Started By
Message
re: An option to keep 8 games, rivalries, recruit visit every campus in 4 years
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:12 pm to braindeadboxer
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:12 pm to braindeadboxer
quote:
I think the most positive things is that this will always put the two teams with the best record in ATL. No team with a 5-3 record in the East playing an 8-0 team from the West while another team from the West is 7-1. That would have settled LSU/BAMA in ATL in 2012 and the winner would have moved on to play the best team the rest of the country could field. The SEC would then still not have a loss in the BCSCG.
I'm pretty sure that the money made in the NCG with 2 teams pretty much negates the fact that 1 team won and 1 team lost in the NCG.
Would you rather not play for a shot at the NCG?
Seriously?
0
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:16 pm to Dr RC
quote:
like this much better than going to 9
The schools want the big bucks, so you will be going to 9 games--book it!
As I said before, just don't count the permanent opponent games for divisional titles--problems solved.
The added advantage, some years you will get two teams in the playoff when you SEC Champion has two losses and another team with only one loss gets in also.
This post was edited on 5/21/13 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:17 pm to Sheetbend
There's more money in 14 SEC games in a week than 7 SEC games in a week.
We're not going anywhere.
We're not going anywhere.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:20 pm to bgator85
quote:
I would hate losing the UT game, especially since the SEC took the annual Auburn game away from us already.
That's why I mentioned last night the idea of a 10 game schedule, with a 6-2-2 format. You still have two rotating games, but UF and AU would be able to play every year again. We could keep LSU and UF, as well. Not sure if LSU would go back to UK again or someone else. I would kind of like UF and USC as the permanent opponents. Most importantly to me is LSU would still get to play UF, AU, UA, Ole Miss, and A&M every year, while still playing the other schools in the East more often than we would now.
But I doubt UF, UGA, and USC would go for that, with the permanent OOC in-state games.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:22 pm to meansonny
quote:
There's more money in 14 SEC games in a week than 7 SEC games in a week.
Where is the logic in that? I don't get the extra money for weak OOC rent-a-wins.
I know CBS wants 9 games.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:26 pm to Sheetbend
You mean ESPN?
CBS is fine with 8. They get 1st selection on programming. They aren't hurting.
I haven't heard that ESPN wants 9.
But that's one of the reasons leaking around.
14 OOC games includes UGA v Clemson. Potentially UGA v FSU.
You remember when Ohio State chickened out on UGA? What would be a better game? Ohio State versus UGA? Or Ohio State versus Minnesota?
Would you rather be in control of your scheduling? Or would you rather your conference?
CBS is fine with 8. They get 1st selection on programming. They aren't hurting.
I haven't heard that ESPN wants 9.
But that's one of the reasons leaking around.
14 OOC games includes UGA v Clemson. Potentially UGA v FSU.
You remember when Ohio State chickened out on UGA? What would be a better game? Ohio State versus UGA? Or Ohio State versus Minnesota?
Would you rather be in control of your scheduling? Or would you rather your conference?
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:30 pm to Sheetbend
The idea OP, is interesting, but it isn't just the SEC that has to convince NCAA, it's convincing 106 other presidents in the NCAA. Not so sure....
But on another note, do you think the coaches of the schools that want 9 games , will be forced to schedule a (big, acc, b12, PAC, ) team every year to balance the teams that have standing rivalries, or better than that all schedules will have to include - 9 conf, 2 of the big 5, & 1 ala carte?
But on another note, do you think the coaches of the schools that want 9 games , will be forced to schedule a (big, acc, b12, PAC, ) team every year to balance the teams that have standing rivalries, or better than that all schedules will have to include - 9 conf, 2 of the big 5, & 1 ala carte?
This post was edited on 5/21/13 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:38 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
But on another note, do you think the coaches of the schools that want 9 games , will be forced to schedule a (big, acc, b12, PAC, ) team every year to balance the teams that have standing rivalries, or better than that all schedules will have to include - 9 conf, 2 of the big 5, & 1 ala carte?
Here's the problem.
Oregon is backing out of OOC games.
Ohio State has backed out of OOC games.
How can you schedule quality opponents when:
1) They have their own 9 game schedule issues and don't want the OOC games (PAC12, BIG).
2) You aren't going to find BIG, ACC, B12, PAC teams that are willing to travel without a return visit.
The only solution is to schedule more neutral site games with 50/50 tickets.
However, most people's reasoning for 9 conference games is to get rid of cupcakes.
And this doesn't do that. The only teams willing to travel without the home return are cupcakes.
Bama is the team most likely to play Georgia State. If they want to get rid of cupcakes so bad, why don't they leave the SEC ADs/Presidents alone and complain to their own AD?
Posted on 5/21/13 at 4:09 pm to meansonny
quote:
Bama is the team most likely to play Georgia State. If they want to get rid of cupcakes so bad, why don't they leave the SEC ADs/Presidents alone and complain to their own AD?
quote:
Bama is the team most likely to play Georgia State. If they want to get rid of cupcakes so bad, why don't they leave the SEC ADs/Presidents alone and complain to their own AD?
quote:
Bama is the team most likely to play Georgia State. If they want to get rid of cupcakes so bad, why don't they leave the SEC ADs/Presidents alone and complain to their own AD?
Posted on 5/21/13 at 11:47 pm to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
The idea OP, is interesting, but it isn't just the SEC that has to convince NCAA, it's convincing 106 other presidents in the NCAA. Not so sure....
I thought permission could be granted by an NCAA committee, not a Presidential consensus. I don't know for sure, either way.
quote:
But on another note, do you think the coaches of the schools that want 9 games , will be forced to schedule a (big, acc, b12, PAC, ) team every year to balance the teams that have standing rivalries, or better than that all schedules will have to include - 9 conf, 2 of the big 5, & 1 ala carte?
UF, UGA and SCar have a valid complaint on 9 game slate, and I don't see how it could be enforced on other 11 teams since scheduling issues, many times, is simply that another BCS school is not available (or will not make themselves available). I really don't see how this can be enforced.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 11:50 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
Interesting idea at least
Posted on 5/21/13 at 11:53 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
A stab at it
Alabama: AU, UT
Arkansas: A&M, MO
Auburn: AL, UGA
Florida: UGA, USC
Georgia: UF, AU
Kentucky: VU, MSU
LSU: OM, A&M
MSU: OM, UK
Missouri: Ark, USC
Ole Miss: LSU, MSU
South Carolina: MO, UF
Tennessee: VU, AL
Texas A&M: Ark, LSU
Vanderbilt: UK, UT
Not bad at all
quote:
would bemoan losing AL/LSU,
Yes, but this is transitory (regarding a big showdown), in the long run. But even in the short run, non-rival games would still be a hoem&away every other 2 years, which isn't bad. And, of course, there is always that chance of an ATL matchup.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 11:57 pm to meansonny
quote:
I don't understand the "Need" for a student athlete to see every stadium?
There isn't a need, but Coach Saban has brought it up. I consider it valid since ultimately it should be about the athletes college experience, not the benefit of those on the outside. Think about it, a kid could go to any SEC school and, at some point, will be in Death Valley under the lights, The Swamp, Tuscaloosa, etc, etc.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News