Greg Sankey shares thoughts on restructuring SEC schedule, conference games
Greg Sankey joined The Paul Finebaum Show to give his thoughts on restructuring the SEC, among other interesting topics discussed.
Greg Sankey shares thoughts on restructuring SEC schedule, conference games
- Thread starter Brian Shoemaker
- Start date
He can start with making Georgia and Florida play at each other’s stadiums. This neutral field game in Jacksonville is no way fair for the rest of us in the East. Why Tanner and other schools aren’t up in arms about this is beyond me. Maybe we should have our own neutral site conference game.
Poor title. The word "Football" is missing from it.
I have no problems with Georgia & Florida playing every year in Jax. I don't see what's unfair. It's a wash. They've been doing it for about 80 years. If the league had an issue with it, it should have been addressed decades ago. If Ole Miss and Ole Miss State want to meet each year in Jackson, wonderful. Auburn and Bama met in Birmingham from the time the series was revived until the 1990s. There is nothing for the SEC to be up in arms about. The ADs would be better off using this energy to try to get baseball scholarships increased well beyond 11.7.
Now the one good thing the SEC finally did regarding football scheduling was to require members to play all other members on the gridiron on a rotating basis. Wasn't always like that, which was how, during Georgia Tech's 30 years in the conference, the Jackets and Mississippi State did not meet at all on the gridiron. And Bama and Auburn didn't play each other under the SEC's auspecies until after WWII.
Georgia Tech and Auburn met annually, and continued meeting annually for about 25 years after Tech left the SEC. Up until 1960, they played in Atlanta every. single. year. From 1960-1969, they alternated between Birmingham and Atlanta. The Jackets visited the Plains for the first time in 1970.
Maybe the ACC should have had a problem with us hosting Clemron every year - at least during the first 6 years of the league's existence.
Agreed with Bwellgolf that Charlotte would be our go to neutral site location.
I have no problems with Georgia & Florida playing every year in Jax. I don't see what's unfair. It's a wash. They've been doing it for about 80 years. If the league had an issue with it, it should have been addressed decades ago. If Ole Miss and Ole Miss State want to meet each year in Jackson, wonderful. Auburn and Bama met in Birmingham from the time the series was revived until the 1990s. There is nothing for the SEC to be up in arms about. The ADs would be better off using this energy to try to get baseball scholarships increased well beyond 11.7.
Now the one good thing the SEC finally did regarding football scheduling was to require members to play all other members on the gridiron on a rotating basis. Wasn't always like that, which was how, during Georgia Tech's 30 years in the conference, the Jackets and Mississippi State did not meet at all on the gridiron. And Bama and Auburn didn't play each other under the SEC's auspecies until after WWII.
Georgia Tech and Auburn met annually, and continued meeting annually for about 25 years after Tech left the SEC. Up until 1960, they played in Atlanta every. single. year. From 1960-1969, they alternated between Birmingham and Atlanta. The Jackets visited the Plains for the first time in 1970.
Maybe the ACC should have had a problem with us hosting Clemron every year - at least during the first 6 years of the league's existence.
Agreed with Bwellgolf that Charlotte would be our go to neutral site location.
Last edited:
Football is the sport that matters. It’s the most popular by far, and without it nothing else exists.
That ain't gonna happen unless one or both schools want it to happen - just as Texas/Oklahoma ain't leavin' the Texas State Fair unless one of those schools wants it.
I thought I remember Richt hating it? I believe he would always say it benefited Florida because Georgia had to take a plan ride while Florida took a bus ride.
Well, the each get half the tickets, so... It's tradition. It's not likely to go away anytime soon.
Football is the sport that matters to many.
Many schools do not sponsor football, yet have a robust varsity athletic program.
When the thread began, I thought of Texas / Oklahoma, but that rivalry predates the creation of the Big XII, when Texas was in the Southwest Conference, and Oklahoma in the Big 8.
Last edited:
It's possible to ride a bus from Athens to Jacksonville,.....
Jacksonville is closer to most locations in South Georgia than is Athens.
They did have an actual home-and-home in the early '90s for a couple of years while the stadium in Jax was being rehabbed.
I remember reading about an uneven distribution of tickets several years ago benefitting UF, and UGA threatened to pull out of Jax unless it was corrected. That they're still playing on the First Coast tells me that corrections were made.
Why is the neutral site game an advantage to those two schools? Am I missing something?
Arkansas and Texas A&M also play a neutral site game each year
Right. Isn't it in Arlington, TX?
These neutral site games tend to be high profile, giving the competitors and the SEC added publicity. You lose a home game, you lose a road game. It all evens out in the end.
It proves that somebody wanted it to continue sufficiently for concessions to be made..
I was just using Richt's words. Honestly, I don't really feel one way or the other about it.
Do you have the ability to be respectful of others?
There are plenty of schools with robust athletic programs who do not sponsor football. They exist, and they do well. So what if they aren't P5 schools.
I am merely disproving you assertion that football is the be-all and end-all of collegiate sports. And P5 is not the be-all and end-all of collegiate sports.
Last edited:
They both play one less home game than everyone else every other year as well, which is likely a major reason why it continues.
But they also play one less home game. Doesn't that even it out?
But they aren't very well known. They exist, but mostly in obscurity vis-a-vis athletics.
My point was that football is the sport that matters, both in popularity and financial support. You disagreed. I replied by stating it is true at P5 schools.
Gonzaga & Marquette are well known. But by and large, you are correct. But again so what?
But you didn't state that initially. All you stated was "Football is the sport that matters. It’s the most popular by far, and without it nothing else exists."
Now had you initially stated that "At P5 schools football is the economic engine which drives just about everything else." I would agree with that.
Football is the sport that matters most at the majority of schools that play it. Not all, but most.
Yes, notable and, I believe, in the minority among Div. 1 schools that play football.
Here's a little bit of realignment news. I wonder if some of the Big 12's incoming teams will get antsy to speed up the process of moving. https://www.espn.com/college-sports...l-sues-conference-usa-push-departure-sun-belt
I truly don't know. It might have to do with preferable opponents and/or travel. I just don't know.
But their basketball monies doesn't even touch the football $$$$ of the SEC....I bet Vandy's Athletic Dept brings in more than UNC and Duke just with being associated with the SEC...Football is KING...I bet if all UNC fans were being honest, they'd trade all those basketball trophies for 1 National Championship in football!!!
Nah - they're sufficiently enamored with hoops.
I would not trade our national titles in baseball for one in football. And I am being honest.
I would. And I'm a big baseball fan. But I would trade both titles and the women's bball title for a NC in football. But only if it was within the last 20 years or so. Not one that happened in 1958 or something.
We would definitely have gone bowling in 1957 & 1958 if there were more than about a half dozen such games.