Author Topic: Conference Chaos/Rumblings... (Read 145691 times)

ArkGuy · « **Reply #275 on:** October 17, 2011, 12:49:56 AM »

I'm pretty sure we play them here in 2014.

As far as adding a non-conference home and home, and therefore giving up 100% of the home revenue every two years, just to avoid paying a New Mexico State $850,000 -- that just makes no financial sense to me.

Scenario A: Play A "Big Name" home & Home
Year 1: Sell out and keep 100% of gate
Year 2: Get zilch, zero, nada

Scenario B: Play Rent-a-Win Twice
Year 1: 100% gate minus $850,000 guarantee
Year 2: 100% gate minus $850,000 guarantee

It's worth paying the $1.7 MM to get an extra home game every two years.

Now, the gap is narrowed some by selling every ticket in "A," whereas in "B" the game doesn't quite sellout. Plus, you could charge more for Wisconsin, e.g., than a rent a win game. But, there would still be a big gap.

And as noted, we don't need any more tough games. Winning 9 or 10 with the schedule we have gets us a great bowl, even BCS sometimes. I haven't heard one single talking head talking about our strength of schedule this season. Last year either.

HOGGLY WOGGLY · « **Reply #276 on:** October 17, 2011, 01:21:09 AM »

Watching the OU/Kansas game replay right now and I hardly ever watch any Big12 11 10 9 8 football, but I think we will be ok playing OU early in the schedule. Jesus Christ they play some boring ass football in the "Big whatever".

chittlins · « **Reply #277 on:** October 17, 2011, 07:25:31 AM »

We had a home and home against Texas. In BMFP's first year we got shit stomped and we asked for a delay in the return game. That's still out there and I want that gamed played. Hindsight tells us we should have played it last season, this season or next but we are not. I could care less if we never schedule them again but do not skip out on a game that's already agreed upon with Texas.

hogggdadi · « **Reply #278 on:** October 17, 2011, 08:02:03 AM »

I think the unknown in this is what the SEC schedule is going to be like. We are dropping aTm off of non conference so are we going to be adding an extra game in conference? If not, it has potential to make our schedule weaker, (hypothetically). I just do not like cupcakes. it's like a preseason game, whenever it falls, early or late. One thing I've noticed about the LSU hype is they keep talking about all the good teams they played. Granted, there's no crystal ball that tells you they are guaranteed to win them, but their strength of schedule is one of the reasons they are ranked over bammer & OU. I agree, I wouldn't want to play real good teams early, but I would still like to see one good OOC opponent. I would also like to point out, staying up in the polls however it's done only helps recruiting. if the kids are told every week of the football season that LSU is #1 & they lose it the last 2 weeks, you can bet it keeps the interest of kids wanting to play for a winner, because they are always being talked about nationally.

The other question I would ponder is what is the TV revenue like for a high profile game vs a new mexico? Does that all go to the SEC & get distributed equally, or does each university get to keep it's OOC TV revenue? That's where the money is anyway.

I for one want us to play Texass after BMFP has had a chance to get his house in shape. I don't think we should fear any team. His house is ready for a party. bring the company in. I say renew the USC-w game too.

DirkPiggler · « **Reply #279 on:** October 17, 2011, 08:41:37 AM »

I kind of like the idea of playing Oklahoma early in the season every year. We can get those thumbless fucks out of the national championship discussion right off the bat most of the time. No way a one loss team out of that abortion of a conference ever gets a chance to play for anything meaningful.

Razordoc · « **Reply #280 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:08:16 AM »

Dirk, I like your optimism, but I'm not so sure. I think as long as they are in any semblance of an AQ conference, particularly one with tejas, they will continue to get excellent recruits, and continue to be a force to be reckoned with. Case in point, DBG, or DGB, whichever it is. Like everyone else, I sure as starkville hope we get him, but would not be surprised one iota to see him go to oklahomo, with Broyles leaving and all.

I think it's time to take a hard look at the JFB dogma of not playing instate schools. Playing ASU and UCA would fill the stadium, create a lot of interest, and we would skull-frick them every year. Even when they might beat us every 18th solar eclipse, I just don't buy the theory that it effects our instate recruiting. If a kid is good enough to play in the SEC and wants to stay instate, he's not going Sun Belt or Southland.

APhiOHog · « **Reply #281 on:** October 17, 2011, 09:24:55 AM »

Bingo. I would much rather play Howlin-and-Shit U than some nothing team from southern Missour-ah or some garbage program that's gone 0-135 in the WAC over the last umpteen seasons. And you know stAte would be "up" for it, which *might* make it a bit more competitive and force us to play at a little bit higher level. Better warm-up, (also, I'm not allowed within like 50 yards of any school).

The Cowboy Tiger · « **Reply #282 on:** October 17, 2011, 06:18:08 PM »

Turd F. · « **Reply #283 on:** October 17, 2011, 10:03:42 PM »

This happened:
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/17/report-big-east-members-unanimously-vote-to-raise-exit-fees/

Doesn't mean WVU and Louisville wouldn't jump to the Big 12 anyway, but it will now cost them $10 million instead of $5 million. I still don't think that's much of a barrier. The story also stated that their reports that Houston has already been extended an invite into the Big East. If they can get Boise, SMU, Houston, and the service academies, I could see WVU and Louisville sticking around.

Oh, and Mizzou joining the SEC is now thought to be imminent:
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/17/report-mizzous-sec-application-inevitable-and-imminent/

hogggdadi · « **Reply #284 on:** October 18, 2011, 12:31:14 PM »

I don't have a link, but it is rumored that Jeff Long complained some yesterday to the TD club that 13 teams was a real nightmare & there will be a 14th team real soon. carry on.

Hogtired · « **Reply #285 on:** October 18, 2011, 01:00:45 PM »

Missouri

They don't bring anything to the table. I keep hearing about the KC and STL TV markets which are professional football cities. KC is a KU market and not a UM market and STL is a baseball town.

I am in hot pursuit of a screen door to slam.

Tusk till Dawn · « **Reply #286 on:** October 18, 2011, 02:41:08 PM »

Quote from: Hogtired on October 18, 2011, 01:00:45 PM

Missouri

They don't bring anything to the table. I keep hearing about the KC and STL TV markets which are professional football cities. KC is a KU market and not a UM market and STL is a baseball town.

I am in hot pursuit of a screen door to slam.

WTF do you want them to bring to the table? A stripper covered in sushi?

The SEC will still be the strongest football conference in America, period. We'll have another team (hopefully in the West) that we can mark a W next to each year. Not to mention a great geographical rivalry happening in my backyard.. If you're worried that Mizzou will weaken our strength of schedule to the point it'll hurt our BCS numbers you're barking up the wrong tree. Go tell that to Louisiana-Lafayette and New Mexico.

Think of the grandness of the ass beatings we could lay on the basketball Tigers, and the resulting anguish and sorrow of their fandom with their over-inflated visions of self worth. It'll be awesome. Trust me.

Side note for the keepers of the flame: Where did my avatar go?

HogofWar · « **Reply #287 on:** October 18, 2011, 04:22:06 PM »

Quote from: Tusk till Dawn on October 18, 2011, 02:41:08 PM

WTF do you want them to bring to the table? A stripper covered in sushi?
The SEC will still be the strongest football conference in America, period. We'll have another team (hopefully in the West) that we can mark a W next to each year. Not to mention a great geographical rivalry happening in my backyard.. If you're worried that Mizzou will weaken our strength of schedule to the point it'll hurt our BCS numbers you're barking up the wrong tree. Go tell that to Louisiana-Lafayette and New Mexico.

Think of the grandness of the ass beatings we could lay on the basketball Tigers, and the resulting anguish and sorrow of their fandom with their over-inflated visions of self worth. It'll be awesome. Trust me.

Side note for the keepers of the flame: Where did my avatar go?

I see nothing wrong with that. What kind of sushi anyway? If it is just California rolls, then meh. If it is Sashimi and we can dip her nipples into sake afterward, then

Nick Ahpleeze · « **Reply #288 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:07:26 PM »

Would someone explain why Oklahoma is not being pursued . Does T.Boone Pickens as a OKST alum somehow have power over OU? I saw him on tv saying NO NO OU- OkSt is a package deal" ...Really? OU can't function on their own? The TV markets I could care less about . Most SEC games are nationally televised anyway. If Slive has the power to pull any team he wants he should tell OU .."we want you not OKs"."Pack your bags now".

Kill The Ref · « **Reply #289 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Nick Ahpleeze on October 18, 2011, 08:07:26 PM

Would someone explain why Oklahoma is not being pursued .

Simple...With the 2 Mississippi schools we have our full allotment of trailer trash.

hogs45 · « **Reply #290 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:25:04 PM »

Quote from: big_pale on October 08, 2011, 08:49:26 AM

Mizzou will join the west and both Bama schools will go east in exchange for Vandy, flipping the current balance of power from the west to the east.

I actually don't mind this scenario. I think it's important that current annual rivalries remain intact (Golden Boot, Iron Bowl, Egg Bowl). Moving Allbarn and Bammer to the East is not a stretch, and guarantees the annual Iron Bowl. Missouri and A&M can invent some new Dust Bowl trophy or something (piss on the both--I don't want either one of them). Plus, in a year like this year, we'd still have a chance to win out and go to the SEC championship game (which will be difficult under the best of circumstances this year).

All other things being equal, I'd rather have Clemson in the East and not Missouri.

Sus-Scrofa · « **Reply #291 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:30:49 PM »

So is Va Tech just not an option? It's the obvious choice. I mean come on, if any state should have a school in the SEC it's Virginia.

Hogtired · « **Reply #292 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:36:46 PM »

Quote from: Tusk till Dawn on October 18, 2011, 02:41:08 PM

The SEC will still be the strongest football conference in America, period. We'll have another team (hopefully in the West) that we can mark a W next to each year. Not to mention a great geographical rivalry happening in my backyard.. If you're worried that Mizzou will weaken our strength of schedule to the point it'll hurt our BCS numbers you're barking up the wrong tree. Go tell that to Louisiana-Lafayette and New Mexico.

When you dilute alcohol all you get is a weaker drink. We all talk about how great the SEC is as the best football conference... Why do we want to dilute the conference by adding a Mizzou?

DirkPiggler · « **Reply #293 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Nick Ahpleeze on October 18, 2011, 08:07:26 PM

Would someone explain why Oklahoma is not being pursued . Does T.Boone Pickens as a OKST alum somehow have power over OU? I saw him on tv saying NO NO OU- OkSt is a package deal" ...Really? OU can't function on their own? The TV markets I could care less about . Most SEC games are nationally televised anyway. If Slive has the power to pull any team he wants he should tell OU .."we want you not OKs"."Pack your bags now".

The better question is, why would we pursue Oklahoma? They have a traditionally great program, but the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Adding another football powerhouse makes the league that much harder
They add no significant TV markets
They would bring down the SEC's academic reputation, which isn't that stellar in the first place
They have a history of rampant cheating
Native Oklahomans are born without opposable thumbs.

FayettenamHog · « **Reply #294 on:** October 18, 2011, 08:54:36 PM »

Oklahoma doesn't want any part of the SEC. They want their 1 or 2 tough games a year and a better shot at a BCS Champ Game, where they can get dump trucked by the SEC Champ.

Tusk till Dawn · « **Reply #295 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:11:55 PM »

Quote from: Hogtired on October 18, 2011, 08:36:46 PM

When you dilute alcohol all you get is a weaker drink. We all talk about how great the SEC is as the best football conference... Why do we want to dilute the conference by adding a Mizzou?

Judging by that statement I assume you're of the opinion that the SEC should've stayed at 12--which is a solid opinion. However, I'd say that any of the teams that have been considered as #14, Mizzou, WVU, Va Tech, and our new #13 TAMU, all have better football programs than 4 SEC member schools right now.

So how can you say the drink is being diluted when potentially adding stronger football programs?

Boondoggle · « **Reply #296 on:** October 18, 2011, 11:07:33 PM »

Having aTm and Mizzou in the SEC, especially in the West, helps Arkansas more than anyone else, even LSU. First, those programs are years behind a BMFP led Arkansas, which translates to more Ws and an upper hand in recruiting Texas and Mizzou (i.e. the high talent / population / TV market areas of St. Louis and KC). If some blue chip recruit from Texas or Missouri wants to stay relatively close to home and yet immediately join an up and coming program in the top conference in the country, Arkansas is the natural choice.

Also, when they show a silhouette map of the states that comprise the SEC, there'll be a glaring big hole in the west in the shape of Okiehomo. I hate Okies more than Texicans, LSU or Bama fans put together -- mainly because I have to contend with those idiots on a daily basis.

Cerdo · « **Reply #297 on:** October 19, 2011, 07:11:05 AM »

The rap about Mizzou being some kind of rival to us now in recruiting Texas kids because they can say they play in the SEC as well is not smart thinking.

They can't beat their conference rivals now with that same rap. Over here, they're going to be a doormat team with the MS schools - what Texas kid is going to want to play in Columbia for the odd-fitting SEC school that doesn't even know how to tailgate when they see the scene in Fayetteville and can play for a contending team?

Hognarok · « **Reply #298 on:** October 19, 2011, 08:41:49 AM »

Quote from: FayettenamHog on October 18, 2011, 08:54:36 PM

Oklahoma doesn't want any part of the SEC. They want their 1 or 2 tough games a year and a better shot at a BCS Champ Game, where they can get dump trucked by the SEC Champ, USC-w, Boise St., or your grandmother.

Fixt.

To the folks wondering why OU won't go it alone, I would imagine that Pickens has enough sway in the Oklahoma legislature to get some legislation passed requiring the two schools to stay together ala Baylor in the early 90's.

Hogtired · « **Reply #299 on:** October 19, 2011, 09:43:13 AM »

Quote from: Tusk till Dawn on October 18, 2011, 09:11:55 PM

Judging by that statement I assume you're of the opinion that the SEC should've stayed at 12--which is a solid opinion. However, I'd say that any of the teams that have been considered as #14, Mizzou, WVU, Va Tech, and our new #13 TAMU, all have better football programs than 4 SEC member schools right now.

So how can you say the drink is being diluted when potentially adding stronger football programs?

Keep in mind I am looking at this from a conference perspective and agree it could be excellent for Arkansas if it happens. I don't have an issue with expansion. I have an issue with bringing in another team for the sake of rounding. Mizzou is an awesome school that helps our conference rep with academics, not athletics.

I also agree that we have some weak members but adding another only further weakens the conference. If it was a great in my opinion. I don't profess to have the answers nor do I have an alternative that makes sense from an alignment, market, rivalry, scheduling perspective. My preference would be to add an eastern school.

I am not claiming I am right, I am saying I don't get it.