I'm kinda piggybacking off of the Bama/Auburn to the east thread.
I think the current SEC scheduling format of 6-1-1 sucks. It's lame playing 6 of the East schools once every 7 years or whatever. For example, remember how the USC-LSU game got moved to Baton Rouge last year? Well, as it turns out, LSU won't be making a trip to Columbia until 2028 now. It's ridiculous.
Players should be able to play every SEC school at some point during their 4 years. The only reason we have it this way is to preserve the Auburn-Georgia and Bama-Tennessee rivalries. LSU-UF is a quasi-rivalry, and the other matchups... most people don't GAF about.
Option 1: Eliminate the cross-division rivalries, keep the divisions the same
This is probably the most controversial, being that AU-UGA and BAMA-UT are so deeply rooted in history. But people won't shed a tear for the MSST-UK rivalry dissolving. Moving to a 6-2 format allows for much more turnover. If this happened, the scheduling would have to be structured so that the 2 East opponents are different every year.
Team A would always play Team B in back to back years, having a home-and-home, but there will always have to be a new team on the schedule each year. E.g. A&M plays UF and @UGA one year, and the next year plays UGA and @UK, then UK and @UT, etc.
I'm not sure if this would allow every team to be played in 4 years (someone do the math please), but at least it allows for more variety.
Downside: kills 2 big historic rivalries.
Option 2: Eliminate some cross-division rivalries, keep the divisions the same
I'm honestly not sure how this would work, but this could be a compromise to keep the rivalries mentioned above. I'm pretty sure the Big Ten does this with a couple schools. They don't have permanent cross-division rivalries, but they do protect a couple of inter-divisional matchups (Purdue-Indiana I think?) for the sake of history.
Option 3: Re-align the divisions, eliminate cross division rivalries
This goes back to the thread about moving Bama and Auburn to the east. That way, Bama's and Auburn's 2 big rivalries will be maintained. This could be controversial, because moving Vandy and Mizzou to the west could make the divisions seem disproportionate. UT, Bama, Auburn, UF, and UGA on an up year could be a beast of a division.
I think it could even out, however. Mizzou, Arkansas, and Ole Miss have had some up years recently too. LSU is pretty consistent.
The SEC may also protect the LSU-Bama game as a single cross-divisional rivalry.
Option 4: Eliminate divisions altogether, all teams have 2 permanent opponents, and rotate the other 6.
I heard about this option some time ago, and liked it more than I thought I would. This gives significant flexibility to scheduling. A&M's 2 obvious choices for permanent opponents are Arkansas and LSU. Bama's would probably be Auburn and Tennessee, etc.
Downsides are: could be a scheduling headache, and some teams might get a really bad draw one year. But otherwise I like this option.
(edited to add) Option 5: Add one conference game for a 9-game SEC schedule, regardless of whether we keep cross-division rivalries
This would make it 6-2-1 or 6-3, and I think either of these is better than what we have now. I don't care to play USCe every year and I imagine most people don't either.
Downside: 9 SEC games is a beast. Lots of schools may oppose this because of permanent OOC games like UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, etc. That would give these schools only 2 free games a year. If they wanted to schedule another P5 opponent in there, it would make for a very tough schedule.
If we ever do play tu again, 9 SEC games + tu is a beast.
Regardless, I think 6-1-1 is one of the worst options we have. Teams should be able to play teams from the other division more often than every 7 years. And why are A&M and SC paired up? The two schools are the furthest from one another in the conference, and nobody cares about the Mizzou-Arky "rivalry."
I'm not totally sure of this but don't the Big Ten and ACC have different scheduling?
I think the current SEC scheduling format of 6-1-1 sucks. It's lame playing 6 of the East schools once every 7 years or whatever. For example, remember how the USC-LSU game got moved to Baton Rouge last year? Well, as it turns out, LSU won't be making a trip to Columbia until 2028 now. It's ridiculous.
Players should be able to play every SEC school at some point during their 4 years. The only reason we have it this way is to preserve the Auburn-Georgia and Bama-Tennessee rivalries. LSU-UF is a quasi-rivalry, and the other matchups... most people don't GAF about.
Option 1: Eliminate the cross-division rivalries, keep the divisions the same
This is probably the most controversial, being that AU-UGA and BAMA-UT are so deeply rooted in history. But people won't shed a tear for the MSST-UK rivalry dissolving. Moving to a 6-2 format allows for much more turnover. If this happened, the scheduling would have to be structured so that the 2 East opponents are different every year.
Team A would always play Team B in back to back years, having a home-and-home, but there will always have to be a new team on the schedule each year. E.g. A&M plays UF and @UGA one year, and the next year plays UGA and @UK, then UK and @UT, etc.
I'm not sure if this would allow every team to be played in 4 years (someone do the math please), but at least it allows for more variety.
Downside: kills 2 big historic rivalries.
Option 2: Eliminate some cross-division rivalries, keep the divisions the same
I'm honestly not sure how this would work, but this could be a compromise to keep the rivalries mentioned above. I'm pretty sure the Big Ten does this with a couple schools. They don't have permanent cross-division rivalries, but they do protect a couple of inter-divisional matchups (Purdue-Indiana I think?) for the sake of history.
Option 3: Re-align the divisions, eliminate cross division rivalries
This goes back to the thread about moving Bama and Auburn to the east. That way, Bama's and Auburn's 2 big rivalries will be maintained. This could be controversial, because moving Vandy and Mizzou to the west could make the divisions seem disproportionate. UT, Bama, Auburn, UF, and UGA on an up year could be a beast of a division.
I think it could even out, however. Mizzou, Arkansas, and Ole Miss have had some up years recently too. LSU is pretty consistent.
The SEC may also protect the LSU-Bama game as a single cross-divisional rivalry.
Option 4: Eliminate divisions altogether, all teams have 2 permanent opponents, and rotate the other 6.
I heard about this option some time ago, and liked it more than I thought I would. This gives significant flexibility to scheduling. A&M's 2 obvious choices for permanent opponents are Arkansas and LSU. Bama's would probably be Auburn and Tennessee, etc.
Downsides are: could be a scheduling headache, and some teams might get a really bad draw one year. But otherwise I like this option.
(edited to add) Option 5: Add one conference game for a 9-game SEC schedule, regardless of whether we keep cross-division rivalries
This would make it 6-2-1 or 6-3, and I think either of these is better than what we have now. I don't care to play USCe every year and I imagine most people don't either.
Downside: 9 SEC games is a beast. Lots of schools may oppose this because of permanent OOC games like UF-FSU, SC-Clemson, etc. That would give these schools only 2 free games a year. If they wanted to schedule another P5 opponent in there, it would make for a very tough schedule.
If we ever do play tu again, 9 SEC games + tu is a beast.
Regardless, I think 6-1-1 is one of the worst options we have. Teams should be able to play teams from the other division more often than every 7 years. And why are A&M and SC paired up? The two schools are the furthest from one another in the conference, and nobody cares about the Mizzou-Arky "rivalry."
I'm not totally sure of this but don't the Big Ten and ACC have different scheduling?
