re: Athletic Article on 8 vs 9 games and ESPN not paying

I get the feeling you don't the significance of games against Florida and Auburn if you think games against A&M and Arkansas are equally valued

quote:

---

Sankey has been careful not to say what he favors, but many believe he's in the nine-game category, and he could make his case in the room to the holdouts, pleading for the greater good

---

I am failing to see what the “greater good” is here. If there is no new money, then what is the benefit to the additional game? It can’t be that it will help with making the playoff. For one thing, clearly SOS isn’t that big a factor, they let TCU in with a loss. Not to mention the 12 team expansion renders this concern near moot.

Also if I’m one of the non “traditional powers” then I certainly won’t vote for 9 games because it would make it that much harder for me to possibly break into the playoff mix. Also Florida (an “traditional power”) and SC have good OOC rivals already, so adding the extra game does not help them (Louisville is also usually good so UK is in this camp too). UGA probably does not care because GT is so bad, but if they were good I am sure that they’d be unenthusiastic too.

So what am I missing here, what is the benefit to the nine game schedule from the schools standpoint if there is no new money?

quote:

---

So Alabama would only play LSU once every 7-8 years? Lmao

---

I have LSU playing Alabama every year in every schedule that I have posted.. not sure why you thought otherwise.

Agree that it’s better when home/away balanced. But I really would like someone to explain the advantage to mine games, because I genuinely don’t see it.

quote:

---

Both options play all other teams home and away every 4 years.

---

I get that it’s preferable to play as many teams as often as possible. But that’s an issue of making match ups and, as you point out, an 8 game model does allow for this. And I understand that no one will be perfectly happy regarding who plays who.

What I don’t get is what is the advantage to 9 conference games with no new money, irrespective of the match up model used.

I do agree that an argument can be made to stay at 8 until the money is right to go to 9.

From a non money standpoint, the benefit of going to 9 games is that you can play more of the teams you want to play each year.

For example.

Georgia

The 1/7 gives them Florida
which means they don’t play Auburn each year

The 3/6 gives them Florida, Auburn & Kentucky

LSU
the 1/7 - A&M
the 3/6 - A&M, Alabama, Ole Miss

etc etc

The current schedule y’all have is dumb imo.
Playing each non division team once every 7 years is basically two different leagues. So even if Texas and OU weren’t added, going to 9 games would mean that you played all teams home and away over 7 years.

It just adds more games against teams you don’t get to play.

quote:

---

There seem to be a few people planting stories trying to railroad the process along faster and further than it really is.

---

Oh I’m sure people are planting stories on all sides to fit their agenda.

I’m guessing people weren’t real happy with the new schedule when A&M and Missouri joined either.

I like the 3/5 option best for 8 games.
I prefer the 3/6 option for 9 games.

Yes, it could get ugly.

And it will be Texas’s fault. Count on it.

quote:

---

Texas would've ended up in the B1G alongside USC/UCLA had the SEC not taken the Longhorns. And as much as I hate stroking the Texas ego, that's not a brand you can allow to fall into your rival's lap. That would be a lot more money for those B1G schools over SEC schools in the years to come. See what's happening with the ACC now? FSU soon to be receiving about one third of the media dollars that Vanderbilt receives each year. We don't want to end up in a similar situation, where Alabama and Georgia jealous about Northwestern's annual B1G media revenue. It's unfortunately just the way things are in this landscape.

---

I understand your thought process, but I think that you (and Sankey) are wrong about this. Texas certainly would have told Sankey that they would go to the Big Ten if the SEC turned them down, but that would have been an empty threat, in my opinion.

First off, when you think back in time before OU and Texas announced they were leaving, the Big Ten was still trying to figure out how they ended up with Rutgers and Maryland. The appetite for further expansion at that time was pretty much zero. Only once the SEC made a move for OU and Texas did the Big Ten do something even more radical in response by adding USC and UCLA. But, that was a reactionary move. If Kevin Warren had gone to the Big Ten presidents and asked them to kill off the Big XII, they likely would not have been willing to make the first move towards the realignment final solution.

Second, Texas was encumbered by a contract with ESPN for the LHN. ESPN was more than happy to let them out of that contract to go from the Big XII (where ESPN only has half the rights) to the SEC (where ESPN has all the rights), but they would not have been willing to play ball had Texas wanted to go to the Big Ten, where ESPN has none of the rights.

So, while I understand the argument that it's better to have Texas in the SEC than the Big Ten, I don't really believe there was any realistic prospect for that to happen this decade. Sankey got played.

frick ESPN, and Disney as a whole. Don't give 'em anything for free.