The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

agreed
and it will enhance the $$$ from the TV contract

as would going to 10 conference games

better content = better money

yes, big stadiums bring in big money for home games, but TV money is even bigger

Given a 16-team conference:
An 8-game schedule with a 1-7-7 format would work.
A 9-game schedule with a 3-6-6 format would work.
A 10-game schedule with a 5-5-5 format would work.
I like that last arrangement, but it's not going to happen. It doesn't leave enough room to schedule the requisite patsies. Those titanic clashes between SEC teams and The Citadel, and the College of Charleston, would have to be dropped. And OU and Texas wouldn't like it either.

agreed
and it will enhance the $$$ from the TV contract

as would going to 10 conference games

better content = better money

yes, big stadiums bring in big money for home games, but TV money is even bigger

This is a fallacy I see repeated often but in practice is proven entirely untrue.

If it were true, then the SEC and B1G would already be doing it.  There's a point of diminishing returns where the incremental revenue on the TV contract no longer outweighs the revenue to be gained from home games against  bodybag teams.  For the SEC, for the past couple decades, that point of diminishing returns, has been >8 games.  The proof is in the pudding.

I do think the SEC is going to have to go to 9 conference games, but the pressure to do so won't be coming from a desire to increase the value of the television property rights.

TX-OU isn't a very good example I don't think.  The two schools split the ticket sales 50/50, and the city of Dallas also kicks in additional millions of $ each year paid directly to the schools.

For the one-off neutral site games, one of those two teams is giving up a home game.  The one giving up the home game, is typically trading money for exposure.  It's usually the "lesser" of the two schools, for example when UCLA played Texas at Jerryworld in Arlington a few years back, that was UCLA's home game.  Even if they didn't make as much as they would on a typical home game, they made the decision to trade that for exposure.

But those are all one-offs.  There's a big difference between something like that, where a school is making a business decision, compared to a conference increasing its number of required conference games and effectively telling member schools they have to give up home gate revenue.

Again, the proof is in the pudding.  If 10 or 11 conference games were financially optimal, then the B1G and the SEC would already be doing it.

Having automatic wins over patsies plays a role too. For mediocre teams, those wins can be the difference between becoming bowl-eligible or not.

That's why the have-nots want fewer conference games and more games with The Citadel.

Why Nick Saban, who has been advocating a 9-game conference schedule for a few years, has switched to saying nice things about an 8-game schedule, I can't figure. Maybe he now views Bama as a have-not, since the Tide has only gone to 2 of the last 4 NCGs. Maybe he has become an altruist, and believes that he needs to look out for the welfare of the downtrodden members of the conference.

A downside to the 9-game conference schedule, from what I have read, is that the requirement to play at least one OOC game against a P5 opponent would be revoked. So, drop Clemson, keep College of Charleston. Drop Ohio State, keep Kent State.

Agree on the automatic wins over patsies, especially for mediocre teams.  That's part of the "mythos of the SEC" that I was referring to earlier.

As for the second highlighted comment, I don't think this line of reasoning makes any sense.  The teams that are scheduling Clemson and tOSU for their OOC games, aren't doing it solely because there's a requirement to play one P5 opponent.  There's plenty of Kansas and Duke and Oregon State and Indiana type of teams that would satisfy that as a basic minimum requirement.  Anyone scheduling Clemson or tOSU, is doing it because they want the marquee matchup.

Now, does it mean that a school like Vandy might drop a P5 game against Kansas and replace it with Arkansas State?  I guess that could happen. But would anyone notice?

being the best recruiter in the Big 8 was very very good to him

being the best recruiter in the Big 8 was very very good to him

Being in the Big 8 was very good to both OU and Nebraska. Two big dogs in an otherwise usually mediocre conference. Whichever one won the head-to-head matchup in a given year had a decent shot at playing for the MNC.
Life will be much different in the SEC with a CCG and a 12-team playoff. Just having a great regular season and then winning the Orange Bowl won't cut it.