Cost-benefit analysis

Honestly, I don’t know why we don’t hear more talk like this from major conference athletic directors:

I had a good chat with Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds last Friday. We talked about the past, present and future of the Big 12, and you’ve read about some of our conversation in my Sunday and Monday columns. But Dodds tossed out an idea which didn’t really fit anything I was writing about but which was extremely interesting. So I’ll share it here.

Dodds advocates playing more conference games in BOTH football and basketball. He would like nine Big 12 games in football and 22 in basketball (a double round-robin).

“I’d rather play more conference games,” Dodds said. “We don’t have enough votes for that. We wouldn’t be buying so many games.”

Dodds said he has trotted out the idea “a couple of times. Hadn’t had much success. They know where we stand. Sometimes programs get down and want to play games where they can win more games. Those votes will always be against adding.”

Financially, with the rising cost of scheduling cupcake games, Dodds’ proposal makes more and more sense.  Not that the coaches would like it.


Filed under College Football, It's Just Bidness

3 responses to “Cost-benefit analysis

  1. Paul's Johnson

    1)Conference expansion has sort of rendered this approach moot.

    2) How many other schools have Texas’ problem?

    3) Texas AD probably has not received a lot of support because this is a move proposed by Texas, designed to help Texas.


  2. With no SEC expansion in sight, I like the way the football schedule is set up now. If It Ain’t broke, don’t fix it. However, a 9th conference game could be set up so every team would play every other team at least twice in any 4 year period. Something to consider ?.


  3. UGA alum

    Hmmm… if the SEC does this… is there anyway to go back to how UF used to play AU before UGA? I’d be all for it. Maybe UGA could get Ole Miss back as the other West opponent?