I am a username
| Favorite team: | Texas A&M  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 13 |
| Registered on: | 7/14/2022 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Football TV Contracts. CBS
Posted by I am a username on 3/29/23 at 10:30 am
"By all accounts the big ten tv contracts, coming up, are more lucrative than the SEC tv contracts that are to take place. The business side of sports broadcasting is something I know nothing about. "
The SEC has more games that get big ratings nationally.
The SEC is suffering from long-term contracts that looked good at the time, but ended up being undervalued, while the Big Ten has gone back several times to let all the networks bid on their national deals .
Before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC, the conference had long-term contracts with ESPN and CBS, which kept them from making a conference network. When A&M and Missouri joined they renegotiated the ESPN contract, adding years to it and forming the conference network.
The renegotiation was profitable to the SEC, but it was surely not as much money as they would have gotten if they were allowed to go on the open market and let other networks bid on it. And it still is ongoing. I'm not sure, but I think it might end at the same time the new deal for the games of the week ends (2034!).
Meanwhile, the CBS payouts are very undervalued given the ratings the games have been getting. We saw how much more they got when it was finally brought to market a few years ago.
The SEC has more games that get big ratings nationally.
The SEC is suffering from long-term contracts that looked good at the time, but ended up being undervalued, while the Big Ten has gone back several times to let all the networks bid on their national deals .
Before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC, the conference had long-term contracts with ESPN and CBS, which kept them from making a conference network. When A&M and Missouri joined they renegotiated the ESPN contract, adding years to it and forming the conference network.
The renegotiation was profitable to the SEC, but it was surely not as much money as they would have gotten if they were allowed to go on the open market and let other networks bid on it. And it still is ongoing. I'm not sure, but I think it might end at the same time the new deal for the games of the week ends (2034!).
Meanwhile, the CBS payouts are very undervalued given the ratings the games have been getting. We saw how much more they got when it was finally brought to market a few years ago.
0
re: Based on SEC Sankey's statement, you might be able to predict your team's perm rivals
Posted by I am a username on 2/13/23 at 10:19 am
"aTm: Texas, LSU, Arkansas"
I think most Aggies want this trio, but Jimbo let it slip (I think back at media days?) that we're supposed to get LSU, MSU and the Longhorns.
We'll see if they've changed it.
I think most Aggies want this trio, but Jimbo let it slip (I think back at media days?) that we're supposed to get LSU, MSU and the Longhorns.
We'll see if they've changed it.
re: SEC expansion question for Mizzou fans
Posted by I am a username on 2/1/23 at 1:31 pm
They have claimed for a while the only 2 plans being considered are:
-8 game conference schedule with only 1 permanent rival for each school
-9 game conference schedule with 3 permanent rivals for each school
With the commissioner pushing the 2nd option. These 2 plans would allow each school to play every other school home and away every four years.
Obviously, other plans are possible, but they supposedly aren't being considered.
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear anything "official" until ESPN and the SEC fully work out what increase we will get in our TV contract when we expand. I think we expect to get extra TV money for going to 9 games, but I don't know if they have an agreement with ESPN for the amount.
-8 game conference schedule with only 1 permanent rival for each school
-9 game conference schedule with 3 permanent rivals for each school
With the commissioner pushing the 2nd option. These 2 plans would allow each school to play every other school home and away every four years.
Obviously, other plans are possible, but they supposedly aren't being considered.
I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear anything "official" until ESPN and the SEC fully work out what increase we will get in our TV contract when we expand. I think we expect to get extra TV money for going to 9 games, but I don't know if they have an agreement with ESPN for the amount.
re: 2024 OOC schedules ...
Posted by I am a username on 1/23/23 at 11:49 am
I could see both Southern Cal and UCLA dropping their currently scheduled P5 non-conference opponents (except for Notre Dame for USC) to schedule Cal and Stanford regularly.
Haven't heard any news that they will do it, but that doesn't mean they're not negotiating behind the scenes.
Haven't heard any news that they will do it, but that doesn't mean they're not negotiating behind the scenes.
re: Report: Bedlam will end when OU joins the SEC
Posted by I am a username on 9/22/22 at 6:02 pm
"A true Southerner would know that we don't associate with Yankees or Yankee allies."
Too late...Missouri is already in the SEC.
Too late...Missouri is already in the SEC.
re: Report: Bedlam will end when OU joins the SEC
Posted by I am a username on 9/20/22 at 6:02 pm
The SEC and Big Ten should come to an agreement.
OU and Nebraska play every Thanksgiving weekend.
Missouri and Illinois play every Thanksgiving weekend.
Oklahoma State is forgotten every Thanksgiving, like they apparently want to be.
Everybody's happy.
OU and Nebraska play every Thanksgiving weekend.
Missouri and Illinois play every Thanksgiving weekend.
Oklahoma State is forgotten every Thanksgiving, like they apparently want to be.
Everybody's happy.
re: I think the SEC should add 4 more teams...
Posted by I am a username on 9/1/22 at 11:12 am
The "Swimswam 4" (UNC/Virginia/FSU/Clemson) makes the most sense in terms of expanding markets and brands. It also will help expand and reinforce our recruiting area out East while keeping the Big Ten out of the Southeastern heartland (maybe they'll try Miami + Georgia Tech, but those schools would be really isolated).
Tell Notre Dame they'd be more special in the SEC than in the Big Ten. In the Big Ten they'd be just one of 11 Midwest teams that play each other and then get a trip to the coast each year. On the other hand, they could be the "snowy outpost" of the SEC; every conference game they play would be talked up as a "clash of cultures" and get plenty of national attention. Plus, they seemed to enjoy being in the World Series this year. Their baseball program will be hurt if they switch from the ACC to the Big Ten; they would get a big boost from playing in the SEC every week.
Pair them up with Arizona (another outpost, but good for recruiting and a decent-sized state) and call it a rest at 22.
Tell Notre Dame they'd be more special in the SEC than in the Big Ten. In the Big Ten they'd be just one of 11 Midwest teams that play each other and then get a trip to the coast each year. On the other hand, they could be the "snowy outpost" of the SEC; every conference game they play would be talked up as a "clash of cultures" and get plenty of national attention. Plus, they seemed to enjoy being in the World Series this year. Their baseball program will be hurt if they switch from the ACC to the Big Ten; they would get a big boost from playing in the SEC every week.
Pair them up with Arizona (another outpost, but good for recruiting and a decent-sized state) and call it a rest at 22.
re: How did Alabama lose 50 spots in college rankings over the last 10 years?
Posted by I am a username on 7/28/22 at 11:52 am
"At a School that does not end a sentence at "at"..."
English ain't Latin! We can end sentences with prepositions if we want!
"The prohibition against clause-final prepositions is considered a superstition even by the language mavens, and it persists only among know-it-alls who have never opened a dictionary or style manual to check"
LINK
English ain't Latin! We can end sentences with prepositions if we want!
"The prohibition against clause-final prepositions is considered a superstition even by the language mavens, and it persists only among know-it-alls who have never opened a dictionary or style manual to check"
LINK
re: What does the expansion of college football mean for other sports?
Posted by I am a username on 7/24/22 at 5:34 pm
Scholarship sports don't affect club sports, so it won't affect club hockey (unless the club hockey schools want to rearrange themselves).
I believe the rule is: if your football conference sponsors the sport and your school has that sport, your school has to play in that conference.
USC and UCLA won't have to send their water polo teams to play in the Big Ten because the Big Ten doesn't sponsor water polo, but their volleyball, baseball, etc. teams will have to play in the Big Ten.
For the SEC, maybe the conference will start sponsoring women's rowing? According to the SEC page on wikipedia, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma all offer women's rowing (ironically, Alabama and Tennessee are currently competing in the Big 12 for rowing, along with the Longhorns and Sooners). The SEC started sponsoring Equestrian as a sport when A&M joined, giving them a 4th school that played the sport.
It would be fun if some SEC schools started ice hockey, although I think they would be required to play in Division I. The University of Arizona has a Division I ice hockey team, so it is possible for warm-weather schools to have programs.
But it would make more sense for more SEC schools to start offering men's soccer and men's and women's lacrosse. With the new TV money, everyone should be able to sponsor an extra sport for men and women without affecting funding for football/basketball/baseball.
Even if more schools don't add those sports, if the SEC does end up adding 4ish ACC schools, the SEC might have enough to start sponsoring men's soccer and women's lacrosse.
I believe the rule is: if your football conference sponsors the sport and your school has that sport, your school has to play in that conference.
USC and UCLA won't have to send their water polo teams to play in the Big Ten because the Big Ten doesn't sponsor water polo, but their volleyball, baseball, etc. teams will have to play in the Big Ten.
For the SEC, maybe the conference will start sponsoring women's rowing? According to the SEC page on wikipedia, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma all offer women's rowing (ironically, Alabama and Tennessee are currently competing in the Big 12 for rowing, along with the Longhorns and Sooners). The SEC started sponsoring Equestrian as a sport when A&M joined, giving them a 4th school that played the sport.
It would be fun if some SEC schools started ice hockey, although I think they would be required to play in Division I. The University of Arizona has a Division I ice hockey team, so it is possible for warm-weather schools to have programs.
But it would make more sense for more SEC schools to start offering men's soccer and men's and women's lacrosse. With the new TV money, everyone should be able to sponsor an extra sport for men and women without affecting funding for football/basketball/baseball.
Even if more schools don't add those sports, if the SEC does end up adding 4ish ACC schools, the SEC might have enough to start sponsoring men's soccer and women's lacrosse.
re: Jimbo let it slip SEC is leaning towards 3 permenant rivals.
Posted by I am a username on 7/22/22 at 9:23 pm
"Some body has no matchup unless Bedlam doesn’t happen"
If Bedlam continues (Gundy's comments make it seem like he doesn't want to play OU), it probably won't be on Thanksgiving weekend. Oklahoma used to play Nebraska, not OSU, on Thanksgiving weekend, so it won't be breaking tradition for them to play State earlier in the year.
If Bedlam continues (Gundy's comments make it seem like he doesn't want to play OU), it probably won't be on Thanksgiving weekend. Oklahoma used to play Nebraska, not OSU, on Thanksgiving weekend, so it won't be breaking tradition for them to play State earlier in the year.
re: The year is 2025 and Georgia will be making it's first trip to College Station...
Posted by I am a username on 7/15/22 at 10:25 am
The current scheduling rotation only started in the 3rd year after expansion. So Florida's 1st trip to College Station wasn't part of it. They were picked to give A&M a big "First game in the SEC".
The last Florida trip to College Station was the Covid year, when every SEC team had 2 extra conference games added that weren't part of the original schedule.
So this is the only Florida trip to College Station that was planned by the current scheduling rotation.
Now, when they made that rotation, why did they put Georgia's trip to College Station after Florida's trip, given that Florida had already made the trip? I don't know.
The last Florida trip to College Station was the Covid year, when every SEC team had 2 extra conference games added that weren't part of the original schedule.
So this is the only Florida trip to College Station that was planned by the current scheduling rotation.
Now, when they made that rotation, why did they put Georgia's trip to College Station after Florida's trip, given that Florida had already made the trip? I don't know.
re: 9 game schedule, 5 permanent rivals
Posted by I am a username on 7/14/22 at 1:54 pm
My choices for 5 rivals for each school
The number in parentheses indicates the number of times the 2 teams have played according to Winsipedia (before the 2022 season). A question mark indicates there was a slight difference in the number on the pages of the 2 teams. An * indicates the teams will play on Thanksgiving weekend.
UF - UG (99), AU (84), USC (42), UT (51), UK (72)
UG - UF (99), AU (126), USC (74), UT (51), VU (81)
USC - UF (42), UG (74), AU (14), MSU (16), MU (12)
AU - UF (84), UA* (86), UG (126), USC (14), MSU (95)
UA - AU* (86), UT (103?), LSU (86), A&M (14), MSU (105?)
UT - UA (104?), VU* (115?), UK (117), UF (51), UG (51)
VU - UT*(116?), UK (94), OM (96), UG (81), A&M (3)
UK - UT (117), VU (94), MU (12), UF (72), OU (3)
OM - MSU* (116), LSU (109?), Ar (66?), TU (7?), VU (94)
MSU - OM* (116), LSU (115), UA (106?), AU (95), USC (16)
LSU - OM (110?), MSU (115), UA (86), A&M (60), OU* (3)
Ar - MU* (13), OU (15), A&M (78), TU (79), OM (68?)
MU - Ar* (13), TU (24), OU (96), UK (12), USC (12)
A&M - Ar (78), TU* (118), LSU (60), UA (14), VU (3)
TU - Ar (79), OU (117), A&M* (118), MU (24), OM (8?)
OU - Ar (15), TU (117), LSU* (3), MU (96), UK (3)
If we assume Texas and A&M will be playing on Thanksgiving weekend again (and they probably are; Friday late afternoon on ABC being my guess), then LSU needs a rival for that weekend, and it has to come from Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. I think Oklahoma makes a better matchup for TV and will be well-attended. Both schools have a lot of fans in Texas who will travel to the visiting stadium.
For those wondering what a schedule would look like, here's a possible 10 year rotation for LSU with the above rivals:
Y1:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UF,Ar
A - OM,UA,UK,UT
Y2:
H - OM,UA,VU,AU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UG,USC
Y3:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UK,TU
A - OM,UA,UF,MU
Y4:
H - OM,UA,UT,UG
A - A&M,OU,MSU,Ar,VU
Y5:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,USC,MU
A - OM,UA,AU,TU
Y6:
H - OM,UA,UF,Ar
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UK,UT
Y7:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,VU,AU
A - OM,UA,UG,USC
Y8:
H - OM,UA,UK,TU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UF,MU
Y9:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UT,UG
A - OM,UA,Ar,VU
Y10:
H - OM,UA,USC,MU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,AU,TU
Note that LSU will probably have a strong P5 non-conference opponent on the road in the odd years, and at home in even years.
OK, flame away...
The number in parentheses indicates the number of times the 2 teams have played according to Winsipedia (before the 2022 season). A question mark indicates there was a slight difference in the number on the pages of the 2 teams. An * indicates the teams will play on Thanksgiving weekend.
UF - UG (99), AU (84), USC (42), UT (51), UK (72)
UG - UF (99), AU (126), USC (74), UT (51), VU (81)
USC - UF (42), UG (74), AU (14), MSU (16), MU (12)
AU - UF (84), UA* (86), UG (126), USC (14), MSU (95)
UA - AU* (86), UT (103?), LSU (86), A&M (14), MSU (105?)
UT - UA (104?), VU* (115?), UK (117), UF (51), UG (51)
VU - UT*(116?), UK (94), OM (96), UG (81), A&M (3)
UK - UT (117), VU (94), MU (12), UF (72), OU (3)
OM - MSU* (116), LSU (109?), Ar (66?), TU (7?), VU (94)
MSU - OM* (116), LSU (115), UA (106?), AU (95), USC (16)
LSU - OM (110?), MSU (115), UA (86), A&M (60), OU* (3)
Ar - MU* (13), OU (15), A&M (78), TU (79), OM (68?)
MU - Ar* (13), TU (24), OU (96), UK (12), USC (12)
A&M - Ar (78), TU* (118), LSU (60), UA (14), VU (3)
TU - Ar (79), OU (117), A&M* (118), MU (24), OM (8?)
OU - Ar (15), TU (117), LSU* (3), MU (96), UK (3)
If we assume Texas and A&M will be playing on Thanksgiving weekend again (and they probably are; Friday late afternoon on ABC being my guess), then LSU needs a rival for that weekend, and it has to come from Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. I think Oklahoma makes a better matchup for TV and will be well-attended. Both schools have a lot of fans in Texas who will travel to the visiting stadium.
For those wondering what a schedule would look like, here's a possible 10 year rotation for LSU with the above rivals:
Y1:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UF,Ar
A - OM,UA,UK,UT
Y2:
H - OM,UA,VU,AU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UG,USC
Y3:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UK,TU
A - OM,UA,UF,MU
Y4:
H - OM,UA,UT,UG
A - A&M,OU,MSU,Ar,VU
Y5:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,USC,MU
A - OM,UA,AU,TU
Y6:
H - OM,UA,UF,Ar
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UK,UT
Y7:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,VU,AU
A - OM,UA,UG,USC
Y8:
H - OM,UA,UK,TU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,UF,MU
Y9:
H - A&M,OU,MSU,UT,UG
A - OM,UA,Ar,VU
Y10:
H - OM,UA,USC,MU
A - A&M,OU,MSU,AU,TU
Note that LSU will probably have a strong P5 non-conference opponent on the road in the odd years, and at home in even years.
OK, flame away...
9 game schedule, 5 permanent rivals
Posted by I am a username on 7/14/22 at 1:47 pm
Yes, I created an account just to post my scheduling idea. If you care, I've been lurking for over a decade.
I haven't seen this idea discussed for football before, but it's possible I've missed it in the hundreds of pages about scheduling.
Anyway, while I'm fine with the new expansion, I think we're going from one extreme to the other in scheduling without thinking it through. We currently have 7 schools we play annually, and slowly rotate through the other 6. The 2 currently discussed proposals would have us only play 1 or 3 schools annually, and quickly rotate through the other 14 or 12. This means many natural rivalries will only be played every other year. What's more, it seems likely many teams won't get one of their most important rivalries selected.
I think a 9 game schedule with 5 permanent rivals is the right compromise between these 2 extremes. This ensures that every school will have several of their most important rivalries continue, and some new ones will be created with the new schools. And we'll still play everyone else in the conference regularly: you'll play everyone in the conference home & away over 5 years instead of 4. You'll get to see your team play everyone at least once in 3 years.
And the same permanent rivals can be carried over to other sports. For basketball, go to 20 conference games each year. Playing your rivals twice every year and the other 10 teams once ensures you will see everyone home and away in 2 years. For baseball, 5 rivals and 5 other teams each year ensures you see everyone home & away every 4 years.
The next post is my choices for 5 permanent rivals for each team. I considered geography, history, and balance.
For balance, I first divided everyone into 2 groups. Group 1 was Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma. Group 2 is everyone else. 9 of the teams in group 1 are in the top 17 all time programs in the Winsipedia rankings; Arkansas is next at 29, while group 2 starts at 33 with Ole Miss.
For my choices, I gave everyone 3 rivals from group one and 2 from group two, except for Alabama and A&M. Alabama and A&M each got 4 from group one and 1 from group two.
I haven't seen this idea discussed for football before, but it's possible I've missed it in the hundreds of pages about scheduling.
Anyway, while I'm fine with the new expansion, I think we're going from one extreme to the other in scheduling without thinking it through. We currently have 7 schools we play annually, and slowly rotate through the other 6. The 2 currently discussed proposals would have us only play 1 or 3 schools annually, and quickly rotate through the other 14 or 12. This means many natural rivalries will only be played every other year. What's more, it seems likely many teams won't get one of their most important rivalries selected.
I think a 9 game schedule with 5 permanent rivals is the right compromise between these 2 extremes. This ensures that every school will have several of their most important rivalries continue, and some new ones will be created with the new schools. And we'll still play everyone else in the conference regularly: you'll play everyone in the conference home & away over 5 years instead of 4. You'll get to see your team play everyone at least once in 3 years.
And the same permanent rivals can be carried over to other sports. For basketball, go to 20 conference games each year. Playing your rivals twice every year and the other 10 teams once ensures you will see everyone home and away in 2 years. For baseball, 5 rivals and 5 other teams each year ensures you see everyone home & away every 4 years.
The next post is my choices for 5 permanent rivals for each team. I considered geography, history, and balance.
For balance, I first divided everyone into 2 groups. Group 1 was Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma. Group 2 is everyone else. 9 of the teams in group 1 are in the top 17 all time programs in the Winsipedia rankings; Arkansas is next at 29, while group 2 starts at 33 with Ole Miss.
For my choices, I gave everyone 3 rivals from group one and 2 from group two, except for Alabama and A&M. Alabama and A&M each got 4 from group one and 1 from group two.
Popular
40
