Mike Slive thinks rivalries are groovy.

No, really.

“Looking ahead, each institution is trying to figure out how to protect their interests, but also what’s in the best interest of the league to help us maintain the success we’ve had. Some rivalries have been lost nationwide in expansion, and we value rivalries. Protecting rivalries is something we clearly want to do. Our goal is get the scheduling done before Destin (at the annual SEC spring business meetings in late May).”

I’m not really sure what the hurry is there.  I have a hard time believing they’ll come to a consensus on scheduling before hashing things out with CBS and ESPN.  Where things sound like they’re going swimmingly, by the way.  (“We have started discussions with both our television partners. We feel adding Texas A&M and Missouri has strengthened us in lots of ways, but it certainly strengthened us in television.” )  But I’d be a little surprised if the conference has its TV deals wrapped up that quickly.



Filed under SEC Football

4 responses to “Mike Slive thinks rivalries are groovy.

  1. FCDore

    On the heels of 6 consecutive championships and given the league’s high ratings, this is a good time to bring the TV people to the table. My only math questions for the TV people, to which I trust (hope) they’re finding the answer:
    1. Missouri + Texas A&M + inventory generated by 8-game schedule = $???
    2. Missouri + Texas A&M + inventory generated by 9-game schedule = $???
    3. Is the extra $$$ associated with a 9-game schedule instead of an 8-game schedule greater than potential loss of $$$ from not having eligible teams to play bowl games in Memphis and Birmingham?


  2. Cojones

    Senator, when are you coming out with your blog subject “How many Angels on the Head of a Pin?” .


  3. WarD Eagle

    I’m sure ESPNBCBS are slobbering over the options left in the wake of a loss of the AU/UGA game.

    I can’t wait to see AU renew the series with Wofford.

    I’m sure you guys are foaming at the mouth to even things up with U of Chicago.


  4. Pingback: Post #193: Tuesday Morning Hangover « sugarfalling