Thought the whole gist of UT moving to the SEC was to play A&M every year. At least that was the expectation from fans and politicians.

UT and A&M in the same conference, but not playing each other every year makes no sense.

(05-26-2023 12:18 PM)Acres Wrote:  Thought the whole gist of UT moving to the SEC was to play A&M every year. At least that was the expectation from fans and politicians.

UT and A&M in the same conference, but not playing each other every year makes no sense.

Yeah - people are twisting themselves into knots to justify what would be a wholly unjustifiable outcome for Texas being added to an SEC that *has* Texas A&M as a member.

It would be like FSU coming into the SEC (which so many people are clamoring for here) and then the SEC saying, “Welp - you can’t play Florida annually because they’re booked with Georgia while Kentucky doesn’t want to give up one of its MAC home games each year.”

That’s absolute insanity and I say that as someone that is as clear-eyed about the business side of college sports as anyone.

I hope cooler heads ultimately prevail, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m quite cynical about anyone involved looking at the long-term strategic goals of the league and instead will focus on the short-term squeezing of every extra penny for their individual athletic department.

(05-26-2023 12:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 12:18 PM)Acres Wrote:  Thought the whole gist of UT moving to the SEC was to play A&M every year. At least that was the expectation from fans and politicians.

UT and A&M in the same conference, but not playing each other every year makes no sense.

Yeah - people are twisting themselves into knots to justify what would be a wholly unjustifiable outcome for Texas being added to an SEC that *has* Texas A&M as a member.

It would be like FSU coming into the SEC (which so many people are clamoring for here) and then the SEC saying, “Welp - you can’t play Florida annually because they’re booked with Georgia while Kentucky doesn’t want to give up one of its MAC home games each year.”

That’s absolute insanity and I say that as someone that is as clear-eyed about the business side of college sports as anyone.

I hope cooler heads ultimately prevail, but as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m quite cynical about anyone involved looking at the long-term strategic goals of the league and instead will focus on the short-term squeezing of every extra penny for their individual athletic department.

I think people are thinking too linear here. The Big Ten survived years with eleven members and the MAC rolled with an uneven amount of teams and divisions.

"Abortions For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others!"

(05-26-2023 08:51 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

ESPN's biggest concern isn't so much paying the SEC a "few" more dollars as it is renegotiating a contract and having to deal with the ACC crying "what about us?"

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

Let’s ignore the fact this is an unsettled negotiation and assume they stay at 8 games because espn holds firm…

You’re forgetting half the equation

Consolidation isn’t just about creating more favorable inventory

It’s also consolidation of the premium TV window bandwidth.

There’s a big difference between:
a.) creating more quality inventory by further consolidation of premium brands AND windows via ACC liquidation

b) paying more for more quality inventory when you’re NOT also consolidating TV bandwidth behind it (8 vs 9 game SEC schedule) revenue

(05-26-2023 12:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

You’re forgetting half the equation

Consolidation isn’t just about creating more favorable inventory

It’s also consolidation of the premium TV window bandwidth.

There’s a big difference between:
a.) creating more quality inventory by further consolidation of premium brands AND windows via ACC liquidation

b) paying more for more quality inventory when you’re NOT also consolidating TV bandwidth behind it (8 vs 9 game SEC schedule) revenue

It’s not a consolidation of windows for ESPN itself, though.

They HAVE all of the SEC and ACC windows lock stock and barrel until the 2030s. In totality from the ESPN perspective, that consolidation is already there because they have FSU and Clemson for the foreseeable future whether they’re in the SEC or ACC (with the main difference being that keeping them in the ACC is waaaaaay cheaper).

So, ultimately, what ESPN would be paying for with schools moving for the ACC to SEC is to get those FSU/Clemson vs. UGA/Bama/UT/OU/UF games. Those are certainly valuable, but once again, if ESPN isn’t willing to pay more to revive UT-A&M and even *lose* annual AL-TN, Auburn-UGA, FL-TN, AL-LSU, and FL-LSU games at a *minimum* is a pretty big indicator that ESPN is seeing diminishing returns with trying to get more marquee games and, instead, are prioritizing cost containment above all else.

(05-26-2023 12:47 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 08:51 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

ESPN's biggest concern isn't so much paying the SEC a "few" more dollars as it is renegotiating a contract and having to deal with the ACC crying "what about us?"

Well, what about you?

ESPN is not your mom and dad who are going to get tired of hearing you whining about why your brother got a new Xbox and you didn't.

ESPN's concern might be that a "few" more dollars escalates into the "real money, even for ESPN" range.

Bigger conferences = more conference games = a bigger schedule. This is just a precursor to going from 12 to 13 game seasons.

I'm sure there are many among you who think it's crazy talk but IMO it's inevitable. With NIL, pay for play, consolidation, and the overwhelming/undeniable moves that are eliminating the "amateur" in college athletics, there will be numerous unintended consequences. The expansion of the college football schedule will be one of them IMO.

So yeah I think in the end the SEC agrees to a 9 game conference schedule. I also believe sometime in the next decade we'll see the move to 13 games to recoup home games lost and bowl eligibility challenges.

Interesting times.

(05-26-2023 01:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Bigger conferences = more conference games = a bigger schedule. This is just a precursor to going from 12 to 13 game seasons.

I'm sure there are many among you who think it's crazy talk but IMO it's inevitable. With NIL, pay for play, consolidation, and the overwhelming/undeniable moves that are eliminating the "amateur" in college athletics, there will be numerous unintended consequences. The expansion of the college football schedule will be one of them IMO.

So yeah I think in the end the SEC agrees to a 9 game conference schedule. I also believe sometime in the next decade we'll see the move to 13 games to recoup home games lost and bowl eligibility challenges.

Interesting times.

I can see 10 conference games, 3 non-conference games with 2 of the 3 against Power conference opponents, but I'm sure some will push for 8 home games. Perhaps 1 of the conference games is used as a semi-final amongst the top 4 teams per conference.

(05-26-2023 01:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Bigger conferences = more conference games = a bigger schedule. This is just a precursor to going from 12 to 13 game seasons.

I'm sure there are many among you who think it's crazy talk but IMO it's inevitable. With NIL, pay for play, consolidation, and the overwhelming/undeniable moves that are eliminating the "amateur" in college athletics, there will be numerous unintended consequences. The expansion of the college football schedule will be one of them IMO.

So yeah I think in the end the SEC agrees to a 9 game conference schedule. I also believe sometime in the next decade we'll see the move to 13 games to recoup home games lost and bowl eligibility challenges.

Interesting times.

I'm not disagreeing, but I will point out that you'd be talking about teenagers playing up to 18 games in a single season if they make their conference championship game and have to play in the first round of the Playoff. Granted, that's just one more than the 17 games they could have to play now, though...

(05-26-2023 12:47 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 08:51 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

ESPN's biggest concern isn't so much paying the SEC a "few" more dollars as it is renegotiating a contract and having to deal with the ACC crying "what about us?"

I wouldn’t think that’s a concern. Desperation and grievances in the ACC likely works in ESPN’s favor, or it won’t work at all

In regards to realignment, the usual suspects can’t see the forest through the trees. This is an example of a need for further consolidation of ESPN’s bandwidth, but another interesting question is what do other conferences do about the CFP advantages an 8 game schedule creates for SEC.

Unless both can make money from jamming more SEC games into the existing allocation of Disney bandwidth, espn and SEC both benefit staying at 8 games when it comes to CFP imo

Who will force them to change? PAC is nearly dead. Big 12 will do what ESPN wants. ACC? espn can use both whip and carrot on ACC, even as far as exploiting any anti-SEC alliances as a way to get unequal revenue sharing to facilitate espn making SEC a P1

(05-26-2023 01:55 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Bigger conferences = more conference games = a bigger schedule. This is just a precursor to going from 12 to 13 game seasons.

I'm sure there are many among you who think it's crazy talk but IMO it's inevitable. With NIL, pay for play, consolidation, and the overwhelming/undeniable moves that are eliminating the "amateur" in college athletics, there will be numerous unintended consequences. The expansion of the college football schedule will be one of them IMO.

So yeah I think in the end the SEC agrees to a 9 game conference schedule. I also believe sometime in the next decade we'll see the move to 13 games to recoup home games lost and bowl eligibility challenges.

Interesting times.

I'm not disagreeing, but I will point out that you'd be talking about teenagers playing up to 18 games in a single season if they make their conference championship game and have to play in the first round of the Playoff. Granted, that's just one more than the 17 games they could have to play now, though...

One thing that could help is using the B1G champions week format used during Covid. Shift the season up a week to Thanksgiving weekend. The non-championship games can be played on the around Thanksgiving (Wednesday-Black Friday) with the championship games played on Saturday. I would do a staggering start with 1 game at noon, 2 PM, 4 PM, 6 PM, 8 PM so games aren't fully going head to head against each other (P5 vs. G5).

(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.)

I assumed it was b/c it was going to be a conference game.

(05-26-2023 11:10 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

A&M has played Georgia once since joining the SEC, and we're not on their schdule this year, either. Ridiculous.

(05-26-2023 11:40 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

If it's just a home gate $$ question, $30m should be pretty close. What's the average home game worth, $5-6m? $8m? Let's use $6m. An extra 1/2 home game per year for 16 schools is 8 more home games on average, $6m each, that's $48m.

I think that there's more to this. SEC teams playing a brutal Conference schedule + 1 good P5 game makes for 9 tough games per year which you can space out with byes and cupcakes interspersed in there (but no more App St please Jimbo, actual cupcakes). If you go to a 9 game Conference schedule, there's a whole lot of pushback on that required P5 OOC, which causes issues for USC, UF, Kentucky and UGA. 2 of those issues look to get fixed sooner or later, but 2 don't.

I'm always surprised at the number of people that support playing pointless games against overmatched teams. How is that fun as a fan? Then twist themselves into pretzels to explain why it's better to have a shittier product and worse fan experience, all because of some super unlikely scenarios, whines about scheduling fairness, and concerns about the local economy needing it. I worked at one of those local economy places that did much more business on game days, and I promise you the only thing the number of football home games effects is how nice the owner's boat and vacation home are.

"You see, we need this pointless body bag game because we have to play 7 home games a year, for the local economy and to fund the athletic department and BLAH BLAH BLAH."

First, schools and the local economy all managed when it was 10 game seasons, then 11 game seasons, and now 12. They don't NEED a guaranteed 7 home games. It's economically stupid as well, because the value of a ticket for a body bag game is generally like $10 on the secondary market if not given away for free, where as an interesting game can actually support a ticket price. If you schedule games that have stakes and actually matter, YOU CAN CHARGE MORE $$$. Seriously, I'd rather pay for 5 interesting home games this year and 6 interesting home games next year than pay for 5 interesting home games this year and 5 interesting home games next year. I'd rather Home&Home with Duke every year (for example) than play Alabama A&M in two straight years.

Second, schools should stop evaluating coach/AD success based on records that include non-conference play. Congrats, you went 5-7 because you beat up 4 awful teams that have a fraction of the resources you do, then went 1-7 in conference AGAINST YOUR PEERS. "But we made a bowl!" That no one cares about, and only because there weren't enough 6-6 teams eligible. Can you imagine celebrating making a bowl game as a success for your program? Just fire everyone if you're gonna celebrate mediocrity. And I say that as a Vanderbilt fan.

There should be enough people here to realize that the non-con scheduling before the BCS started was waaaaayyyyy better. Then every team suddenly got concerned about how a slightly harder non-con could cost them a BCS title game shot and in the name of optimizing for that unlikely outcome made everything worse for everyone.

(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.

You could do a 3-6-6 model with a different meaning than in a 9 game schedule. 3 every year. 6 3 times in 6 years. 6 2 times in 6 years. You still get everyone at least every 3rd year. You could even split into divisions. FL, GA, SC, TN, VU, UK, AL, AU in the east. You play everyone in your division at least 3 times in 6 years.

(05-26-2023 12:18 PM)Acres Wrote:  Thought the whole gist of UT moving to the SEC was to play A&M every year. At least that was the expectation from fans and politicians.

UT and A&M in the same conference, but not playing each other every year makes no sense.

It doesn't, but that was not really a consideration. That is simply a logical conclusion once UT decided to move.

(05-26-2023 12:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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:  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.

They play a nine game schedule and somebody's getting another loss.

And nobody was really feeling a great void in their life without those games.

(05-26-2023 09:29 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  We're seeing right now the pressures of growing a conference too big. The eight game model has worked really well for the SEC at 14 teams.

As an Alabama fan, I can't fathom not playing Tennessee every year. There isn't a program that I hate more than the Vols. But the nine game schedule that allows us to play Tennessee would essentially get rid of the neutral site games that Alabama has played against Florida State, Michigan, Miami, and USC over the last few years.

Sure, we could play both but that's not going to happen. The revenue from a home game is just too much to pass up -- in Alabama's case it's at least $8 million.

For Alabama to not play Tennessee (or LSU) every year so that we can play Missouri, Kentucky, and South Carolina every other year seems insane, but there doesn't appear to be any logical way to make everything work out.

The neutral games are pointless. It's not like basketball where there are enough to show true conference strength. Th fans want conference games and rivals inside or OOC.

CFB should be run like the Champions League. Real Madrid doesn't play some meaningless game vs Chelsea that counts towards the teams' overall record. They play nationally (conference) and then go to the Champions League (CFP). Emulate that.