SEC Scheduling: Are you 1+7 or 3+6?

[Maroon Eagle]

[FONT="]I’ve always been a big “everyone should play 8 conference games” guy, buuuuuuuut I don’t know how a 16-team conference could pull that off. 1-7 eliminates WAY too many big annual games. https://t.co/pYdffFVhe8— Bill Connelly (@ESPN_BillC) May 24, 2022 [/FONT]​

 

[HotMop]

If our 3 permanents are Mississippi, Vandy, and Kentucky I'm all in.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Dellenger's suggestion is:

Mississippi State: Ole Miss; Kentucky; Texas A&M

I could go for that.

Link: Here.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

1/7

We wouldn't get 3 have-nots as our permanent 3, so let's just have Ole Miss every year. I don't think we have any other rivalries that have​ to be annual.


ETA: Although if we really could get Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Texas A&M, a group we're 16-14 against over the last decade, we should take that.

 

[57stratdawg]

Give me those 3 permanent opponents and let’s ride.

Would we be playing 10 P5 teams a year for the foreseeable future? I’m fine with that as well.

 

[missouridawg]

3+6

Eliminate the annual Bama game at all costs.

 

[patdog]

If those are the 2 options, I think it will be 3-6 and this from the article is why:

While a 1–7 model preserves the primary rivalries (think Mississippi State–Ole Miss, Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Oklahoma), a 3–6 model protects matchups like Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia and, just maybe, Texas–Texas A&M.

I don't see those secondary rivalry games not being played every year.

 

[notoriousD_O_G]

9 conference games is the only way forward. Losing the non conference game might cost us a bowl here and there but the schedule will probably even out by playing more east teams which are closer to our level.

 

[RiverCityDawg]

Dellenger's suggestion is:



I could go for that.

Link: Here.

I'm a 3-6 guy and I'll take these three for State, thank you very much.

 

[patdog]

Agree that a 9-game SEC schedule with UM, UK and A&M as permanent opponents won't be any harder than the current 8-game schedule. We'll see less Bama, LSU, Arkansas and Auburn and more Vandy, UGA, UF, USC, Tenn and Missouri.

 

[IPMdawg]

I’m fine either way. You are going to play every team in two years. A rivalry game can exist in that rotation. What would be interesting is 4 16-team conferences playing the 3+6 model with 3 power 5 non-conference games (one from each conference). Power 5 will have to shed a few teams but it’s the next level.

 

[dickiedawg]

Let’s keep divisions with the 8 haves on one side and the 8 have-nots on the other. Our schedule every year has Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Missouri and South Carolina. We don’t need any crossover games.

Who cares if it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever?

 

[DoggieDaddy13]

We need Bama on the permanent. It's an old rivalry. Proximity. National relevance and exposure for those games.

And if you wanna BE THE MAN you gotta 17n BEAT THE MAN!

 

[patdog]

The Bama every year rivalry will be dead under any model the SEC adopts.

 

[natchezdawg]

Playing them year in and year out, but only managing to win seven times..

since Dwight Eisenhower was in office has been terrific for our relevance.***


You must be a gluten for punishment.

 

[kb549]

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to play the douchebags every year? Seriously, nothing would make me happier if they left the SEC and were relegated down to the MAC or Sunbelt. Nobody likes them. Name one fanbase that everyone else despises that has no athletic success to show for it (I don’t think we are counting women’s golf). Everyone hates the blue bloods for what they’ve done to the parity of college football. Everyone hates the Mississippi Sharts because they are cock gobblin’ aholes.

 

[johnson86-1]

We need Bama on the permanent. It's an old rivalry. Proximity. National relevance and exposure for those games.

And if you wanna BE THE MAN you gotta 17n BEAT THE MAN!

I regret I only have 1 downvote to give this.

 

[johnson86-1]

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to play the douchebags every year? Seriously, nothing would make me happier if they left the SEC and were relegated down to the MAC or Sunbelt. Nobody likes them. Name one fanbase that everyone else despises that has no athletic success to show for it (I don’t think we are counting women’s golf). Everyone hates the blue bloods for what they’ve done to the parity of college football. Everyone hates the Mississippi Sharts because they are cock gobblin’ aholes.

I would be fine not playing them, but if we are going to have a permanent opponent not named Vandy or Mizzou, you want it to be them.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

3+6

Eliminate the annual Bama game at all costs.

I could easily see our 3 being Ole Miss, Alabama, and LSU. Then our luck Ole Miss would get us, Missouri, and Vandy.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

We need Bama on the permanent. It's an old rivalry. Proximity. National relevance and exposure for those games.

And if you wanna BE THE MAN you gotta 17n BEAT THE MAN!

We can beat them in the playoffs.

 

[Dawgg]

I think 3-6 makes the most sense.

Assumedly, a 1-7 gets you:
Alabama-Auburn
Mississippi State-Ole Miss
Georgia-Florida
Arkansas-Texas A&M
Texas-OU

Then what?

Tennessee-Kentucky?
South Carolina-Missouri?
LSU-Vandy?

I have a hard time believing that the SEC will give up both Alabama-LSU and Alabama-Tennessee (though the latter has hardly been stellar since the turn of the century).
Are they going to pass up Texas-Texas A&M as a license to print money and just let it be Texas-OU (or vice-versa).
Arkansas is going to get, what? LSU and not Texas A&M?
Who would Tennessee get? Kentucky? Vandy? South Carolina?
If Florida-Georgia, Alabama-Auburn, and Arkansas-Texas A&M are protected, who does LSU get?

 

[Smoked Toag]

We need Bama on the permanent. It's an old rivalry. Proximity. National relevance and exposure for those games.

And if you wanna BE THE MAN you gotta 17n BEAT THE MAN!

I am alright with this, as long as we get either Kentucky or Vanderbilt to go along with Ole Miss. You make a good point with the rivalry, which needs to be preserved, and also the proximity. Further, Bama won't always be THIS dominant. Saban is 70 years old.

 

[Smoked Toag]

The Bama every year rivalry will be dead under any model the SEC adopts.

Why? Their only true requirements are Auburn and Tennessee.

 

[missouridawg]

I think 3-6 makes the most sense.

Assumedly, a 1-7 gets you:
Alabama-Auburn
Mississippi State-Ole Miss
Georgia-Florida
Arkansas-Texas A&M
Texas-OU

Then what?

Tennessee-Kentucky?
South Carolina-Missouri?
LSU-Vandy?

I have a hard time believing that the SEC will give up both Alabama-LSU and Alabama-Tennessee (though the latter has hardly been stellar since the turn of the century).
Are they going to pass up Texas-Texas A&M as a license to print money and just let it be Texas-OU (or vice-versa).
Arkansas is going to get, what? LSU and not Texas A&M?
Who would Tennessee get? Kentucky? Vandy? South Carolina?
If Florida-Georgia, Alabama-Auburn, and Arkansas-Texas A&M are protected, who does LSU get?

Here's another group of 3 permanents that I just drew up in excel... the only game that is missing that might ruffle some feathers is UGA-TN. Maybe the ARK-MIZ rivarly needs to stay?

	#1	#2	#3
Alabama	TN	AU	LSU
Auburn	BAMA	UGA	MSU
Miss State	AU	OM	KY
Ole Miss	MSU	LSU	ARK
LSU	BAMA	OM	ARK
aTm	TEX	ARK	OU
Arkansas	OM	LSU	ATM
Texas	ATM	OU	MIZ
Oklahoma	ATM	TEX	MIZ
Mizzou	TEX	OU	KY
Kentucky	MSU	MIZ	VANDY
Tennessee	BAMA	USC	FL
Vanderbilt	KY	USC	UGA
South Carolina	VANDY	FL	TN
UGA	AU	VANDY	FL
Florida	TN	UGA	USC

<tbody>
</tbody>

This smattering gives everyone their main rival, as well as their second rival (for example... Bama's main is AU and second is TN). It even gives almost everyone their third (Bama gets LSU). But it doesn't give EVERYONE their third (TN with FL, for example doesn't make it here).

 

[vhdawg]

I would lean toward the 3 permanent model although Mississippi State is one of the few teams who really only needs a single permanent rival. I just can't see killing all the second-tier rivalries that have been played annually for 100 years.

I hate the idea of going to 9 games simply because it forces an additional eight losses onto your conference teams that could have been non-conference wins, and that'll affect bowl eligibility for the middle tier pretty much every year.

However, the fact is that the rotational math with 16 teams pretty much comes down to these two models....using any other model does not have an easy repeatable window.

 

[patdog]

As others have pointed out, we're not even Bama's #3 rival. That's LSU. There's a lot of history in that game and the SEC isn't going to give it up to let Bama and MSU continue to play every year. Hell, it's not like MSU and Bama are really that big rivals to begin with. We even had lobbied the SEC to let us drop Bama as a permanent opponent in favor of Kentucky back in the late 80s. Then in the year the change was going to happen, USC and Arkansas joined the conference and Bama never rotated off. But that's why Kentucky suddenly popped up as our permanent opponent from the East, they were already on the schedule.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

We are Alabama’s most played SEC opponent, yet they are only our 3rd behind UM and LSU.

I agree with you on not preserving the Bama series, so any change to our schedule will be a welcome change from the inequity in SEC scheduling from 1932 until 1992….

 

[ronpolk]

I like 8 games because I think that is our best shot at bowl eligibility, even on an average year. However, I’m for whatever means we don’t see Alabama and LSU on an annual basis anymore. Time to spread that fun around to others.

 

[Go Budaw]

I would lean toward the 3 permanent model although Mississippi State is one of the few teams who really only needs a single permanent rival. I just can't see killing all the second-tier rivalries that have been played annually for 100 years.

I hate the idea of going to 9 games simply because it forces an additional eight losses onto your conference teams that could have been non-conference wins, and that'll affect bowl eligibility for the middle tier pretty much every year.

However, the fact is that the rotational math with 16 teams pretty much comes down to these two models....using any other model does not have an easy repeatable window.

If the SEC joins every conference besides the ACC by adding a 9th game, it will do two things. One, it will essentially force the ACC to do the same to not be the weakest Power 5 conference in terms of overall SOS. Second, the Power 5 would then collectively force the NCAA to nix the 6 win rule for bowl eligibility. Its essentially already a relic of the past, anyway, and has been bypassed whenever its been convenient to do so. Bowl eligibility is going to be no concern at all going forward unless bowls start folding and they literally need there to be fewer teams, but as we all know the exact opposite is happening.

 

[SBDawg]

So why couldn't there just be two permanent opponents like right now?

 

[dickiedawg]

So why couldn't there just be two permanent opponents like right now?

Well right now you have 7 permanent opponents.
But the two models presented allow you to cycle through the non-permanent opponents home-and-home every 4 years. 1+7 you rotate 14 schools in two years. 3+6 you rotate 12 schools in 2 years.
These obviously aren’t the *only* two scheduling options- they’re generally agreed by the decision makers to be the *best* out of many that have been proposed.

 

[dawgnabit]

I don't see the SEC going to a 1+ 7 because that would potential cause the league to miss out on some marquee secondary rivalries. ie UGA/Auburn, Bama/Tennessee, Bama/LSU, Texas/A&M or OU depending on who they want to make Texas' permanent. The TV ratings for some of these games will be too big for the SEC to want to only do every couple years

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Am I the only one that doesn’t want to play the douchebags every year?

Are we talking Alabama or Ole Miss or Florida or…?

 

[Mr. Cook]

Ain't a rivalry when one team wins all the time

 

[Mr. Cook]

I'm gonna say "2+7"

 

[vhdawg]

So why couldn't there just be two permanent opponents like right now?

Math.

16 teams, 15 possible opponents.

if there's two permanents, then there's 13 left to work out a rotation for. You need a six-team rotation for 8 conference games, or a 7-team rotation for 9 conference games, and with 13 teams to pick from, that rotation gets long and dirty because 6 and 7 don't divide evenly into 13.

Where with one permanent, there's 14 left, so if you play eight games, you need 7 others and you can take half of them every two years or home-and-home every four. And with three permanents, theres 12 left, so with nine games, you need 6 more games and again, you can take half of them every two years or home-and-home every four. The math's just way easier with these options.

 

[Go Budaw]

Ain't a rivalry when one team wins all the time

Then Alabama-UT isn’t a rivalry either. We’ve beaten Alabama more recently than UT has.

 

[Smoked Toag]

As others have pointed out, we're not even Bama's #3 rival. That's LSU. There's a lot of history in that game and the SEC isn't going to give it up to let Bama and MSU continue to play every year. Hell, it's not like MSU and Bama are really that big rivals to begin with. We even had lobbied the SEC to let us drop Bama as a permanent opponent in favor of Kentucky back in the late 80s. Then in the year the change was going to happen, USC and Arkansas joined the conference and Bama never rotated off. But that's why Kentucky suddenly popped up as our permanent opponent from the East, they were already on the schedule.

Well we all need to define rivalries first. Honestly, who Alabama plays third doesn't really matter. If it's us, fine, if it's not, fine. I want to preserve rivalries first, then it SEEMS as if geographical proximity would come into play.

Tennessee is the main issue. They have Vandy in-state, Kentucky next door, Alabama historically, and Florida in modern history. Who stays and who goes? Seems best to end Tennessee/Florida, since it was really more of a Spurrier vs. Fulmer deal, very similar to Alabama/Saban vs. LSU. These aren't real, historical rivalries, no need to keep them.

 

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

The Bama every year rivalry will be dead under any model the SEC adopts.

I will be shocked, shocked I tell you, if SEC Commissioner Saban allows Bama to end up with TN, Auburn and LSU as their permanents. They will get Auburn, TN, and then Saban will cherry pick either us or Ole Miss.

 

[HumpDawgy]

I would rather have 4 divisions of 4 permanents. Something like:

East Division - Florida, Georgia, S.Carolina, Kentucky
East Central - Auburn, Bama, Tennessee, Vandy
West Central - State, Ole Miss, LSU, Arky
West Division - A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Mizzou

Only rivalry lock needed would be Auburn-Georgia.