Vince Dooley discusses UGA/UT schedule change

GAVol

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
95,902
Likes
22,275
I am for a 9 game SEC schedule because the UTAD has abused fans with soft OOC schedules for way too many years. I have a zero confidence they would play a more competitive schedule without being forced to.
Seriously? Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Oregon, Va Tech, West Virginia, Ga Tech, NC State, Cal, UCLA etc, have all been on the schedule in the past 10-15 years. Not sure what else they're supposed to do.
 

ButchPlz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
4,537
Likes
5,485
The idea to eliminate divisions (like we did in basketball) still seems like the best idea to me. 8 games, 3 permanent rivals (ours probably end up being Bama, Kentucky, and Vandy), and then 5 rotating opponents that we play every other year. Works out so that we play every SEC team every 2 years and get a home game versus everyone every 4 years.

In the current ridiculous system, we can go 12 years without a home game against some SEC opponents.
Best solution.
 

onevol74

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
8,058
Likes
3,508
Seriously? Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Oregon, Va Tech, West Virginia, Ga Tech, NC State, Cal, UCLA etc, have all been on the schedule in the past 10-15 years. Not sure what else they're supposed to do.
Yes, seriously.
Ohio, Buffalo, ETSU, South Alabama, UTEP, Charolette, Indiana State, UMass, Appy State, Western Carolina, Arkansas State, Chattanooga. All in the last 4 years.
 

99gator

Congressman
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
12,940
Likes
7,986
Yes, seriously.
Ohio, Buffalo, ETSU, South Alabama, UTEP, Charolette, Indiana State, UMass, Appy State, Western Carolina, Arkansas State, Chattanooga. All in the last 4 years.
Standard schedule for most everybody is conference opponents+ 1 legit OOC opponent + cupcakes.

There is the rare season where someone has 2 legit OOC opponents, but again it's rare.

Florida happens to be doing that this season.

But, when you are in the SEC, one legit OOC opponent is enough.

Think of what Tennessee has to do to win a title under normal circumstances. Beat the legit OOC team. Beat Bama. Beat Georgia. Beat Florida. Win the SEC title game. Win 2 playoff games.

That's enough land mines on the schedule.
 

99gator

Congressman
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
12,940
Likes
7,986
These are some of the regular opponents and their win ranking nationally. One ranking is based on win totals in the ESPN era. One ranking is based on since Nick Saban has been at Alabama.

In the ESPN era (since 1980)

Florida is 6th, Georgia 7th, Alabama 9th, Auburn 13th, Tennessee 16th and LSU 18th in wins.

In the Saban era (since 2007)

Alabama is 1st, LSU 8th (tie), Georgia 8th (tie), Florida 18th, Auburn 24th, Tennessee 65th.

Depending on how you want to look at it, the SEC EAST teams face the following yearly....

Tennessee plays #1, #8, and #18 yearly or #6, #7 and #9

Georgia plays #18, #24, and #65 or #6, #13, and #16.

Florida plays #8, #8, and #65 or #7, #16, and #18.
 

DeerPark12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
5,340
Likes
3,892
Confused as to how this would eliminate 7 TV games from the schedule. There would be the name number of games. They would just be better games.
No. Allow me to walk you through the very simple math.

Let's take a week from 2018 where everyone played an OOC game and call it "Week 9," as in what would be the proposed 9th conference game. Playing 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games, the schedule looked like this:

Northwestern State vs. Texas A&M
Louisville vs. Alabama
Austin Peay vs. Georgia
Washington vs. Auburn
West Virginia vs. Tennessee
Stephen F. Austin vs. Mississippi State
Coastal Carolina vs. South Carolina
Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech
Central Michigan vs. Kentucky
UT Martin vs. Missouri
Eastern Illinois vs. Arkansas
Charleston Southern vs. Florida
Middle Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt
Miami vs. LSU

That is 14 games, all 14 teams playing a non-conference team.

Now, eliminate all the non-conference teams and your schedule for "Week 9" looks like this:
Alabama vs. Georgia
Texas A&M vs. Tennessee
Auburn vs. South Carolina
Mississippi State vs. Missouri
Arkansas vs. Kentucky
Ole Miss vs. Florida
LSU vs Vandy

That makes 7 games in a week that would have had 14 games. Hence, 7 fewer games for ESPN to sell ads for in their SEC package deals.

You can certainly argue that those 7 games make for a far more attractive "Week 9" than the one above. But if you're ESPN and your revenue is based on quantity as much as it is quality, then you can see the problem. Having a slightly more competitive package does not offset the revenue lost by having 28 fewer hours of programming to sell.

We can debate it all you would like, but this exact scenerio was laid out in the ADs meeting in Destin three years ago and a 9-game schedule vote was 14-0 against.
 

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
19,231
Likes
8,129
No. Allow me to walk you through the very simple math.

Let's take a week from 2018 where everyone played an OOC game and call it "Week 9," as in what would be the proposed 9th conference game. Playing 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games, the schedule looked like this:

Northwestern State vs. Texas A&M
Louisville vs. Alabama
Austin Peay vs. Georgia
Washington vs. Auburn
West Virginia vs. Tennessee
Stephen F. Austin vs. Mississippi State
Coastal Carolina vs. South Carolina
Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech
Central Michigan vs. Kentucky
UT Martin vs. Missouri
Eastern Illinois vs. Arkansas
Charleston Southern vs. Florida
Middle Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt
Miami vs. LSU

That is 14 games, all 14 teams playing a non-conference team.

Now, eliminate all the non-conference teams and your schedule for "Week 9" looks like this:
Alabama vs. Georgia
Texas A&M vs. Tennessee
Auburn vs. South Carolina
Mississippi State vs. Missouri
Arkansas vs. Kentucky
Ole Miss vs. Florida
LSU vs Vandy

That makes 7 games in a week that would have had 14 games. Hence, 7 fewer games for ESPN to sell ads for in their SEC package deals.

You can certainly argue that those 7 games make for a far more attractive "Week 9" than the one above. But if you're ESPN and your revenue is based on quantity as much as it is quality, then you can see the problem. Having a slightly more competitive package does not offset the revenue lost by having 28 fewer hours of programming to sell.

We can debate it all you would like, but this exact scenerio was laid out in the ADs meeting in Destin three years ago and a 9-game schedule vote was 14-0 against.
ESPN wouldn't lose 28 hours of true programming since some of those canon fodder games are played at the same time. The ad price for the SECN alternate channel is quite low.
 

DeerPark12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
5,340
Likes
3,892
ESPN wouldn't lose 28 hours of true programming since some of those canon fodder games are played at the same time. The ad price for the SECN alternate channel is quite low.
Yeah, actually it's not. The way that ESPN sells the SEC Network season-long package means that approximately 75% of the national ad inventory is sold in up-front season packages, which are based on total number of games. That number includes the alternate games.

I'm sure if you called up Comcast and wanted to buy a local ad on a broadcast on the alternate channel, you could get it pretty cheap. But that's not how ESPN looks at them or sells them.
 

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
19,231
Likes
8,129
Yeah, actually it's not. The way that ESPN sells the SEC Network season-long package means that approximately 75% of the national ad inventory is sold in up-front season packages, which are based on total number of games. That number includes the alternate games.

I'm sure if you called up Comcast and wanted to buy a local ad on a broadcast on the alternate channel, you could get it pretty cheap. But that's not how ESPN looks at them or sells them.
Again, your point about the total number of games is fine. But you're leaving out the fact that sales are also based on the amount of time. Stacking games into the same time slots as other games (and necessitating the use of the temporary alternate channel) reduces the value of each individual quarter hour. This is oversimplifying it a bit, but three games that are on without competition are more often valuable than five games that overlap.
 

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
19,231
Likes
8,129
We can debate it all you would like, but this exact scenerio was laid out in the ADs meeting in Destin three years ago and a 9-game schedule vote was 14-0 against.
This is not accurate. It wasn't voted down 14-0. It wasn't voted on at all. Alabama moved for the vote, and didn't receive a second. Hence, no vote.

It would be more accurate to say that was 13-1 against.
 

Tin Man

Dirt's Childhood Playmate
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
13,689
Likes
5,483
The idea to eliminate divisions (like we did in basketball) still seems like the best idea to me. 8 games, 3 permanent rivals (ours probably end up being Bama, Kentucky, and Vandy), and then 5 rotating opponents that we play every other year. Works out so that we play every SEC team every 2 years and get a home game versus everyone every 4 years.
Eliminating divisions need not result in the elimination of the SECCG. One may devise a formula to place the two top teams in the CCG. This has traction.
 

Tin Man

Dirt's Childhood Playmate
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
13,689
Likes
5,483
Will introducing divisional realignment based upon geography derail this thread for a few posts/pages?

Only two teams would swap - Mizzou would go west and Auburn would come east. At 92.3341° W, Mizzou belongs in the west. They're north of Arkansas for goodness sake. There are three schools closely clustered longitudinally - At 87.5692° W, Bama would stay in the west. At 86.7816° W, Vandy stays in the east. At 85.4808° W, Auburn would move to the east. This would frag the annual cross-division rivalry games. Bama would have both Auburn and Tennessee. Can't have two, and the Alabama legislature would demand that Auburn and Bama play each other every year. Tennessee would be the odd one out... Kinda supports @DiderotsGhost's proposal of no divisions and a 3+5.
 

bamawriter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
19,231
Likes
8,129
The idea to eliminate divisions (like we did in basketball) still seems like the best idea to me. 8 games, 3 permanent rivals (ours probably end up being Bama, Kentucky, and Vandy), and then 5 rotating opponents that we play every other year. Works out so that we play every SEC team every 2 years and get a home game versus everyone every 4 years.
This has been my preference since we added A&M and Mizzou (assuming the SEC doesn't add any more schools).

My thoughts on the permanent rivals:

Alabama - Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas - Texas A&M, Missouri, LSU
Auburn - Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Florida - Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn
Georgia - Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
Kentucky - Mississippi St, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
LSU - Arkansas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss
Mississippi St - Ole Miss, Kentucky, Alabama
Missouri - South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas A&M
Ole Miss - LSU, Vanderbilt, Mississippi St
South Carolina - Kentucky, Georgia, Missouri
Tennessee - Vanderbilt, Alabama, Florida
Texas A&M - Missouri, LSU, Arkansas
Vanderbilt - Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kentucky
 

onevol74

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
8,058
Likes
3,508
No. Allow me to walk you through the very simple math.

Let's take a week from 2018 where everyone played an OOC game and call it "Week 9," as in what would be the proposed 9th conference game. Playing 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games, the schedule looked like this:

Northwestern State vs. Texas A&M
Louisville vs. Alabama
Austin Peay vs. Georgia
Washington vs. Auburn
West Virginia vs. Tennessee
Stephen F. Austin vs. Mississippi State
Coastal Carolina vs. South Carolina
Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech
Central Michigan vs. Kentucky
UT Martin vs. Missouri
Eastern Illinois vs. Arkansas
Charleston Southern vs. Florida
Middle Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt
Miami vs. LSU

That is 14 games, all 14 teams playing a non-conference team.

Now, eliminate all the non-conference teams and your schedule for "Week 9" looks like this:
Alabama vs. Georgia
Texas A&M vs. Tennessee
Auburn vs. South Carolina
Mississippi State vs. Missouri
Arkansas vs. Kentucky
Ole Miss vs. Florida
LSU vs Vandy

That makes 7 games in a week that would have had 14 games. Hence, 7 fewer games for ESPN to sell ads for in their SEC package deals.

You can certainly argue that those 7 games make for a far more attractive "Week 9" than the one above. But if you're ESPN and your revenue is based on quantity as much as it is quality, then you can see the problem. Having a slightly more competitive package does not offset the revenue lost by having 28 fewer hours of programming to sell.

We can debate it all you would like, but this exact scenerio was laid out in the ADs meeting in Destin three years ago and a 9-game schedule vote was 14-0 against.
Can you supply the ratings for those games to justify your position? Have to wonder how many people actually watched Eastern Illinois at Arkansas or UT Martin at Mizzou. Even Stephen F. Austin at Miss State? I am sure those advertisers were really excited about the great ratings for those games. I am a football junkie and probably would have not been able to tell you those games were on that weekend.
 

SayNoToJorts

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
1,024
Likes
1,785
No. Allow me to walk you through the very simple math.

Let's take a week from 2018 where everyone played an OOC game and call it "Week 9," as in what would be the proposed 9th conference game. Playing 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games, the schedule looked like this:

Northwestern State vs. Texas A&M
Louisville vs. Alabama
Austin Peay vs. Georgia
Washington vs. Auburn
West Virginia vs. Tennessee
Stephen F. Austin vs. Mississippi State
Coastal Carolina vs. South Carolina
Ole Miss vs. Texas Tech
Central Michigan vs. Kentucky
UT Martin vs. Missouri
Eastern Illinois vs. Arkansas
Charleston Southern vs. Florida
Middle Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt
Miami vs. LSU

That is 14 games, all 14 teams playing a non-conference team.

Now, eliminate all the non-conference teams and your schedule for "Week 9" looks like this:
Alabama vs. Georgia
Texas A&M vs. Tennessee
Auburn vs. South Carolina
Mississippi State vs. Missouri
Arkansas vs. Kentucky
Ole Miss vs. Florida
LSU vs Vandy

That makes 7 games in a week that would have had 14 games. Hence, 7 fewer games for ESPN to sell ads for in their SEC package deals.

You can certainly argue that those 7 games make for a far more attractive "Week 9" than the one above. But if you're ESPN and your revenue is based on quantity as much as it is quality, then you can see the problem. Having a slightly more competitive package does not offset the revenue lost by having 28 fewer hours of programming to sell.

We can debate it all you would like, but this exact scenerio was laid out in the ADs meeting in Destin three years ago and a 9-game schedule vote was 14-0 against.
I was viewing it from the perspective of each SEC team having the same number of televised games as opposed to total number of SEC games. I'd be interested to know if the loss in viewership from a North Texas or Coastal Carolina fan base would not be more than replaced by a larger national audience tuning in to view a marquee SEC match up.
 

DeerPark12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
5,340
Likes
3,892
This is not accurate. It wasn't voted down 14-0. It wasn't voted on at all. Alabama moved for the vote, and didn't receive a second. Hence, no vote.

It would be more accurate to say that was 13-1 against.
Alabama moved, ESPN made a presentation, and it was voted against by the ADs. Didn't make the list of votes that was released to the media because of optics, but it 100% happened. I know three people that were in the room. After ESPN's presentation on their thoughts on the 9-game schedule, even Alabama's position changed, albeit over Saban's strong objection.
 

DeerPark12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
5,340
Likes
3,892
Can you supply the ratings for those games to justify your position? Have to wonder how many people actually watched Eastern Illinois at Arkansas or UT Martin at Mizzou. Even Stephen F. Austin at Miss State? I am sure those advertisers were really excited about the great ratings for those games. I am a football junkie and probably would have not been able to tell you those games were on that weekend.
The ratings for the individual games are irrelevant to the discussion. ESPN sells a package for the SEC Network that covers X number of games total. Any reduction of X results in a lower amount they can charge for the total package.

ESPN doesn't subscribe to Nielsen for the SEC Network or ESPNU, so there's not a way to give you an exact audience number because they aren't metered. Part of the reason they don't pay the millions for Nielsen number is becasue of the way they sell, by season package rather than by individual game or time. They do the same thing for men's and women's basketball.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top