Sankey announced the vote. 8 conference game schedule. No divisions as of 2024.

GloryDawg

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2005
13,246
3,393
113
I'm going to stock up on KY Jelly. Could be a shortage when certain SEC schools get screwed.
 

dawgnabit

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2016
2,482
933
113
will likely go to 9 game and the 3-6 model in 2025 Ross says. So we may have to sweat out then when the time comes
 

DawgInThe256

Active member
Feb 18, 2011
1,086
492
83
There's another Dellenger tweet that mentions something about a 10-year conference standing metric to achieve a fair schedule. That's an interesting idea that is similar to what the NFL does in its scheduling.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
45,685
7,577
113
will likely go to 9 game and the 3-6 model in 2025 Ross says. So we may have to sweat out then when the time comes
Yep. We’re going to 9 games as soon as ESPN writes another check. This is probably a 1-year deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranchdawg

travis.sixpack

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2008
737
601
93
Yep. We’re going to 9 games as soon as ESPN writes another check. This is probably a 1-year deal.
I might be two years - that way everyone gets to play everyone else in the league at least once. It also creates fewer headaches when the league goes to 9 games. Never mind. I just read where Sankey said they would try again for '25.

But you can guarantee the '24 schedule will have State playing at Bama one more time for old times sake.
 

AstroDog

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2022
1,298
843
113
Everything held up tells me Sankey has been bit in the butt by Saban. If we go to 9 games, I think Saban gets his wish to swap LSU for MSU. So any way you cut it, BAMA will be in our "every year" future.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
45,685
7,577
113
Everything held up tells me Sankey has been bit in the butt by Saban. If we go to 9 games, I think Saban gets his wish to swap LSU for MSU. So any way you cut it, BAMA will be in our "every year" future.
This all about pressuring ESPN to increase the TV contract.
 

DAWGSANDSAINTS

Well-known member
Oct 10, 2022
1,227
1,057
113
If Mississippi State ever gets back to Atlanta for the SEC Championship in football in my lifetime then I will be extremely impressed and grateful.
With 16 teams now and no divisions, I just don’t see it happening.
It will be almost impossible and maybe that’s the reason or one of the reasons over the last 5 years or so that my passion for football has waned quite a bit.
if we were to go to a 16 team playoff then that probably changes.
I just don’t see us ever winning the SEC Championship in football.
Obviously with a 64 team field in basketball and baseball we have a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

FQDawg

Well-known member
May 1, 2006
3,075
618
113
A 1+7+1 arrangement where you have to play another major conference opponent (or BYU or Notre Dame) just makes the most sense to me. That way, over a four year period every SEC school plays every other SEC team both home and away. Everyone is in the same boat.

I also like that it means schedules are varied year to year (if you play on a seasons 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 basis). I realize we’re in a conference but it’s getting boring playing the same seven schools every single year under the current set up.

A 3+6 nine game schedule means teams are going to have wildly unbalanced schedules. It also means it’ll take at least three years to play every other league team.

ETA - apparently my math is faulty. You can still play everyone home and away over four years in a 3+6. I still like the 1+7+1 model better.
 
Last edited:

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,485
4,503
113
I think some of yall are giving Saban too much credit.

If ESPN ponied up for another conference game, we would already be at 9 conference games and there's no way ESPN ponies up without some guaranteed 'marquee' matchups like Bama-LSU and Texas-Texas A&M. Some of the conference leaders may fear Saban, but they love money more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronpolk and patdog

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
45,685
7,577
113
I think some of yall are giving Saban too much credit.

If ESPN ponied up for another conference game, we would already be at 9 conference games and there's no way ESPN ponies up without some guaranteed 'marquee' matchups like Bama-LSU and Texas-Texas A&M. Some of the conference leaders may fear Saban, but they love money more.
Exactly. The idea that Saban killed the 9-game schedule is a fantasy. If the money is there, we'll play 9 and Bama's permanent opponents will be UT, AU and LSU. If it's not, we'll play 8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

ronpolk

Well-known member
May 6, 2009
7,733
1,968
113
I think some of yall are giving Saban too much credit.

If ESPN ponied up for another conference game, we would already be at 9 conference games and there's no way ESPN ponies up without some guaranteed 'marquee' matchups like Bama-LSU and Texas-Texas A&M. Some of the conference leaders may fear Saban, but they love money more.
I’ve noticed that when it comes to this topic some on this board have themselves convinced saban is behind the scenes getting done whatever he wants. There are no reports of that but it’s what they 100% believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog and Dawgg

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
21,540
5,337
113
A 1+7+1 arrangement where you have to play another major conference opponent (or BYU or Notre Dame) just makes the most sense to me. That way, over a four year period every SEC school plays every other SEC team both home and away. Everyone is in the same boat.

I also like that it means schedules are varied year to year (if you play on a seasons 1 and 3 or 2 and 4 basis). I realize we’re in a conference but it’s getting boring playing the same seven schools every single year under the current set up.

A 3+6 nine game schedule means teams are going to have wildly unbalanced schedules. It also means it’ll take at least three years to play every other league team.

ETA - apparently my math is faulty. You can still play everyone home and away over four years in a 3+6. I still like the 1+7+1 model better.
If it makes common sense, then they sure as hell won't do it. We'll eventually go with whatever ESPN offers -- but I wonder... the way that Disney is bleeding money, this could turn into an interesting bidding war with some of the other networks. I know that may sound absurd but come back and see me in a couple of years. Disney lost billions of dollars. Billions.
 

Perd Hapley

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
2,952
3,052
113
I’ve noticed that when it comes to this topic some on this board have themselves convinced saban is behind the scenes getting done whatever he wants. There are no reports of that but it’s what they 100% believe.

Saban’s got a year or 2 left, max. No one gives a 17 what he thinks either way. Kinda stunning how few people are noticing him rapidly slipping into grandpa mode.
 

Duke Humphrey

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2013
2,203
784
113
- but I wonder... the way that Disney is bleeding money, this could turn into an interesting bidding war with some of the other networks. I know that may sound absurd but come back and see me in a couple of years. Disney lost billions of dollars. Billions.
Someone smarter than me may correct me, but I think the SEC is exclusively with Disney until 2034, No matter how many games they play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

AstroDog

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2022
1,298
843
113
I'd just soon as stay with an 8 game schedule from here on out. I actually like playing BAMA every year. And I like playing some regional mid majors as well like Memphis and Tulane. Then maybe one good far west matchup like we have vs AZ and AZState. One cupcake is enough to open up the season just like we're doing with SELA this year or with an instate SWAC team like JSU or Alcorn. Really would rather not play W. Michigan.
 

ronpolk

Well-known member
May 6, 2009
7,733
1,968
113
If it makes common sense, then they sure as hell won't do it. We'll eventually go with whatever ESPN offers -- but I wonder... the way that Disney is bleeding money, this could turn into an interesting bidding war with some of the other networks. I know that may sound absurd but come back and see me in a couple of years. Disney lost billions of dollars. Billions.
Disney lost billions during Covid, when the parks were completely shuttered. They have been profitable since. They lost 2.8 billion in 2020. Made $2 billion in 21, $3.1 billion in 22 and $1.2 billion in the first quarter of 2023. At the end of the first quarter they had a trailing 12 month EBITDA of over $12 billion and cash on hand of $10.4 billion.

They are not bleeding cash, no matter how much people on Facebook would want you to believe they are. Now the profits are down compared to pre Disney +, you want to criticize that then that is perfectly fine and accurate. But it’s definitely not accurate to say they are bleeding cash.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
45,685
7,577
113
Disney lost billions during Covid, when the parks were completely shuttered. They have been profitable since. They lost 2.8 billion in 2020. Made $2 billion in 21, $3.1 billion in 22 and $1.2 billion in the first quarter of 2023. At the end of the first quarter they had a trailing 12 month EBITDA of over $12 billion and cash on hand of $10.4 billion.

They are not bleeding cash, no matter how much people on Facebook would want you to believe they are. Now the profits are down compared to pre Disney +, you want to criticize that then that is perfectly fine and accurate. But it’s definitely not accurate to say they are bleeding cash.
Techincally, they bled cash in 2022. Used over $3 billion. But that was because they invested a lot in their parks and resorts and paid down a lot of debt. They generated $6 billion from operations, spent $5 billion on new parks/resorts, paid down $4 billion of debt. They're a very successful company. Heck, even the big loss in 2020 came from a $5 billion one-time impairment charges and not from true operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronpolk and Dawgg

OG Goat Holder

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
5,526
5,284
113
Saban’s got a year or 2 left, max. No one gives a 17 what he thinks either way. Kinda stunning how few people are noticing him rapidly slipping into grandpa mode.
Thank you. Just a damn pet peeve at this point, when clowns are like 'SaBiNz this, or sAbAn that", as if Sankey really gives two sh*ts.

This thing is about money, that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg and patdog

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,485
4,503
113
Well damn, that means Barrett Sallee will have to come up w/ at least 1 new topic to write about after that because we were assured every summer to get him picking us last
Well, he'll always have "Ole Miss is a dark horse".

Playin' tha hits!
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,485
4,503
113
I thought this quote from Sankey was interesting, though I don't specifically agree in this case:

Asked about the possibility of being compensated for an extra conference game, Sankey said he believes, "Money follows. It doesn't lead."

I feel like the SEC has established itself as a dominant brand in the marketplace. I mean... the NFL didn't just add an extra game to the schedule and cross their fingers that their media partners would give them more money down the road. It was all planned out and agreed upon ahead of time. The SEC is also super early into a long term agreement with ESPN. If they just give that extra game away to ESPN now, there's no incentive for ESPN to give them a dime more until it's time to renegotiate/extend the contract in about 8 years. Look at the ACC for proof of that. I just feel like that's a weak statement all around (though probably taken well out of context.)
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,485
4,503
113
Someone smarter than me may correct me, but I think the SEC is exclusively with Disney until 2034, No matter how many games they play.
You're correct. Disney (via ESPN, ABC, SEC Network, Hulu, etc.) has the exclusive video broadcast rights to all SEC home games, no matter the opponent.

If the SEC adds an additional 9th conference games, logically, all of those would be a home game for an SEC team, meaning the SEC is basically 'giving' Disney up to 8 additional games per year. I say "up to" because some of the away games that would be replaced (Sun Belt, AAC, etc.) would already be broadcast on a Disney platform of some kind.

For example, our 2026 game vs Minnesota is at Minnesota, which means it falls under the Big Ten's media rights, which are held by CBS, Fox, and NBC, so Disney is completely out on that deal. If we were to go to 9 conference games and have to cancel our home/away vs Minnesota to play South Carolina, then CBS/Fox/NBC lose that game, but Disney gains a game without having to compensate the SEC (and by extension Mississippi State) another dollar.
 

OG Goat Holder

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
5,526
5,284
113
Exactly. The idea that Saban killed the 9-game schedule is a fantasy. If the money is there, we'll play 9 and Bama's permanent opponents will be UT, AU and LSU. If it's not, we'll play 8.
Actually, I do think he could probably pull a string and get MSU added to the Bama permanents, rather than LSU. I've said this before. I don't know that TV is looking at it having to have Bama/LSU every single year. I'd be interested to know the actual facts there. I mean ESPN isn't even willing to pay for the 9th game, are they really looking at individual matchups? I don't think they really care much when they have all that inventory anyway.

Hopefully, this is a new age and time with so much money on the table. Because historically, the SEC and the Bama (and other powers) have absolutely screwed MSU because they could. That was our role, bend over and take it. So we will see. That may still be our role, in football.
 

patdog

Well-known member
May 28, 2007
45,685
7,577
113
Actually, I do think he could probably pull a string and get MSU added to the Bama permanents, rather than LSU. I've said this before. I don't know that TV is looking at it having to have Bama/LSU every single year. I'd be interested to know the actual facts there. I mean ESPN isn't even willing to pay for the 9th game, are they really looking at individual matchups? I don't think they really care much when they have all that inventory anyway.

Hopefully, this is a new age and time with so much money on the table. Because historically, the SEC and the Bama (and other powers) have absolutely screwed MSU because they could. That was our role, bend over and take it. So we will see. That may still be our role, in football.
Theres no question Bama-LSU is going to draw a much bigger than Bama-State will. That’s not even close. And this whole thing is being driven by tv viewership.

For the SEC to make Bama-State a permanent game, it would have to abandon the guiding principle of having 2 permanent opponents from your tier & 1 from the other tier. Of course, they could by majority vote, but I doubt they will. It’s not only the most fair way to do it, it also produces the most compelling games for TV (which again is what’s driving this whole thing). Even if you buy Savant’s lame argument that despite their record, Tennessee is really an upper tier team, someone has to move to the lower tier. That someone is Auburn. So you’re right where you started with needing an upper tier team for their 3rd permanent opponent.

ironically, for all the worrying about getting Bama as a permanent opponent, the one we probably will get (A&M) may be worse for us. They’ve got a lot more money than Alabama. With NIL, if they ever make a decent coaching hire, they’ll be competing for national titles.
 

OG Goat Holder

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
5,526
5,284
113
For the SEC to make Bama-State a permanent game, it would have to abandon the guiding principle of having 2 permanent opponents from your tier & 1 from the other tier. Of course, they could by majority vote, but I doubt they will. It’s not only the most fair way to do it, it also produces the most compelling games for TV (which again is what’s driving this whole thing). Even if you buy Savant’s lame argument that despite their record, Tennessee is really an upper tier team, someone has to move to the lower tier. That someone is Auburn. So you’re right where you started with needing an upper tier team for their 3rd permanent opponent.
That's a fair point.

ironically, for all the worrying about getting Bama as a permanent opponent, the one we probably will get (A&M) may be worse for us. They’ve got a lot more money than Alabama. With NIL, if they ever make a decent coaching hire, they’ll be competing for national titles.
I've thought about that too. Saban is about to retire, and they'll fall back to the pack. However, aTm has always had money and bought players, so I see it is as more of the same, they'll rise up from time to time but not consistently. Bama has a much longer history of just being better than us all the damn time, even in down years. And they seem to correct their coaching hires quicker and keep these long tenured studs.

I'm personally just tired of being attached to them. The only real things that connect us is geography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: patdog

Bulldog Bruce

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2007
3,184
1,726
113
I think playing Bama ever year is our best and maybe only chance to ever win a NC. We don't have history to boost us in any of the necessary polls. In the case of that cinderella season beating Bama will help. They have kept out other conference schools and tried to keep TCU out this past year. If you have that W over a strong Bama team it weighs heavily. And your gonna have to probably beat them at some point during any cinderella season and I would rather face them in Starkville than at a neutral site.
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
6,485
4,503
113
I think playing Bama ever year is our best and maybe only chance to ever win a NC. We don't have history to boost us in any of the necessary polls. In the case of that cinderella season beating Bama will help. They have kept out other conference schools and tried to keep TCU out this past year. If you have that W over a strong Bama team it weighs heavily. And your gonna have to probably beat them at some point during any cinderella season and I would rather face them in Starkville than at a neutral site.
I get what you’re saying, but I think with 12 teams in the tourney, if you’re an 11-1 (and maybe 10-2) or better SEC team, you’re probably getting in, regardless of whether you beat Alabama, of if they’re even on your schedule.
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
21,540
5,337
113
Disney lost billions during Covid, when the parks were completely shuttered. They have been profitable since. They lost 2.8 billion in 2020. Made $2 billion in 21, $3.1 billion in 22 and $1.2 billion in the first quarter of 2023. At the end of the first quarter they had a trailing 12 month EBITDA of over $12 billion and cash on hand of $10.4 billion.

They are not bleeding cash, no matter how much people on Facebook would want you to believe they are. Now the profits are down compared to pre Disney +, you want to criticize that then that is perfectly fine and accurate. But it’s definitely not accurate to say they are bleeding cash.

I'm sorry. I thought they had lost $23 Billion in 2022. I was wrong. It was $120 Billion. 44% of stock value

$120 Billion


Aren't contracts thrown out when a company goes bankrupt? I don't know much about business, but that may be the case.

2023 is going to be worse, MUCH worse.

disney-stock-2.png