Make the 10 game conference schedules permanent?

[Deep Creek]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-a-move-to-10-game-conference-schedules-in-college-football-should-be-a-permanent-one/

I'm old fashioned and would rather go the other direction (but only with adjustments) than this guy. I'd rather see 8 team conference with 7 conference games, 3 OOC games against other P5 conference teams and then 2 games with whoever the hell they want...be it G5, FCS or a good local high school team. We'd still get 10 P5 vs P5 games every year and some good variety. Conferences are just too damned big now IMO.

This guy does have some good points.

"There are too many games played between schools with no connection to one another, while regional rivals who share a conference and began playing a century ago might see one another once a decade. It's a system that makes little sense.

As things stand, Alabama and Georgia are scheduled to play in September. This is a big deal because they're both College Football Playoff contenders, but it's also a big deal because it would be the first time they've met in the regular season since 2015. That means that, had Alabama's game with USC not been canceled, the Tide would have played more regular-season games against USC in the last five years than Georgia. What makes it more remarkable is that, before the 2015 meeting, the last time Georgia and Alabama had a regular-season meeting was the 2008 season."

I'll bet before conference expansion, Bama and Georgia used to play every year. That's the way it should be IMO.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

The 14 member ACC & SEC won't play a 9 game conference schedule let alone a 10 game one.

 

[Duckboy33]

It won't happen. In a normal year, most P5 schools want 7 home games for revenue purposes.

In a 9 game conference schedule they can schedule 2 cupcake OOC games and do a home and home with a P5 opponent (play on the road when you have 5 conference home games).

If you move to a 10 game conference schedule, one of the following will happen:
1) Teams will accept a 6 game home schedule and loss of revenue (yeah right)
2) Teams will stop playing P5 opponents OOC and only schedule paycheck games (won't happen because so many teams have OOC rivalries that they will want to maintain)

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

It won't happen. In a normal year, most P5 schools want 7 home games for revenue purposes.

In a 9 game conference schedule they can schedule 2 cupcake OOC games and do a home and home with a P5 opponent (play on the road when you have 5 conference home games).

If you move to a 10 game conference schedule, one of the following will happen:
1) Teams will accept a 6 game home schedule and loss of revenue (yeah right)
2) Teams will stop playing P5 opponents OOC and only schedule paycheck games (won't happen because so many teams have OOC rivalries that they will want to maintain)

Would the TV payouts be higher to offset a lost home game?

 

[cwalke3408]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-a-move-to-10-game-conference-schedules-in-college-football-should-be-a-permanent-one/

I'm old fashioned and would rather go the other direction (but only with adjustments) than this guy. I'd rather see 8 team conference with 7 conference games, 3 OOC games against other P5 conference teams and then 2 games with whoever the hell they want...be it G5, FCS or a good local high school team. We'd still get 10 P5 vs P5 games every year and some good variety. Conferences are just too damned big now IMO.

I agree, I would rather teams see 8 confs, 2 P5 OOC.
1) More conference vs conference data-points.
2) I find none-contender teams playing in OOC games over in-conference more enjoyable to watch. Watching conference pride on the line is more enjoyable to watch to me than teams playing for 3rd, 4th, 5th ... in a conference

As things stand, Alabama and Georgia are scheduled to play in September. This is a big deal because they're both College Football Playoff contenders, but it's also a big deal because it would be the conference That means that, had Alabama's game with USC not been canceled, the Tide would have played more regular-season games against USC in the last five years than Georgia. What makes it more remarkable is that, before the 2015 meeting, the last time Georgia and Alabama had a regular-season meeting was the 2008 conference ."

Not that much of a big deal when conference championship games handle this

 

[ericd7633]

Would the TV payouts be higher to offset a lost home game?

They'd have to offer and additional 120 Million per season to make it work for a school like Ohio State. After equal revenue sharing. OSU, if I had to guess, based on making slightly over 7 million per home game in 2014, probably makes in the range of 8.5 million per home game. But the last couple years they've scheduled where they only have 7 home games. For example last year they had 3 OOC home games, with 5 B1G road games. This year they scheduled 2 OOC home games, but only play 4 B1G road games. If I had to guess that's probably how most schools schedule in a 9 game conference schedule. It would definitely affect the SEC and ACC more.

 

[Boglodyte]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-a-move-to-10-game-conference-schedules-in-college-football-should-be-a-permanent-one/

I'm old fashioned and would rather go the other direction (but only with adjustments) than this guy. I'd rather see 8 team conference with 7 conference games, 3 OOC games against other P5 conference teams and then 2 games with whoever the hell they want...be it G5, FCS or a good local high school team. We'd still get 10 P5 vs P5 games every year and some good variety. Conferences are just too damned big now IMO.

This guy does have some good points.

"There are too many games played between schools with no connection to one another, while regional rivals who share a conference and began playing a century ago might see one another once a decade. It's a system that makes little sense.

As things stand, Alabama and Georgia are scheduled to play in September. This is a big deal because they're both College Football Playoff contenders, but it's also a big deal because it would be the first time they've met in the regular season since 2015. That means that, had Alabama's game with USC not been canceled, the Tide would have played more regular-season games against USC in the last five years than Georgia. What makes it more remarkable is that, before the 2015 meeting, the last time Georgia and Alabama had a regular-season meeting was the 2008 season."

I'll bet before conference expansion, Bama and Georgia used to play every year. That's the way it should be IMO.

Wrong, go check it out

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Wrong, go check it out

Which part was wrong?

 

[Boglodyte]

Which part was wrong?

They didn’t play every year...look at late 60’s and 70’s

 

[Duckboy33]

Would the TV payouts be higher to offset a lost home game?

Probably not.

 

[Thiefery]

So the SWC is going to return??!
Texas
Tech
TCU
SMU
aggy
Baylor
coog high
Rice

 

[volbound2002]

Nothing against Missouri and Texas A&M but I felt the SEC lineup prior to them is the perfect model.

4 OOC games and 8 Conference games
3 games against the other division (You play 50% of that division each year)
The locked rivalries are required for the SEC but I don't really like them because you could technically play every team in your conference at least twice (once away and once at home) in a 4 year span.

 

[Thiefery]

Nothing against Missouri and Texas A&M but I felt the SEC lineup prior to them is the perfect model.

4 OOC games and 8 Conference games
3 games against the other division (You play 50% of that division each year)
The locked rivalries are required for the SEC but I don't really like them because you could technically play every team in your conference at least twice (once away and once at home) in a 4 year span.

man tbh.. SEC was better without Arkansas and South Carolina too

If you'd take out Baylor, Arkansas would have been a good fit in the original Big 12 South..

 

[Deep Creek]

They didn’t play every year...look at late 60’s and 70’s

You are right. They didn't play from '66-71, '74, '75 or '78-'83. Anyone know why?

 

[Deep Creek]

So the SWC is going to return??!
Texas
Tech
TCU
SMU
aggy
Baylor
coog high
Rice

 

[Deep Creek]

Nothing against Missouri and Texas A&M but I felt the SEC lineup prior to them is the perfect model.

4 OOC games and 8 Conference games
3 games against the other division (You play 50% of that division each year)
The locked rivalries are required for the SEC but I don't really like them because you could technically play every team in your conference at least twice (once away and once at home) in a 4 year span.

That'd be good too...if two of those four OOC games were against other P5 teams. But, like @Duckboy33 said, ain't none of 'em willing to give up a home game. The almighty dollar has made up accept more crappy OOC games instead of more good matchups among the P5s. They offer us (and we take it) games from the P5s like Bama vs Weber State instead of Bama vs Utah.

 

[volbound2002]

man tbh.. SEC was better without Arkansas and South Carolina too

If you'd take out Baylor, Arkansas would have been a good fit in the original Big 12 South..

Arkansas and South Carolina have had their moments. Of the two, South Carolina is the weaker link. We should have gotten Clemson instead. However, I don't see the issues with either. Both schools culturally felt like SEC schools even prior to 1992. Texas A&M, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma also feel like (or felt like in the case of Texas A&M) SEC schools all along as well. All of them fit culturally better in the SEC than their current conferences (or in the case of Texas A&M, the Big12).

 

[Deep Creek]

Arkansas and South Carolina have had their moments. Of the two, South Carolina is the weaker link. We should have gotten Clemson instead. However, I don't see the issues with either. Both schools culturally felt like SEC schools even prior to 1992. Texas A&M, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma also feel like (or felt like in the case of Texas A&M) SEC schools all along as well. All of them fit culturally better in the SEC than their current conferences (or in the case of Texas A&M, the Big12).

Just curious, not digging you at all. What is your criteria for "fit culturally better"?

 

[volbound2002]

Just curious, not digging you at all. What is your criteria for "fit culturally better"?

Traditions, Fanbase, football focus, etc.

Clemson fans have a lot more in common with SEC fans for example than Boston College. The ACC/SEC have always been very close in general. Big12 South schools also tend to have a lot in common with the SEC with the exception of Texas who has kind of been an oddball.

 

[Deep Creek]

Traditions, Fanbase, football focus, etc.

Clemson fans have a lot more in common with SEC fans for example than Boston College. The ACC/SEC have always been very close in general. Big12 South schools also tend to have a lot in common with the SEC with the exception of Texas who has kind of been an oddball.

Thanks. I can see that. Sounds like a "football cultural fit" instead of what I was thinking.

I can see that. But that would mean Mizzou, Kentucky and Vandy aren't good cultural fits in the SEC wouldn't it?

I've never been able to figure out exactly where to classify the state of Oklahoma. I don't see them as really Midwest, South or Southwest. What say ye land thieves? What are you guys?