I think the SEC is pretty much a super league now, once you add Texas and OU. But keep in mind that the cupcake games do serve a purpose. Teams in the SEC really need to have 7 home games on campus. They finance stadium renovation projects based on revenue from those games. It's hard enough for most team, but teams with a neutral site game like UF really need them. You can't schedule big time opponents without doing a return visit. Adding the 13th game, which I think will happen, will help, but you will always have 1 or 2 cupcake games. Maybe even moreso next year when the conference schedule for everybody is going to be a meat grinder.
I don't care for those Charlotte and McNeese St games either. However, AD's don't like to throw that money away and to accomplish 7 home games every year, UF would have to play a 14 game regular season schedule with no neutral site game because USCw/Oregon/Clemson/Ohio St aren't coming to Gainesville without a return trip to their Burgh.
I had considered this, that the legislature of South Carolina or Florida might attempt to declare the grant of right invalid. However, the issue is that would dramatically lessen the value of any future contracts for those same TV rights. I mean, it would also be an unprecedented expansion of state authority that could just wreak havoc with unintended consequences. It would also be the subject of years of litigation... So, even if the legislature were willing to do it, I do not think it would solve FSU's issues. It would be A LOT for the participants in the grant of rights ("the Blood Pact") to dissolve it; it would be unsettling to the entire college sports market forthe legislature to come in and do it for them. For example, the California legislature could demand that any broadcast provider that wants to carry any California School stike a deal with all California schools, regardless of conference affiliation. The legislature would act on behalf of FSU, a public school, on some kind of theory that the rights to the public university's broadcast belongs to the State not the University, but would UM's grant of rights be unaffected because it is a private school? As I have said before, if FSU had a path out of the grant of rights they would do it rather than talk about it.
I’d rather have Ohio StTe or whoever, ever other year. I think one osu game would pay what two capecakes generate.
As the contract was already signed, I do not think it would be that simple. Altering the rights would be easily considered a taking for which the ACC network or the othe schools would be entitled to compensation form the State.
It might be a good fit. Once this all becomes about money in conference re-alignment, why do we even hear about a school being a good fit. There is no cultural affinity between OSU/Michigan/PSU on one side and USC/UCLA/Oregon/Wash on the other side of the conference. Give up the charade, and let the SEC jettison Ole Miss, MSU, Vandy, Kentucky, Arky, MO, and USC, and just add USC, Ore, OSU, Michigan, and make that the top tier of college football that all eyeballs on tv will go to, and have a promotion and relegation system to determine who gets to play in the top tier. Those are the best schools in football who can spend the most money to get the best recruits to be the best competition to increase viewership.
I would rather see OSU in person once and then on TV the next year than two patsies play in G’ville, but I think we’ve already established that the admins love those $$ way more than their fans and there is no way that 2 home games of any opponent won’t make more than any other home & away.
It's probably time to abandon the Gator Bowl and schedule a home and home with the Dawgs. The revenue is needed and BHG would be a sure sellout every year for that game and it no doubt be the feature game on TV that week.
Revenues for UF are generated by season ticket sales, not butts in seats and the tickets are the same price for every game. Season tickets probably amount to about 90% of all ticket sale revenues. I get the sentiment and I would love 13 great games but there are economic considerations. The stadium needs repairs on a regular basis. The banks who loan the money want guaranteed revenue.
Not for a "takings" case. "Sovereign" or governmental immunity applies to tort law. (limits what you can get if the garbage truck runs you over). I think it would be seen as a situation more like where the state wanted your property for a road. They can take it through legislative action, but have to pay you for it. Also, the goverment is bound by contract to the same degree as a private actor.
If we reduce our stadium seating by what has been bandied about, it won't matter that much since we get half the seating sales every year instead of all one year and none the next.
14 great games with little to no chance to reward players who have practiced all year with a game they can get some playing time in the swamp. Some of whom may have dreamed of that day since early childhood. No chance for a team to rest a few players and “work out a few kinks” kind of game. No chance for folks who have little money but love the Gators to take their kid(s) to the Swamp to see the Gators play. This is supposed to be college football for student/athletes. I know that’s laughable nowadays considering what it’s become, but a cupcake game or two has value.
I think UF agrees, since 2017 the 7 game home schedule has gone to every other year and if the SEC goes to 9 it will probably be gone.
I would never throw bacon at you, 96gatorcise. I will, however agree to disagree. That’s what Gators should do.
‘Hey! we have the premier football conference- lets add 2 universities based on (1)Academics and (B)Basketball prowess. ‘ (Unc and uva)
Except that ticket prices aren’t the same price for each game. Their is a tiered pricing schedule on face value of tickets, in past years. The powers to be know that some game are in greater demand. The season tickets are priced as a package plus seat “donation” for total cost per seat based on location
Why would the SEC or B1G sign contracts with schools who have shown a blatant disregard for contracts if the states do in fact step in?
