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

By: Homepage | MrSEC

Homepage | MrSEC — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:56:16 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: SEC Fan

SEC Fan — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:33:04 +0000

I think they’ve already picked a time for 9 games in the near future. They just want to fulfill current contracts.
After all, it’s easier to alter a future schedule than 1 just months away. After all, if we cancel, then it’s on THEIR (the other school’s) shoulders to find somebody to fill the gap.

Say they told the schools that as of 2015, we’re doing 9 games. This gives the schools we cancel with time to find somebody else. An easy solution would have everybody we drop play each other (if the calendar works in their favor).

By: TheN8tureBoy

TheN8tureBoy — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:17:35 +0000

@AllTideUp Terrible idea. VT Tech and Tennessee actually have fan bases that are in contact with one another. This matchup has been batted around for many years with Bristol Motor Speedway as the location.

By: Mark R

Mark R — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:11:51 +0000

@AllTideUp Replace A&M-Virginia with A&M-Virginia Tech (I wish VT would join the SEC and become A&M’s permanent rival!) and let Tennessee have Virginia.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:49:38 +0000

It could work pretty well although it wouldn’t create a lot of great match-ups. Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, South Carolina-Clemson, and probably Vandy-Wake will all be taken.

Some of the others might be:

Alabama-Miami
Tennessee-Virginia Tech
Kentucky-Duke (because Duke is pretty much on the level of a Sun Belt team anyway)
Auburn-NC State
Mizzou-Maryland
LSU-North Carolina
Texas A&M-Virginia
Arkansas-Pittsburgh
Ole Miss-Syracuse
Miss State-Boston College

There aren’t a lot of great match-ups here, but it would be better than playing an FCS or Sun Belt team.

By: ConnGator

ConnGator — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:15:29 +0000

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.

By: Fore Hokies

Fore Hokies — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:03:11 +0000

Great points John! As a SEC fan Hokie, I have always supported ways to get VT to play more SEC teams. An ACC/SEC agreement following the CFA Kickoff model of pairing the conferences is a win for everyone….even if it results in more loses for the ACC team it improves the weak ACC schedule helps the SEC prove its dominance as The power conference

By: Waiting for that nine-game conference schedule | Get The Picture

Waiting for that nine-game conference schedule | Get The Picture — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:10:01 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: RoadTrip

RoadTrip — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:29:28 +0000

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.

By: buddha22

buddha22 — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:05:41 +0000

Bingo!

By: BonzaiB

BonzaiB — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:28:03 +0000

@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.

By: AGator

AGator — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:38:22 +0000

@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.

By: cfn_ms

cfn_ms — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:44:32 +0000

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

By: cfn_ms

cfn_ms — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:44:00 +0000

@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).

By: TheN8tureBoy

TheN8tureBoy — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:33:29 +0000

@John at MrSEC @Norton John, you are the unquestioned king of SEC blogging. Keep it up.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:13:39 +0000

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.

By: david1314

david1314 — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:57:56 +0000

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.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:20:49 +0000

@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

By: Opti

Opti — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:14:08 +0000

@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.

By: Norton

Norton — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:22:01 +0000

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.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:17:10 +0000

@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

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:08:10 +0000

@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

By: TheN8tureBoy

TheN8tureBoy — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:34:51 +0000

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

By: Mizzou76

Mizzou76 — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:11:18 +0000

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?

By: Opti

Opti — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:07:33 +0000

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.

By: FallsChurchDore

FallsChurchDore — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:13:15 +0000

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.