc. And 14 years is just about enough time to get us to the next contract in 2034, at which time we can actually go to market and see what Amazon, Fox, Comcast, Apple, CBS, etc etc etc would be willing to pay for the best College Football content with the highest ratings.

Is that the Best outcome? No, 3/6/6 is clearly the preference, and if we get paid commensurately with the additional content then I think that's the route we'll take.

If I gave neg reps you would get one for this bit of stupidity! Do you know why Auburn has only played Alabama 87 times??? Violence at games after Alabama lobbied to close Auburn. The game was suspended until after WWII. It was not played for 41 years due to bad blood which led to violence at the game site the year it was suspended, just outside the stadium, and violence in different towns over the issue.

It is the biggest money game Alabama has. Check out the Tennessee series Paisano! Auburn has beaten the Tide more than anyone, and Alabama has owned Tennessee over the years between Neyland and Fulmer.

People who don't know the history of the SEC should not proffer such ridiculous statements!

(02-11-2023 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:34 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 03:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 02:31 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  I agree with pretty much everything you say here but I don’t think it ever comes to that. The SEC is trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of ESPN and you don’t get to do that unless you use another alternative as leverage. Sound and fury signifying nothing. It’ll be 9.

The SEC is certainly more unified on issues that most conferences, but it's not like the move to 9 is unanimously desired. We could have 10 in favor and 6 opposed to it, and the easier move (temporary ofc) would be to remain at 8. Our contract with ESPN is already set with an 8 game schedule, we have no need to go to 9, and everybody will survive with 6 iterations of A&M-Texas instead of 12 before we sign with Amazon or Fox/Comcast in 2034. Or, ESPN could decide to pay more for more/better content and we start playing every year sooner.

I can't speak for other SEC schools, but I'd think that Bama and Tennessee would prefer to play each other every year if we only get 1 rival, just as Texas would prefer OU to A&M.

If they go to 1 rival, they're not breaking up the Iron Bowl for Bama/Tennessee

Alabama has only played Auburn 87 times, they've played Ms St and Tennessee much more. And I'd hazard to say that they care more about the Tennessee game than about the Auburn game. But maybe I'm wrong, hopefully some Auburn, Tennessee and/or Bama fans can chime in.

2 6/14 would be much, much better though, and wouldn't be tough to implement. Everyone gets #1 rival, with most secondary rivalries also accommodated. A&M still gets Texas, Bama gets both Tennessee and Auburn, etc etc. And 14 years is just about enough time to get us to the next contract in 2034, at which time we can actually go to market and see what Amazon, Fox, Comcast, Apple, CBS, etc etc etc would be willing to pay for the best College Football content with the highest ratings.

Is that the Best outcome? No, 3/6/6 is clearly the preference, and if we get paid commensurately with the additional content then I think that's the route we'll take.

If I gave neg reps you would get one for this bit of stupidity! Do you know why Auburn has only played Alabama 87 times??? Violence at games after Alabama lobbied to close Auburn. The game was suspended until after WWII. It was not played for 41 years due to bad blood which led to violence at the game site the year it was suspended, just outside the stadium, and violence in different towns over the issue.

It is the biggest money game Alabama has. Check out the Tennessee series Paisano! Auburn has beaten the Tide more than anyone, and Alabama has owned Tennessee over the years between Neyland and Fulmer.

People who don't know the history of the SEC should not proffer such ridiculous statements!

pai·sa·no
/pīˈzänō/
Learn to pronounce
nounUS
noun: paisano; plural noun: paisanos

a peasant of Spanish or Italian ethnic origin.

Really? When I was hoping that some alabama, tennessee or auburn fans would chime in, I was hoping for something better than this. Act like an adult instead of hurling insults at every perceived sleight, especially when none was intended.