Scenario Villiage SEC Schedule Style

[outofyourmind]

Let’s get down to it: Do any Ags or Coonasses think of the TAMU LSU game as an essential rivalry?

Looks like they've played about 70 times
I didn't know that

 

[Jon Deaux]

Let’s get down to it: Do any Ags or Coonasses think of the TAMU LSU game as an essential rivalry?

Nope.
just another conf. game

 

[Volbound1700]

I've read enough about it to be confident in the following:
- The contract does not allow renegotiation for changing the schedule, or even adding new teams.
- The SEC isn't the ACC, so they aren't stupid. There may be some wiggle room in the contract that enables renegotiation, and adding OU and TX would seem to be the type of thing that would trigger that - your seismic shift reference is apt. I don't think the rescheduling on its own would fit that.
- Even if there isn't any specific in it, ESPN wouldn't be stupid and not renegotiate. That's what CBS did to the SEC and that is why the SEC told them to pound sand and they lost an incredible asset. ESPN is too smart to play hardball knowing the SEC could go to multiple partners when the contract is up.

Based on this last post, it sounds like we are on the same page. The bold was what I was talking about.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Based on this last post, it sounds like we are on the same page. The bold was what I was talking about.

I think we do, but I am surprised that the contract didn't anticipate this. I mean all it would take would be paragraph that says in the case we add 2 or more teams, the contract is subject to being reopened by either party, or something like that. Now, that carries risk ... let's say that CFB drops off a cliff, and you add some to get more interest, then they could renegotiate down. Not likely, but those are the things you have to think through.

So, assuming this is true, what it means is that the change in scheduling isn't for the purpose of increased $$$. If they stayed in divisions, they could make the same with the same crappy schedules. So it has to be fan motivated, butts in seats, expanded CFP oriented.

 

[Volbound1700]

I think we do, but I am surprised that the contract didn't anticipate this. I mean all it would take would be paragraph that says in the case we add 2 or more teams, the contract is subject to being reopened by either party, or something like that. Now, that carries risk ... let's say that CFB drops off a cliff, and you add some to get more interest, then they could renegotiate down. Not likely, but those are the things you have to think through.

So, assuming this is true, what it means is that the change in scheduling isn't for the purpose of increased $$$. If they stayed in divisions, they could make the same with the same crappy schedules. So it has to be fan motivated, butts in seats, expanded CFP oriented.

I think the reason it isn't based on teams is that the SEC could just add UL Monroe and MTSU and then use that as argument that we need to renegotiate. They went be seismic adds like OU and Texas.