🏈 Nick Saban advocates 10 BCS games per season as a route to 9 SEC games

[BAMANEWSBOT]

A year ago, standing almost on the same spot at Shoal Creek, Alabama coach Nick Saban came out in favor of playing nine Southeastern Conference games football each season.

Almost a year later, that proposal came to a vote. Last week, Saban was the only coach at the SEC spring meetings in Destin who voted in favor of adding one game to the eight-game conference schedule. As LSU coach Les Miles, the vote against the motion was unanimous: 13-1.

This time, as he walked away from meeting with members of the news media and signing a few autographs before teeing off in the Regions Tradition Celebrity Pro-Am, Saban was asked if he ever considered changing his strategy.

If he wants colleagues to vote for nine SEC games, should he propose playing 10?

No, he said. He has a better idea.

“We should all play 10 BCS games,” Saban said. “So if everybody played 10 BCS games, we’d certainly play nine in the conference.”

His rational goes beyond preserving cross-divisional rivalries and boosting strength-of-schedule ratings.

“It’s just an advantage of trying to schedule,” Saban said. “You’d play home-and-home games.”

Saban spoke to reporters last week in Destin about his push for 10 BCS games per season.

Will he make that proposal to his colleagues?

“I have,” he said.

He remains in the clear minority.

 

[planomateo]

Keep on pressing...they'll come around one way or another.

 

[TerryP]

Keep on pressing...they'll come around one way or another.

My suspicion:

This works itself out much like the 25 versus 28 signees per year worked out.

If you recall, last year during the same meetings that just concluded in Destin they voted and approved a move that would limit SEC teams to 28 signees per class. Slive picked up the ball, took it directly to the Presidents—who have the final and deciding vote—and persuaded them to follow what he felt the conference should do: institute a 25 number.

Now, Slive wants to go to a nine game schedule from what I understand. If he feels as strongly about moving to nine games as he did the 25 signee limit we'll see the conference make the move through the Presidents' vote.

---

I wish he'd pick up the scheduling ball and get us past this bridge schedule. The point he's saying it may continue through 2015 makes me wonder where the conference is looking. Or better yet, at whom the conference is looking.

 

[mhardiman]

My suspicion:

This works itself out much like the 25 versus 28 signees per year worked out.

If you recall, last year during the same meetings that just concluded in Destin they voted and approved a move that would limit SEC teams to 28 signees per class. Slive picked up the ball, took it directly to the Presidents—who have the final and deciding vote—and persuaded them to follow what he felt the conference should do: institute a 25 number.

Now, Slive wants to go to a nine game schedule from what I understand. If he feels as strongly about moving to nine games as he did the 25 signee limit we'll see the conference make the move through the Presidents' vote.

---

I wish he'd pick up the scheduling ball and get us past this bridge schedule. The point he's saying it may continue through 2015 makes me wonder where the conference is looking. Or better yet, at whom the conference is looking.

Do you not think the ACC GOR is as Binding as thought, or you think we could go with someone outside the ACC? Would Cincinnati and ECU be a viable option (I know; ECU......, but ECU now is not that much different than South Carolina in 1992), Big XII GOR keeps us from going west too?

 

[TerryP]

Do you not think the ACC GOR is as Binding as thought, or you think we could go with someone outside the ACC? Would Cincinnati and ECU be a viable option (I know; ECU......, but ECU now is not that much different than South Carolina in 1992), Big XII GOR keeps us from going west too?

I really don't know. I know there are some misconceptions out there about GOR's. I've seen some say it goes against anti-trust laws but as I see it in the end there aren't any consumers being hurt. If a school leaves one conference for another is it a logical assumption fans would be hurt because they wouldn't get to see their team being televised? I can't say that's an argument.

Are there escape clauses built in to the GOR as they were drafted? I don't know that as well.

The closest comparison I can think of is when the CFA was in existence and owned these rights. Law suits there failed.

Slive, considering his background and profession, should know.