Chances of SEC football schedule staying at 8 games keeps inching closer to reality

[Duke Humphrey]

I am surprised, as I long assumed the pressure to go to 9 would win out. But ESPN not wanting to pay more and the CFP expanding are making 8 look more realistic than ever

Chances for 8-game SEC schedule, or not voting, have gone up

Support has wavered for a nine-game SEC schedule, and there is now a real chance that keeping an eight-game format will win out.

theathletic.com

 

[FQDawg]

I've never understood the push for nine conference games. But I'm also in the minority (maybe even a minority of one) that would rather watch a game against a smaller non-conference team we're likely to beat than one against an SEC power that we're likely to lose.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I've never understood the push for nine conference games. But I'm also in the minority (maybe even a minority of one) that would rather watch a game against a smaller non-conference team we're likely to beat than one against an SEC power that we're likely to lose.

I'm with you on every bit of this.

 

[FQDawg]

I'm with you on every bit of this.

Oh man. If you agree with me, maybe I'm wrong then.

 

[WrightGuy821]

How would 8 conference games look in an expanded conference with the east and west going away, and us likely moving towards 4 team "pods"?

 

[Duke Humphrey]

How would 8 conference games look in an expanded conference with the east and west going away, and us likely moving towards 4 team "pods"?

The last model I saw for 8 game schedule was one permanent and everyone else rotate

 

[OG Goat Holder]

How would 8 conference games look in an expanded conference with the east and west going away, and us likely moving towards 4 team "pods"?

We're not going to those stupid pods. Where have you been the last two years?

Ideal situation for the SEC is to have as many winning teams as possible, to get more teams in the playoff. We all know the lazy committee just looks at record and doesn't really consider SOS or advanced power metrics.

 

[patdog]

How would 8 conference games look in an expanded conference with the east and west going away, and us likely moving towards 4 team "pods"?

There won’t be any pods. The 2 formats being considered are 1 permanent + rotate 7 of the remaining 14, or 3 permanent + rotate 6 of remaining 12. Like the original poster, I had assumed the 3-6 would win, but I suspect the SEC is going to use the threat of the 1-7 to get more money from ESPN. If ESPN refuses, I think we’ll stay at 8 games.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

The last model I saw for 8 game schedule was one permanent and everyone else rotate

At this point, I think this is fine. Screw rivalries, you'll play everyone every 2 years anyway.

I mean the games you're talking about are Texas/aTm, Georgia/Auburn, Alabama/Tennessee, LSU/Ole Miss. Some of them don't even want to play each other anymore.

.......but I suspect the SEC is going to use the threat of the 1-7 to get more money from ESPN. If ESPN refuses, I think we’ll stay at 8 games.

This is exactly what will happen. It's usually this simple.

 

[MStateDawg]

The last model I saw for 8 game schedule was one permanent and everyone else rotate

This makes the most sense mathematically as you would play everyone in a 2 year span and visit every venue in a 4 year span, but you know there is going to be pushback from the UT/Bama & Auburn/UGA proponents.

 

[patdog]

At this point, I think this is fine. Screw rivalries, you'll play everyone every 2 years anyway.

I mean the games you're talking about are Texas/aTm, Georgia/Auburn, Alabama/Tennessee, LSU/Ole Miss. Some of them don't even want to play each other anymore.


This is exactly what will happen. It's usually this simple.

If we don’t go to 9 games, those schools could still play as a non-conference game if the games are that important to them. Would still only be 9 games for them either way.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

you would play everyone in a 2 year span and visit every venue in a 4 year span,

This is the goal of both a 8 game and 9 game model.

 

[FQDawg]

At this point, I think this is fine. Screw rivalries, you'll play everyone every 2 years anyway.

I mean the games you're talking about are Texas/aTm, Georgia/Auburn, Alabama/Tennessee, LSU/Ole Miss. Some of them don't even want to play each other anymore.

Here we are agreeing again (mostly). I wouldn't necessarily say "screw rivalries" but playing your secondary or tertiary rival every two years is more than enough to keep the rivalry going.

Personally, I like the one permanent opponent then rotate seven of the remaining 14 each year with a requirement to play at least one other P5 team as a non-conference game approach.

 

[8dog]

I've never understood the push for nine conference games. But I'm also in the minority (maybe even a minority of one) that would rather watch a game against a smaller non-conference team we're likely to beat than one against an SEC power that we're likely to lose.

I was a 9 game guy until the 12 team playoff. We have a chance to get in that so 8 is better.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

If we don’t go to 9 games, those schools could still play as a non-conference game if the games are that important to them. Would still only be 9 games for them either way.

I don't know how much it will take for all the SEC to get out of the contracts they have scheduled for like the next 10 years with all the P5 OOC teams, but maybe that's a factor as well?

Another thing I know I'm in the minority on, is getting rid of the SEC championship game. I'd rather just have champions or multiple champions based on record. Some get lucky with easier schedules, some do not. Oh well, keeps hope alive with the lesser fanbases. The last thing Sankey wants is for half the SEC to simply check out because they have no hope.

 

[Dawgg]

Oh man. If you agree with me, maybe I'm wrong then.

I actually agree with both of you, too. If ESPN was willing to pony up, it would be one thing, but we’re basically giving them a free extra game every season in the 9 game model with no extra compensation.

I would personally rather keep the Power 5 OOC opponent than maintain our “rivalry” with Kentucky.

 

[FQDawg]

I would personally rather keep the Power 5 OOC opponent than maintain our “rivalry” with Kentucky.

Especially since in the 1+7 model, we'd still play UK at least every other year anyway.

 

[TXDawg.sixpack]

At this point, I think this is fine. Screw rivalries, you'll play everyone every 2 years anyway.

I mean the games you're talking about are Texas/aTm, Georgia/Auburn, Alabama/Tennessee, LSU/Ole Miss. Some of them don't even want to play each other anymore.


This is exactly what will happen. It's usually this simple.

If the model ends up being 1-7, UT/TAMU will be their 1 - regardless of what those schools claim to want. That rivalry is just as heated (if not more) than Bama/Auburn & State/UMiss. Hell, TAMU's fight song is literally built around UT and UT's mascot is named BEVO because TAMU branded a 13-0 football score on their live mascot...

 

[WrightGuy821]

If the model ends up being 1-7, UT/TAMU will be their 1 - regardless of what those schools claim to want. That rivalry is just as heated (if not more) than Bama/Auburn & State/UMiss. Hell, TAMU's fight song is literally built around UT and UT's mascot is named BEVO because TAMU branded a 13-0 football score on their live mascot...

In that scenario, who would be Oklahoma's permanent?

 

[Duke Humphrey]

In that scenario, who would be Oklahoma's permanent?

Mizzou or Arkansas would make sense with past history?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

If the model ends up being 1-7, UT/TAMU will be their 1 - regardless of what those schools claim to want. That rivalry is just as heated (if not more) than Bama/Auburn & State/UMiss. Hell, TAMU's fight song is literally built around UT and UT's mascot is named BEVO because TAMU branded a 13-0 football score on their live mascot...

I don't think so. They don't play each now, so what's the difference?

Oklahoma - Texas
Missouri -Arkansas
Texas A&M - LSU
Ole Miss - Mississippi State
Alabama - Auburn
Tennessee - Vanderbilt
Kentucky - South Carolina
Florida - Georgia

That's what it will be.

 

[StumpNewGround]

In that scenario, who would be Oklahoma's permanent?

I would think Texas but it wouldn’t be a traditional “end of the year” rivalry game.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I still think its a game of chicken. ESPN is not going to commit to paying without 9 games being finalized and actually knowing they’ll get the permanent opponents and annual prime matchups that they want. Don’t want to tip their hand, so this was always going to go to the 11th hour. They didn’t commit to paying anything additional for TX / OU joining either…..but not only are they doing it, they facilitated a path for it to happen one year earlier. And that “one year earlier” bit happened at the 11th hour also.

Likewise, the “Big 9” (everyone except MSU, OM, UK, Vandy, and Mizzou) are not going to want to commit to 9 games and a harder path to the CFP without assurance that the increased revenue is worth it.

When **** or get off the pot time comes, league will go to 9 and ESPN will pay more. Way too much lost money from not having annual games like Bama-LSU, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, Texas-TX A&M, TX A&M-OU, 2 of 3 between UF-UGA, UT-UGA, and UF-UT, 2 of 3 between OM-LSU, Auburn-LSU, A&M-LSU, and so forth. At the end of the day, the new SEC has 9 of the probably Top 20-25 most watched college football teams in the country. They WANT as many head-to-head matchups between those 9 teams as they can get every single season. They’d also be abandoning probably 5 or 6 annual matchups between teams that would no doubt be in the Top 20-25 most watched regular season games every year. Someone will eventually cave, and an agreement will happen. Occam’s Razor and what not.

 

[WrightGuy821]

I don't think so. They don't play each now, so what's the difference?

Oklahoma - Texas
Missouri -Arkansas
Texas A&M - LSU
Ole Miss - Mississippi State
Alabama - Auburn
Tennessee - Vanderbilt
Kentucky - South Carolina
Florida - Georgia

That's what it will be.

If TAMU's permanent isn't Texas I'd like to see Arkansas as their permanent instead of LSU. Seems like a better game every year

 

[L4Dawg]

I've never understood the push for nine conference games. But I'm also in the minority (maybe even a minority of one) that would rather watch a game against a smaller non-conference team we're likely to beat than one against an SEC power that we're likely to lose.

Same here

 

[Dawgg]

I don't think so. They don't play each now, so what's the difference?

Oklahoma - Texas
Missouri -Arkansas
Texas A&M - LSU
Ole Miss - Mississippi State
Alabama - Auburn
Tennessee - Vanderbilt
Kentucky - South Carolina
Florida - Georgia

That's what it will be.

Correct. There is 100% no way the Red River Rivalry and all it entails is going to die so Texas and Texas A&M play more than once every 3 years.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

I think when Saban saw he would get stuck with LSU, he changed his tune.

Most schools only have one conf rival (some have none), so let's stick with the 8 game format.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I've never understood the push for nine conference games. But I'm also in the minority (maybe even a minority of one) that would rather watch a game against a smaller non-conference team we're likely to beat than one against an SEC power that we're likely to lose.

Well you’re definitely in the minority if put into the 99% of college football fans who don’t care at all about Mississippi State (including those who don’t have an attachment to any specific team), and just want to watch competitive, high level football. Those are the eyeballs driving all these decisions.

Hell, nobody besides Alabama fans even watch them play against your MTSU’s, McNeese States, etc…..and even they tune out after the 1st quarter or halftime. And they are probably the biggest fanbase and most visible brand in the nation when you account for all the schadenfraude viewers along with the fans.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Correct. There is 100% no way the Red River Rivalry and all it entails is going to die so Texas and Texas A&M play more than once every 3 years.

I wonder how the math will work. If it does go 1+7, will we essentially play the exact same schedule (at least as far as opponents, and home/away) every 4 years? Or will it rotate on a step basis? I don't think there's any way for the math to work. Guess they'll just have to rate the teams and try their best to make sure the schedules are balanced as far as the rotational list.

 

[travis.sixpack]

If the model ends up being 1-7, UT/TAMU will be their 1 - regardless of what those schools claim to want. That rivalry is just as heated (if not more) than Bama/Auburn & State/UMiss. Hell, TAMU's fight song is literally built around UT and UT's mascot is named BEVO because TAMU branded a 13-0 football score on their live mascot...

That's some serious stalker energy. The Red River Rivalry is way more important than a game that ended 12 years ago. Hell, the UT-A&M game doesn't even have a name.

 

[Perd Hapley]

That's some serious stalker energy. The Red River Rivalry is way more important than a game that ended 12 years ago. Hell, the UT-A&M game doesn't even have a name.

I mean it’s not like the game ended because nobody was watching it. A&M simply got all this pissy and high fallutin’ big dick energy and just refused to continue scheduling them.

It’s not gonna be “either/or” on those games. That’s why you won’t see any less than 2 rotating opponents even at 8 games…..but more than likely it’s the 3-6 format with 9 total games.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I mean it’s not like the game ended because nobody was watching it. A&M simply got all this pissy and high fallutin’ big dick energy and just refused to continue scheduling them.

It’s not gonna be “either/or” on those games. That’s why you won’t see any less than 2 rotating opponents even at 8 games…..but more than likely it’s the 3-6 format with 9 total games.

I never saw anything wrong with a 2+6 format. I mean you'd at least get to play everybody once every 4 years.

Does it really matter if we only play Florida once every 4 years? I sure don't care.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

 

[Perd Hapley]

Andy nailed it.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Andy nailed it.

I love how he tries to shame. "Loser thinking". For who?

Money matters.

If ESPN would just pay, we'd get 9 games. It's not about anything else. Staples is just being a typical snarky journalist.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Andy nailed it.

I love how he tries to shame. "Loser thinking". For who?

Money matters.

If ESPN would just pay, we'd get 9 games. It's not about anything else. Staples is just being a typical snarky journalist.

I get what Andy is saying. He wants the SEC teams to play more games against each other.

And while that ain’t happening now (money talks after all), don’t be surprised if it happens in the future.

I’m not saying it will. Just saying that after a few years in the new playoff system, you know that Sankey & the Presidents are going to evaluate to see if there are ways the SEC can improve its standing without too big a hit when it comes to bowl games.

My long term wildassguess prediction: There will be fewer bowl games as the years pass because the costs won’t be sustainable for networks and streamers.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I love how he tries to shame. "Loser thinking". For who?

Money matters.

If ESPN would just pay, we'd get 9 games. It's not about anything else. Staples is just being a typical snarky journalist.

It would absolutely be loser thinking for both ESPN and the SEC….if either were actually thinking it. But neither is. Both sides are just posturing until the last minute. But Andy can’t come out and say that, so he plays along with the charade and still points out how ridiculous it is.

They’ll do the 9 games, ESPN will pay both more money in the annual contract and probably assist with the buyouts of certain nonconference games that can’t be rescheduled (as needed), everyone who didn’t have some sort of force majeure clause in their nonconference game contracts (which should actually be nobody) will have to take a little bit of a haircut for a year or two, and then everyone will move forward.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I get what Andy is saying. He wants the SEC teams to play more games against each other.

And while that ain’t happening now (money talks after all), don’t be surprised if it happens in the future.

I’m not saying it will. Just saying that after a few years in the new playoff system, you know that Sankey & the Presidents are going to evaluate to see if there are ways the SEC can improve its standing without too big a hit when it comes to bowl games.

My long term wildassguess prediction: There will be fewer bowl games as the years pass because the costs won’t be sustainable for networks and streamers.

The fastest ways to get people to play more conference games:

1) Pay them TV money;
2) Do away with the bowl game incentive based on only Ws and Ls;
3) Show a PROVEN system for selecting playoff teams based on SOS/advanced metrics/etc. rather than only Ws and Ls.

Until then, it is not loser thinking at all. It's just smart.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

I was told that cancelling the non-conference games to accommodate a 9 game model was not that costly due to outs in the contract that touched on changes in conference scheduling models, so I dont think that is it all. Good excuse though.

it boils down to:
ESPN isnt willing to pay more for better inventory
Some schools (MSU included) prefer 8
Some schools do not like their permanents in 3-6 model (Bama), and willing to support 8 games now

As Maroon Eagle says, this will probably only be set for a few years to give the SEC chance to evaluate and go back to ESPN for re-upping. ESPN is in the middle of layoffs and probably also want to see how the expanded CFP media deal pans out

 

[Perd Hapley]

The fastest ways to get people to play more conference games:

1) Pay them TV money;
2) Do away with the bowl game incentive based on only Ws and Ls;
3) Show a PROVEN system for selecting playoff teams based on SOS/advanced metrics/etc. rather than only Ws and Ls.

Until then, it is not loser thinking at all. It's just smart.

Tell me how #3 hasn’t happened? They’ve generally gotten the CFP teams right every single year. Not really any overt screw jobs at all….with the possible exception of the COVID year when they forced Ohio State in there after they only played 6 games. But I think most still felt they were a better team than Texas A&M.