(05-26-2023 05:33 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(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:  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.

You're right but wheres this fear coming from? The top SEC teams or the bottom ones? Its obvious or should be obvious that the SEC is by far the best conference. A 2 loss SEC team is most likely better than a 0 loss G5/ACC/PAC and a 1 loss BIG/B12.

(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.

Well there are 14-15 weeks from August to first week of December. They should be playing all or all but 1 of those weeks. So yes add conf games and more overall.

(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?"

Source for that being a “concern”?

(05-26-2023 01:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

There’s a reason it’s 10 hours later or something and nobody has acknowledged this post. Because it’s sensical and not sexy.

(05-26-2023 11:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-26-2023 01:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  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.

There’s a reason it’s 10 hours later or something and nobody has acknowledged this post. Because it’s sensical and not sexy.

Yeah. This post is totally logical and levelheaded, and it makes all of our discussions and speculation seem much farther fetched.

As this thread winds down, I'll repost my preferred alignment with a new (but still crummy) graphic.

(05-28-2023 08:16 AM)Crayton Wrote:  As this thread winds down, I'll repost my preferred alignment with a new (but still crummy) graphic.

This is actually the best model. If not this. Then push Auburn and Bama to the east, Mizzou to the west. then call it done.

(05-26-2023 01:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Bingo!

Not going to create a new thread, but this is the latest from Dellinger.

(05-29-2023 11:15 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

Not going to create a new thread, but this is the latest from Dellinger.

SEC: Pay us for 9 games or we’ll burn long-standing rivalries!!

ESPN: …

SEC: okay, we’ll give you one more year and THEN we’ll burn long-standing rivalries!

Clearly CFP qualification and athlete well-being are not new issues from the last 12 months; nor will we have new knowledge in the next 12. Those are post facto justifications for sticking with 8. This is 98% about $$.

The question now is, if they aren’t going to 9 in 2024, what will change in the next 12 months that will make this decision non-permanent?

I’m fine with 8, but they better not keep the divisions for their “trust us, only 1 year” schedule in 2024.

Here’s an idea: pick 3 permanent rivals and rotate through everyone else in an unbalanced format?!? Who cares if South Carolina doesn’t play Oklahoma every four years or whatever.

SEC: you are no longer a conference, you are a conglomerate!

In hindsight going to 9 in 2024 may have not been feasible because of the Power 5 games scheduled

Notable 2024 OOC not including annual rivalries

LSU: UCLA & USC

Texas: Michigan

A&M: ND

Florida:Miami & UCF

Mississippi St: Arizona St & Utah

Georgia: Clemson

Alabama: Wisconsin

Keeping it at 8 for the short term sounds fine to me. Honestly I hope it ends up being permanent.

I'd prefer 9 games long term but if it has to be 8 I hope they pivot to 2-6

(05-29-2023 04:27 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  I'd prefer 9 games long term but if it has to be 8 I hope they pivot to 2-6

Same.

As a Sooner, the only must-have game is Texas. The SEC has too much invested in both of us to allow that to go away. Everyone else is either new to us (except for bowl games) or an old conference opponent (Missouri, A&M...and in A&M's case, we didn't share a conference with them for that long).

But the SEC is going to miss something if a 1-7 setup becomes permanent. Schools such as Alabama have more than one permanent rival. They can't skip Tennessee or Auburn in a scheduling cycle. That's just one example.

A temporary 8 game conference schedule will be ok to buy time to 1) allow currently scheduled non-conference games to be played and 2) to negotiate with ESPN to buy a set of 9th games for every team. And maybe we'll get to play a FCS team in November!

OU and Texas have been playing 9 game conference schedules since the B12 went to 10 teams. We're used to only scheduling three non-conference opponents. In OU's case, the goal has been to schedule one marquee opponent, one high-end G5, and one FCS/low-end G5. That pattern has gone away in recent years due to changes brought about by realignment.

Here's a protected rivalry setup for the SEC if 8 conference games is needed for 2024 using the flex format. With this, 4 teams get 3 rivals, 4 teams get 4 rivals, 4 teams get 5 rivals, and 4 teams get 6 rivals. The remaining schedule can be set up to create a balanced schedule until 9 conference games can be established.

Alabama (6)
Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Tennessee

Arkansas (5)
LSU, Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas, Texas A&M

Auburn (4)
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi St.

Florida (5)
Auburn, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina, Tennessee

Georgia (6)
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Kentucky (4)
Mississippi St., Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

LSU (6)
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Texas A&M

Mississippi St. (5)
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss

Missouri (3)
Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma

Oklahoma (3)
Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M

Ole Miss (5)
Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi St., Vanderbilt

South Carolina (3)
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee

Tennessee (6)
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Texas (3)
Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Texas A&M (4)
Arkansas, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas

Vanderbilt (4)
Georgia, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Tennessee

(05-29-2023 02:37 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Keeping it at 8 for the short term sounds fine to me. Honestly I hope it ends up being permanent.

There are a few good arguments for keeping it at 8 for now. In South Carolina’s case beyond the 8, their OOC options are already quite constrained. Play Clemson annually, play a North Carolina school in Charlotte (or on a campus), continue playing a FCS school in SC on a rotating basis. That leaves one more game, an at-large choice. But even that has added limitations. There is little to no flexibility on the date. The preference will probably be a G-5 type. USC certainly would not want as many as 3 Power-5 types on their OOC schedule.

I deem South Carolina has the most fixated schedule in the SEC due to OOC scheduling preferences and commitments.

That looks like Sankey is going to step in and ask for 9 games.

The other advantage of 8 over 9 (from the often ignored competitive aspect) is that it's more balanced.

You're not going to get actual balanced schedules with this many teams, but giving some teams more home conference games than others makes that worse.

Not that this is a consideration, but, you know, as long as the money is just following and not leading and all. . .