Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

Shock Of Shocks: SEC To Consider A 9-Game Schedule Again

By now, if you read this site at all, you know that we said last year the inclusion of Missouri and Texas into the SEC would eventually drive the league to go to a nine-game conference football schedule.  You also know that with a new playoff that will be selected by a committee — based in part on strength of schedule — that we’ve said time and again that the league was giving aid to its enemies by sticking with an eight-game plan in the near future.

Now it sounds like the SEC will be forced to re-think that eight-game plan for the very reasons we stated.

In a piece posted late Friday by The Jackson Clarion-Ledger (and linked to on Saturday by MrSEC.com), there’s a brief standout comment from former Mississippi State AD Larry Templeton, who is the head of the SEC’s transition team.  Of a nine-game schedule he said:

 

“I think it’s something that will be looked at because of the new playoff, but right now we’re staying with the eight.  There’s time to explore and do some stuff.”

 

This time five months ago the league said there was no way it would go to nine-games.  Then some schools like Alabama and Tennessee (and Tide coach Nick Saban) made it clear at the SEC Meetings in Destin that they would be fine with a move to nine games.  Their counterparts at some of the traditionally weaker football programs stood their ground, stating that they needed four cupcake nonconference games for the sake of bowl eligibility.

But while the league did go with an eight-game plan, a nine-game plan got more talk than many expected.  The new playoff — which we knew was coming at the time — seems to be giving a little bit more gas to the nine-game engine.  Good.  The league should have just gone with nine in the first place:

 

One, it would mean that league teams would see each other more often.  (What person doesn’t want to visit an opposing campus — or have an opponent visit his campus — more often?)

Two, it would mean ticket-buying fans would get more value for the dollar.  (Would you rather see Auburn or Akron in your town?  South Carolina or South Dakota State?)

Three, it would please the SEC’s television partners who want better games to televise.  (Adding two more schools to the SEC already creates more inventory.  The league played 48 conference games a year ago.  With Missouri and Texas A&M, there will now be 56 SEC contests this fall.  Add a ninth game to the schedule and the number of SEC versus SEC games would jump to 63… which would be about a 30% increase over the number of league games played per year in the old 12-team league.)

Four, it would prevent all those folks in regions not called “the South” from pointing out that the SEC is the only major conference that does not require its members to play at least nine foes from other major leagues.  (While that might not matter to you, it could matter in the selection committee meeting room… especially since “spreading the wealth” of football titles was a big part of the drive to the playoff.)

Five, if/when the league starts an SEC Network, it will be easier to get that game picked up by cable systems if there are actually good games on it.  (Fans would be quicker to demand a channel showing Georgia-Ole Miss than Georgia-Georgia Southern.)

 

There is another way around the nine-game hurdle.  Templeton mentions the possibility to “do some stuff.”  That might mean creating a year-in, year-out series between SEC teams and those of another conference, like the ACC as we mentioned back in May.  Both leagues have 14 teams, a common mega-sponsor in AT&T for branding the games, and there are currently four yearly pairings between the leagues anyway (Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech, South Carolina-Clemson, Vanderbilt-Wake Forest).  The Pac-12 and Big Ten have already entered into just such a scheduling agreement.

The fact, however, is that there were many reasons for the Southeastern Conference to go ahead and move to a nine-game league slate while in Destin.  It’s going to be forced upon Mike Slive’s group eventually by the pressures of television and playoff spots.

At least now the head of the SEC’s transition team seems to see the writing on the wall.  That’s why we’ll stick to our initial prediction — made in late-2011 — that the SEC will be playing nine league games by 2017.  If not, then expect the league to have agreed instead to a yearly series of games with teams from another conference.  Pick your poison, one or the other is coming.

 


19 comments
ConnGator
ConnGator

Pick your poison?  Why can't we have both?  There are four non-conference games.  Keeping one for a rival (FSU, GaTech, etc), add one SEC game, and you still have two cupcakes.  Adding a conference challenge still gives you one paycheck game.  I just think the conference should change every two years.

 

The weakest teams (Ole Miss, Kentucky) can opt not to play when we play conferences with less than 14 members.  And when we do play 14-member conferences they will play the weakest teams.  Makes sense and good football.

RoadTrip
RoadTrip

Excellent article, John. Totally agree. It was silly not to go to 9 right away. Bite the bullet and get it done. I am not looking forward to seeing UT play GA State, Akron and Troy this season at Neyland. Switching one of them out for an SEC opponent is the way it should be.

cfn_ms
cfn_ms

@MrSEC since they can't sell stadiums as easily. MSU will go to fewer (typically money-losing) bowls but will make more $$$.

cfn_ms
cfn_ms

@MrSEC broken link (though good read). My personal take is that the real driver here is TV money (and mid programs benefit most from it).

AllTideUp
AllTideUp

Didn't Templeton also say in that article that the league didn't want to force a bunch of teams to break a large number of contracts as most teams already had a full slate until 2014 season?  That stuck out to me as well.  It does sound like there has been a tentative plan(by some) to go to 9 for quite some time, but they didn't want to spring it on everyone until it was necessary and most feasible.

 

I think 9 conferences games are needed for many reasons.  I wouldn't mind seeing a scheduling agreement with the ACC on top of that.  If it has to be one or the other though I'll take the 9 games...I absolutely hate the idea of only playing most of the Eastern division teams twice every 12 years.

david1314
david1314 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Always good to see pablum from the true herd runners like Norton who pisses his pants att the thought of not having 4 cupcakes on his team's schedule.

 

SEC should immediately mandate a 10 Game Conference schedule. 6 divisional opponents 1 permanent cross rival and rotate the other 6 teams in and out (home and away every two years.

Norton
Norton

Some other benefits of the nine game SEC schedule.

1) Instead of  Alabama-Michigan, fans would get to see more Bama-Kentucky.

2) In a poor economy whose end is not in sight, college towns would get to forego an economic shot in the arm every other year by playing less home games.  What’s not to like about that?

3) FCS schools, also struggling in a poor economy, would see fewer paydays.  What does a small school like Georgia Southern need an extra half-million for anyway?  Jobs?

4) It would help other conferences do what they can’t do themselves, unseat the SEC from the throne of college football via the Cannibalistic Principle.

5) It would remove the onus from athletic directors from schedule-making.  Very good, because not only are these guys cowards, they are also idiots who could never dream of a way to harden their schedules themselves.   

6) The projected pay-out of the new play-off system of $500 million per conference is unfortunately not enough. The Let-‘em-eat-cake-it’s-about-eyeballs capitalism must rule, after all, it’s the American Way.

7) Confirm once again that herd-running and thinking inside the box is never out of style.

BonzaiB
BonzaiB like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Norton Lets see:

 

1) Nonsense. You get more Arkansas - USC, Florida - A&M, Georgia - Alabama, Missouri - Tennessee, etc. And seeing more Bama - UK does not preclude Bama - Michigan. 

 

2) Add the numbers up. More people will attend better games, in a poor economy, than will pay their diminishing specie to see slaughters. So, even with one fewer (and not sure how you came up with that) home game, income to college towns in the SEC will not take a nose dive.

 

3) If the SEC is the only major conference not playing a 9 game schedule already, how is it that all these poor FCS schools haven't folded already? 

 

4) Wow, if we follow that logic, we should be playing a 7 game schedule to ensure the SEC does not get unseated. How about 6? 5, 4, 3........

 

5) Calling men who you don't know while using a pseudonym cowards without backing it up is..... cowardly. And no, it would not take scheduling out of the AD's list of responsibilities.

 

6) And you prefer what to capitalism? Communism... yep that's solved a lot of problems. How about fascism? Those guys made things better.... yep, you must have a degree in economics from someplace special.

 

7) Nonsense. Only a person who thinks in platitudes uses that kind of overly simplistic thinking.

 

 

 

 

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator

 @Norton 

 

Going from 7 games to 8 and adding a title game in '92 didn't work out quite so poorly.

 

Also, teams like Alabama would not stop scheduling Michigans if they wanted a national crown.  But a game with Kentucky might replace Georgia State or North Texas.

 

Not sure how you define "outside the box" thinking, but "playing it safe," ain't it.  So I think you're the one on the inside looking out.

 

But to each his own.

 

Thanks for reading the site.  

John

AGator
AGator

 @John at MrSEC

 "but "playing it safe," ain't it"

 

I think he's saying that copying the nine conference game format of every other conference is playing it safe. Doing something different by having eight conference games takes more courage.

-------

 

"Going from 7 games to 8 and adding a title game in '92 didn't work out quite so poorly."

 

Florida lost two of its biggest rivalries, Miami and Auburn. Miami is no longer on UF's schedule due to the demands of eight conference games. Auburn was Florida's most played rival before the game became a periodic cross division game.

 

I miss seeing UF play interesting out of conference games against different teams. The basketball team played Ohio State, Syracuse, Rutgers and Arizona last year. The football team never plays teams like that during the season any more.

 

Going to eight games had some good features but it also had some downsides.

TheN8tureBoy
TheN8tureBoy

How do you feel about nine games, John "at" MrSEC?

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator

 @TheN8tureBoy 

 

First, we have a lot of newcomers to this site everyday.  So while we may discuss a topic you've already seen from time to time, there are new folks who have zero clue about our previous posts. 

 

Second, we mentioned right in the post that regular readers know our feelings on this particular topic.  So I'm not sure why your comment was necessary other to take a little shot at us.  (Also not sure why "at" is in quotation marks, but hey...)

 

Third, if I were an SEC fan and the head of the league's transition team said openly -- just a month after an 8-game schedule was announced -- that the new playoff could lead the SEC to look again at a nine-game schedule, I'd want to know about it.  That's a new quote from the SEC's main schedule-maker and that makes this story "news" by definition.

 

We just try to cover what's happening for free and provide people with information from across the league on a daily basis.  That's the point of the site.  And in 99% of our stories -- not counting the "Headlines" posts -- we try to give you our opinions and thoughts on the news of the day.  So if a topic keeps making news, we'll keep covering it.  And we'll keep giving our opinions on it for those who haven't been here before or haven't seen our thoughts previously.

 

Thanks for reading the site,

John

 

 

Opti
Opti

 @John at MrSEC

Thank you for the information you provide every day on this site. 

MRSEC is without peer and one of the first stops I make every day either on my PC or Phone.

Thanks for all the time and especially all the insight you share.

 

Mizzou76
Mizzou76

Was wondering about a comment in the above article.  "If/when" the SEC network starts... It seems a no-brainer to start the network.  It would be a finacial windfall for all teams; have you heard anything standing in the way of an SEC network?

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator

 @Mizzou76 

 

Until such a network is negotiated, planned and announced, I think it's prudent to say if/when.  The SEC has talked about it and some inside the league have even suggested a 2014 start date.  So it seems likely.  But if there's a negotiating issue of if ESPN offers more reason -- for some reason or another -- NOT to start an SEC-only network, then there's still a chance one won't launch.  

 

Just covering the bases.

 

Thanks for reading,

John

Opti
Opti

I think the entire driver here is television and project X.

The 9 game schedule is just one of the SEC leverage points in the renegotiation.

FallsChurchDore
FallsChurchDore

Wonder if Slive, et al, felt that the expansion was enough for now and that a move to a 9-game schedule (while inevitable) could take place a little on down the road once the BCS is gone and the new playoff system is in place.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] games makes way too much sense on too many levels to dismiss – but I’m not sure I share his confidence at this point that the folks running the show will eventually see the light on [...]

  2. [...] head of the SEC’s transition team — former Mississippi State AD Larry Templeton — suggested that the SEC would once again discuss a nine-game schedule in the future due to the new playoff system.  But as long as the Big Ten doesn’t go to a [...]



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC