Non conf. games per year. I realize the SEC schedule is tough, but we basically have only 4 home games per year that are worth watching. I would love t see us play 2 decent non conf games.

I'm not saying I want to play Clemson and Ohio St every year.

But would love to us play, say, Iowa and Boston College instead of Lamar and Texas St.

back in the 70s we usually played 2 or 3 power 5 non conf. games.

Curious what yall think?

I want more home games that are worth driving up to College Station for.
It's hard to get excited about driving up to watch us play Lamar.

As long as the playing field is level.

You know the NCAA doesn't dictate anything about CFB scheduling, right? That was essentially from the College Football Playoff selection committee and was a suggestion and implemented by the conferences.

The NCAA trying to push through "legislation" like that would squeak and deflate like a balloon with a fast leak.

Not all P5 conferences are created equal. Most only have a few good teams and then the rest are garbage at football. The BDF quickly comes to mind.

The SEC is the toughest conference year in and year out. We don't need to schedule more.

Ag4coal said:

---

Entertainment value would go up.

Small school revenue would tank and destroy programs

---

Big win, small loss.

ironmanag said:

---

TexanJeff said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Entertainment value would go up.

Small school revenue would tank and destroy programs

---

Big win, small loss.

---

Typical small world view.

You let the small schools fail football dies.

---

Yup. It's not welfare. It's creating an environment that attracts the largest pool. If suddenly only power 5 teams have scholarships, half the high school players in the country will quit persuing the sport.

khaos288 said:

---

ironmanag said:

---

TexanJeff said:

---

Ag4coal said:

---

Entertainment value would go up.

Small school revenue would tank and destroy programs

---

Big win, small loss.

---

Typical small world view.

You let the small schools fail football dies.

---

Yup. It's not welfare. It's creating an environment that attracts the largest pool. If suddenly only power 5 teams have scholarships, half the high school players in the country will quit persuing the sport.

---

And a lot will never get a college education because of that.

Sounds like for the good of small schools, for the survival of the sport, etc. we, along with other power 5 schools, should only play small schools for our non conference games. So much depends on it.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

That's a completely selfish comment. You want to be entertained. You. It isn't what's best for the program, it isn't what's best for the players, and it isn't what's best for college football.

All that would happen is teams like Kansas, Oregon State, and Rutgers would be inundated with scheduling requests. Teams that luck out and get those teams on the schedule would have a leg up. You think the ranking system is confusing and maddening now? Make more teams 8-4 or 7-5 and try and compare them to each other.

---

Are you arguing against playing more P5 non-conference because everyone would just play the weaker P5 teams???

Here are the only real arguments you should use.

• Less Home Games for everyone
• Not fair to the little guys

The argument that everyone would have more losses is silly. With current scheduling the top conferences rarely ever play each other. It's nearly impossible to compare the SEC vs the B1G for example because they almost never play each other. And to your point if you add the lower tier teams from other major conferences that is still light years for the competition we have now which are glorified spring games.

SunrayAg said:

---

I have never understood this line of whining.

Are you there to watch the other team, or are you there to enjoy the game day atmosphere and watch the Aggies?

It's better for our team to get some live work in, in a game that is not in doubt.

It's better for our players to get the backups some experience.

It's better for our program to have more wins.

It's keeps the smaller programs in business.


But poor you has to drive to College Station, enjoy the game day atmosphere, and watch us win by 50. Oh the horror!

---

Can't we enjoy the game day atmosphere where there is an actual contest on the field. We have something called the spring game for what you are describing.

SunrayAg said:

---

I have never understood this line of whining.

Are you there to watch the other team, or are you there to enjoy the game day atmosphere and watch the Aggies?

It's better for our team to get some live work in, in a game that is not in doubt.

It's better for our players to get the backups some experience.

It's better for our program to have more wins.

It's keeps the smaller programs in business.


But poor you has to drive to College Station, enjoy the game day atmosphere, and watch us win by 50. Oh the horror!

---

It wasn't that long ago that we were going to triple overtime or losing to teams like this...

I'd rather the SEC go to a 9 game conference schedule ASAP.

If you don't like the opponent, don't go. TMF is extremely interested in maximizing profit in case you haven't figured it out. It is very much in their personal financial interest to maintain the current system. We can have 7 home games with 3 weaker opponets or 5.5 home games with stronger opponents. If TMF can sell 80,000 tickets plus get parking, and concessions revenue for three games, why would the sell 100,000 tickets for 1.5 games? That's 240k people spending money instead of 150k.

agnerd said:

---

If you don't like the opponent, don't go. TMF is extremely interested in maximizing profit in case you haven't figured it out. It is very much in their personal financial interest to maintain the current system. We can have 7 home games with 3 weaker opponets or 5.5 home games with stronger opponents. If TMF can sell 80,000 tickets plus get parking, and concessions revenue for three games, why would the sell 100,000 tickets for 1.5 games? That's 240k people spending money instead of 150k.

---

Something tells me the TMF wont go out of business if we drop ULM and UTSA from our schedule.

My proposal is different. I think the NCAA should limit non-conference games to three. Teams can decide if they want an 11 or 12 game schedule and they can decide if they want to have P5 non-conf opponents or not.

That would be rough on the SECw. Most years the division is deep enough that no "get healthy" game exists in the conference schedule. We may catch a weak cross-over, but none will be bad enough to "count out" for scheduling purposes.

It would benefit most those in weak divisions like the B1Gw, both ACC, the PACs. It probably does not benefit the BDF, since the BDF actually has depth. (ou is the only heavyweight most years).

It would kill the smaller bowls. Less P5 programs would be bowl eligible, meaning more junk programs in bowls, meaning less money. (more games against p5s would mean more losses- half the 6-6 P5s this year would have been 5-7 and ineligible)

Bonfire1996 said:

---

That's a completely selfish comment. You want to be entertained. You. It isn't what's best for the program, it isn't what's best for the players, and it isn't what's best for college football.

All that would happen is teams like Kansas, Oregon State, and Rutgers would be inundated with scheduling requests. Teams that luck out and get those teams on the schedule would have a leg up. You think the ranking system is confusing and maddening now? Make more teams 8-4 or 7-5 and try and compare them to each other.

---

I see your point. But it is a spectator event. Without the fans there is no game. Not in the sense you are talking about.

JaySugar said:

---

back in the 70s we usually played 2 or 3 power 5 non conf. games.

---

Back in the 70's, All college football was extremely reliant on butts in seats for revenue.

The ballooning of TV revenue from the breaking of the NCAA monopoly on the TV contract and the boom of cable in the 80's totally changed everything!

Lateralus Ag said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

That's a completely selfish comment. You want to be entertained. You. It isn't what's best for the program, it isn't what's best for the players, and it isn't what's best for college football.

All that would happen is teams like Kansas, Oregon State, and Rutgers would be inundated with scheduling requests. Teams that luck out and get those teams on the schedule would have a leg up. You think the ranking system is confusing and maddening now? Make more teams 8-4 or 7-5 and try and compare them to each other.

---

I see your point. But it is a spectator event. Without the fans there is no game. Not in the sense you are talking about.

---

I think it might be interesting to drop off two of the meaningless games from the schedule and roll those into some type of playoff. Who really attends, tunes in or cares to see the likes of North Texas, Lamar.... Complete waste of time, energy, resources, risk of injury.. etc...

IMO, one tune up game, one substantial out of conference game, conference schedule, and then playoff. I realize they wont cut games due to $, however.

Scheduling issue again....

I would like to see what we are doing now continue with a slight twist.

I have no issue playing a Southland Conf school to open the season, but make sure we play an SFA, SHU, Lamar, hell play Abilene Christian if needed but dont give the coins to somebody out of state like Northwestern St or McNeese or NIchols, or SCSU, etc. Play a UTEP, North Texas, Rice, TSU, Baylor, TT, UTSA, SMU; play these guys at Kyle only, no return game crap. Play Cougar High if we gather enough cajones. After that or where ever we can slot the game, play a one and one against Clemson, ASU, ND, etc, UCLA, Miami, whoever. All this is basically what we are doing now, but again, dont give any of that money to small out of state schools. Keep the money in state.

AA

I think they all should be required to play at least one FCS school every other year.

The Kansas's, Rutger's, and Baylor's of the P-5 conferences would become very popular.

And so would the majority of the ACC schools.

Texags the place where everyone cares about the ULM programs long term health

Also it's a pretty simple market fix, instead of paying 3 joke schools to come play you, you only pay 1 but pay them more. Also all the D2 and smaller school seem to exists without being payed by tier one schools

I'd be okay with this we can replace our cupcakes with Big XII teams, it will only be a little bit harder.

Ag4coal said:

---

Entertainment value would go up.

Small school revenue would tank and destroy programs

---

What if you replaced the spring game with a scrimmage against the Northwestern States of the world? Small school still gets money to help fund their program and we don't play a game that counts against a school that has no business being on the same field.

Quote:

---

instead of paying 3 joke schools to come play you, you only pay 1 but pay them more.

---

How much more could you charge for tickets, parking, concessions, and donations for that one game (every other year)? I'm not sure you're seeing the revenue issue.

Agsuffering@bulaw said:

---

That would be rough on the SECw. Most years the division is deep enough that no "get healthy" game exists in the conference schedule. We may catch a weak cross-over, but none will be bad enough to "count out" for scheduling purposes.

It would benefit most those in weak divisions like the B1Gw, both ACC, the PACs. It probably does not benefit the BDF, since the BDF actually has depth. (ou is the only heavyweight most years).

It would kill the smaller bowls. Less P5 programs would be bowl eligible, meaning more junk programs in bowls, meaning less money. (more games against p5s would mean more losses- half the 6-6 P5s this year would have been 5-7 and ineligible)

---

I am not sure I agree with any of your logic here.

Argument 1
If the SEC West is so powerful wouldn't they just win the extra games at a higher rate than everyone else if everyone were playing only P5? If they don't win those games are they really so powerful?
Argument 2
If you were in a weak conference/division wouldn't you just lose at a higher percentage than everyone else if everyone were playing only P5? If they do win at a higher rate maybe they aren't so terrible.

Smaller bowls are usually filled with non P5 garbage and should go away. The DMN article linked below is very enlightening and is shows that non P5 programs are in an unsustainable financial arms race. The amount of money the teams in non P5 like UofH take from the university is outrageous and given the rising cost of education should warrant an investigation. These teams are trying to spend like P5 with the bank account more like FCS. Students are paying an unreasonable burden for an armed forces bowl loss that most students at UofH could care less about.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/texastechredraiders/2019/03/01/texas-tech-houston-show-financial-gap-haves-nots-could-getting-wider?f=r

Another way to put it is that since 2000 the SEC is almost as likely to play a team in the MAC as they are the B1G in non-conference. If you subtract bowl games they are more likely to play the MAC in non-conference. Over the same span the SEC has a 90+ win rate Vs. the MAC (If you subtracted UK over that span it would be closer to 100%). Over the same span they have a 55-65% win rate versus the B1G.

looks like Kansas, Oregon State, Illinois, Rutgers and Indiana would quickly get their dance cards with a bunch of road games to the southeast under your scenario