Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

My longstanding belief was/is that eight games is fine. 

I wouldn't have really cared ALL that much about 8 vs 9 conference games before, with traditional conference sizes. 

I've long held the opinion that P4 teams shouldn't schedule FCS. And IMHO I'm in agreement with CD that all teams should schedule a minimum of 10 power conference games. 

That said, as we move to these superconferences, you have to make a change. With 18 teams, you start missing teams often enough that it's like you're barely in the same conference. ESPECIALLY if you're at the same time trying to preserve any traditional rivalries, because that then reduces the number of games you have to rotate the rest of the opponents. 

So with 18-team conferences, if I were scheduling czar, I'd say:

• 9 game conference schedule
• 1 additional required power conference OOC game (can be more, but not less)
• No FCS allowed

Do you not care whether the SEC plays 8 or 9 games or are you explicitly against it?

The reason I'd like to see us move to 9 conf. games is so we could lock in the three agreed-upon perma-rivals and rotate everyone else home and away every four years, and finally pretend we're all in the same conference again. 

I think it's weird so many complain about a thing that isn't against any rules.  
If it was a genuine issue, then everyone could come together and make a 9-game conference rule.  The entirety of college football outside the SEC could pressure the SEC.  
As is, it's just a bunch of fans whining.  If the SEC is utterly dominant, given the status quo, it would be monumentally stupid to change it just to quell some whining.

The B1G could EASILY have gone to an 8-game conf schedule the moment Penn State joined 30+ years ago (no longer everyone playing everyone else).
But no.  They whine and bitch about another conference NOT breaking any rules.  Just find it odd...insisting the SEC change instead of the B1G changing (and in their eyes, making life easier for themselves).  

Shrug.

i like 9 games because for Texas at least, the 9th game will replace something like UTEP or New Mexico State, with a more competitive game against a better opponent.

Some schools might ditch OOC game against P5 opponents but that's not what Texas will do.

It’s probably fine for Texas, but unless people become more fine with worse records (possible?), it just ratchets up bitching and moaning. Not many fans actually can say “well at least we lost to someone good instead of beating someone bad.”

I also don’t mind a few body bag games, but I’m in the minority there. 

I also don’t mind a few body bag games, but I’m in the minority there.

I don't think most people understand these games actually helped the college regular season be so special. 
We are headed to an NFL-lite model, which is horrifically asinine.  Why watch college football with the same structure and non-elite teams making the postseason when the NFL does it with better players?????

For the love of an extra dollar, the powers that be in college football are insistent that it becomes McDowell's to the NFL's McDonalds (Coming to America reference).  No one wants a Big Mick over a Big Mac.  FFS

Same with adding mediocre teams to your conference.  The B1G adding Rutgers gets a lot of jokes, but it's more eyeballs watching Michigan and OSU get another win each year.
This past year, the SEC learned that adding only bluebloods with no other fodder has consequences (I know, sample size of 1, and I agree).  
The SEC should add an NC State and OK State or Virginia or whatever with those bluebloods.

Fans like big games, sure.  Fans like entertainment over competition often times.  
But when we get a run of 2 and 3-loss national champions, much interest will wane.  Whether it's a tiny-bit inflated or not, an 11-1 team is going to garner more interest than the same team at 9-3.  It may even be an example of perception becoming the reality (which I hate, in general), but it's true.