In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 533
Online now 390 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Disagree 98% percent. The new format is really no different that when they created the 5th BCS bowl as the NC game. The bowls are too lucrative to ever downplay. While I concede that playoffs by their very nature expand (see NCAA Men's BB Tourney and I-AA playoff), neither of those had the existing bowl system juggernaut of I-A football.
It's really all prediction at this point. We have no way of knowing how the populous of college football fans is going to react to the new playoffs. My personal belief is that in 10 years or so you're going to see about 25-50% less bowls as media interest (and therefore advertising money) dries up. And I also think you'll see an expansion of the playoff system to at least 8 teams by that point.
I think BCS schools should have to schedule teams from other BCS conferences to make up their out of conference schedules. This improves the strength of schedule and makes for better games for the fans. I would rather play a Big East team like Cincinnati or Big 10 team like IU or Purdue or ACC team like Duke or Virginia over some of the patsies we see each year.
The downside to that is you will see an even greater concentration of football money to the top schools--that revenue sharing now occurs when you pay the cupcakes to come to your house and take their whipping. (i.e.- I-AA powerhouses like Appalachian State getting $950,000 to play in the Big House). Those games pay for the entire team's annual budget in a lot of cases!
If you cut those games out all together, you will see a lot of smaller schools have to stop playing football in a relatively short time.
Agreed, hence the remaining 2%. I see the CHANCE for what you suggest, but just can't wrap my head around it. Its like the NBA, which obviously has at least 2 teams too many, but now that we have them, they aren't going away. Same for the bowls...we've got 'em, they're here to stay.
The Big10/Pac 12 agreement was scrapped last week do to scheduling difficulties. To many obstacles with all of their sports teams.
and where does that put UK when UofL wins against UK?
Good catch, I remember seeing that now. Still is the right idea. I think it was perhaps just too much of a hike for them travel-wise. They should have scheduled that with a closer conference.
My point exactly. We have nothing to gain from beating a .500 team from a sh1t conference. The are and always will be little brother. We could beat them 4 years in a row, for instance, and then one loss and they are the greatest thing since sliced freaking bread.
We are an SEC school--we are SUPPOSED to beat a Little East team, so when we don't we look infinitely worse. There is no point in a "rivalry" game where only one team looks good if they win. Michigan and Central Michigan isn't a rivalry, because Michigan is supposed to win every time (I admit thats a bit of a stretch, we aren't Michigan, but I want to make my point). As an SEC school, we gain nothing by playing Louisville.
It does NOTHING for UK. It was hoped that the series would help the prep instate talent. It hasn't.
I think it should be 6-1-2 scenario... Where the bottom SEC team would play the bottom 2 SEC divisional finisher from the year prior, the middle SEC finisher would play the 2 middle divisional finisher and so on....
Either we do the 9 with some sort of weighted back end or UK will be relegated to being the Homecoming doormat SEC game forever.
This post was edited by Kooky Kats 247 21 months ago
I'm ticked I can't click up-vote more than once on this post, so I'll quote it instead.
If weighted scheduling similar to what you describe is good enough for the NFL, why isn't it good enough for NFL Jr.???
Yea, that really hurt AL last year losing at home to LSU, didn't it? I.e., how does losing to a tough team hurt you? Answer: It doesn't. Net, it's a false wringing of hands.
This post was edited by vhcat1970 21 months ago
But again, are you cool with UK rarely winning 7-8 games in that scenario? Because that's the reality of what will happen most of the time. When you're a program like Kentucky you simply can't schedule that way, at least not if you have any realistic chance to have upward mobility.
Given that logic SEC teams should be some of the last schools that need to add tougher out of conference matchups, simply because of just how tough the in conference schedule is. There's a reason we play the patsies we do OOC.
I agree with Joker if that it comes to a vote for 9 games, you have to protect your program and until we gain depth the physical health of our players. I also think that before we talk about adding anything to our OOC we need to work on winning in conference first. Just look at how many games we've dropped late in the season that we shouldn't have because of some very unfortunate injuries and guys who just can't carry that kind of load from season beginning to end. Start adding weight to the OOC and you'll be luck to make it through half of the SEC schedule with the lack of depth we routinely possess.
The counterpoint to this is that if forced to drop an OoC gimmee and replace it with an additional SEC team then there is a real chance that the loss will come to an SEC team that isn't as good as LSU was last year. In a league (including the SEC), there are lots of times when a higher rated team is beaten by a lower rated team.
I don't want any part of a 9 game SEC schedule but the weighted idea would be the way to go IF/WHEN it happens.
I would have zero problem with dropping UL or putting them on a rotation where we play them every other year.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports