iDBrown
- 9 comments
- 0 likes given
- 3 likes received
Bio not provided
Count me in as one who finds it hard to believe that the Newtons only asked one school for money. If you read the testimony, from Cecil Newton himself, he acknowledged offering Dan Mullen essentially a reduced rate for his son's LOI. To offer a reduced rate, there had to be a rate. I don't have any proof, but I think Cam was paid.
Eight SEC games is enough. There are teams in the conference that have to play 4-5 perennial top 10 teams a year, and that's tough enough. It's tougher than anything any other conference champion has to deal with. If the league is looking for marquee OOC games, it's really simple. Have the SECE teams schedule ACC opponents and the SECW scheduled Big12 opponents. GA-GaTech, UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, UT-NC/VT, UK-Louisville, Missouri-Kansas (exception), Vandy-Wake Forest ... TAMU-Texas, Arkansas-Oklahoma, Alabama-WVU, Auburn-KSU, MSU-KSU, UM-TCU/TT, LSU-OSU
@Roggespierre I just think the SEC will look for another way to increase the quality other than unbalancing an already tough schedule. That is why I think the conference tie is more likely to happen.
@local37220 I like the way you're thinking on that. I'd take UT-VT and UK already has a pairing with Louisville who's coming to the ACC, so that side works. In the SECW, I would think these matchups could work:
TAMU-Texas
LSU-WVU
Arkansas-Oklahoma/TCU (rotating)
Missouri-Kansas
Mississippi State-Kansas State/Iowa State (rotating)
Alabama-Oklahoma
Auburn-Oklahoma State
Ole Miss-Texas Tech/Baylor (rotating)
I just don't see the SEC going to an odd number of league games. I really don't see the ADs okaying 4 home conference games and 5 road conference games. The TV dollars are huge, but the one home game variance is very significant from a budget perspective. I can see the conference forming an alliance with another conference to add another game. There are already rivalry games being played against the ACC schools, so I think that's where that might happen easier than with other conferences simply because you are not going to convince UGA, UF, and South Carolina to play another BCS game outside of their existing rivalries. Georgia-GT, Florida-FSU, Vandy-Wake, and South Carolina-Clemson are already in place. There are some other interesting potential match-ups: Tennessee-VaTech or Tennessee-UNC. If you can get Notre Dame in that rotation, that would be a bigger boon than any additional conference game.
This is what you wrote about Mississippi State last week, "In four days we’re going to get a much better feel for just how good Dan Mullen’s team is. Tennessee is hardly a title contender, but if you flip-flopped the Vols’ schedule with the Bulldogs’, it’s likely UT would be 5-0 and MSU would be 3-2. State’s confidence is up — as it should be — after the program’s first 5-0 start since 1999, but is this team for real or just a product of an easy schedule and a great turnover margin? We’ll start to get some more answers this weekend. Finally." ..
Now, you are saying that playing Tennessee did not matter. That's pretty shoddy on your part.
What has Ole Miss done to garner all the positive press. They did not lose to UCA (not UCLA, but Central Arkansas), they did not lose to UTEP, they did not get destroyed by Alabama, Texas A&M drove the ball 100 yards on them in three plays, and they may beat Auburn. That's low standards for you. So what if they play hard. Everyone else does. Stop it with the praise of Ole Miss for not sucking as bad as we thought they would.
No, I don't want more conference games. 8 SEC games is fine and balanced. It works. I have not seen a compelling case to expand to 9 games, yet. When a team like Mississippi State has to on an annual basis play LSU and Alabama, arguably the top 2 programs in the country, I have no issue with them playing a soft non-conference schedule. Over the last 5 years, State has played something like 26 ranked opponents. I don't see a need for a tougher schedule.
The players and fans enjoy bowl games. Leave it alone. This is the kind of stuff that widens the gap between the haves and have nots in college football. Two extra weeks of practice for a bowl game helps teams develop their players. Going to a bowl game helps with recruiting. Both of those things makes more competitive teams. College football seems hell bent on making its product more and more exclusive and that will ultimately damage a product that's accessible to so many students and fans. For people who do not like 6-6 teams in bowls or find those games boring, just don't watch them. Don't reduce opportunities for players and fans just to do so.