Comments on: How The Five Major Conferences Handle Football Scheduling

By: How The Five Major Conferences Handle Football Scheduling | SEC Football

How The Five Major Conferences Handle Football Scheduling | SEC Football — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:33:54 +0000

[...] Send This Story To A Friend [...]

By: gatormoss

gatormoss — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:21:47 +0000

@Borodore
I agree with you that it would be alot more interesting. They are free to chose to play those games now, but both sides chose not to pursue those games. Playing a BCS level team can be misleading, just because one is a BCS level team does not mean they are any good. The strength of schedule is still the most difficult in the SEC at this time so many are concerned about increasing the strength of schedule. Florida, Georgia and South Carolina already play some of the toughest ACC teams so if that alliance occurs the SEC will get to play BCS teams and will only see very few additional losses. The Big 12 and the SEC are clearly the two best conferences and in theory they could beat each other up and lose an opportunity to play in the playoff series even though they would be much better than a Ohio State or Michigan. I also like the idea about alliances in todays college football business reality. The SEC has an alliance with the BIG XII and could have an alliance with the ACC and that would be a strong business position.

College football is unfortunately a business before a collegiate sport environment; however, it does provide needed funding for the other sports.

By: Borodore

Borodore — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 04:23:30 +0000

@gatormoss
Personally, I think each SEC team should be required to have 1 BCS out of conference permanent opponent, but they should be free to chose them. The Western Division teams have no connection with the ACC, so Big XII teams would be much more appropriate. Why can’t there be an agreement where each team plays against the ACC or Big XII. It might even force Texas and Kansas to do what is right against their natural rivals. Think KU-Mizzou, Texas-Ark (or ATM if Texas quits throwing a fit) OU-LSU, MSU-Tex. Tech, Ole Miss-OK State. These would be more interesting than an Ole Miss-NC State or UK -Duke match up.

By: danny_jackson

danny_jackson — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:40:59 +0000

@John at MrSEC Well, yes and no.

Everyone says they don’t want to expand. That’s all for the lawyers, and almost always is a really well coordinated misinformation campaign – at very least the tongue-in-cheek variety. You have to take those statements (official or not) with a grain of salt. That said, I don’t think SEC wants to expand before next year or the year after, and I think they’d like ACC to hold together till they’re ready. When expansion does happen, and it is inevitable, ACC will be falling apart due to the loss of 3-4 teams to B12. B1G & SEC both can swoop in to save the programs they want without taking any of the blame for the conf’s demise. That’s supremely good positioning. The only questions really are which two ACC teams and when. Certainly once the music starts the SEC will need to reach in and grab the programs they need rather than let the other two take the cream of the crop and leave SEC to pick over the scraps.

Here’s the thing on super conferences – this is mergers and acquisitions 101… the ACC is making 17m x 14 schools. The value isn’t just what those schools individually are worth. By them leaving & ACC restocking with BE/CUSA/MWC talent, the value of ACC’s contract is going to plummet. If in two years they’re making 8m per school, that’s 126m/yr that can be redistributed to the conferences that are more in demand. If they merge with the remnants of BE (after BE’s new additions leave with the loss of AQ) then that’s a whole lot more money going back to the power confs. It is in the long-term interests of the power confs to eliminate – not so much competition as secondary confs that drain to many resources away from those that consistently earn it on the field. SEC knows that as well as anyone, and that’s why they not only will go to 16 (when they’re ready), but also will not step in to help ACC stave off future demise.

SEC didn’t take Missoui & A&M because they needed two more teams or those were better options than FSU & Clemson. They took them to expand the footprint by 20m people in preparation for the SEC network. The same logic applies to further expansion. The VA/DC and NC markets put another 17m people in the fold. That’s a lot of TV sets to drive network revenue, make for easier conf scheduling, and increase inventory.

I absolutely agree the quality of OOC matchups is worth a pretty penny. I’m fairly sure Michigan, Ohio State, USC(w), Oregon, Texas, and Oklahoma are all worth a hell of a lot more than Virginia, BC, Duke, etc. With FSU/Clemson gone, GT & VT eying the door, most others hoping for a dance partner… even if it’s just potential for that to happen, contracting with ACC is a terrible idea. Once those teams are gone they’ll be replaced by BE & CUSA teams. At that point you’re in the same boat you are now with bad quality matchups, but you’re locked into an extended contract of it. That’s a bad business risk.

A four-way scheduling alliance between SEC, B12, PAC, & B1G is where we’re ultimately going. That’s not only exciting, it gives you HUGE tv value and ensures no up-start mid-major team can ever block us out of a title shot. B1G and PAC are talking the same sort of deal right now. What will SOS look like in the SEC when you’re playing ACC teams and Oregon has to go through Michigan on top of their conf schedule? The natural matchup, particularly with the ongoing-new eastern division expansion, is B12-SEC. I understand if you don’t want to go there until some more of this expansion shakes out. That’s fine. Let’s look at this again a year from now.

By: Crayton

Crayton — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:23:45 +0000

@jmindel I was going to respond with this too. You (MrSec) could just mention that the California schools continue to play each other every year without typing out the exact frequency of other non-divisional matchups (4/8 for California schools and 6/8 for non-California schools)

By: Bubba Gump

Bubba Gump — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:47:29 +0000

I have been a fan of the ACC vs SEC in lieu of the 9th conference game from day 1!

If the B1G and PAC really want to argue how good they are, just do away with the CCG and play all 11 conference members during the regular season and play 1 OOC game to get to 12 regular season games. Everybody wins for these 2 conferences.

+ everybody plays everybody same way the B12 does now, so no need for a CCG to resolve the issue haphazardly
+ would give the B1G and PAC the #1 and #2 SoS numbers every year according to the computers because they play no real non AQ type schools
+ would give the conferences 11 weeks of conference programming, instead of the current 8 or 9, which adds 24 – 36 extra games for the BTN and PTN
+ Southern Cal / Stanford / Purdue / Michigan State / Michigan school could all keep Notre Dame as their OOC game
+ Makes the Rose Bowl the defacto elimination game for the MNC with having the true B1G winner play the true PAC winner each and every year
+ Gives the B1G real TV games the first 4 weekends of football instead of first 1/3 of the season devoted to MAC schools
+ Gives the PAC better schedule fillers over the lesser schools they must play now
+ Saves MILLIONS every year in “rent a win” school payouts
+ Increase stadium attendance with conference only games, and no empty seats for the “rent a win” games
+ Maximizes TV eyeballs and revenue to schools actually in the BTN and PTN footprints
+ Eliminates divisions and Legends / Leaders type confusion
+ No need for human polls or computer rankings because actual wins and losses determine final standings
+ With equal revenue sharing you pay your conference mates to be your patsies instead letting the money go out of conference

Just look at the “new” schedules by team and conference for this fall!

B1G – Leaders
Penn State keeps Temple, but drops – Ohio – Navy – UVA, and adds + Minnesota + Michigan State + Michigan
Ohio State keeps Cal, but drops – Miami (OH) – UCF – UAB, and adds + Minnesota + Northwestern + Iowa
Indiana keeps Navy, but drops – IN State – Umass – Ball State, and adds + Minnesota + Nebraska + Michigan
Purdue keeps Notre Dame, but drops – EKU – E Michigan – Marshall, and adds + Northwestern + Michigan State + Nebraska
Illinois keeps Arizona State, but drops - W Michigan – Charleston – La Tech, and adds + Iowa + Michigan State + Nebraska
Wisconsin keeps Oregon State, but drops – N Iowa – Utah State – UTEP, and adds + Northwestern + Iowa + Michigan

B1G – Legends
Michigan keeps Notre Dame, but drops – Alabama – Air Force – Umass, and adds + Indiana + Wisconsin + Penn State
Michigan State keeps Notre Dame, but drops – Boise State – C Michigan – E Michigan, and adds + Illinois + Purdue + Penn State
Northwestern keeps Vanderbilt, but drops – Syracuse – Boston College – South Dakota, and adds + Purdue + Wisconsin + Ohio State
Iowa keeps Iowa State, but drops – N Illinois – N iowa – C Michigan, and adds + Illinois + Wisconsin + Ohio State
Minnesota keeps Syracuse, but drops – NH – W Michigan – UNLV, and adds + Indiana + Penn State + Ohio State
Nebraska keeps UCLA, but drops – Southern Miss – Arkansas State – Idaho State, and adds + Indiana + Illinois + Purdue

With only 3 OOC slots in the PAC, it is even easier to just swap 2 OOC for 2 conference games – BYU becomes the Notre Dame of the PAC

PAC – North
Washington keeps LSU, but drops – San Diego State – Portland State, and adds + UCLA + Arizona State
Washington State keeps BYU, but drops – E Washington – UNLV, and adds + USC + Arizona
Oregon State keeps BYU, but drops – Wisconsin – Nicholls State, and adds + USC + Colorado
Oregon keeps Top 20 opponent, but drops – Arkansas State – Fresno State – Tn Tech, and adds + UCLA + Utah
California keeps Ohio State, but drops - Nevada – Southern Utah, and adds + Arizona + Colorado
Stanford keeps Notre Dame, but drops – Duke – San Jose State, and adds + Arizona State + Utah

PAC – South
Colorado keeps Colorado State, but drops – Sacramento State – Fresno State, and adds + Oregon State + California
Utah keeps BYU, but drops – N Colorado – Utah State, and adds + Oregon + Stanford
Arizona State keeps Illinois, but drops – N Arizona – Missouri, and adds + Washington + Stanford
Arizona keeps Oklahoma State, but drops – Toledo – SC State, and adds + Washington State + California
USC keeps Notre Dame, but drops – Hawaii – Syracuse, and adds + Washington State + Oregon State
UCLA keeps Nebraska, but drops – Rice – Houston, and adds + Washington + Oregon

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:20:33 +0000

danny_jackson…

In case you missed the many troubles and “digestion issues” the SEC dealt with last week in Destin, I can assure you that SEC presidents would prefer the ACC remain stable for the time being. I’ve been told repeatedly that the league’s members want to see how the current additions play out — they don’t even know how much money Missouri and Texas A&M are worth at this point — before rushing out to expand again.

If the ACC collapses, then certainly, the SEC would look in that direction. But you’re assuming that the league WANTS the ACC to fail. I’ve heard nothing from inside any SEC school administration that suggests that’s true in the least. Adding ACC teams is a fallback option… unless all the schools are running a really good off-the-record misinformation campaign.

Also, please remember that the SEC has all but admitted that it will be creating its own network in the years ahead. That network will need inventory. And you can bet ESPN and cable subscribers would be happier with SEC-ACC matchups than Mississippi State-Jacksonville State or Tennessee-Georgia State matchups.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: danny_jackson

danny_jackson — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:11:00 +0000

Given that the SEC is likely to take two ACC schools in the future, why would you want to solidify them as a major player moving forward. Further, the networks only have so much space for inventory and can only pay out so much money to fill that limited space. The goal of any conference should be to get the biggest slice of that pie. Propping up an ACC that is lined up for demise and decline to a true mid-major only serves to get less of that money/exposure to SEC schools. It makes more sense for the four major conferences of the future to collaborate on developing the best combined product possible. That means consolidating talent (expansion) so all four have a strong product, and cross-scheduling each other rather than the outsiders. If SEC really wants to sign a scheduling alliance with ACC, they’re welcome to do that, but 4-5 of those teams are going to end up in Big 12 within the next couple years, including all but one of the existing rivalries mentioned. If you sign that deal, once those teams move you’ll be playing the expansion teams they add from BE & CUSA or trying to get out of the agreement early. And, the conference as a whole will not be on a BCS level – not practically or technically. So yeah, that’s an absolutely terrible idea.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:18:59 +0000

@jmindel

If this were MrPac12.com, we’d have gone into more depth to try and explain the Pac-12′s quirky rotation, but as you’ll notice in the first paragraph above, this is “a simplified look” at scheduling.

For those actually wanting to see the rotation as put forth by the Pac-12, check here:

http://bearinsider.com/mobile/Pac12rotation.htm

It’s complicated. And the end result is still nine league games consisting of five division games, four games from the other division, and a BCS-level game with a Big Ten school.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

By: jmindel

jmindel — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:38:35 +0000

Actually the PAC-12 has a special arrangement so that all 4 california schools play each other every season, and the other 4 teams per division are guarenteed one game per year against the california school from the other divison. This was brough about since the best recruiting area in the PAC-12 geography is Los Angeles, so the teams that were not in the South division still wanted access to L.A. via a guarenteed road game to L.A. at least once every 2 years.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:35:32 +0000

@JustAnotherBamaFan

Obviously it IS a 5-1-2. A mistype on my part. Good catch. I happened to be typing the Big Ten portion while talking to someone on the phone and didn’t proofread it. Probably not the best of ideas.

That’s been corrected above. The others have been double-checked via their conference websites or member institution websites when necessary.

Many thanks,
John

By: JustAnotherBamaFan

JustAnotherBamaFan — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:08:55 +0000

John,
I thought the Big-10 and it’s 12 teams played a 5-1-2 format?

By: gatormoss

gatormoss — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:46:37 +0000

This is a brilliant idea. If losing a 1/2 homegame a year is made up through additional TV revenue I think this could happen. The SEC new buddy the Big 12 already is playing 9 BCS level games so they will not be upset with us partnering with the ACC, and even though the ACC plays 9 BCS level games they are weak opponets and may like the opportuity to play th SEC to gain respect. I wonder if this would make the ACC our ally and they would be more inline with a 4 best team strategy for a championship as opposed to conference champions when the rubber hits the road. I think this is a win win, but clearly this would be a strong lifeline for the ACC.

By: » SEC: Arkansas, LSU, USC, Florida all win regionals John Clay's Sidelines

» SEC: Arkansas, LSU, USC, Florida all win regionals John Clay's Sidelines — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:28:07 +0000

[...] How the major conferences handle football scheduling, by Mr. SEC. var addedComment = function(response) { //console.log('fbComments: Caught added comment'); //console.log('fbComments: Making AJAX call to update Facebook comment count'); $.post('http://johnclay.bloginky.com/wp-content/plugins/facebook-comments-for-wordpress/facebook-comments-ajax.php', { fn: 'addComment', xid: '_post40835' }, function(resp) { if (resp === 'true') { //console.log('fbComments: Updated and cached Facebook comment count for post with xid=_post40835'); } else { //console.log('fbComments: FAILED to update Facebook comment count for post with xid=_post40835'); } }); }; FB.Event.subscribe('comments.add', addedComment); [...]