Stein & Summers is a rock solid real estate firm with over 46 years of success that can be attributed to our willingness to go the extra mile in service and expertise. With offices in Kansas City and St. Joseph, we provide a full range of services in residential, commercial, multi-family, investment and agricultural real estate. Confidence comes from feeling you’ve been taken care of, so when you see our sign you can rest assured that one of our agents will be ready to provide the best care for any of your real estate needs. Click here for more information.
I only gave you eight thoughts last week. This was a busy week. A lot happened and there's a lot to digest. So we'll make up the shortage from last week and go with a dozen thoughts today. I'm going to go, best as I can, in chronological order.
1) The ACC announced a scheduling plan last week that went with nine games plus one non-conference game to be hosted in the ACC team's home state. That left open the possibility of playing games like Georgia/Georgia Tech, Louisville/Kentucky, Clemson/South Carolina and Florida/Florida State. As Pat Forde wrote, it was no accident that the ACC did this before the SEC could announce anything. That put the onus on the SEC to be the bad guy that canceled these rivalries this season. If you look at the rest of the announcements (B1G, PAC12, SEC) they were obviously coordinated ahead of time with coaches and ADs knowing what was going to be announced and when. That gave the schools a chance to make graphics and craft statements. That wasn't the case with the ACC. They knew something was coming from the SEC and they got their announcement out ahead of it. Nobody in the league really seemed to know it was coming. That doesn't make it better or worse necessarily. It's actually somewhat of a smart move by the ACC. Like I said, it made the SEC look like "the bad guy." Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I don't think those non-conference games in the ACC likely even get played. I mean, I guess every ACC team could schedule a Group of Five team, but those teams would still have to find a full non-conference schedule filled with other Group of Five teams (depending on what the Big 12 does, more on that shortly). Basically, the ACC said they want to play games that I don't think are ever going to get played and that they probably never intended to play. They just didn't want to be the ones that looked like they called them off. So much for that whole "One for all, all for one and we're all going to work together on this" thing.
2) The next day, the SEC announced it was going with a ten-game, conference only schedule. (The PAC 12 actually announced its schedule prior to this, but there are more pressing issues to talk about with that conference). That was what we had been talking about for a month now. They discussed a ton of different models, but that was the one that seemed to be the leader for the last few weeks. Many people reacted by saying "How come Missouri can travel to Florida but Florida State can't?" It's not about the distance traveled really. It's about two things: First, by just playing amongst yourselves, you limit the number of other teams you're exposed to and therefore potentially limit the spread of exposure to the virus. Second, and more importantly, it allows for more flexibility in scheduling. Every team has a mid-season off week and there's a bye week prior to the SEC title game. That means you have two weekends where you can flex games that you might need to move based on outbreaks and cancellations. You can't really do that with non-conference games because the chances of off weeks lining up are much smaller. The SEC controls the schedule of all 14 of its teams so it's much easier to find a place to move Mizzou and Florida than it is to find a place where both Florida and Florida State can play.
3) Is there a chance this actually becomes a permanent change? As I wrote on Thursday, it's a better schedule for fans. It's better for people who do what I do. I'd much rather watch Mizzou and Auburn than Mizzou and Central Arkansas. I'd much rather see Ole Miss and Tennessee than Tennessee and Tennessee-Martin. Every week you're playing a team that has more than a remote chance to beat you. Sure, Kentucky beating Georgia would be an upset, but it's possible. It's not like the chances of The Citadel beating Alabama. You would think, as my friend Neal McCready said on The Greatest Pod in the South yesterday, that the TV networks would be slobbering all over themselves to get ten SEC games every year. I think it's unlikely. Coaches just aren't going to want it and neither are athletic directors. Even though a 7-5 season with 10 SEC games might actually be more impressive than a 9-3 season with eight SEC games, fans are going to like the nine-win season more and so are recruits. Coaches have bonuses tied to those types of things. Bill Snyder famously built Kansas State's program by giving a team that hardly ever won anything four automatic wins in the non-conference season. That got them to the point where they could qualify for a bowl game by winning just a couple of league games and once they got there, they had something to build on. If you're playing ten SEC games, you're going to have to be at least 4-6 in the league to qualify for a bowl game. That's not easy. Coaches and ADs will fight tooth and nail against it. Hell, the SEC doesn't want to go to nine league games, much less ten. Eventually, the money could win out I suppose, but I think it takes a while. I don't think it happens before the playoff expands because right now, there's no reward for strength of schedule. If you get to an 8 or a 16 team playoff where you might be parsing the difference in two and three loss teams, it could make some sense. But it doesn't make much sense right now. There's no reward for the top and there's no reward for the middle. I give credit to Ole Miss AD Keith Carter for being honest about the issue. Here's what he told the Clarion Ledger
"I'll be honest: For Ole Miss in particular and the situation we're in, this isn't a great outcome from a competitive standpoint. We're trying to build a program and trying to build excitement and all those things. We certainly want to play football and that's important. But for us, maybe an 8-2 schedule would've been a little better where we get a couple of non-conference games."
I only gave you eight thoughts last week. This was a busy week. A lot happened and there's a lot to digest. So we'll make up the shortage from last week and go with a dozen thoughts today. I'm going to go, best as I can, in chronological order.
1) The ACC announced a scheduling plan last week that went with nine games plus one non-conference game to be hosted in the ACC team's home state. That left open the possibility of playing games like Georgia/Georgia Tech, Louisville/Kentucky, Clemson/South Carolina and Florida/Florida State. As Pat Forde wrote, it was no accident that the ACC did this before the SEC could announce anything. That put the onus on the SEC to be the bad guy that canceled these rivalries this season. If you look at the rest of the announcements (B1G, PAC12, SEC) they were obviously coordinated ahead of time with coaches and ADs knowing what was going to be announced and when. That gave the schools a chance to make graphics and craft statements. That wasn't the case with the ACC. They knew something was coming from the SEC and they got their announcement out ahead of it. Nobody in the league really seemed to know it was coming. That doesn't make it better or worse necessarily. It's actually somewhat of a smart move by the ACC. Like I said, it made the SEC look like "the bad guy." Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I don't think those non-conference games in the ACC likely even get played. I mean, I guess every ACC team could schedule a Group of Five team, but those teams would still have to find a full non-conference schedule filled with other Group of Five teams (depending on what the Big 12 does, more on that shortly). Basically, the ACC said they want to play games that I don't think are ever going to get played and that they probably never intended to play. They just didn't want to be the ones that looked like they called them off. So much for that whole "One for all, all for one and we're all going to work together on this" thing.
2) The next day, the SEC announced it was going with a ten-game, conference only schedule. (The PAC 12 actually announced its schedule prior to this, but there are more pressing issues to talk about with that conference). That was what we had been talking about for a month now. They discussed a ton of different models, but that was the one that seemed to be the leader for the last few weeks. Many people reacted by saying "How come Missouri can travel to Florida but Florida State can't?" It's not about the distance traveled really. It's about two things: First, by just playing amongst yourselves, you limit the number of other teams you're exposed to and therefore potentially limit the spread of exposure to the virus. Second, and more importantly, it allows for more flexibility in scheduling. Every team has a mid-season off week and there's a bye week prior to the SEC title game. That means you have two weekends where you can flex games that you might need to move based on outbreaks and cancellations. You can't really do that with non-conference games because the chances of off weeks lining up are much smaller. The SEC controls the schedule of all 14 of its teams so it's much easier to find a place to move Mizzou and Florida than it is to find a place where both Florida and Florida State can play.
3) Is there a chance this actually becomes a permanent change? As I wrote on Thursday, it's a better schedule for fans. It's better for people who do what I do. I'd much rather watch Mizzou and Auburn than Mizzou and Central Arkansas. I'd much rather see Ole Miss and Tennessee than Tennessee and Tennessee-Martin. Every week you're playing a team that has more than a remote chance to beat you. Sure, Kentucky beating Georgia would be an upset, but it's possible. It's not like the chances of The Citadel beating Alabama. You would think, as my friend Neal McCready said on The Greatest Pod in the South yesterday, that the TV networks would be slobbering all over themselves to get ten SEC games every year. I think it's unlikely. Coaches just aren't going to want it and neither are athletic directors. Even though a 7-5 season with 10 SEC games might actually be more impressive than a 9-3 season with eight SEC games, fans are going to like the nine-win season more and so are recruits. Coaches have bonuses tied to those types of things. Bill Snyder famously built Kansas State's program by giving a team that hardly ever won anything four automatic wins in the non-conference season. That got them to the point where they could qualify for a bowl game by winning just a couple of league games and once they got there, they had something to build on. If you're playing ten SEC games, you're going to have to be at least 4-6 in the league to qualify for a bowl game. That's not easy. Coaches and ADs will fight tooth and nail against it. Hell, the SEC doesn't want to go to nine league games, much less ten. Eventually, the money could win out I suppose, but I think it takes a while. I don't think it happens before the playoff expands because right now, there's no reward for strength of schedule. If you get to an 8 or a 16 team playoff where you might be parsing the difference in two and three loss teams, it could make some sense. But it doesn't make much sense right now. There's no reward for the top and there's no reward for the middle. I give credit to Ole Miss AD Keith Carter for being honest about the issue. Here's what he told the Clarion Ledger
"I'll be honest: For Ole Miss in particular and the situation we're in, this isn't a great outcome from a competitive standpoint. We're trying to build a program and trying to build excitement and all those things. We certainly want to play football and that's important. But for us, maybe an 8-2 schedule would've been a little better where we get a couple of non-conference games."
Last edited:
