Huh?
I’m a season ticket holder since 1988.
I’ve never heard anyone even address the issue, and was in a tailgating group of 100+ once upon a time.
Momentum flowing against 9 game SEC scheduling
- Thread starter JHB4UK
- Start date
I’m a season ticket holder since 1988.
I’ve never heard anyone even address the issue, and was in a tailgating group of 100+ once upon a time.
So Hack - you telling me you want more home games against Akron, Ball State and Eastern instead of an additional game against Texas, Oklahoma or maybe we see Texas A & M finally - who has never played in Lexington? I had season tickets the first year Commonwealth, now Kroger, was opened by the way. That was 1973 I believe. I think if you check average attendance at home games you will see a huge difference in games involving SEC teams versus Akron types as well. Regardless, we are all UK fans who want to see the Cats win of course!
Go Big Blue!
I think there could come a time when it would be good for the program to have nine. Grumpy obviously feels Georgia would now benefit from it.
I’ve attended many FCS and G5 games and loved them. Teams like Chattanooga and Northern Illinois have played us close without injuring too many of our players.
Hell, if Nick Saban don’t want it, I certainly don’t blame Coach Stoops if he doesn’t.
The 8 games won out for at least another year, UGA never has 8 home games, there are years it has 6 when it is designated the home team in Jax, but 7 is the norm. I hope we end that soon. But the revenue from football is from TV contract, not home games. When all expenses are paid profit is way down. Now granted I have no idea what UK gets from Kroger, but I am sure it's tied to home games. If that's the case I can see why schools with corporate sponsorship would want the 6 games. But I seriously doubt UGA brings in 3X what UK does from home games, I am pretty sure memobrillia income is more the last couple of years but that isn't tied to home games.
Yeah, the time is coming. I wish they would go to 10 power 5 games
Yeah Hack - I believe that time is coming. I also believe that a football exhibition game or two is in the future for teams. It would make sense to have one at the end of spring practice and maybe one in the fall before regular season begins. Basketball does it - so why not football? It could still generate a lot of revenue and let the coaches and players play in games and get kinks worked out and playing time for reserves as well. Maybe the back up Qback could even play a few series - lol! Anyway, its all coming just as not only the 12 team playoff but a 16 team playoff will make lots of sense - probably in 2026 or 2027. Then no one will talking about 8 or 9 game conference games anymore. It will be playoffs and how we get there!
Go Big Blue!
I don't feel it will have any effect on UGA, the effect is on me not having to watch so many games involving P5 teams playing teams that would struggle to win 7A championship in GA or FL. When all was said and done it come down to money and greed. ESPN wouldn't pony up more of it. If they had agreed to add an eighth more to the contract we would have 9 games.
I can live with the 8 games, the only thing I really don't care for is bringing Texas in. They are conference killers and try to run things, let's see how they work out.
Look I wasn't the one who brought UGA into it. I made a point not to but someone else did. I wanted a 9 game schedule because I enjoy watching competitive football games. I am not excited about playing Middle TN, who was suppose to be OU. I believe UK is way past the point of having to schedule 3 teams a little better than a good HS team to get bowl eligible and into possible playoff contention.
I agree with this. I want what's good for UK. UK has enough top tier games every year. It's night and day from what an Indiana in the B10 or UL in the ACC has to deal with. Add another one to the existing murderer's row is not in UK's interest.
I think UK fans will be better off with a better record and being competitive in the SEC than a worse record and a lower chance at the playoff and top tier bowl games.
I respect your position, and If I was Georgia and didn't have to play Georgia then I might be in your camp.
But we're not Georgia and we don't want yet another Georgia-type power to contend with each and every year.
100% agree.
1. UK playing 9 SEC....no need to play UL...it only bolsters them.
2. UL is about to be back in Metro, CUSA, etc...when ACC loses Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC,e tc.... so why bail their program out. Let them sink to oblivion.
I just don't understand this concept at all. UK has played UGA tougher and closer than anyone else in the conference the last 2 years. Every offseason talk of winning the East has been a major topic. Yet many feel UK needs the cupcakes, 5 years ago maybe, but not today. When is it going to sink in UK is one of the top 5 programs in the conference. Needing the 8 home games is a lame reason, doesn't approach the money of playing a big game against a name opponent. Mich vs UK in Orando or Atlanta would be a big game. UK vs Akron in Lexington not so big.
I agree...I'd love to take on a top 5 Big10 or ACC team on a neutral. Our problem is we feel obligated to play UL as our non conference good team.
No way you can say it won't have an affect. It definitely will on SEC teams making the playoff or not. It MAY not have an affect on UGA but that is TBD and I would bet it does sooner or later.
But when we go to 9 and SEC teams are missing the 12 team playoff because they have 3 SEC losses in 9-3 regular season with 9 conference games verses 2 SEC losses in 10-2 regular season then it will be a HUGE affect on that teams season and perception of program making playoffs or not. cascading affect on program prestige, recruiting, money, etc.
Alabama is a good example to compare to what could very easily happen to even mighty UGA. They in essence play 9 SEC teams this season with the Texas game as OOC. say the lose that game then drop two other games( to LSU, Tenn, UK, A&M, etc). That 9-3 record would very very likely keep them from a playoff berth in 2024. But they would have been in if they played a lesser team that Texas. Bama is still Bama in talent but very questionable at QB this year...so this scenario could very easily happen. So it could happen to UGA down the road as well if QB struggles, injuries occur, etc. So arguing with a Georgia fan about what is best for the conference is totally disingenuous....you care about what happens to UGA and i care about UK. 9 is a terrible idea for UK.
But when we go to 9 and SEC teams are missing the 12 team playoff because they have 3 SEC losses in 9-3 regular season with 9 conference games verses 2 SEC losses in 10-2 regular season then it will be a HUGE affect on that teams season and perception of program making playoffs or not. cascading affect on program prestige, recruiting, money, etc.
Alabama is a good example to compare to what could very easily happen to even mighty UGA. They in essence play 9 SEC teams this season with the Texas game as OOC. say the lose that game then drop two other games( to LSU, Tenn, UK, A&M, etc). That 9-3 record would very very likely keep them from a playoff berth in 2024. But they would have been in if they played a lesser team that Texas. Bama is still Bama in talent but very questionable at QB this year...so this scenario could very easily happen. So it could happen to UGA down the road as well if QB struggles, injuries occur, etc. So arguing with a Georgia fan about what is best for the conference is totally disingenuous....you care about what happens to UGA and i care about UK. 9 is a terrible idea for UK.
You may be right but 0% chance of a 9 win SEC team getting picked with 8 conference games. The added strength of schedule might allow for it from time to time. I agree overall it will take 10 wins or more to make the playoff as an at large. 10 win sec teams are 99.99% a lock.
I doubt the better teams struggle to win 10 games even with conference games and expect the sec to regularly have 3 teams in the playoff at 10-2 or better whether it's 8 or 9 games.
UK and the other mid and lower tier sec schools definitely want it at 8 so we can have the easy ooc game to go up a tier in the bowl pecking order. Not sure anyone is gonna care about the bowls once the 12 team playoff begins though.
And Alabama is a good example. They lose a close game to Texas last season and they still make the playoff IMO at 9 and 3 die to 3 close losses.
Gama...here is the real question to ask yourself....would you rather see that game against Texas, Okla, or A&M in a given year verses a mediocre OOC and us loss it to finish 9-3 verses 10-2 with 8 game schedule? With 10-2 it's a very very good bet we make the 12 team playoff...now, you get to watch Kentucky play in the FOOTBALL playoffs. Something we would have thought was damn near impossible 10 years ago.
That in turn allows a big brick be laid for Stoops to continue to build our program and take it to the next level. We win big recruiting battles we very well may not have if we didn't make the playoff. We start to become a legit national brand. That to me is well worth staying at 8 and having another OOC. And I guarantee Stoops sees it this way as well...its about program building at the end of the day verses seeing one other SEC home game every other year.
I hear ya...but to me it's simple... 10-2 with 8 games we are in with 90% certainty. 9-3 with 9 games and we are out(90% certainty). Making the playoff verses not would have HUGE cascading affect or not. I want to see us in the playoffs...imagine how electric this state would be after all it took to get there for 70 years
If you are convinced UK isn't a top tier SEC team, while almost 100% of the reast of the conference thinks it belongs there have at it and then complain when the polls give UK the same respect it's fans are.
I don't see anyone getting 4 teams in, unless we lose a couple conferences, so I don't think a 3 loss team makes it in. CU and FSU are likely in, Mich and OSU are both likely in, and a 10-2 PSU would get in. According to your logic, Pac12 and Big12 will get 2 teams in if they have 2 losses, the group of 5 team. That leaves 2 spots for SEC. Being SEC doesn't matter because who you play doesn't matter.
I would rather see us beat Texas, Oklahoma or A&M. I do agree with Grumpy on one thing that I believe many UK fans don't believe. I believe we are a top 5 or 6 team in the SEC now - especially when we play at home! I believe playing those teams at home will help recruiting as well. Plus the "elephant" in the room is now playoffs and expansion. When the sixteen team playoffs become a reality - which I will bet anyone it happens and happens soon - then a 9-3 SEC team with close losses in those 3 games and against teams making the playoffs in most cases will make the playoff over a 10-2 Pac 12, ACC or Big 12 team. Which team would you pick for the playoff? A 9-3 SEC team with three losses to teams ranked in the top 10 and 7 wins over teams ranked in the top 25 or a 10-2 team with 2 losses to top 10 teams and 5 wins over top 25 teams? It's not just your won loss record when it is more than 4 teams making the playoffs.
If you don't make the playoffs - does it really matter if you play in the Independence Bowl or Liberty Bowl? Are you going to go to those bowl games? I'm not! Years ago, after winning 2 games a year, getting to any bowl was a huge thing - but that's old news! However, I will go to see those SEC games with a full house and raucious crowds! I went to the A & M game a few years ago - that is what you want to see if you have never been to a game like that - you should make that your away game trip - not a minor bowl game! Plan your "bowl" trip to South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Alabama, etc. I can tell you its a great feeling to go to the Swamp and watch 90,000 Florida fans get humbled! It's fantastic to hear Sandstorm all night and walk out with a grin on your face after the game! It's more fun to be in the stand singing my Old Kentucky Home and On, On of UK as those fans empty the stands! That is a great feeling! If you went to the Citrus Bowl - you will love going to these other SEC campuses for games.
I guess I'm more like Grumpy - I want to see the good teams and beat the good teams - where the win means something! Why do we not get higher rated recruits - have you ever thought it might be because of who we play? I've said it before - If you are a top player - do you want to play against Alabama or do you want to play against Akron?
Go Big Blue!
Last edited:
All fair points.
I like watching more high level games as well myself. I agree on the 16 team playoff being inevitable.
I'm not sure once the sec and big 10 hit 20 teams each that a semi pro league of sorts forms where the sec and big 10 just play a playoff like the NFL to determine the champ. I think rhe big 10 would want an 8 team big 10 playoff and an 8 team sec playoff where the sec champ meets big 10.
Sec will say no, we need to seed 1 to 16 and play in one field and 2 remaining teams play, which may mean all sec final some years.
We've played UGA tough, but we haven't beaten the dawgs since 2006. Close doesn't;t count for much.
I'm not interested in losing records. 8 SEC tests annually is good enough for me, especially when the media and powers that be measure win-loss records against teams from other records. IMO, UK won't get benefit of the doubt for finishing 6-6 or 7-5 against a 9 game schedule vs. finishing 8-4 with an 8 game schedule.
Also, UK fans like big games, but we also like winning in football. We have enough obstacles, I'm not interested in adding more.
I think one thing that the SEC is kidding itself on is the idea that the committee or the media or whomever is in charge of picking the playoff teams is going to give a bunch of 9-3 bids to the SEC. The universe already hates the SEC and the envy / resentment is already overflowing.
The SEC seems to think that it can get half of the playoff field, and I think it's kidding itself.
The SEC seems to think that it can get half of the playoff field, and I think it's kidding itself.
Don't think anyone in or associated with the SEC expects 6 out of 12. I think they want to lock in 3 out of 12....champion, runner up, and 3rd best record. If the Big 10 has a bad year with only 2 standout teams maybe then SEC could get 4.
But most years there will be real pressure to keep 3 max from 1 conference.
I agree with someone who posted that the BIG10 and SEC, the top 2 conferences and number 3 isn't close, will expand, split from the NCAA and become some type of feeder system for the NFL, At least for football. I think there is a real possibility of losing some current members if this happens.
So next year and maybe longer if we keep an 8 game schedule we play 1 main rival and rotate all the others?
9 game we keep 3 rivals and rotate the rest?
I just cannot wrap my head around what the schedules will look like.
9 game we keep 3 rivals and rotate the rest?
I just cannot wrap my head around what the schedules will look like.
I mean honestly 6 and 6 or 7 and 5 or 8 and 4. They all get you in the who gives a crap bowl.
The bowls are going to be less and less a factor going forward.
Right, so even if that is true, I think it's a real challenge. There is already resistance to weight SEC 10-2 or 11-1 as equal to other conference 12-0 or 11-1. I think we're delusional if we think they're EVER going to put 9-3 teams into the playoff.
So, now we're going to have a bunch of 8-4 and 9-3 teams that won't get into the playoff and then a bunch of SEC teams with one extra loss and losing records b/c the conference switched to 9 games in the name of more money. Count me against this.
I believe that 8-4 is still a good year at Kentucky and fans are still excited b/c that means you likely beat at least 3-4 good (or great) teams along the way and another 2 decent teams (and 3 stiffs). I think that gets the juices flowing around here a lot more than going 2-7 in a murderous league and finishing 5-7 (not saying this would happen every year, but it's bound to happen at some point).
I hope it doesn't happen grumpy. But the football strong conferences are definitely Big 10 and SEC. I'm hoping that the conferences stay put at 16 and the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12- fold into two conferences with stronger football schools. I can see the ACC "starting over" and taking some of the Eastern Big 12 schools and creating a nice conference. Then the Western Big 12 members joining with the Best of the Pac 12. If that doesn't happen, IMO, then the SEC and Big 10 will expand and basically wipe out the other conferences with their own national championship as you have suggested. We actually have multi level national champions now - so it would just be another level. I can also see some of the weaker Big 10 and SEC football schools being left out - just because of money. Its all very sad - wish everyone could just get along - lol!
Go Big Blue!
Losing years eventually occur at every school - even Alabama and USC - we have seen it happen! UK basketball, unfortunatley, is another example. It's very, very hard to be on top every year - something happens that cause a ripple affect. Less likely now that basically no penalty for buying players or tampering with players from weaker teams. Until the portal and NIL get some enforceable rules of some kind the Big dogs will remain big dogs! Before the NCAA became a weak sister with no consistency, it was at least kind of equal.
Go Big Blue!
I read it was 9-7 to stay at 8 games. Butt officially 9-5 because Texas and OU don't have voting rights. Interesting that 4 of the 5 were East teams. I
I didn't say UGA brings in 3x per home game. I said its 3x total football revenue on the season, but it is actual about 4.2X. The revenue from the TV contract is the bulk for everyone, but if you lose a home game, then maybe UGA is losing $3mm in revenue out of nearly $160mm(so 1.8%+) for the year and UK is losing $2mm in revenue out of $37mm(5.4% of revenue). So losing one home game costs us 3x the percentage of annual revenue that it costs UGA. It's like a salaried executive telling an hourly warehouse worker why don't you just take an unpaid day off to do what needs to be done. Our schools live in two different financial worlds and a dollar to us means a lot more than a dollar to you. Plus adding an additional game is not going to pay a dime more unless ESPN renegotiates the TV deal, which they have stated clearly is not going to happen any time soon, especially given all the layoffs and financial issues they are going through. If I'm any of the small market teams, then I am holding out until the league says we will pay you significantly more for the additional SEC game than you would have made from your largest OOC home game pulls.
HawgBeat - The highest-grossing football schools in the SEC
Check out how much money each SEC school brought in during the 2021 football season.
arkansas.rivals.com
I didn't say UGA brings in 3x per home game. I said its 3x total football revenue on the season, but it is actual about 4.2X. The revenue from the TV contract is the bulk for everyone, but if you lose a home game, then maybe UGA is losing $3mm in revenue out of nearly $160mm(so 1.8%+) for the year and UK is losing $2mm in revenue out of $37mm(5.4% of revenue). So losing one home game costs us 3x the percentage of annual revenue that it costs UGA. It's like a salaried executive telling an hourly warehouse worker why don't you just take an unpaid day off to do what needs to be done. Our schools live in two different financial worlds and a dollar to us means a lot more than a dollar to you. Plus adding an additional game is not going to pay a dime more unless ESPN renegotiates the TV deal, which they have stated clearly is not going to happen any time soon, especially given all the layoffs and financial issues they are going through. If I'm any of the small market teams, then I am holding out until the league says we will pay you significantly more for the additional SEC game than you would have made from your largest OOC home game pulls.
HawgBeat - The highest-grossing football schools in the SEC
Check out how much money each SEC school brought in during the 2021 football season.
Ultimately ESPN will sweeten the deal and SEC will go to 9 games, or quality wins or lack of will start hurting the conference when playoffs are discussed. A 10-2 record with 7 quality wins isn't the same as 10-2 with 8 quality wins. Play 8 SEC games and winning all of them aren't 8 quality wins, could be if you played the right 8.
I don't know where you numbers come from, I guess memobellia sales have explode for UGA, because we get the same from TV contract, UK has 8 home games and years UGA is home team in Jax it has 6 actual games in Athens.
8-4 UK is more likely to be ranked 19-25 than 7-5 UK, who will not be ranked at all.
The entire conference has the ability to gain 1 more win. With 9 games, the conference takes on the same amount of wins as losses.
There is no doubt about what you said being true. Right now if I were Vandy, Missouri, UF, ATM, State, AU, Carolina and Arky that will be concerned with that. The other get an extra win. Of course anything can happen and what that paper says will happen doesn't always happen. If you break the conference down into levels, I don't think UK is in the top 4, but I think they are the first one ready to jump into that top group and are very capable of beating either of that top group any Saturday. No I don't know the financial situation the effect of losing a home game would have, but there is no reason UK should be concerned with an extra SEC game from a competing standpoint, this isn't Joker's UK.
Similar threads
