Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Absolutely ZERO chance they go with 1 permanent rival in a 1-7 format. It could be 2-6 to stay at 8, or 3-6 if we go to 9.

My preference would be 3-6, and I'd like our 3 to be LSU, Pig, and one of the MS teams but feel certain it will be cow, OU, and Pig or LSU.

---

It's apparently around 50-50 in the room between 1-7 and 3-6 which provide perfect rotation of home and home in four years with non-permanent rivals. You're claiming you know something that you can't know.

---

I know with the same certainty as the law of gravity and the sun rising tomorrow that Alabama, Auburn, UGA, FL and UT will never accept a schedule with 1 permanent rival. That is DOA, never going to happen. Even if the initial vote is 11-5 those 5 teams would throw such a nuclear monkey wrench into things it would kill any chance of that happening. If it came to that I think the SEC would default to keep divisions, move Mizzou East and add cow and OU to the West and play 9 conference games, so you play 6 in division and rotate 3 from the other. That protects ALL the old school SEC rivalries, especially in the newly expanded SEC East. Though I am of the opinion that 3-6 makes the most sense, not pods but 3 permanent rivals, IMHO.

It is true that in the SEC every vote is counted equally, the actual vote, but that disregards political sway before wrangling before a vote. There is just no way in he!! those 5 teams will ever agree to one permanent rival.

---

If the SEC retains divisions, there will be 8 teams per division. Missouri is already in the SEC East and will move to the SEC West, and Alabama and Auburn will move to the SEC East. The SEC would add Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC West. In a division format, each team would play 7 in division and rotate 2 from the other. That would mean playing each school rotating cross-division school once every 4 years and at their stadium once every 8 years.

---

According to Billy , Not gonna be divisions, not gonna be pods

It's either 1-7 or 3-6

3-6 retains all rivalries but 1-7 gives the sec the best chance at multiple playoff teams

Sorry, I was typing too fast. Move Mizzou west and Bama and Auburn to the East, cow and OU to the West. Two 8 team divisions.

West - aTm, cow, OU, LSU, Pig, Miss., State, Mizzou
East - Bama, Auburn, UGA, USC, FL, Vandy, UT, FL

Play 7 division games, 2 from the other rotating. This protects Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL, UGA-UT, and FL-UT.

There will NEVER be an SEC schedule that does not include Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL and you can't do that with a 1+ model.

The current issue is not rivalries. Its games. The teams that want the 1 rival option are doing so because they don't want 9 conference games, not because they want fewer rivalry games. You could do very well to start figuring out the teams that are pushing for 1-7 by naming all of the teams that feel pressure to schedule wins out of conference that are hard to get in conference.

Many don't want to give up the home game every other year. Which is proof home games make money…

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Sorry, I was typing too fast. Move Mizzou west and Bama and Auburn to the East, cow and OU to the West. Two 8 team divisions.

West - aTm, cow, OU, LSU, Pig, Miss., State, Mizzou
East - Bama, Auburn, UGA, USC, FL, Vandy, UT, FL

Play 7 division games, 2 from the other rotating. This protects Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL, UGA-UT, and FL-UT.

There will NEVER be an SEC schedule that does not include Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL and you can't do that with a 1+ model.

---

Does this take into account how FL, UGA, Tenn, would feel about adding Bama and Auburn to the East? That will go over like a f*** in church.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Sorry, I was typing too fast. Move Mizzou west and Bama and Auburn to the East, cow and OU to the West. Two 8 team divisions.

West - aTm, cow, OU, LSU, Pig, Miss., State, Mizzou
East - Bama, Auburn, UGA, USC, FL, Vandy, UT, FL

Play 7 division games, 2 from the other rotating. This protects Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL, UGA-UT, and FL-UT.

There will NEVER be an SEC schedule that does not include Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL and you can't do that with a 1+ model.

---

This is a dream scenario for us.

Not a fan of the upcoming SEC

Jimbo4win said:

---

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Sorry, I was typing too fast. Move Mizzou west and Bama and Auburn to the East, cow and OU to the West. Two 8 team divisions.

West - aTm, cow, OU, LSU, Pig, Miss., State, Mizzou
East - Bama, Auburn, UGA, USC, FL, Vandy, UT, FL

Play 7 division games, 2 from the other rotating. This protects Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL, UGA-UT, and FL-UT.

There will NEVER be an SEC schedule that does not include Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL and you can't do that with a 1+ model.

---

Does this take into account how FL, UGA, Tenn, would feel about adding Bama and Auburn to the East? That will go over like a f*** in church.

---

Doesn't matter to UT. They play Bama every year already.

Permanent rivals for the entire conference is silly. Someone is going to get an easy win over Vanderbilt every year, and someone is going to get a near guaranteed loss against Alabama every year. The schedules should rotate for everyone and be fair.

AgBandsman said:

---

Permanent rivals for the entire conference is silly. Someone is going to get an easy win over Vanderbilt every year, and someone is going to get a near guaranteed loss against Alabama every year. The schedules should rotate for everyone and be fair.

---

This assumes (badly) there are no up and down cycles - that Saban will always be at bama, and other schools won't improve. A&M is already shaking things up. You don't choose based on how tough teams are right now. You choose because it makes sense as historical rivals.

Underdog91 said:

---

AgBandsman said:

---

Permanent rivals for the entire conference is silly. Someone is going to get an easy win over Vanderbilt every year, and someone is going to get a near guaranteed loss against Alabama every year. The schedules should rotate for everyone and be fair.

---

This assumes (badly) there are no up and down cycles - that Saban will always be at bama, and other schools won't improve. A&M is already shaking things up. You don't choose based on how tough teams are right now. You choose because it makes sense as historical rivals.

---

The notion that permanent rivals create permanent imbalances is true more often than it isn't. So fewer is arguably better…

I still believe that Athletic article that outlined the two groups of programs, and the demand to map rivalries to those. Bama, Auburn, Florida, UGA, LSU, OU, tu, and A&M were in the "top" tier, while Arky, UK, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Miss St, Missouri, USC, and Vandy were in the "lower" tier.

In the article, it outlined that if they do the 3/7 model, each tier should play 2 in their own tier and 1 in the other to get the holdouts on board. This keeps a team like Alabama from playing Auburn, and then two cupcakes while a team like Arkansas gets stuck with 3 top tier teams in A&M, OU, and Texas. Given that, this is the best list I could come up with.

Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Ole Miss
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Vandy
Florida: Georgia, OU, Kentucky
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, USC
Kentucky: Tennessee, Vandy, Florida
LSU: Texas A&M, Bama, Ole Miss
Ole Miss: Miss State, LSU, Arkansas
Miss St: Ole Miss, A&M, USC
Missouri: Arkansas, Oklahoma, USC
OU: Missouri, Texas, Florida
USC: Georgia, Missouri, Miss St
Tenn: Alabama, Kentucky, Vandy
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
A&M: LSU, Texas, Miss St
Vandy: Tennessee, Kentucky, Auburn

There are some odd fits in there like Florida-OU and USC-Miss St/Missouri, but these are the best matches I could make. The biggest loss would be Florida-Auburn, but Auburn can't play 3 top tier programs, so UF loses out. I think this is fair given that they play their 1A/1B rival is FSU every year anyway, so as long as they have UGA & FSU, I don't think they can complain. I could also see them favoring UF by instead giving them LSU and robbing us, and forcing OU on us for more consistent regional matchups. I'd hate it, but could see it happening, in which case we should riot. I also hate Texas coming in and getting their 3 proffered rivals out of the gate, but I get that it's likely Arkansa's preference to play them as their 1 top tier team, so that's fair.

This is the most logical grouping I have seen. I nominate you for SEC commissioner.

The tier system sucks. The idea that 8 teams are permanently top half and 8 teams are permanently bottom half sucks.

This grouping, for example. It has Tennessee in the bottom half with games against Kentucky and Vanderbilt. How convenient. Tennessee is historically a better program than A&M, but we better get this locked in because A&M's rivals are LSU and Texas and so we have to be in the top half. These decisions got made because of who the rivals were and not "competitive balance." If A&M had just happened to have an Arkansas like decade just prior to this decision, the schedule makers are gonna go "nope A&M cant have both Texas and LSU!" Its dumb.

The competitive balance makes almost no difference in the short run, because its only 3 out of 9 games. You're going to be playing the weak teams. And in the long run of decades its probably closer to being random chance anyway. One of your 3 could easily be Tennessee and then become...Tennessee. Just schedule based on rivalries and geography.

The "competitive balance" gained here is in no way worth so many games that don't make sense while giving up potential yearly games that do make sense.

In 10 years after Saban retires Alabama's "Auburn, LSU, Tennessee" is potentially worse than Auburns "Georgia, Alabama, Florida" that you went to all this effort trying to fix in the first place. Competition will work itself out, in no way is it better for football fans of these schools for Auburn to have a home game against Vanderbilt every other year instead of Florida and for Florida to have a game against Kentucky every year instead of Auburn.

I kinda hope they do 1 permanent rival so I can watch the meltdown by some when it's A&M/tu. I mean you have to be in an unhealthy amount of denial if you think it would be anyone else. It wouldn't even be discussed. "Ok who's with A&M? Texas. Ok who's next?" that would be the transcripts from the meeting. LOL it's both funny and said how "you people" come across sometimes.

That'd be great. We get our clear most important "break attendance records" game every year and we get to hear Texas fans gripe about "muh Red River Rivalry!" at the same time. I'm sure some idiots will pretend like LSU is as big a game as Texas but even they know deep down which game they really care about most.

I also hate the tier system. Teams are not permanently locked in place, and the tiers oversimplify the distinctions. Also, I still hold that the 2/3 of the conference schedule that rotates will mostly balance things out.

The proposed tier-based system above was mostly ok, but these 3 are bad to truly awful.
Florida: Georgia, OU, Kentucky
Miss St: Ole Miss, A&M, USC
USC: Georgia, Missouri, Miss St

Florida has played Kentucky alot, but it's in no way a rivalry. Historically, Auburn is their #2 conference rival after Georgia, and a case can be made for Tennessee over the last 30 years.

Mississippi State has played Ole Miss 114 times, LSU 112 times, Alabama (a short drive across the state line) 102 times, and Auburn 94 times. Giving them South Carolina (16) and A&M (15), neither nearby, as 2 of 3 permanent rivals would be pretty high disrespect for a founding member of the conference.

South Carolina is tough after Georgia, but neither of the two choices there make much sense.

The 1-7 model is growing on me. I don't trust the league to choose 3 rivalries based on historical and geographic criteria rather than competitive nonsense. So, maybe it's better to choose just 1, as only South Carolina and whoever plays them (probably Kentucky) would get a truly nonsense rivalry locked in.

Just to help ole South Carolina out let's just drop tu and add Clemson. Then we can be rivals with Arky and ou can have mizzu.

AstroPete said:

---

I kinda hope they do 1 permanent rival so I can watch the meltdown by some when it's A&M/tu. I mean you have to be in an unhealthy amount of denial if you think it would be anyone else. It wouldn't even be discussed. "Ok who's with A&M? Texas. Ok who's next?" that would be the transcripts from the meeting. LOL it's both funny and said how "you people" come across sometimes.

---

No offense, but you are the one in denial

Do tell.

GoldenGun00 said:

---

…

The 1-7 model is growing on me. I don't trust the league to choose 3 rivalries based on historical and geographic criteria rather than competitive nonsense. So, maybe it's better to choose just 1, as only South Carolina and whoever plays them (probably Kentucky) would get a truly nonsense rivalry locked in.

---

I prefer rivals and the quickest rotation possible. But 1-7 with LSU is fine…mainly because Texas WILL NOT CHOOSE US AS THEIR MAIN RIVAL. And all of you need to know that.

erube said:

---

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Sorry, I was typing too fast. Move Mizzou west and Bama and Auburn to the East, cow and OU to the West. Two 8 team divisions.

West - aTm, cow, OU, LSU, Pig, Miss., State, Mizzou
East - Bama, Auburn, UGA, USC, FL, Vandy, UT, FL

Play 7 division games, 2 from the other rotating. This protects Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL, UGA-UT, and FL-UT.

There will NEVER be an SEC schedule that does not include Bama-Auburn, Bama-UT, Auburn-UGA, UGA-FL and you can't do that with a 1+ model.

---

This is a dream scenario for us.

---

Auburn and UGA are great road trips and I would like to try FL and Bama. The the only games in the west group that are interesting are OU as my fish ol'lady lives nearby as well as LSU if it is a day game and I don't have to deal with drunks. I am so over calling tu a rivalry game. I quit going to Austin games long before we moved to the SEC. The games are a LOT more fun when fans can come together after the game.

greg.w.h said:

---

GoldenGun00 said:

---

…

The 1-7 model is growing on me. I don't trust the league to choose 3 rivalries based on historical and geographic criteria rather than competitive nonsense. So, maybe it's better to choose just 1, as only South Carolina and whoever plays them (probably Kentucky) would get a truly nonsense rivalry locked in.

---

I prefer rivals and the quickest rotation possible. But 1-7 with LSU is fine…mainly because Texas WILL NOT CHOOSE US AS THEIR MAIN RIVAL. And all of you need to know that.

---

I think you're probably right, and that's fine with me. That'd leave the likely designated rivalries as:
UF-UGA, USC-UK, UT-VU, Bama-Auburn, Ole Miss-MSU, Arkansas-MU, LSU-TAMU, OU-Texas.

If you're wrong, it becomes:
UF-UGA, USC-UK, UT-VU, Bama-Auburn, Ole Miss-MSU, Arkansas-LSU, TAMU-Texas, OU-MU.

Also fine.

tu will probably get ou, sc, and Vandy annually

There's no way the SEC doesn't designate the Ags and horns as rivals…too much attention and money to be made annually on it….

GoldenGun00 said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

GoldenGun00 said:

---

…

The 1-7 model is growing on me. I don't trust the league to choose 3 rivalries based on historical and geographic criteria rather than competitive nonsense. So, maybe it's better to choose just 1, as only South Carolina and whoever plays them (probably Kentucky) would get a truly nonsense rivalry locked in.

---

I prefer rivals and the quickest rotation possible. But 1-7 with LSU is fine…mainly because Texas WILL NOT CHOOSE US AS THEIR MAIN RIVAL. And all of you need to know that.

---

I think you're probably right, and that's fine with me. That'd leave the likely designated rivalries as:
UF-UGA, USC-UK, UT-VU, Bama-Auburn, Ole Miss-MSU, Arkansas-MU, LSU-TAMU, OU-Texas.

If you're wrong, it becomes:
UF-UGA, USC-UK, UT-VU, Bama-Auburn, Ole Miss-MSU, Arkansas-LSU, TAMU-Texas, OU-MU.

Also fine.

---

My call on it is opinion. But I guarantee they keep the game with OU and likely in Dallas. It's a huge event for them and they can make more money of it by raising prices because their home schedule will be vastly more interesting.

I prefer ten games with zero rivals like we rotate in basketball today. But the only way that happens is if the CFP crowbars it to ten A5 games and comes up with a transparent selection mechanism. At 12-16 teams you're at the margins on essentially two teams outside the top 10 or one team outside the top 15. The S-curve suggests after you get past the eight the clumping starts cascading. Sure there will be disagreements. But the resolution in four weeks should be spread out and satisfying and remunerative.

We know OU selects Texas, btw, unless they are offered an incentive not to. So the only question is what Austin does. And they've spent most of my life saying OU is the real rival.

I'm fine with and 8 team playoff for the reasons you just stated.

Theres no more than 8 teams that deserve to be in a playoff.

You right. Thats the biggest reason.

Quote:

---

. But I guarantee they keep the game with OU and likely in Dallas

---

I'd flip that. (highly) likely it would be OU and tu. guarantee its in Dallas.

(but again, I don't think we ever find out)


basketball shifting to:

two permanent opponents home and away, one rotating opponent home and away, plus 12 remaining teams in single contests either home or away

NyAggie said:

---

According to Billy , Not gonna be divisions, not gonna be pods

It's either 1-7 or 3-6

3-6 retains all rivalries but 1-7 gives the sec the best chance at multiple playoff teams

---

It doing to be 3-6 the home office will present both to espn and espn will tell them 1-7 is significantly less valuable than 3-6. They added tu and paper clip because of the money it will be nine games

Sq 17 said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

According to Billy , Not gonna be divisions, not gonna be pods

It's either 1-7 or 3-6

3-6 retains all rivalries but 1-7 gives the sec the best chance at multiple playoff teams

---

It doing to be 3-6 the home office will present both to espn and espn will tell them 1-7 is significantly less valuable than 3-6. They added tu and paper clip because of the money it will be nine games

---

I hope so. Would be funny if ESPN had to remind the SEC that they should play more games that people actually want to watch on TV.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

. But I guarantee they keep the game with OU and likely in Dallas

---

I'd flip that. (highly) likely it would be OU and tu. guarantee its in Dallas.

(but again, I don't think we ever find out)


basketball shifting to:

two permanent opponents home and away, one rotating opponent home and away, plus 12 remaining teams in single contests either home or away

---

They completed their vote first and it was based on the 3-6 football looking like the winner. It will change if they go 1-7. But if I were to choose two permanent basketball rivals for A&M it would be Kentucky and LSU, though Texas, OU, and Florida are all acceptable choices.

APHIS AG said:

---

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

---

This won't be popular and I don't think we should dodge tu, but only seeing tu when it's for a championship is likely good. tu controls the media narrative in Texas. Playing them when we are equal to them or better actually is to advantage.

Now, don't get me wrong, if we were forced to play them every year we would welcome it. But from a purely business standpoint it makes sense to not have the Texas teams beat each other up and then play for the marbles when it really matters.

That way there's always a Texas school winning.

BigSneezy said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

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

---

This won't be popular and I don't think we should dodge tu, but only seeing tu when it's for a championship is likely good. tu controls the media narrative in Texas. Playing them when we are equal to them or better actually is to advantage.

Now, don't get me wrong, if we were forced to play them every year we would welcome it. But from a purely business standpoint it makes sense to not have the Texas teams beat each other up and then play for the marbles when it really matters.

That way there's always a Texas school winning.

---

From a purely business standpoint it makes sense to play the games people want to see the most. This is one of them.

I'm totally fine with LSU as one permanent and only seeing the sips and OU once every so often on a rotating basis.

It's all about timing. The SEC will have 2 divisions as long as there is only a 4 team playoff. When it expands to 12 or 16, the SEC will get creative to get more teams in. Divisions won't be needed and a 3-6.would work.