🏈 SEC to 9 football games? Key decision-makers have hardened, flexible & evolving feelings.

[RTB X Bot]

ATLANTA -- "The Phantom Menace" is how Mississippi State Athletics Director Scott Stricklin jokingly refers to the recurring question of whether the SEC should go to nine conference football games.

"We keep voting for eight," Stricklin said, "and nine keeps coming up."

In many ways, the nine-game talk never went away. It's front and center again because the Big Ten switched to nine games, the SEC Network is official, and SEC Commissioner Mike Slive has pushed again for the nine-game discussion while saying he's keeping an open mind.

SEC coaches have weighed in with their thoughts. But although coaches are a crucial voice, it's ultimately up to SEC athletics directors and presidents and chancellors.

Interviews with some key decision-makers this week reflect hardened, flexible and evolving feelings by SEC members about eight vs. nine games. Potentially at stake for the SEC:

Read More Here...

 

[psychojoe]

I have been in favor of nine conference games for a while now, and it makes even more sense with a 14 team conference.

Glad to see Battle is all in favor of it.

 

[TheChief]

How about nine games and no SEC Championship game? When the format goes to four teams in the playoff in 2014, the SEC Championship game could cost the conference in the 100's of millions of dollars should the wrong team win. I wonder if anyone has thought of that.

 

[rammerjammer]

How about nine games and no SEC Championship game? When the format goes to four teams in the playoff in 2014, the SEC Championship game could cost the conference in the 100's of millions of dollars should the wrong team win. I wonder if anyone has thought of that.

I see your point, but in the 21 years of the SECCG, I can only think of one time that the wrong team won. That was 94 when Florida won and shot down any chance of us playing for the MNC. I can't think of any others where there were any true upsets in the SEC.

 

[psychojoe]

I see your point, but in the 21 years of the SECCG, I can only think of one time that the wrong team won. That was 94 when Florida won and shot down any chance of us playing for the MNC. I can't think of any others where there were any true upsets in the SEC.

94 was a bummer. Going into the SECCG we were #3 behind Penn State and Nebraska. I remember thinking when we lost that we probably were locked out of the NC game anyway, and consoling myself that way. That was quite a game.

 

[TerryP]

How about nine games and no SEC Championship game? When the format goes to four teams in the playoff in 2014, the SEC Championship game could cost the conference in the 100's of millions of dollars should the wrong team win. I wonder if anyone has thought of that.

A wee bit of an exaggeration there Chief.

A few things to consider.

I don't know what the payout for the SECCG was this past year, but I recall it was just a tad under 15.5MM for the game Dec. of 2011. By payout, I'm referring to how much money that game brought into the SEC coffers.

They've not formally announced how the money is going to be split from the playoff, but you can be assured we'll still get our share as a conference. Heck, the smaller conferences that aren't part of the "big five" are going to get paid.

While it's true a loss in the SECCG could knock a team out of the playoff, it's also true that a win could also propel a team into the playoffs.

If a team is ranked #1 going into the SECCG and loses there's still a good chance they'd make the top four as it stands. If you recall, we were ranked #1 in 2008 and the loss to UF landed us at #4 going into the bowl season.

 

[252BAMA]

Certainly happy to see Battle's comment on 1AA games. My ideal schedule is nine conference games, one Top 40 1A, one Middle 40 1A, one Bottom 40 1A. NO 1AA! ZILCH! NONE!

 

[TheChief]

Terry, time will tell how much money the championship series is worth. My intuition tells me it may be more than most think. I'd hate to see the SEC find itself on the short end of the stick. My best friend always says, "The SEC Championship game, you know the game for the national championship..." I see it the same way. I think it has the possibility of hindering the best team or teams in the nation as well.

 

[TerryP]

Terry, time will tell how much money the championship series is worth. My intuition tells me it may be more than most think. I'd hate to see the SEC find itself on the short end of the stick. My best friend always says, "The SEC Championship game, you know the game for the national championship..." I see it the same way. I think it has the possibility of hindering the best team or teams in the nation as well.

It's all going to boil down to how it is split.

There are some estimates out there right now. As example, it's been speculated the three games are going to bring in a little under 480MM. The thing is, almost half of that money is already accounted for—80MM a piece for the Big12/SEC and PAC/BIG games in the Sugar and Rose respectively. The other "at-large" spot could go to a B1G, SEC, or Notre Dame team and that Orange Bowl is going to have a payout of 60MM.

So, right off the bat—with the assumption it's an even split between the Big12 and SEC for the Sugar—the conference is looking at roughly an 45MM bump just off of one bowl game. (Based on 2013 bowl payouts of 17MM a piece.) On the years where we land a team in the Orange (again, using this past bowl seasons payouts) there's another 13MM more in the monies received.

The comment about losing 100's of millions is what I was having a little fun with Chief.

Using what information we have today, if we only put one team in the playoff (it would be the Sugar) it's still a jump of over 25MM.

Bottom line, as I see it today, we aren't going to be losing money as a conference if a team gets knocked out of the playoffs by a loss in the SECCG.

A thing to keep in mind here as well is if we did see a team get bumped out of the top four they'd still be playing in one of the six remaining slots for the (currently termed) "access bowls."

And, that's not even mentioning the SECN.

As arrogant as it sounded Slive's recent comment did hold a big degree of truth; "We'll be picking money off of trees."

On a slightly different note, I looked over the BCS era several months ago and if my memory serves me correctly there was only three years where the SEC would be on the outside looking in. More often than not the question is likely to be "do we get that second team in?" And, if the past is any indicator of the future, more often than not we will.

2010 would have only seen one. 2009 would have been an argument year with a fight over whether an undefeated Cincy or TCU team should have been in over a one loss UF team. 2008 would have been two...

 

[TerryP]

Adding one thing...I can see where a nine game conference schedule might bump a team or two out of the bowl picture...but then again, I've got some issues with six wins making a team bowl eligible in a 12 game regular season.

 

[252BAMA]

Adding one thing...I can see where a nine game conference schedule might bump a team or two out of the bowl picture...but then again, I've got some issues with six wins making a team bowl eligible in a 12 game regular season.

Six win teams do not belong in Bowls. And the SEC does not need the relatively small amount of revenue that those kind of Bowls add to the Bowl payout.

 

[TerryP]

The city of Birmingham could claim having something related to college football actually making money this past bowl season. :icon_twisted: