FortWorthTide

quote:

---

Academic parity? I mean my original claim was that we are the only other school to take education seriously....

I would make the claim that Texas A&M is closer to Harvard, than South Carolina is to Texas A&M. Does that make us academic equals?

---

I can't believe what I just read. You're out of your mind.

Again, I don't like their arrogance either and think that liberal arts degrees are crap also. But for business, law, and other "professional" occupations, Texas offers a better degree. A&M owns the engineering (which is where the high salaries out of school come from - but there is a ceiling in engineering that isn't found in business). The other areas they dominate (such as agriculture and veterinary) don't do much for that.

I've got no problem with getting an A&M degree, moving to Houston, and making 6 figures with an O&G outfit. It's a great living. But there are other ways to make a living. Aside from that, academic reputation (my original point) is a different conversation. I'd rather have a Georgia Tech degree than one from Berkley because of the engineering angle, but that doesn't make GT a better school than Cal. It's not like I compared y'all to Tech or anything. It's a great degree, just quit trying to sell these people (many of whom haven't known A&M very long and don't know any better) on the idea that A&M is in the elite category.

quote:

---

quote:
people like to hire their grads and their grads make more money. These things are true

---

But this is because the O&G industry pays more than most others at the moment. That hasn't always been the case and it won't be forever. Don't get me wrong, A&M is a great school. I've got family who went there as well as friends. I respect it. But just don't get confused and try to claim that the academic reputation is something it's not.

quote:

---

no, it doesn't. Our contract with CBS is for 14 games and is like $65m. That's the very top game and we aren't getting $5m per. People wildly exaggerate how much money comes from tv. Right now everyone gets about $20m annually for tv. In the future it's estimated at $28m for the whole season. Anyway more conference games mean fewer broadcasts overall so even if there is more money per game, it may not even be more overall.

---

I think the SEC Network makes this argument more complicated, but we don't know so I can't throw a number at you to refute what you're saying.

quote:

---

It's not though. One big reason that schools want home games is there is a direct correlation between setting foot on campus and making donations to the school (both academic and athletic). Schools work very hard to find ways to get alumni on campus for any reason. LR is not campus

---

That is Arkansas' fault. Alabama played home games in Birmingham forever but stopped because it was stupid (there were several reasons, but stupid sums it up). Arkansas can do the same. I know you'll probably talk about Arky's location in the state and the big base in LR etc etc but if getting people on campus is so important, they should move all the games there. Plus, they're talking about expanding.

quote:

---

we won't have a 5 year. We play Arky in Dallas annually after this year. We would have 4 home games, 4 road games, and 1 neutral every year

---

That's only for 10 years, correct? After that it would presumably go home and home.

quote:

---

wake me when this happens. ISU can and will continue to schedule Northern Iowa and South Dakota State rather than take a massive pay cut to come get stomped by Florida. Your new world vision is comically unrealistic. You are making paupers out of schools that aren't today and you are killing schools that are paupers. Who is going to vote for that? The SEC, none of whom are paupers, wouldn't even vote for it.

---

I agree this is the hardest part to visualize. But if you've followed the deregulation/full cost of attendance/etc debates, there is a very real possibility that the major conferences could create their own modified ecosystem within the next decade. If that occurs, someone has to be the pauper. The only value for those schools will come from the massive tv deals and from payouts for OOC games. Obviously there's no value to them from a competitive standpoint, but those teams aren't the ones pushing for full cost of attendance or deregulation anyway.

quote:

---

So in order to facilitate your ideas, you want to stomp all over the tradition of the cocktail party? Get out of here with that shite. And somehow that's the only issue

---

How is it any more of a loss than any of the other things that have changed?
No more OU/Nebraska
No more Texas/Texas A&M (I know you say it will come back, and maybe it will, but we just don't know yet)
No more Texas A&M / Texas Tech
No more ND / Michigan
There are others but I'm pretty dead from a long day and can't think of them.

You'd still be keeping the game, just moving the location. Small price to pay.

quote:

---

Point taken.

But you're measuring a season's worth of SOS.

1 game a season does not make.

---

You're correct, but most teams in the SEC aren't even scheduling one big game. UF and South Carolina have one every year. UGA's is iffy because GT isn't a great opponent in many years, but they're playing Clemson and others in the future which makes up for it most years. Those three teams get credit. So does LSU with their recent games (but still only one "real one" per year in almost every recent and future example).

My point is that you're calling out Alabama when we're doing at least as much (and often doing much more) than other schools in the conference. The only time someone has a tougher OOC slate than us is when our scheduled opponent is down (Penn State) or the rare year when a team has two bigger names OOC opponents. Alabama would have to be considered a leader in the OOC scheduling of the conference.

I agree with those of you that say we should drop the FCS games. I just don't see why you can't get on board for 9. I know that I'm biased towards Saban, but his plan does make good sense:

9 SEC games per year
1 big time OOC game
2 games against other teams from "big 5" conferences (so your cupcakes are Kansas and Colorado instead of Chattanooga and Georgia State)

Every team has 10 good games and 2 decent ones. Good for TV, good for the fans, good for competition. Good for rivalries and rotation because 9 would allow you to keep the permanent rivals but still get more rotation. I just don't see the downside for anyone except the Mississippi States of the world who are dying to make a bowl game every year and would be on the bubble. But let's face it, the bubble teams don't matter. And as far as the home games argument, TV money is going to make up for it, and in addition to that, ADs just need to be smart and time their home and homes to coincide with the years when they have 4 SEC home games vs 5. Times are changing. Yes, it will take some work to get the scheduling right, but it's worth it.

quote:

---

9th conference game does nothing for anybody. And Saban knows it.

It doesn't improve SOS.
It doesn't improve TV programming.
It doesn't improve OOC scheduling (ie. cupcakes).

The only thing it does is rotate the conference through quicker on an annual basis.
And that has NEVER been the point of the SEC before.
And if it was the point, why in the heck are we adding teams making it harder to rotate schools through the schedule? Why is there still talk about adding 2 more schools?

The 9th game won't happen unless there is an expansion.

---

It does improve SOS. The computers prove that.

It does improve TV, because Alabama will see UGA, USCe, UF more (and vice versa).

It would remove one cupcake from the schedule. The model would be one good game and two cupcakes/lower tier BCS teams (unless your coach is a pansy).

Expansion is extremely unlikely now. 9 games is happening within 3-4 years regardless. The SEC Network will be a big part of that, but it is coming.

Why would we drop the easier OOC games when no one else is doing it? That's part of why Saban wants the 9 game slate. It's uniformity for all schools. He's publicly stated that he wants 9 SEC games, one premier OOC game, and 2 games against other teams in the big 5 conferences. But he can't make that happen by himself. He's already taken care of the one premier OOC game, he's pushing hard for the 9 games, but the other OOC games being only against the big 5 conferences will take a big national movement to accomplish. In the interim, why would we kill ourselves if no one else is willing to?

It would be beyond stupid to be the only school in the league making it that hard on ourselves. What Saban wants is for the rest of y'all to nut up and we'll all have to play a legitimate schedule. Call him a hypocrite all you want, but at least he's pushing for change.

quote:

---

Cockopotamus Part of SEC Network deal could be to "level" the schedule.... One way to deal with the 9 game schedule issue of uneven home and away games is to give everyone a neutral site conference game, although logistically that is probably impossible

---

Why would it be impossible?