Started By
Message
re: Future sched news - '24 M&W game on 4/20
Posted on 3/13/14 at 6:00 pm to WestCoastAg
Posted on 3/13/14 at 6:00 pm to WestCoastAg
Looking forward to this! 
0
Posted on 3/13/14 at 6:58 pm to aggressor
UCLA is #17 for all-time points in the AP poll. A&M is #18. And #12-16 are Penn State, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia, and Auburn, respectively. UCLA has history, name recognition, and with their recent upsurge, are very likely to be good when we play them.
I understand the desire to play a variety of schools from different parts of the country, but splitting time, half in B1G country and half in PAC land would mean greatly reducing exposure and recruiting in both areas. And there are a lot of SEC schools who are a lot closer to B1G country than we are.
I think we do better by concentrating on that region. There are plenty of quality programs over there that would serve our needs.
I understand the desire to play a variety of schools from different parts of the country, but splitting time, half in B1G country and half in PAC land would mean greatly reducing exposure and recruiting in both areas. And there are a lot of SEC schools who are a lot closer to B1G country than we are.
I think we do better by concentrating on that region. There are plenty of quality programs over there that would serve our needs.
Posted on 3/14/14 at 9:27 am to Mirthomatic
Once again I'm happy with the UCLA series, it's a good move and should be a great game. I just think playing a Top Tier Big 1G school (Top Tier in terms of exposure, not ranking per se) would also be a good move. A game with Ohio State, Penn State, or Michigan likely gets 50% more ratings than a game with UCLA nationally for instance.
I will say from a pure football fans perspective those Big 1G environments are better than Pac 12 environments but from a road trip perspective the Pac 12 is far superior. Ann Arbor or Happy Valley are cool football environments on gameday but they aren't LA in terms of a fun place to hang out.
Playing good Pac schools is fine and I understand the strategy. I wouldn't mind another home and home with UW, Stanford, or USC for that matter. I just like the idea of the Big 1G schools as well because those types of games also help if we are truly trying to be national as a brand.
I will say from a pure football fans perspective those Big 1G environments are better than Pac 12 environments but from a road trip perspective the Pac 12 is far superior. Ann Arbor or Happy Valley are cool football environments on gameday but they aren't LA in terms of a fun place to hang out.
Playing good Pac schools is fine and I understand the strategy. I wouldn't mind another home and home with UW, Stanford, or USC for that matter. I just like the idea of the Big 1G schools as well because those types of games also help if we are truly trying to be national as a brand.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 2:24 pm to aggressor
quote:
The Texas A&M Aggies have added Ball State and Western Carolina to their 2015 football schedule, FBSchedules.com has learned through documents obtained from the school.
Texas A&M will host the Ball State Cardinals at Kyle Field in College Station on Sept. 19, 2015. The Cardinals will receive a $1.2 million guarantee for their first ever match-up against the Aggies.
Ball State is a member of the Mid-American Conference (MAC) in the FBS. The Cardinals went 10-3 in 2013 and fell to Arkansas State 23-20 in the GoDaddy Bowl.
Texas A&M will also host Western Carolina on Nov. 14, 2015. The Catamounts, members of the Southern Conference in the FCS, have never faced the Aggies on the gridiron. They will receive a $620,000 guarantee for their appearance at Kyle Field.
LINK
FCS games ain't gonna go away with a 9th SEC game
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 3/21/14 at 2:32 pm to Dr RC
quote:
The Texas A&M Aggies have added Ball State
And here come the jokes.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 3:31 pm to Projectpat
Love me some balls tate
Posted on 3/21/14 at 3:45 pm to Dr RC
quote:
FCS games ain't gonna go away with a 9th SEC game
I'm not certain FCS games won't go away but it won't have anything to do with a 9th game. I think they'll legislate it. I'm also not convinced we'll move to 9. The UT AD really wants it bc it takes pressure off of the perm cross-div game and they have no OOC rivals.
Btw, I'm a little shocked how much we're paying for both of these games though. And I think from that we can get an idea that this is pretty forced.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 4:10 pm to tmc94
'15: ASU (Houston), vs Ball St, vs WCU
'16: vs UCLA, vs La Tech, vs UTSA
'17 @ UCLA, vs UNM
I thought we were supposed to hold off on '16 scheduling bc that is the year they will make the decision whether to move to 9 games. If so, '16 is complete.
'15 and '17 both need another home game and we could afford to do a 2 for 1 or home/home with a '16 road game only if we stay at 8 games. Otherwise they are both likely buy games.
'16: vs UCLA, vs La Tech, vs UTSA
'17 @ UCLA, vs UNM
I thought we were supposed to hold off on '16 scheduling bc that is the year they will make the decision whether to move to 9 games. If so, '16 is complete.
'15 and '17 both need another home game and we could afford to do a 2 for 1 or home/home with a '16 road game only if we stay at 8 games. Otherwise they are both likely buy games.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 4:38 pm to tmc94
quote:
'16: vs UCLA, vs La Tech, vs UTSA
This is my idea of a perfect non con schedule with a 9 game conference schedule. One big name opponent, one mid major team that could be bowl bound (but we should beat fairly easily), and one low end FBS Texas team
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 3/21/14 at 4:57 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
at their current rate of progression I think UTSA will be far more likely to make a bowl in '16 than La Tech.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 5:03 pm to tmc94
quote:
Btw, I'm a little shocked how much we're paying for both of these games though. And I think from that we can get an idea that this is pretty forced.
Forced meaning what? That we were determined to get two more home games, so were willing to overpay? Or do you mean forced from outside, such as pressure from the league office?
Posted on 3/21/14 at 5:24 pm to Mirthomatic
quote:
Forced meaning what?
Well, determined seems like an odd word choice. We are spending $450m to renovate Kyle. We already scheduled a neutral site game in Houston to start the season which takes away the easiest date to fill.
I meant we are forced because it is next year. Everyone's schedule is full at worst and difficult to work with at best. We need to fill very specific dates. I can't imagine many schools would even talk to us about a mid-Nov game at this point.
FTR, we aren't getting pressure from the league office. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We have been asked to hold off by the league office because many SEC schools have a lot of fixed dates that cannot be moved whether thru contract or tradition. I think this annoucement suggests we have the '15 SEC sched (or at least our dates are set)
Posted on 3/21/14 at 6:12 pm to Projectpat
I know the jokes, but Ball State is famous because it's where David Letterman went to school...so we can vicariously beat the shite out of him.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:10 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Looks like scheduling will be decided soon. I think they said this last year but Slive reiterating it yesterday suggests they won't be putting it off again: LINK
Based on things I've heard, I think they are going to stay at 8. There just isn't support for 9 unless the ESPN people step in and I don't think they will because I'm not sure it's really good from a tv perspective. But I'm sure they've delved into it in great detail as to all the various impacts.
I do expect some scheduling guidelines to be put in place though. I wish there was support for following the B1G rule of no FCS but I don't think there is. I think you'll see "guidelines" of at least 1 P5 opponent OOC per year and possibly other similar measures.
quote:
Slive also said the SEC will decide at the spring meeting in Destin next month whether to stay at an eight-game conference schedule, or go to nine beginning in 2016.
Based on things I've heard, I think they are going to stay at 8. There just isn't support for 9 unless the ESPN people step in and I don't think they will because I'm not sure it's really good from a tv perspective. But I'm sure they've delved into it in great detail as to all the various impacts.
I do expect some scheduling guidelines to be put in place though. I wish there was support for following the B1G rule of no FCS but I don't think there is. I think you'll see "guidelines" of at least 1 P5 opponent OOC per year and possibly other similar measures.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 1:28 pm to tmc94
quote:
Based on things I've heard, I think they are going to stay at 8.
quote:
There just isn't support for 9 unless the ESPN people step in and I don't think they will because I'm not sure it's really good from a tv perspective.
more games to air via 1 extra OOC > less games via 9 conference game for the SECN and ESPN
quote:
I do expect some scheduling guidelines to be put in place though.
quote:
I wish there was support for following the B1G rule of no FCS but I don't think there is.
well poop
quote:
I think you'll see "guidelines" of at least 1 P5 opponent OOC per year
quote:
and possibly other similar measures.
other than banning FCS games and requiring a P5 game each year what could those be?Posted on 4/17/14 at 2:17 pm to Dr RC
I think they will put some measures in place like requiring X number of games fall under the SEC contract annually. Or no selling yourself for a road game (seems remote but Colorado did it one year when they were having money problems). It's just the network changes things a little bit.
Also it wouldn't shock me if ESPN pushed something like no more than 2 FCS games in any given weekend. Weird stuff like that to just ensure the tv lineup is solid and ESPN can sell it as part of the SEC rules instead of just promising they will do it.
So no, I don't think it will be anything major that fans will care much about, just more subtle rules in place to keep the peace.
Also it wouldn't shock me if ESPN pushed something like no more than 2 FCS games in any given weekend. Weird stuff like that to just ensure the tv lineup is solid and ESPN can sell it as part of the SEC rules instead of just promising they will do it.
So no, I don't think it will be anything major that fans will care much about, just more subtle rules in place to keep the peace.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:03 am to tmc94
Few articles and quotes about where they are in terms of scheduling. This is expected to be decided in the next few weeks before the Dustin meetings.
LINK
School Presidents will vote but you better believe they care what their FB coaches think. Tony Barnhart reported via the radio that only 2 of the 14 coaches support a 9-game schedule.
I pretty much agree with Mr. SEC's take: LINK
I definitely find the following idea to be pretty intriguing and maybe one that ESPN will push heavily on both conferences.
But I'm not sure how it would work. Will we all take on a permanent or would some be perm (UF-FSU, etc) and some rotate. I wouldn't mind picking up a perm like VT but that's too obvious for UT. Someone is going to get stuck with BC or something that they just have no interest in. Personally (assuming VT is off the table) I would hope we'd pick up a Carolina school to pair with SC.
Btw, the ACC is exploring creative scheduling that doesn't have divisions as well.
LINK
quote:
-- Eight-game league schedule with permanent crossover rivalries
-- Eight-game league schedule without permanent crossover rivalries
-- Nine-game league schedule with permanent crossover rivalries
-- Nine-game league schedule without permanent crossover rivalries
According to Slive, there may be an "offshoot" of one of those four options, "but essentially that's it."
School Presidents will vote but you better believe they care what their FB coaches think. Tony Barnhart reported via the radio that only 2 of the 14 coaches support a 9-game schedule.
quote:
Nick Saban on a 9-game slate: “I don’t think there’s any support for that, it doesn’t seem like. I think there’s a little bit more support for staying with an eight-games schedule and everybody playing a ninth opponent that’s in the five major conferences.
My thing is I’m for playing nine conference games and still playing another team in the major conferences, so you play 10 games because of fan interest, people coming to games looking forward to seeing more good games.
So that’s the starting point for me. I think it’s important for the players to be able to play more teams in the SEC East, on the other side, which we only get to play one now. I don’t know if we stay with the 6-1-1 or 6-0-2. I don’t know.”
I pretty much agree with Mr. SEC's take: LINK
quote:
The SEC presidents will ultimately make the decision. Best bet? The compromise would seem to be the status quo — eight games with permanent rivals.
I definitely find the following idea to be pretty intriguing and maybe one that ESPN will push heavily on both conferences.
quote:
The ACC is currently is set with an eight game league schedule, with Notre Dame as a partial member playing five ACC opponents per year, but has "informal interest" in exploring an "8+1" partnership with another conference.
But I'm not sure how it would work. Will we all take on a permanent or would some be perm (UF-FSU, etc) and some rotate. I wouldn't mind picking up a perm like VT but that's too obvious for UT. Someone is going to get stuck with BC or something that they just have no interest in. Personally (assuming VT is off the table) I would hope we'd pick up a Carolina school to pair with SC.
Btw, the ACC is exploring creative scheduling that doesn't have divisions as well.
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:21 am to tmc94
quote:
I definitely find this idea to be pretty intriguing and maybe one that ESPN will push heavily on both conferences. But I'm not sure how it would work. Will we all take on a permanent or would some be perm (UF-FSU, etc) and some rotate. I wouldn't mind picking up a perm like VT but that's too obvious for UT. Someone is going to get stuck with BC or something that they just have no interest in. Personally (assuming VT is off the table) I would hope we'd pick up a Carolina school to pair with SC.
I read that as 8 conference games, one of which is against a cross-division permanent opponent, not the creation of permanent OOC rivalry games.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 11:42 am to Mirthomatic
quote:
has "informal interest" in exploring an "8+1" partnership with another conference.
I probably should have put the quote in another spot as it does look confusing now that I re-read it. I'll edit
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 11:43 am
Posted on 4/23/14 at 12:33 pm to tmc94
quote:
But I'm not sure how it would work. Will we all take on a permanent or would some be perm (UF-FSU, etc) and some rotate. I wouldn't mind picking up a perm like VT but that's too obvious for UT. Someone is going to get stuck with BC or something that they just have no interest in. Personally (assuming VT is off the table) I would hope we'd pick up a Carolina school to pair with SC.
Btw, the ACC is exploring creative scheduling that doesn't have divisions as well.
and this is why I've long thought that ESPN does NOT want the SEC to go to a 9 game schedule (and is likely why the ACC also stayed at 8).
9 game conference schedules give them less overall inventory to air. They don't want that when they need to justify their costs to TV providers.
It would be far better for ESPN to encourage SEC teams to play more games against conferences they have the most control over for TV. So the ACC, AAC, Sun Belt, and MAC are going to be the schools they encourage us most to play against OOC. This is especially true b/c there is a very real chance that ESPN could lose some or all of the Pac 12 and Big 10 content to Fox in the near future.
quote:
Saban might be the only smart coach in the conference when it comes to scheduling. In terms of strength of schedule for the new playoff, it appears now that the SEC would be the only league not playing nine conference games and a 10th game against a power league. That means each SEC team would play three cupcakes instead of two and that will give the playoff selection committee reason enough to exclude a second SEC team from the playoff in coming years.
Here is where I disagree with Mr SEC. The bottom half of the Pac12/Big10/Big12 are not equivalent to the bottom half of the SEC. When you get to play a Purdue/Indiana/Rutgers/Colorado/Utah/Iowa State every year you may as well call it another cupcake OOC game. Those teams are really no more difficult than Boise, Fresno State, Marshall, Houston, East Carolina, etc.
If anything, its the FCS games that must go if the Big 10 follows through with dumping them.
Besides, its extremely unlikely the committee selects two teams from a single conference any time soon regardless. As soon as a single conference gets more than 1 team in there will be howls for an expansion of the playoffs. THey aren't going to want to open that up yet.
Never mind that 9 games = more losses = more reasons to say a second SEC team really didn't beat that many good teams b/c look at all the losses for their opponents. Thats the logic the Big 10 and Big 12 WANT to happen b/c they know they are the most at risk of getting left the hell out.
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 12:53 pm
Page 8 of 27
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News