I still don't understand why coaches have any say in the 8 vs. 9 debate

Mainly because the input of the people who know the most about the sport, regardless of their biases, makes perfect sense, I'd say. You don't ask the presidents to call plays on the field and you don't ask the coaches to debate academic departmental funding, but it's always wise to ask the coaches about matters related to football, especially since football is a huge revenue sport and the coaches can offer insight into the best way to succeed. Yeah, they're going to want an easier path...unless, for instance, they want a harder path with greater chances at better dividends.

The presidents and ADs don't have to take the advice of the coaches, but they certainly should listen to them.

quote:

---

So if the SEC keeps an eight-game schedule, the potential is it could squeeze out the annual cross-division rivalries of Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee.

---

I think this was Slive's implied threat in the other OP yesterday. Those are only 4 votes out of 14...not enough. Plus if they switch AU with Mizzou then it would only be 2 votes with 12 up for grabs.

Imagine if a president votes against, or opposite, his head coach and athletic director ... now, do you think that is going to happen?

Honestly, I don't see what there is to debate. The SEC expanded to 14 teams. We need more conference games. Do our teams really need 4 non-conference games mostly against wimp teams? My guess is going to 9 conference gains would improve the strength of schedule for the entire conference.