Comments on: Big Ten Considering A 9- Or 10-Game Conference Schedule

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:15:13 +0000

@Paris10 If Kentucky needs to schedule three cupcakes to go bowling, why exactly do they deserve to represent the SEC in a bowl game, again?

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:12:23 +0000

@MoKelly1 Obviously the big stadium schools wanted 8 home games to maximize ticket revenue, and the weakest schools want a number of games against the Little Sisters of the Poor to maximize their chance of going bowling, while schools in the middle of the Big Ten want to maximize their average number of home games against the marquee schools, so its both ends against the middle. However since the big stadium schools are looking at scheduling one fewer cupcake game and one more home and home contest against a mid-level AQ conference opponent, doing that against a Big Ten opponent and keeping the money in the BTN is more attractive.

10 games seems like framing the question so that 9 conference games seems like a compromise. Instead of asking the question, “ok, stay with 8 or move to 9″, its asking the question, “stay at 8, move to 9, or move to 10?”. There are six “western” schools (UNL, IA, MN, WI, IL and NW) that want to be in a Western division but several of them will want to play what are going to be the marquee schools in the Eastern division as often as possible. They’ll want 10 games and as few locked cross-division games as possible.

Get a minority of schools each pushing for 10, 9 and 8, and “voila”, 9 is the compromise result.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:02:11 +0000

@Seanbo10 conference games is not an option for the SEC with locked out of conference rivalry games in place for several schools, so that can simply be set to one side. For 9 conference games, 7 homes games per season is straightforward: schedule two cupcakes at home, and have the OOC home and home contest at home in the year you have 4 conference home games and away in the year when you have 5 conference home games.

Either neutral site games are better financially than a home and home series, making 6 home _ one neutral site “better than 7 home games” or else don’t schedule the damn thing.

No longer scheduling 3 cupcake games is a transition that schools with Championship playoff ambitions are going to have to make in any event. Teams without Championship playoff ambitions (in football) can still schedule 3 non-AQ games in pursuit of bowl game eligibility, and alternate between 7 and 8 home games. May as well make those FormerBigEast, Conference-USA, Sunbelt and MAC schools, since that’s who they’ll likely be playing if they make a bowl.

By: BruceMcF

BruceMcF — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:53:32 +0000

@JepH Setting aside the annual game in Jacksonville, they each just need their 5home conference schedule when they are away to their (at present) ACC in-state rival, and 4home conference schedule when they are home to their ACC in-state rival. That’ plus two payday games is a 7 home game season. Then presuming the game in Jacksonville is better for both schools than playing home and home over two years, that means that 6 homes game plus one annual neutral site game is better for them than 7 homes games.

If the annual game in Jacksonville is a net money loser compared to a home game in alternate years, then don’t schedule it.

Under the new playoff system, they are going to have to pare it down to two cupcake games anyway, so may as well have the extra home and home series in-conference where it makes money for everybody from the coming SEC Network.

By: Paris10

Paris10 — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:39:43 +0000

Kentucky would never play in a bowl again!
Without Western Kentucky, A MAC school and a Division AA they can’t win enough to get to Nashville or Birmingham!

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:47:55 +0000

@DanHogan
Shoot, in that case, why not just play 7 conference games then you could get 8 home games.
Schools should also notice that attendance is declining for the games against inferior opponents.

By: DaveinExile

DaveinExile — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:05:28 +0000

People wanting to find fault with the SEC to spread playoff wealth will find that excuse somewhere, be it scheduling or some other B1G/P12 concoction. If you’re going to schedule 9, do it because it makes sense for your league, not because conferences stupid enough to schedule a MAC weekend need to change the subject when they lose half those games.

By: BonzaiB

BonzaiB — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:00:30 +0000

@JepH I think you accurately posit the issues AS THEY STAND TODAY. However, if the SEC goes to a 9 game schedule, and I am a Gator, I think UF and GA could turn this into a win / win. Any negotiation with the SEC for a 9 game schedule is going to have to take that into consideration. And, if the schedule starts to hurt either schools local economy, there will be a hue and cry to change both games to home and home. Likely or possible? Don’t know, but with the tv money a 9 team schedule is going to generate, something has to give.

As of today, you are exactly correct. The Swamp holds over 100,000 and its hard enough to get a ticket as it is. You take away one home game, and the alums are going to go nuts and the lottery for tickets could be such that a freshman at UF might have to travel to an away game just to see the team play in their first year at school. That sucks.

On the SWC, the Ags were pretty po’d this year about the new contract to extend the series a few more years. However, its important to the A&M budget because they make more money off it on a game by game basis than they do a home game. That does not help the local economies, but since A&M and Arkansas extended the SWC contract for over a decade, I think the schools will do what it takes to ensure their survivability first. Arkansas loves it, puts them in Dallas, which is where they need to be to recruit.

A&M is expanding Kyle Field to over 100,000, they are not going to schedule an agreement with Texas that would put them in Dallas THREE times in a year (SWC, SMU and Texas). Not hardly. And from what I understand, Texas’ AD pretty much has said not until 2020 will the teams meet again. So, if you believe what AD’s say, it ain’t happening. Of course, that is just the truth today……

By: JepH

JepH — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:32:14 +0000

Florida and Georgia would simply lose way, way to much money in a nine game SEC. Both Florida and Georgia need at least seven home games every year to support their budgets (and the local economies of Gainesville and Athens). The problem with a nine game SEC schedule for both Florida and Georgia would be that 1. they both play a mandated in state rivalry game that is a home and away series (Florida State and Georgia Tech) and 2. they play an annual game in Jacksonville which eliminates another possibility for a home game. That means that every other year either florida or georgia would have only six home games and depending on how the sec schedules lined up might only even have five home games (although I imagine the SEC would plan around that contingency to prevent it from happening) Texas A&M would have a similar problem if Texas would ever get over it and schedule them again because of the Southwest Classic in the Cotton Bowl against Arkansas. (They may already with SMU, I don’t exactly know how important that series is the A&M or its fans) I doubt that the SEC wants to seriously injure (and likely anger) what are two of the most important and powerful members of the conference. Unless the SEC invites both Ga Tech and FSU (which is not going to happen) I imagine that a nine game conference schedule would be a complete non-starter for the Gators and Dogs, that is unless of course they are granted some other concessions, of which I can’t even speculate they would be.

By: AllTideUp

AllTideUp — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:17:56 +0000

I’d be thrilled if the SEC went to 10 games. They already need 9, but 10 would even things out. More quality games is better all the way around.

By: RoadTrip

RoadTrip — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:58:21 +0000

On some things like conference expansion you wait unless you know who you want, they are available, and it can be done reasonably smoothly. On other things you set the bar. This is one of those things. It is mind boggling to me this has not already been handled. 9 games in the SEC is a no-brainer. Will have to study the divisional play elimination suggestion.

By: DanHogan

DanHogan — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:55:44 +0000

@Seanbo All these school admins use that kind of phrasing. The better version would be “maximized” revenues. It’s technically true if you assume they plan on spending what they can take in maximally.

By: Seanbo

Seanbo — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:48:31 +0000

I love the bogus argument that schools need 7 home games to balance their budgets. Doesn’t that argument end in 2014 when schools get playoff money, a bigger TV contract, a conference network, and Champions Bowl money?

By: MoKelly1

MoKelly1 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:17:49 +0000

I, for one, will wait and see what really happens with the Big 10. If I recall, in 2011 the Big 10 said they were going to a 9 game schedule after they added Nebraska. They would go to 9 games in 2017. But wait. That idea got scapped when the Big 10 made their big announcement that they would have a deal with the PAC 12 to play each other. But wait, the PAC 12 deal fell apart. So, the Big 10 was back to the status quo.

But wait, now the Big 10 s discussing a 9 or 10 game schedule. So, the Big 10 began this talk back in 2011 aiming for a 2017 start. Now we are in 2013 and they are once again discussing a 9 or 10 game schedule.

I’m not sure these guys are all on the same page.