How many SEC games can Illinois, Kansas, and Colorado schedule? [Archive]

Mac94

4/28/2014, 11:51 AM

I'd like to call it the Texas A&M rule, in dishonor of their SMU, Lamar, Rice and Louisiana-Monroe non-conference slate this season, their Rice, Sam Houston State, SMU and New Mexico slate last season, and their SMU, South Carolina State, Louisiana Tech and Sam Houston State slate the year before that.

The last two years we were in the Big-12 we had Arkansas as our main OOC opponent (10 year deal). Our last two years weak schedules have had to due with Arkansas becoming a conference game and us scrambling to fill the void. Last two years our OOC has been weak but it's why we've added Arizona St. in 2015 as a stop gap game. Same thing happened to us when we joined the Big-12 ... we had contracts with Colorado and Nebraska as OOC games that were nullified as a result of the merger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but OU has not had a full tray of cream puffs since Stoops has been our head coach. We have at least one name non-conference opponent every season, whether it's Tennessee in 2014, Notre Dame the past two or Florida State the two before that.

You forget 2000 ;)

badger

4/28/2014, 12:00 PM

You forget 2000 ;)

ooo you little aggie bastard... I will chalk that up to having an 11-game schedule back then i guess.

and yes i realize that it's difficult to schedule when you move conferences. maybe you shouldn't have left? :rcmad:

Mac94

4/28/2014, 12:06 PM

ooo you little aggie bastard... I will chalk that up to having an 11-game schedule back then i guess.

back then 11 game schedules were the norm, lol. Every team has a schedule like that every now and then. OU has a long track record of good OOC scheduling ... but it does happen.

and yes i realize that it's difficult to schedule when you move conferences. maybe you shouldn't have left?

The Big-12 formed in 1996 and it took us till 2000 to get on track with our OOC schedules. Added two kickoff classic games (BYU in 96 and Florida St in 1998) as stop gaps but it wasn't until 2000 that our OOC really got back on track ... and even then Bill Byrne wasn't one for tough OOC games. As for the switch to the SEC ... I think it's working out fine for us. While we may not have the marquee OOC game ... we still have S. Carolina, LSU, Auburn, Missouri, Alabama ... we will have our share of good games.

LakeRat

4/28/2014, 01:22 PM

So 5 tough games and 7 easy games is tough Sec schedule.

TheHumanAlphabet

4/28/2014, 01:23 PM

All conferences should do this. It will be interesting, though, to see how this plays out since this is mandated ... it'll give AD's from the four other conferences added bargaining power in contract negotiations. My Ags are ok for a few years as we will start a five year run with Pac-12 schools in 2015 (Arizona St at Reliant in Houston in 2015, home and home with UCLA in 16 and 17, followed by a long standing home and home deal with Oregon the following years).

You will lose the UO games in Eugene, guaranteed!

Salt City Sooner

4/28/2014, 03:58 PM

ooo you little aggie bastard... I will chalk that up to having an 11-game schedule back then i guess.

and yes i realize that it's difficult to schedule when you move conferences. maybe you shouldn't have left? :rcmad:
UTEP that year was supposed to have been the start of a h/h w/ Arizona State. Thing was, in '01, we had the return game to Tempe scheduled, along with the start of the Bama set, which was originally scheduled for '01 & '02. Joe C. (he of the 1 marquee OOC game per year philosophy) wanted to move that '01 Tempe game to another year, which ASU refused to go along with, so after a few sessions of back & forth, he cancelled the '01 game (which later became the front end of the set w/ Air Force, FWIW), & ASU reciprocated re; the '00 trip to Norman. The ironic part of this whole mess was that a few months after the dust had settled, Bama's AD Moore called OU & asked if their series could be moved back to '02 & '03 & OU complied.

I personally never understood why Joe went along w/ this because that didn't mesh w/ his one big OOC game per year thing in '03 (we already had UCLA set up) which is why that whole mess got started, but hey, I guess it worked out anyway.

jkjsooner

4/28/2014, 04:01 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but OU has not had a full tray of cream puffs since Stoops has been our head coach. We have at least one name non-conference opponent every season, whether it's Tennessee in 2014, Notre Dame the past two or Florida State the two before that.

I looked it up earlier. The last year we didn't play a power conference team in an OOC regular season game was in 2000. That year we played UTEP, Arkansas St., and Rice.

Maybe that's the key to winning a title. ;-)

Seriously, not only do we play at least one power conference team in OOC every year, we almost always play one of the top few teams in those power conferences. Sometimes, with the long delay before the games are actually played, we happen to catch them when they're down (Tennessee or Miami, for example) but they're teams that more than not are likely to be good.

Edit: Just realized I was late to point this out. I did put a more positive spin on it than Mac did.

8timechamps

4/28/2014, 04:30 PM

badger

4/28/2014, 04:52 PM

SEC hate aside, as least when you're dealing with any of power five programs, you're dealing with programs that have zounds more financial resources than the creampuffs and there's very little exception. Kansas sucks at football, but they have a lot of money (and have spent a lot) trying to not suck. Same goes for Indiana. They were able to hire away top program offensive coordinators in an effort to stop the sucking. That's something the creampuffs can't afford to do and even if they could, would Weis or Wilson leave UF and OU to go to Appalachian State?

So, bemoan the softies of the power five now, but what was once Baylor and OSU in 2004 can turn into Baylor and OSU of 2014 with enough money

Salt City Sooner

4/28/2014, 05:38 PM

This is a (lame) attempt for the SEC to cover their asses. There's NO reason they couldn't adopt an 8 game conference schedule other than they don't want the additional 7 losses attributed. I hope this bites them in the ***. I hope they get left out of the playoff because non-SEC teams had tougher schedules (which probably won't happen).

We'll see how serious the SEC takes this. If Bama and LSU start scheduling KU and Utah, it'll prove to be the joke it is...I'll be shocked if we see Bama and [b]LSU schedule the UCLA's or Ohio State's out there.
FWIW, the ink had barely dried from their "postponement" of our set with them when they announced sets with both UCLA & Arizona State (different years from what OU/LSU was to have been though). I know Lester's a punchline all to himself, but for the most part, LSU's been pretty good about getting a decent team on their OOC slates.

8timechamps

4/28/2014, 08:52 PM

FWIW, the ink had barely dried from their "postponement" of our set with them when they announced sets with both UCLA & Arizona State (different years from what OU/LSU was to have been though). I know Lester's a punchline all to himself, but for the most part, LSU's been pretty good about getting a decent team on their OOC slates.

Good point, and I was wrong. LSU and Miles have done a good job of scheduling.

What this really does is put Alabama in the drivers seat for the SEC. What's crazy is how the conference itself allows this to happen.

What's possibly more surprising is the opinions being expressed by some of the writers at ESPN. I figured they'd tow the line regardless of the outcome, but they seem to be as disappointed as anyone with the same 'ole same 'ole from the SEC.

Mac94

4/29/2014, 07:09 AM

This is a (lame) attempt for the SEC to cover their asses. There's NO reason they couldn't adopt an 8 game conference schedule other than they don't want the additional 7 losses attributed. I hope this bites them in the ***. I hope they get left out of the playoff because non-SEC teams had tougher schedules (which probably won't happen).

I think you mean the 9 game conference schedule. The SEC has an 8 game conference schedule like it has had for a long time and is keeping with the 6 division games, 1 permanent cross division rival game, and 1 rotating cross division game. The permanent rival thing isn't something everyone is happy with but the powers that be seem to think they must protect some older SEC rivalries.

I'm not sure why there is so much venom in regards to the SEC playing 8 conferences games instead of 9. It is the same number played by the Big-12 for most of its existence until the last few years (and no on seemed to complain), and is the same number of conference games the Big-10 and ACC play.

thecrimsoncrusader

4/29/2014, 07:19 AM

You forget 2000 ;)

You are forgetting that the mighty UTEP Miners were a bowl team that year at 8-4. I win. ;) Regardless, OU more than made up for it for what OU did in conference play and having to play and beat a Top 10 Kansas St. team twice in the same season. Kansas St. wasn't just ranked in the Top 10, they were a Top 10 team with 2 of their 3 total losses coming at the hands of Oklahoma. I bet you know who gave them the other loss. ;) That was a heck of a year for the Big 12 Conference.

Mac94

4/29/2014, 07:45 AM

You are forgetting that the mighty UTEP Miners were a bowl team that year at 8-4. I win. Regardless, OU more than made up for it for what OU did in conference play and having to play and beat a Top 10 Kansas St. team twice in the same season. Kansas St. wasn't just ranked in the Top 10, they were a Top 10 team with 2 of their 3 total losses coming at the hands of Oklahoma. I bet you know who gave them the other loss. That was a heck of a year for the Big 12 Conference.

Not forgetting that at all ... the "Red October" run of 2000 is the stuff of Sooner legend ... and it highlights that a strong conference slate can make up for a weaker OOC slate. A football schedule is weighed by all games, not just OOC or conference. And yeah ... I remember the Aggie - KSU game that year ... as well as the instant classic that was OU vs A&M at Kyle. The Big-12 for quite awhile was one heck of a conference ... and the South was as tough as it got in college football.

jkjsooner

4/29/2014, 09:18 AM

and it highlights that a strong conference slate can make up for a weaker OOC slate.

I'll turn that around and point out that a strong non-conference slate can easily make up the schedule strength difference between the the various power conferences.

While you may understand this, too many in the SEC do not. They think that just because they're in the SEC they have the toughest schedules in the country.

That's not even addressing the fact that the in-conference schedule strength can vary significantly.

Mac94

4/29/2014, 10:01 AM

I'll turn that around and point out that a strong non-conference slate can easily make up the schedule strength difference between the various power conferences.

Very true ... I think it takes strong in conference games as well as a marquee game against a team from another region to really sell the season and program. I've seen a bit of all sides being an Aggie ... being in the last days of the SWC when we were trying anything to get good OOC games to offset a weak conference schedule to the last few SEC years with weak OOCs and good conference slates to in between during a number of Big-12 seasons.

8timechamps

4/29/2014, 07:42 PM

I think you mean the 9 game conference schedule. The SEC has an 8 game conference schedule like it has had for a long time and is keeping with the 6 division games, 1 permanent cross division rival game, and 1 rotating cross division game. The permanent rival thing isn't something everyone is happy with but the powers that be seem to think they must protect some older SEC rivalries.

I'm not sure why there is so much venom in regards to the SEC playing 8 conferences games instead of 9. It is the same number played by the Big-12 for most of its existence until the last few years (and no on seemed to complain), and is the same number of conference games the Big-10 and ACC play.

Correct, I meant 9.

There's a big difference in what the Big XII did and what the SEC does:

1. The Big XII had two divisions (just like the SEC), and every team played a 5+3 rotation. EVERY team played EVERY team at least twice over a 4 year span. There was no picking and choosing who plays who.

2. The SEC has 14 teams. 14! Again, there is NO reason (other than self preservation) why the SEC shouldn't have gone to a 9 conference game schedule.

You say you're "not sure why there is so much venom" about this, I respond by saying really don't get your SEC loyalty on this one. The "preserve tradition" excuse is played out (and not true). I know it's what the SEC media machine is spinning, but it's a weak excuse. Ask LSU how their tradition is being preserved.

Mac94

4/30/2014, 07:17 AM

You say you're "not sure why there is so much venom" about this, I respond by saying really don't get your SEC loyalty on this one. The "preserve tradition" excuse is played out (and not true). I know it's what the SEC media machine is spinning, but it's a weak excuse. Ask LSU how their tradition is being preserved.

It's not SEC loyalty ... it's just that a few long standing games ARE what's keeping the permanent cross rival game ... and in reality ... it's mainly the Tennessee - Alabama game. Do I agree with it ... yes and no. For me as an Aggie I would prefer to not have cross divisional rivalry games ... it does nothing for us. But as a Sooner fan ... I can kinda see the point ... I think the Big-12 hurt itself in the beginning by not protecting one of the best rivalries in the nation ... OU vs Nebraska. So I can see both sides ... and considering A&M is a conference newbie ... and we have no real long history with East teams (unlike in the West), I don't think this is an issue were we can "drive the bus," so to speak.

Mac94

4/30/2014, 07:30 AM

As for the 8 vs 9 game conference schedule ... as a fan 9 games is far better. I do understand why coaches and ADs prefer 8 as it gives the coaches a better shot at one more win and ADs one more home date every other year. That all said ... when it does come time to crown conference champions ... the champion of the SEC and the champion of the Big-12 will have played 9 conference games to claim the title ... and the added 9th game for the SEC team is going to be against a quality opponent rather than one of the conference bottom feeders.

8timechamps

4/30/2014, 10:15 PM

It's not SEC loyalty ... it's just that a few long standing games ARE what's keeping the permanent cross rival game ... and in reality ... it's mainly the Tennessee - Alabama game. Do I agree with it ... yes and no. For me as an Aggie I would prefer to not have cross divisional rivalry games ... it does nothing for us. But as a Sooner fan ... I can kinda see the point ... I think the Big-12 hurt itself in the beginning by not protecting one of the best rivalries in the nation ... OU vs Nebraska. So I can see both sides ... and considering A&M is a conference newbie ... and we have no real long history with East teams (unlike in the West), I don't think this is an issue were we can "drive the bus," so to speak.

Fair enough. I agree that the Big XII screwed up when they got rid of the OU/NU rivalry, but that's just the way the game is going. If OU/NU can stop playing annually, then UT/Bama can too. It didn't really hurt either program, and in the end NU bolted anyway. The SEC is stronger than one long-standing rivalry.

Truth is, this kinda hurts A&M more than it helps. It doesn't hurt much, but with some of the protected rivalry games, it keeps A&M's conference schedule pretty tough. No Vandy or Kentucky for the Aggies.

I completely understand wanting to keep traditional rivalries, but I think that's an easy excuse for the SEC. The reality is they want to keep Bama happy and create the path of least resistance for the SEC to win titles. There's no real problem with that if you're in the upper echelon of the SEC, but if you're looking to be the next Baylor, chances are you're not going to make it to the top.

From a non-SEC interested party, it means nothing. For some in the SEC, it's kinda screwy.

King Barry's Back

5/1/2014, 04:46 AM

Fair enough. I agree that the Big XII screwed up when they got rid of the OU/NU rivalry, but that's just the way the game is going. If OU/NU can stop playing annually, then UT/Bama can too. It didn't really hurt either program, and in the end NU bolted anyway. The SEC is stronger than one long-standing rivalry.

Truth is, this kinda hurts A&M more than it helps. It doesn't hurt much, but with some of the protected rivalry games, it keeps A&M's conference schedule pretty tough. No Vandy or Kentucky for the Aggies.

I completely understand wanting to keep traditional rivalries, but I think that's an easy excuse for the SEC. The reality is they want to keep Bama happy and create the path of least resistance for the SEC to win titles. There's no real problem with that if you're in the upper echelon of the SEC, but if you're looking to be the next Baylor, chances are you're not going to make it to the top.

From a non-SEC interested party, it means nothing. For some in the SEC, it's kinda screwy.

8time -- I gotta say it's a little disrespectful to Tex Ag, when discussing great rivalries that were allowed to die, to NOT mention one of the five greatest rivalries of all-time. And a Thanksgiving tradition to boot. Think about this, if you will -- instability in the Southwest Conference eventually killed three of the greatest football rivalries in the history of the sport: first, TX/Ark; then the Southwest's fall-out produced the Big XII which killed OU/Neb; and then continuing Big XII instability killed TX/A&M.

When the Big XII stood up, the story I heard out of the OU Athletic Dept at the time was that the TX big cigars came in and said, "OU, you can keep either the game against Nebraska, or the game against us. You decide." We chose TX and the die was cast. Funny to wonder, if OU had chosen Neb, then TX would have clinged to it's rivaly with A&M and I wonder where we'd be?

One other comment: You argue that losing the OU rivalry didn't hurt Nebraska. I'd say that it hurt them badly. To me, they've been groping toward's a real identity ever since those days, and don't seem to have found it.

mainline13

5/1/2014, 06:34 PM

You will lose the UO games in Eugene, guaranteed!

Even if you win them.

blacktop

5/1/2014, 06:39 PM

That all said ... when it does come time to crown conference champions ... the champion of the SEC and the champion of the Big-12 will have played 9 conference games to claim the title ... and the added 9th game for the SEC team is going to be against a quality opponent rather than one of the conference bottom feeders.

8time -- I gotta say it's a little disrespectful to Tex Ag, when discussing great rivalries that were allowed to die, to NOT mention one of the five greatest rivalries of all-time. And a Thanksgiving tradition to boot. Think about this, if you will -- instability in the Southwest Conference eventually killed three of the greatest football rivalries in the history of the sport: first, TX/Ark; then the Southwest's fall-out produced the Big XII which killed OU/Neb; and then continuing Big XII instability killed TX/A&M.

Both of these are valid points. Good discussion. Not the usual Olympic Bladder Battle.

8timechamps

5/1/2014, 07:27 PM

8time -- I gotta say it's a little disrespectful to Tex Ag, when discussing great rivalries that were allowed to die, to NOT mention one of the five greatest rivalries of all-time. And a Thanksgiving tradition to boot. Think about this, if you will -- instability in the Southwest Conference eventually killed three of the greatest football rivalries in the history of the sport: first, TX/Ark; then the Southwest's fall-out produced the Big XII which killed OU/Neb; and then continuing Big XII instability killed TX/A&M.

When the Big XII stood up, the story I heard out of the OU Athletic Dept at the time was that the TX big cigars came in and said, "OU, you can keep either the game against Nebraska, or the game against us. You decide." We chose TX and the die was cast. Funny to wonder, if OU had chosen Neb, then TX would have clinged to it's rivaly with A&M and I wonder where we'd be?

One other comment: You argue that losing the OU rivalry didn't hurt Nebraska. I'd say that it hurt them badly. To me, they've been groping toward's a real identity ever since those days, and don't seem to have found it.

Good point (regarding the loss of UT/A&M). Definitely should have included that in my thoughts.

You aren't going to get an argument from me that these great rivalries should still be around, but the fact is college football moved on and they are gone. Was it because of the conferences or individual athletic departments? Could be both, but it really doesn't matter at this point. The reality is that individual rivalries aren't enough to stop the "progression" of the game, but the SEC is using that as an excuse to keep Bama in the catbird seat, and limit the number of conference games.

I don't think the demise of the OU/NU game had much (if anything) to do with Nebraska's down-turn. I think the hiring of Bill Callahan started that train down the wrong track. NU chose to leave the Big XII (and I believe they would have done that regardless). At the time NU left, the Big XII wasn't on shaky ground. The only team wavering was Colorado, and again, they would have left at any point if the PAC had offered. Whatever reason's NU had for leaving, it was their choice. They walked away. That hurt them. It made a tough situation tougher, as they slowly lost any foothold in the state of Texas for recruiting. With no Big 10 tradition, it wasn't like they could immediately go into Ohio or Pennsylvania and pick up the same momentum. The move from the Big XII has hurt NU more than any school that left.

If I had my choice, I'd want the great rivalries to stay around forever. But, I'd also want all games played on Saturday and teams to stick with traditional uniforms...none of which is happening. College football is 'evolving', and for the SEC to use "tradition" as an excuse to limit their conference games is just weak.

Mac94

5/2/2014, 07:18 AM

If I had my choice, I'd want the great rivalries to stay around forever. But, I'd also want all games played on Saturday and teams to stick with traditional uniforms...none of which is happening. College football is 'evolving', and for the SEC to use "tradition" as an excuse to limit their conference games is just weak.

I don't think it's "tradition" limiting the number of conference games ... it's "tradition" that is driving the choice to keep permanent cross division "rivalry" games. The choice to stick with 8 conference games is more about, home game money, and ... yes ... wins and loses. But ... as I said ... the SEC champion will play nine conference games ... just like the Big-12 champion.

tycat947

5/2/2014, 09:55 AM

Correct, I meant 9.

There's a big difference in what the Big XII did and what the SEC does:

1. The Big XII had two divisions (just like the SEC), and every team played a 5+3 rotation. EVERY team played EVERY team at least twice over a 4 year span. There was no picking and choosing who plays who.

2. The SEC has 14 teams. 14! Again, there is NO reason (other than self preservation) why the SEC shouldn't have gone to a 9 conference game schedule.

You say you're "not sure why there is so much venom" about this, I respond by saying really don't get your SEC loyalty on this one. The "preserve tradition" excuse is played out (and not true). I know it's what the SEC media machine is spinning, but it's a weak excuse. Ask LSU how their tradition is being preserved.

The SEC has historically played less conference games than the other major conferences. In the 70's when the Big 8 was playing 7 conference games with 8 teams, SEC was playing 6 (SIX) conference games with 10 teams! AND the good teams would avoid playing the better teams (Alabama vs Georgia, etc) as much as they could to help as many teams have a chance to play for NCs as possible. The majority of the bowl games are in the south so it's just a skip down the holler for the SEC teams to show up at the games. So many times SEC teams got selected for bowl games rather than other teams across the country because the SEC teams would draw better crowds. THEY WERE IN THEIR OWN BACKYARDS! Also, it was painfully obvious Bear Bryant was calling the shots on bowl games and would avoid playing OU or NU any opportunity that arose. I'm tired of hillbilly SEC!

8timechamps

5/2/2014, 06:02 PM

I don't think it's "tradition" limiting the number of conference games ... it's "tradition" that is driving the choice to keep permanent cross division "rivalry" games. The choice to stick with 8 conference games is more about, home game money, and ... yes ... wins and loses. But ... as I said ... the SEC champion will play nine conference games ... just like the Big-12 champion.

If you increase to 9 conference games, wouldn't that increase the "home game money"? Sure it would. If the SEC goes to 9 games, then it's going to almost be impossible to keep Bama from playing Georgia or Florida on a regular basis (along with some other cross division match-ups). Look, every power conference in the country has made it work (and surely the SEC isn't the only conference with traditional rivalries that need to be "protected"). The SEC certainly could.

I think you think I'm trying to compare the SEC to the Big XII, I'm not. Like I said, this really has no impact on OU (or really the conference). If anything, this hurts teams like A&M. I don't have much 'respect' for a system that allowed a non-champion to play for the national title (Alabama), so what the record of the "SEC champ" is doesn't mean anything to me.

What's funny (or odd) to me is that fans of the SEC are defending this decision to the rest of the country (except LSU fans, their pissed, and rightly so). But, keeping the schedules this way hurts teams in the SEC far more than it does anyone else. Les Miles (of all people) understands that.

Mac94

5/5/2014, 09:21 AM

If you increase to 9 conference games, wouldn't that increase the "home game money"? Sure it would. If the SEC goes to 9 games, then it's going to almost be impossible to keep Bama from playing Georgia or Florida on a regular basis (along with some other cross division match-ups). Look, every power conference in the country has made it work (and surely the SEC isn't the only conference with traditional rivalries that need to be "protected"). The SEC certainly could.

The control of the home gate is an every other year deal when a team would have four conference home games and five conference road dates. The extra OOC game means teams can lock in an extra home gate in a year where they would have otherwise had a conference road game. I think the Big-10 and ACC still are doing 8 conference games ... although some of the ACC is also picking up Notre Dame so some may have a quasi 9th ... and the Pac-12 has been at nine before anyone.

I think you think I'm trying to compare the SEC to the Big XII, I'm not. Like I said, this really has no impact on OU (or really the conference). If anything, this hurts teams like A&M. I don't have much 'respect' for a system that allowed a non-champion to play for the national title (Alabama), so what the record of the "SEC champ" is doesn't mean anything to me.

As for the system ... I do not disagree with you in the least. I've had that stance since Nebraska played for the title in 2001. Of course ... Oklahoma did benefit from that system in 2003 after losing the Big-12 championship game ... but I'm on record as saying Bama should not have played LSU for the title ... Oklahoma St should have.

What's funny (or odd) to me is that fans of the SEC are defending this decision to the rest of the country (except LSU fans, their pissed, and rightly so). But, keeping the schedules this way hurts teams in the SEC far more than it does anyone else. Les Miles (of all people) understands that.

I'm not so much defending as just talking. As a fan nine conference games is much better ... I don't know any Aggie fan that is just dying to see that epic matchup against Lamar. Nine conference games is also far better for the TV partners ... really for the same reason. But ... eight conference games isn't the end of the world. In the SWC we had 7 or 8 conference games ...in the Big-12 we had 8 except for 2011 in which we had 9. So eight conference games is the norm for us ... so I'm not freaking out about it. As for LSU ... from my understanding they are more upset with the cross rival thing than the number of conference games. They are stuck with Florida while Bama has Tennessee. LSU has the tougher draw (as does Auburn with Georgia and A&M with S. Carolina). Personally ... I would rather not have the cross divisional permanent game. I'd rather rotate through the east faster ... makes for more interesting schedules. But ... as I've said ... we Aggies are also newbies to the table so I don't know if it's really our place to try to overturn conference tradition.

8timechamps

5/5/2014, 05:11 PM

The control of the home gate is an every other year deal when a team would have four conference home games and five conference road dates. The extra OOC game means teams can lock in an extra home gate in a year where they would have otherwise had a conference road game. I think the Big-10 and ACC still are doing 8 conference games ... although some of the ACC is also picking up Notre Dame so some may have a quasi 9th ... and the Pac-12 has been at nine before anyone.

As for the system ... I do not disagree with you in the least. I've had that stance since Nebraska played for the title in 2001. Of course ... Oklahoma did benefit from that system in 2003 after losing the Big-12 championship game ... but I'm on record as saying Bama should not have played LSU for the title ... Oklahoma St should have.

I'm not so much defending as just talking. As a fan nine conference games is much better ... I don't know any Aggie fan that is just dying to see that epic matchup against Lamar. Nine conference games is also far better for the TV partners ... really for the same reason. But ... eight conference games isn't the end of the world. In the SWC we had 7 or 8 conference games ...in the Big-12 we had 8 except for 2011 in which we had 9. So eight conference games is the norm for us ... so I'm not freaking out about it. As for LSU ... from my understanding they are more upset with the cross rival thing than the number of conference games. They are stuck with Florida while Bama has Tennessee. LSU has the tougher draw (as does Auburn with Georgia and A&M with S. Carolina). Personally ... I would rather not have the cross divisional permanent game. I'd rather rotate through the east faster ... makes for more interesting schedules. But ... as I've said ... we Aggies are also newbies to the table so I don't know if it's really our place to try to overturn conference tradition.

"Defending" wasn't the right word for this discussion, you are clearly just having a conversation (I think the word "defending" best describes the SEC posters on ESPN).

I guess that's why this is even an issue for me; as a fan, I WANT to see better games week in and week out, otherwise, it's just something to talk about in the off-season.

You're right, LSU fans are upset about the cross divisional rivalry games, but the SEC is using that as a reason why they can't (won't) go to a 9 game conference schedule. That's what my point has been, the protected rivalries excuse is just a better way to say "we don't want 9 conference games". It sucks for most everyone in the SEC. I think most fans want to see better games, and I would guess all want their team to be given a fair shot to win the conference. That's not the way it's set up now.

I also appreciate that this isn't a black and white issue for the SEC. Tradition is a big part of college football. Both of my parents are Tennessee graduates (we lived in Knoxville until I was about 9), so I understand the Bama/UT rivalry and it's importance to the region. It's just too bad that college football become so enamored with conference realignment, as it killed some of the best rivalries in the country and will probably take some others down before it's over.

Mac94

5/6/2014, 11:25 AM

It's just too bad that college football become so enamored with conference realignment, as it killed some of the best rivalries in the country and will probably take some others down before it's over.

Unfortunately I think you're right. IMO this all stems from the early 80's court case brought against the NCAA by Georgia and Oklahoma and the horrible way the NCAA did the TV rights. When the conferences took over TV negotiating the die was cast and the changes began. Then it was the independents seeking conference cover ... Penn St, Florida St, Miami, etc. ... but the weaker conferences that couldn't keep up with the larger conferences began feeling the heat ... in the early 90's the Big West and SWC dissolved ... the Big East has been constantly unstable until its demise in the past few years ... the WAC went under ... etc. All in the name of money and conference security.