Well it seems that the SEC is getting rid of divisions and will be establishing one permanent rival per school. All others will be in a rotating basis.

It looks like that t.u. will be paired with OU and us, LSU.

It seems that Bjork wants to play the sips every year as another "permanent".

www.kxxv.com/sports/texas-a-m-hopes-to-make-renewed-rivalry-with-ut-permanent-report

It will probably be 3 permanent rivals per school

For us, probably tu, lsu, and arkansas

the OP is right - 1 permanent rival seems to have some momentum with the league. And it's not such a horrible thing.

The 3-6 model only makes getting to the playoff that much more difficult - until it's expanded, that is. And logically it would make sense for the SEC to switch over to this model once that occurs

More successful schools want nine. Smaller schools want eight. If 1-7 model then we only play LSU annually and home and away rotate on average every two years for remaining 14 teams. Going to guess from 2025 through 2029 we complete a full rotation before anything changes unless the playoff expands. Then possibility of nine games if all the other A5 conferences also go to nine. The Alliance (P12, B10, ACC) has agreed to schedule each other and as a result B10 was leaning towards 8-game conference schedule. Wouldn't be surprised if they expand by two and go 7-1 also.

There's very little chance they go to one permanent rival. A handful of extremely old yearly SEC rivalries would go by the wayside

No way we go to just one permanent rival.

Ole Miss must play LSU and MSU annually; Alabama must play Tennessee and Auburn annually; UGA must play Tennessee and Auburn annually, and Auburn must play Alabama and UGA annually. And we must play tu and LSU annually.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

No way we go to just one permanent rival.

Ole Miss must play LSU and MSU annually; Alabama must play Tennessee and Auburn annually; UGA must play Tennessee and Auburn annually, and Auburn must play Alabama and UGA annually. And we must play tu and LSU annually.

---

Florida will want to keep UGA and possibly UT. One could go on and on. Something will need to give.

Some things already gave. See end of Florida-auburn annual game

It's going to be 9 games with 3 rivalries

Ultimately, I expect it will be the 3-6 model. In which case, obviously tu will be one of our permanent rivals. Ditto for LSU. I can see Piggy as the third, but I'd actually prefer one of the Mississippi schools.

The question is whether it's LSU or Arky as the fourth in our pod with the sips and land thieves. While my heart says take LSU every year, my brain says Arkansas gives a clearer path to the playoffs.

I think we ultimately end up in pods and go to 9 games. Pods rotate every two years to make a division, and you have one permanent rival from each pod.

It is simply the best way to play the most of these rivalry games and see everyone twice, home and home every 6 years.

Ag98inlubbock said:

---

I could be wrong, but I thought they've already said pods were not an option. It's going to be either 1-7 or 3-6.

---

Yeah, they seem to have already shot down divisions and pods. The vote was on 1-7 vs. 3-6.

I wonder how much thought was given to a 2-6 model. It keeps conference games at 8 but allows 2 perms.

It would make for a "less tidy" cycling through of the other teams - only 6 of the other 14 every year - but the 2 permanent contests is something to consider.

CrottyKid said:

---

I submit that our permanent rivals should be Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and Missouri. I want 3 automatic wins every year. I don't care who we play.

---

The only thing stopping a race to easy is the pride of the SEC in its traditions. See…Texas is already corrupting their values without having a seat at the table.

Also notice Texas and OU likely picked each other as sole permanent rival. That tells us all we need to know.

there will be no pods. mainly because its stupid.

The Agly Duckling said:

---

I wonder how much thought was given to a 2-6 model. It keeps conference games at 8 but allows 2 perms.

It would make for a "less tidy" cycling through of the other teams - only 6 of the other 14 every year - but the 2 permanent contests is something to consider.

---

Not much. Both the 1-7 model and the 3-6 model play all teams home and away in a four year period, which was apparently a priority in the process. The 2-6 model loses that feature (and would be much more of a scheduling nightmare).

BMX Bandit said:

---

there will be no pods. mainly because its stupid.

---

There is a more practical reason: the 1-7 and 3-6 rotate through the whole conference every two years and home and home every four with eight games and nine games respectively. It's a very stable scheduling scenario, too, that is much simpler to rotate than the current divisions.

With four team pods there are only seven head-to-head games so you have to fill one contest with an extra game that is either permanent a la cross-division permanent "rival" or rotating over presumably 12 years for one matchup or 24 for two matchups (home and hime.) Worse with nine games.

The goal with pod-like divisions is to try to achieve competitive similarity, too, and two games forces you to split up between an off division and have at best one common opponent between any two other pod members. NFL with 16 games was two each (home and home) against your division, then everyone posts four against a common same conference and opposite conference division then two against half of one more division in same conference (at least at one point.) So each division has more level road to playoff than not.

I don't think a pod schedule is insane. I do think it works better with ten conference games if not eleven.

LSU, sip and Arky or bust.

nbaker2022 said:

---

the OP is right - 1 permanent rival seems to have some momentum with the league. And it's not such a horrible thing.

The 3-6 model only makes getting to the playoff that much more difficult - until it's expanded, that is. And logically it would make sense for the SEC to switch over to this model once that occurs

---

One permanent rival is an absolutely horrible idea for us and the rest of the SEC who have more than one rivalry game. Three permanent games is an absolute minimum. I have faith the people in charge are not that dumb.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

No way we go to just one permanent rival.

Ole Miss must play LSU and MSU annually; Alabama must play Tennessee and Auburn annually; UGA must play Tennessee and Auburn annually, and Auburn must play Alabama and UGA annually. And we must play tu and LSU annually.

---

Tennessee and Georgia isn't a major rivalry. Before the original conference expansion introduced divisions in 1992, they had only played about 20 times ever. Even with rarely playing in the last 3 decades, Tennessee has played Ole Miss and Auburn more than Georgia. Heck, until 5 years ago they'd played Georgia Tech more than Georgia.

By far, Tennessee's 3 historic rivals are Alabama, Vanderbilt, and Georgia. Their fans age 30-50 think of Florida as a big rival, too, but the main history of that game is basically all in the 90s.

rootube said:

---

nbaker2022 said:

---

the OP is right - 1 permanent rival seems to have some momentum with the league. And it's not such a horrible thing.

The 3-6 model only makes getting to the playoff that much more difficult - until it's expanded, that is. And logically it would make sense for the SEC to switch over to this model once that occurs

---

One permanent rival is an absolutely horrible idea for us and the rest of the SEC who have more than one rivalry game. Three permanent games is an absolute minimum. I have faith the people in charge are not that dumb.

---

Like I said in my original post, my guess is it's just a temporary thing until the playoff is expanded.

Bjork said on TA Radio this morning that the playoff expansion could happen as early as '26. He also said that the 9 game format makes the most sense. Who knows at this point. My guess is we find out more at media days which is a mere 5 weeks away.

Arrakis ecologist said:

---

If they go to 3 permanent and a 9 game schedule, there is no way we don't get t.u. the real issue is to not get OU as well. I would want t.u. Arkansas, and LSU, the three teams we have the most games against. But for some reason I have seen schedules replacing LSU with OU. I do NOT want that.

---

The #1 objective for A&M is to keep Arkansas and ou out of the state as much as possible.

Making decisions based on who we have played the most should not be a big influencer...at all. The objective is to secure as many recruiting advantages as possible...which will equal National Championships/Playoff appearances.

Arkansas was powerful until they cut their Texas recruiting ties by moving to the SEC. Oklahoma would be Tulsa without Texas recruiting. They are two of the biggest recruiting leaches in the nation. Why in the hell would we ever want to give them additional games in the state?

It would be MUCH better for us to have sip as the permanent rival thus forcing ou & sip to play each other outside of the 1 permanent. Oklahoma will do its best to Big8/Big12 their schedule and sip being our permanent just makes it a little harder.

What about those *******s from South Carolina! I'm kind of going to miss people trying to make that fabricated rivalry a thing

Then who would you want as our 3 rivals? t.u, LSU, and ? Bama nor the miss schools isn't happening because they don't really hate us and they have too much history with other schools. Heck LSU may not even want us and we will get stuck with t.u, OU, and Missouri

Our 3 will likely be Texas, LSU, and someone else. It could be Arkansas (I doubt it) but more likely a filler just to make the numbers work. Missouri is a possibility. Yes, I think South Carolina is a possibility. South Carolina would likely not fill all three spots with teams that make sense, even geographic sense and will likely have one "these are the last two left, they have to go together" matchup.

if it is the 3 permanent rival set up I think it will be LSU, sips and MSU. LSU sips and Arky would make sense too.

nbaker2022 said:

---

rootube said:

---

nbaker2022 said:

---

the OP is right - 1 permanent rival seems to have some momentum with the league. And it's not such a horrible thing.

The 3-6 model only makes getting to the playoff that much more difficult - until it's expanded, that is. And logically it would make sense for the SEC to switch over to this model once that occurs

---

One permanent rival is an absolutely horrible idea for us and the rest of the SEC who have more than one rivalry game. Three permanent games is an absolute minimum. I have faith the people in charge are not that dumb.

---

Like I said in my original post, my guess is it's just a temporary thing until the playoff is expanded.

---

My take is the 1-7 model is "gaining momentum" because Sankey wants it to be seen that way. He will use it as leverage to negotiate for 2 specific things. And they will be at the same time.

1) there are too many rivalries, and too much money at stake to NOT go to the 3-6. Negotiations will drive huge contract numbers, and we'll get the 3-6.

2) better games (rivalries) and more viewership will drive adding to playoff expansion. If the larger NCAA won't add more, then Sankey will create his own playoff within the SEC. The BDF, ACC, B1G and P12 will cave for fear of being left out.

The SEC & ESPN combined have a ton of leverage.