Started By
Message
re: Sounds like an ESPN issue
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:33 pm to BurgTiger
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:33 pm to BurgTiger
quote:
Personally I and I think most college loving football fans want 9 games. It’s ESPN that’s complicating this thing.
I don't care how many is chosen. I wouldn't mind if we kicked ESPN to the curb and went with another network, though. Too much politics in college sports and ESPN seems determined to keep bringing in politics.
0
Posted on 5/30/23 at 2:53 pm to meansonny
quote:More like bitch move made defensively to stop a threat that OU and Texas would go to the Big Ten if the SEC said no.quote:Power move to keep them out of the B1G.
Someone remind me why Texas and OU being added helped the SEC. I got nothing.
Sankey got played. ESPN never would have let Texas out of their LHN contract to go to a Fox conference.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 6:45 pm to allin2010
quote:
Look for 8 game schedule to only last for the first two years of the 16 team league. AU-UGA and UA-UT will be preserved those first two years. Gives us two years to find a better deal.
The quote was from earlier.
From 247 today.
Should the SEC not choose a long-term model, the conference is expected to adopt a short-term format of eight games, with one permanent rival and seven rotating opponents, beginning in 2024. The SEC could re-calibrate the models before implementing long-term formats for the 2025 or 2026 seasons.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 6:45 pm to BurgTiger
Sounds like Mizzou should nut up in OOC scheduling. 
Posted on 5/31/23 at 6:51 pm to twk
quote:
More like bitch move made defensively to stop a threat that OU and Texas would go to the Big Ten if the SEC said no.
Sankey got played. ESPN never would have let Texas out of their LHN contract to go to a Fox conference.
Longhorn Network contract runs through 2031. B1G is not short sighted and would certainly take Texas on the condition that it was not renewed at that time.
Besides, SEC has always wanted Texas, it wasn't a defensive move.
This post was edited on 5/31/23 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 5/31/23 at 6:59 pm to BurgTiger
Again, I get ESPN's stance here. You have a contract, abide by it. I'd do the same.
I also get the "lower tier" teams wanting a Citadel on the schedule so they can get to 6 wins. The States, Ole MS, Mizzou, Vandy's, South Carolina, Kentucky's, there is a much bigger payday if they get 9 wins vs 6 wins. That's a difference of playing your bowl in Florida with a bigger payout vs Memphis, Nashville or Charlotte.
Let's just go back to the 10 teams we had forever, the same scheduling format and be done with it. No divisions, no SECCG, yea you won't play everybody every 4 years but the SEC went a hundred years like that. Bama played UK in like 1977 then not again until 1988. Who gives a shite?
I also get the "lower tier" teams wanting a Citadel on the schedule so they can get to 6 wins. The States, Ole MS, Mizzou, Vandy's, South Carolina, Kentucky's, there is a much bigger payday if they get 9 wins vs 6 wins. That's a difference of playing your bowl in Florida with a bigger payout vs Memphis, Nashville or Charlotte.
Let's just go back to the 10 teams we had forever, the same scheduling format and be done with it. No divisions, no SECCG, yea you won't play everybody every 4 years but the SEC went a hundred years like that. Bama played UK in like 1977 then not again until 1988. Who gives a shite?
Posted on 5/31/23 at 7:03 pm to TouchdownTony
Not sure how much short term leverage SEC has with ESPN and getting paid the extra games.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:07 pm to RealDawg
quote:
Not sure how much short term leverage SEC has with ESPN and getting paid the extra games.
I think just as big of an issue is that ESPN owns the rights to most bowl games, so they also need an inventory of bowl-eligible teams that will bring an audience with them, even if the games are an abomination with opt-outs. Those games are probably a good chunk of revenue in that month with little else going on.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:08 pm to BurgTiger
quote:
Sounds like an ESPN issue
So, the SEC signed a bad deal?
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:22 pm to MetroAtlantaGatorFan
Mizzou does have future schedules with 2 P5 non con
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:23 pm to MetroAtlantaGatorFan
quote:
Sounds like Mizzou should schedule 2 P5 OOC.
Yes we should. KU and Illinois should be annual games.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:27 pm to BurgTiger
Sankey himself should be blamed for not putting in a line in the contract that says if we go to 9 games they have to pay x amount of dollars per school more . Pretty sure they knew 8 games with more teams wasn’t going to work .
This post was edited on 5/31/23 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:52 pm to MOJO_ERASER
Yep. This is something Texas would have taken care of. Y'all get scammed by ESPN, we scam them. We are not the same.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 10:31 pm to BurgTiger
Disney is bleeding money right now. Of course, more big games would potentially bring in more revenue but they just don't want to pay for it. Seems like a bad decision on ESPN's part. So, I can understand the bargaining chip. If we go to 9 without any additional money, what lever would we have? I don't like it but I can also see why we didn't agree to 9... yet.
What sucks more than anything is losing some really historic annual games.
What sucks more than anything is losing some really historic annual games.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 10:53 pm to twk
We can all thank that dolt Sankey for this bull-crap. He and his 'crack staff' at in-bred central [B'ham SEC offices, as well as all the brain dead SEC athletic admins.] You simply DO NOT sign a contract which does not allow for MAJOR contingencies ! ADDING a couple of power-house universities would fall under a MAJOR contingency ! How STUPID the 'leaders of the SEC are is simply mind boggling !!
Posted on 5/31/23 at 11:01 pm to Landmass
By going to 9 games it will give 8 SEC teams a loss which could knock some out of bowl eligibility which brings revenue to all of us.
Personally I don’t care, but for the schools who put money toward improving facilities in all sports it would be a hit. But that’s just my opinion.
Personally I don’t care, but for the schools who put money toward improving facilities in all sports it would be a hit. But that’s just my opinion.
Posted on 6/1/23 at 1:40 am to BurgTiger
frick wokESPN.
I will only watch my Tigahs on pirate links...or some simp's TV that thinks of he cancels it, he'll end up on a Bud Light can.
I will only watch my Tigahs on pirate links...or some simp's TV that thinks of he cancels it, he'll end up on a Bud Light can.
Posted on 6/1/23 at 8:07 am to BurgTiger
quote:
Sounds like an ESPN issue
Sounds like a Sankey issue. Learn to negotiate a contract with some forward-thinking. No way Kramer or Slive get us into a contract where we have no leverage.
Kramer would have had the contract prepared and told ESPN to sign it and they would have complied. I've never met a man who commanded more respect from other big dogs in college sports than Kramer. Slive (RIP) did not command that kind of respect, but he was one smart SOB.
Posted on 6/1/23 at 8:16 am to twk
quote:
From ESPN's standpoint, they've already got us under contract, why should they pay more? Yes, 9 conference games will probably bring slightly better quality, but how much depends on what non-conference games get canceled -- if it's the big matchups, then going to 9 is, at best, a wash, because they also lose some inventory with 9 games.
We should go to 9 games because it preserves rivalries while allowing everyone to play a full round robin within a four year cycle. It will be good for ticket sales and will, someday, pay off in TV rights negotiations (may not happen until the 2030s, but it will happen).
Simple solution if I'm the SEC.
Just refuse to show any Texas or OU games on ESPN.
They wasn't part of the conference when the deal was signed. So the SEC isn't obligated to do that.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News