Started By
Message
I still don't understand why coaches have any say in the 8 vs. 9 debate
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:08 am
Posted on 4/24/14 at 9:08 am
You mean coaches whose compensation and job status are dependent on winning want the easiest path possible? You don't say.
This is a President-level decision, and I was actually encouraged to read this statement by the UGA President, recognizing it as such:
Is he the only person in the state whose first name is actually "Jere"?
This is a President-level decision, and I was actually encouraged to read this statement by the UGA President, recognizing it as such:
quote:
"The presidents and the athletic directors will meet and resolve the scheduling issue shortly," he said. "There hasn't been a resolution on any of those issues at this point. So until a vote is taken by the presidents following that meeting, I can't predict what that outcome may be.
Is he the only person in the state whose first name is actually "Jere"?
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 9:09 am
7
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:05 am to GoldenFlakes
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.
The presidents and ADs don't have to take the advice of the coaches, but they certainly should listen to them.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:28 am to GoldenFlakes
They don't. Only presidents get to vote
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:30 am to Cockopotamus
quote:
They don't. Only presidents get to vote
I'm pretty sure he's aware of that. I think his complaint was that their opinion is solicited and given (in his estimation) undue weight. Which, given the fact that the media keeps asking them about the issue, I can see why he'd think that, even if I don't agree.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:59 am to GoldenFlakes
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.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:02 pm to GoldenFlakes
Imagine if a president votes against, or opposite, his head coach and athletic director ... now, do you think that is going to happen?
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:03 pm to scrooster
9 SEC games is better for the fans. We should be DEMANDING it.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:05 pm to GoldenFlakes
They don't, they presidents or chancellors have the final say, not the coaches.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:06 pm to scrooster
They did with the original Conference Championship game. Many of the coaches were vehemently against it.
You're right. I'm interpreting OP as President voting against or opposing the HC's stance.
quote:
S.E.C. Crazy
You're right. I'm interpreting OP as President voting against or opposing the HC's stance.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:28 pm to scrooster
quote:
Imagine if a president votes against, or opposite, his head coach and athletic director ... now, do you think that is going to happen?
It happened in 1988 when the coaches opposed going from 6 conference games to 7, and again in 1992 when the coaches REALLY opposed going from 7 games to 8.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:35 pm to GoldenFlakes
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.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:54 pm to GoldenFlakes
Coaches care about their jobs a lot.
Getting to 6-6 and making a shitty bowl game might be enough to save some coaches job.
That's what they're thinking about sadly.
Getting to 6-6 and making a shitty bowl game might be enough to save some coaches job.
That's what they're thinking about sadly.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:55 pm to IAmReality
9 games is better for the fans, better for tv money, better for the schools, better for scheduling, better for the health of the conferences.
8 games are better for coaches job security.
8 games are better for coaches job security.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 12:58 pm to davesdawgs
When you schedule 3 or 4 body bag games OOC, you might as well just do 9 SEC games. My only issue with it is uneven home/away games.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:03 pm to TheBuescherMan
quote:
My only issue with it is uneven home/away games.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:21 pm to davesdawgs
Here is what Slive should bring to the table.
Mr president(s), we are now at a great advantage in the SEC because we have won 7 out of 8 national titles and appear invincible. But in the 80s and 90s we sent 5 to 6 teams to the NCAA tournament regularly, but we didn't play the game of up-scheduling like the other conferences and our 2nd place team got left out a few years back.
We need to up-schedule now. I know the coaches are against it and here is why:
1. They make milions of dollars and don't want another chance at a loss.
2. They think another conference game might keep them out of a bowl at 6-6, in reality who cares about a 6-6 team ?
As for what the extra confernce game means for the SEC:
1. More money, we give the networks 7 more conference games a year and we will have added value.
2. We will have a far better SOS with the added SEC games, and thus might have a better shot at getting 2 teams in the playoff.
3. Fans hate those West Carolina type games, lets give the fans what they deserve, make more money, and give ourselves a better shot at the playoffs, and let the coaches worry about their job of winning and losing whilst we do whats best for the conference.
Mr president(s), we are now at a great advantage in the SEC because we have won 7 out of 8 national titles and appear invincible. But in the 80s and 90s we sent 5 to 6 teams to the NCAA tournament regularly, but we didn't play the game of up-scheduling like the other conferences and our 2nd place team got left out a few years back.
We need to up-schedule now. I know the coaches are against it and here is why:
1. They make milions of dollars and don't want another chance at a loss.
2. They think another conference game might keep them out of a bowl at 6-6, in reality who cares about a 6-6 team ?
As for what the extra confernce game means for the SEC:
1. More money, we give the networks 7 more conference games a year and we will have added value.
2. We will have a far better SOS with the added SEC games, and thus might have a better shot at getting 2 teams in the playoff.
3. Fans hate those West Carolina type games, lets give the fans what they deserve, make more money, and give ourselves a better shot at the playoffs, and let the coaches worry about their job of winning and losing whilst we do whats best for the conference.
Posted on 4/24/14 at 1:31 pm to TheBuescherMan
The home away issue really isn't a problam as long as you have divisions.
All 7 west teams play 5 away games and all 7 east teams play 5 home games, the SECCG is a no advantage.
The next year you reverse that.
No advantage to any division team.
All 7 west teams play 5 away games and all 7 east teams play 5 home games, the SECCG is a no advantage.
The next year you reverse that.
No advantage to any division team.
This post was edited on 4/24/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 4/24/14 at 10:03 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
That makes sense. You'd alternate 4/5 still, but everyone in the division would be on the same number so no advantage/disadvantage there.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News