- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: we gotta stop this permanent rivalry shite
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:44 am to darkstarr_drgga
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:44 am to darkstarr_drgga
quote:
I can tell you, I think it asinine that we get stuck playing Fla every year while someone gets Vandy.
And there's the truth of it all!
Furthermore, is it wrong for a school to have more than one meaningful rivalry game that they care about?
A block of 4 teams would block something from happening in virtually every conference. Hence the purpose of needing a "super majority." if a decision is going to piss off more than a small minority of teams, it probably shouldn't be made. The lack of common sense in this debate is highly discouraging.
1
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:44 am to attheua
quote:
We are using the vote granted to us as a member of this conference.
I'm not disputing it's not your right to try to protect these rivalries. My initial input was more to explain why some of us don't like them. When it all comes down to it, only 4 teams benefit. That's where I have my issue, and why others will have issues.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:48 am to mre
How about we just put bama and auburn in the east and throw vandy or Kentucky in the west with mizzou and call it quits.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:49 am to ACT
quote:
And there's the truth of it all!
That's the truth of it all, at least to me. I have never like the way the cross divisional rivalries were set up. I just sort of accepted it, because I can barely remember when they were instituted.
quote:
Furthermore, is it wrong for a school to have more than one meaningful rivalry game that they care about?
Absolutely not. I can appreciate you guy's situation. My only contention is that only 4 teams benefit from a system that effects all. That's where my issue lies.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:50 am to OneMoreTime
As has been repeated ad nauseum, there's no doubt that LSU would love such an arrangement, but I doubt FLA, UGA, TENN, AU, and ALA would vote for that.
How about we put Mizzou in the east, play 9 conference games, and then call it quits?
How about we put Mizzou in the east, play 9 conference games, and then call it quits?
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:51 am to OneMoreTime
quote:
How about we just put bama and auburn in the east and throw vandy or Kentucky in the west with mizzou and call it quits.
Because you would create a division that's a great deal tougher than the current Western division, not to mention make LSU's road to Atlanta much easier.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:52 am to mre
9 conference games is too many IMO. Schools won't want to give up that extra nonconference game.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:54 am to darkstarr_drgga
quote:So? This decision, obviously, isnt about fairness, or we wouldn't be having this conversation right now since the permanent rivalries would already be scrapped.
Because you would create a division that's a great deal tougher than the current Western division, not to mention make LSU's road to Atlanta much easier.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:54 am to darkstarr_drgga
quote:But in reality (due to the TV contracts) all teams benefit. One of the things that makes college football great is the rivalry games. How many people tune in to watch the Army/Navy game each year even though the teams are typically only mediocre and have no shot at a big bowl game?
When it all comes down to it, only 4 teams benefit.
When you look at the great rivalries in sports, do you not think that they draw a lot of eyes on tv? Why do you think the Red Sox/Yankees or Cowboys/Giants are on nationwide television feeds, because people across the country like to watch these rivalries. The same thing is said for college football, and Auburn/Bama, Bama/Tenn, Auburn/UGA, Tenn/Fla, Fla/UGA are all big rivalry games that people will tune in to watch.
There is a reason that CBS has shown Tenn.Florida for 16 straight years and the Cocktail Party for 15 of the last 16 seasons - people want to see the teams play and they will tune in to the games. If you take away those annual matchups, you actually take away part of what makes the SEC such a prize for television networks and makes them willing to pay hundreds of millions and billions over the life of a tv contract to televise those games - money that makes its way back to every member of the conference.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:56 am to mre
quote:
How about we put Mizzou in the east, play 9 conference games, and then call it quits?
Would the 9 games be that much more of a stretch? I mean, the NCAA has added games to the schedule. I can't recall how many SEC games were played before, but I think 9 games would solve a lot of issues. Such as having to go out of conference to find opponents. Sure, you'd want to schedule your big name OOC team, but really what's benefited from playing a lesser State team over Vandy or Kentucky?
I'm not advocating, just haven't really thought much about it.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 11:59 am to darkstarr_drgga
quote:I would think that most schools would be against adding an extra conference game since that would mean having, on average, 0.5 less home games per year. Most schools use that OOC game for a cupcake home game that would be scrapped.
Would the 9 games be that much more of a stretch? I mean, the NCAA has added games to the schedule. I can't recall how many SEC games were played before, but I think 9 games would solve a lot of issues. Such as having to go out of conference to find opponents. Sure, you'd want to schedule your big name OOC team, but really what's benefited from playing a lesser State team over Vandy or Kentucky?
I'm not advocating, just haven't really thought much about it.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:01 pm to darkstarr_drgga
quote:SEC has been playing 8 conference games a year since the expansion to a 12 team conference. Only thing that the NCAA adding a 12th game to the season did was increase the number of OOC games that could be played.
I mean, the NCAA has added games to the schedule. I can't recall how many SEC games were played before, but I think 9 games would solve a lot of issues.
Other conferences (Big 10 and Pac 10) played 9 game conference schedules while below the number of schools needed to play a CCG. How many conference games are Big XII schools playing this year?
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:02 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
How many conference games are Big XII schools playing this year?
9.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:03 pm to OneMoreTime
quote:
0.5 less home games per year.
True, but a quality SEC opponent could mean more revenue I would think. Since alot of those cupcake games aren't televised and some aren't sell outs. Could 9 conference games, mean more televised games, and lead to increased revenue when TV contracts are renegotiated?
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:03 pm to PJinAtl
That's mainly because they're kind of forced to with only 10 or 11 schools. I think the big 12 is playing a round robin with 9 conference games. Not 100% on that though.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:04 pm to darkstarr_drgga
quote:
Would the 9 games be that much more of a stretch?
A 9 game conference schedule isn't perfect (the 4/5 and 5/4 home and road split being the main reason) but it's probably the best fit without forcing each team into only 1 rotating cross division game instead of 2. The most obvious solution is for the NCAA to add a 13th regular season game. This allows each conference team an extra home game to make up for the potential home game lost from going to a 9 game conference schedule.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:05 pm to OneMoreTime
quote:
So? This decision, obviously, isnt about fairness, or we wouldn't be having this conversation right now since the permanent rivalries would already be scrapped
As an LSU fan I would love that set up, however, I think more than 4 teams would be against. Pretty much whoever you would chose to put in the Eastern division would be against it.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:05 pm to darkstarr_drgga
quote:You're right, for the year that that SEC game is played at home. But on odd years where that game isn't a home game, the team misses out on that revenue.
True, but a quality SEC opponent could mean more revenue I would think. Since alot of those cupcake games aren't televised and some aren't sell outs. Could 9 conference games, mean more televised games, and lead to increased revenue when TV contracts are renegotiated?
I'm don't know much about how those tv contracts work but maybe that could be a reason for 9 games if they can renegotiate them.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:08 pm to Govt Tide
quote:A team could possibly play 16 games with that if the Hawaii rule is still around
The most obvious solution is for the NCAA to add a 13th regular season game.
Posted on 10/19/11 at 12:09 pm to darkstarr_drgga
quote:No, because every team in the SEC has to be on tv 11 of their 12 games now as it is written into the current contracts.
Could 9 conference games, mean more televised games, and lead to increased revenue when TV contracts are renegotiated?
That one game a year, if one of the tv partners doesn't want it, can be offered to the school as a PPV game. if the school does not want to use it as a PPV, it has to be picked up by one of the tv partners, even if it is then pushed to an SEC network game on FSN or on CBS College Sports.
From a revenue standpoint, I posted in another thread that a 9th conference game is at least revenue neutral, and most likely revenue positive, over a powderpuff OOC game, even after taking into account that the 9th game would only be a home game every other year and the powderpuff would be an annual game.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News