Seems to be a consensus building for a 3-6 schedule format (true 3-6, not pods). 16 teams, 15 possible opponents, 9 games, so each season there will be 6 teams one does not play. There will be no divisions, just one conference standing table with the top two teams competing in the SEC CG.

I think there will be fewer rematches in the SEC CG than most think. Also believe that the records and standings will be fairly clear at the top, but there will be an increased need for tiebreakers throughout the standings to determine SEC CG teams and overall standings (bowl pecking order, etc.).

So assuming two teams finish with the same SEC record with no divisions, what are the tie-breakers? My guess in order:

• Head to head.
• Winning % in common SEC games.
• Winning % vs. FBS teams.
• CFP ranking.
• Winning % overall including FCS opponents.
• Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

Quote:

---

• Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

---

I'd vote for cheerleader jello wrestling ... but whatever floats your boat. The the ratings would be better for my idea

I think the tie-breakers would be in the following order.
1. Head to head.
2. Winning % in common SEC games.
3. CFP Ranking to determine the SEC Championship Game participants

curious to anyone's thoughts on why this is superior to the pod idea? 3 permanent rivals is similar to what you would have with pods. 4 teams per pod. with pods you would play every team home and away every four years. so what is the prevailing thought on why this solution is better ? seems pretty similar

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I think the tie-breakers would be in the following order.
1. Head to head.
2. Winning % in common SEC games.
3. CFP Ranking to determine the SEC Championship Game participants

---

I understand your last point, but I confess I'm not a fan of using external opinion to settle tiebreakers. It favors folks that have always been favored like Notre Dame in 2020…

My understanding is with the pod model, everyone in a pod has to play the same other 3 teams in their pod.

While the 3-6 model, each team can have different 3 protected opponents.

So more flexibility for the conference to protect the match ups that each university wants to protect.

Why do we need tiebreakers if we take the top 2?

Just flip a coin for home team.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

---

'Bama instantly rejects this idea because Saban wouldn't be able to see over the top of the potato sack.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

curious to anyone's thoughts on why this is superior to the pod idea? 3 permanent rivals is similar to what you would have with pods. 4 teams per pod. with pods you would play every team home and away every four years. so what is the prevailing thought on why this solution is better ? seems pretty similar

---

Pods only play each other team every three years (six year home-and-away)

12thMan9 said:

---

Why do we need tiebreakers if we take the top 2?

Just flip a coin for home team.

---

If the tie is between 2 and 3?

Read the OP.

OP doesn't specify 1 and 2. There could be a 2/3 tiebreaker scenario needed.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Seems to be a consensus building for a 3-6 schedule format (true 3-6, not pods). 16 teams, 15 possible opponents, 9 games, so each season there will be 6 teams one does not play. There will be no divisions, just one conference standing table with the top two teams competing in the SEC CG.

I think there will be fewer rematches in the SEC CG than most think. Also believe that the records and standings will be fairly clear at the top, but there will be an increased need for tiebreakers throughout the standings to determine SEC CG teams and overall standings (bowl pecking order, etc.).

So assuming two teams finish with the same SEC record with no divisions, what are the tie-breakers? My guess in order:

• Head to head.
• Winning % in common SEC games.
• Winning % vs. FBS teams.
• CFP ranking.
• Winning % overall including FCS opponents.
• Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

---

Statistically speaking, if you play 9 teams and do not play 6 teams, you have a 9/15 chance (or 60%) of having a rematch.

Mac94 said:

---

Quote:

---

• Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

---

I'd vote for cheerleader jello wrestling ... but whatever floats your boat. The the ratings would be better for my idea

---

Have you looked at our "cheerleaders?" I'm out ...

milner79 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

I'd vote for cheerleader jello wrestling ... but whatever floats your boat. The the ratings would be better for my idea

---

Have you looked at our "cheerleaders?" I'm out ...

---

Yeah but we'd be heavy favorites to win 100% 70% of those matchups.

Because then we would have to be in a pod with both cow and OU and one other team and would not play every SEC team home and away in a 4 year period. Bama, UT, Auburn, and UGA would all have to be in the same pod as well to protect those rivalry games that must be played every year, and UGA nor FL are going to give up the UGA/FL game so the pods just don't work.

The 3-6 gives much more flexibility than pods, as our 3 permanent opponents don't have to the same as t.u. permanent 3 opponents. t.u. will get A&M, OU, and maybe Arkansas. OU will get t.u. and who knows who else, probably Pig and Mizzou. A&M would / could get cow, LSU, and State or Ole Miss or Auburn. That is much more interesting and allows more scheduling flexibility.

A&M: cow, LSU, State
Bama: Auburn, UT, USC
Auburn: Bama, UGA, Kentucky
UGA: Auburn, FL, UT
FL: UGA, UT, Mizzou
t.u.: A&M, OU, Arkansas
OU: t.u., Ark, Mizzou

etc., etc. This protects all the old school SEC rivals and gets all teams to play EVERY sec team home and away in a 4 year period, etc. If you are rotating 6 every year then you are playing the other 12 teams every 2 seasons and complete and home and away cycle every 4 years.

The only negative to the 3-6 is with 9 SEC games some years you will have 5 at home others 4, on a rotating basis.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

Because then we would have to be in a pod with both cow and OU and one other team and would not play every SEC team home and away in a 4 year period. Bama, UT, Auburn, and UGA would all have to be in the same pod as well to protect those rivalry games that must be played every year, and UGA nor FL are going to give up the UGA/FL game so the pods just don't work.

The 3-6 gives much more flexibility than pods, as our 3 permanent opponents don't have to the same as t.u. permanent 3 opponents. t.u. will get A&M, OU, and maybe Arkansas. OU will get t.u. and who knows who else, probably Pig and Mizzou. A&M would / could get cow, LSU, and State or Ole Miss or Auburn. That is much more interesting and allows more scheduling flexibility.

A&M: cow, LSU, State
Bama: Auburn, UT, USC
Auburn: Bama, UGA, Kentucky
UGA: Auburn, FL, UT
FL: UGA, UT, Mizzou
t.u.: A&M, OU, Arkansas
OU: t.u., Ark, Mizzou

etc., etc. This protects all the old school SEC rivals and gets all teams to play EVERY sec team home and away in a 4 year period, etc. If you are rotating 6 every year then you are playing the other 12 teams every 2 seasons and complete and home and away cycle every 4 years.

The only negative to the 3-6 is with 9 SEC games some years you will have 5 at home others 4, on a rotating basis.

---

I agree with you. To mitigate the uneven number of home or away SEC games, I think each team should play an additional game at home or away against a Power 5 nonconference opponent. If an SEC team has 5 conference home games, they should play a Power 5 nonconference opponent on the road. If an SEC team has 4 conference home games, they should play a Power 5 nonconference opponent at home. This schedule setup would mean 5 of 7 home games would be against Power 5 teams every year.

In a vacuum, yes, but you are not accounting for the other 15 teams also playing 9 other teams, etc. If you do the actual math it's much lower than that, even assuming a 50%/50% W/L probability for each game. A math / statistic guru could work that out.

I think the # of rematches will actually decrease, it will also serve to break a monopoly like Bama vs. FL or UGA 3 out of 4 years.

However, there is going to be A LOT of *****ing and moaning by some fan base when two teams finish with the same record and did not play each other.

Which is why I actually think they could keep divisions and move Bama and Auburn to the East, add t.u. and OU to the West, and play 9 conference games, a 6-3 model. That way every team in the West division plays each other and the tiebreakers are much easier and more direct: H2H, SEC record, division record, rarely would have to go past that. Protects all the old school SEC rivalries now pretty much all in the East division. Just about gets every team playing all other teams home and away in a 4 year span, etc.

I can't wait to finally play horn so I can stop hearing the mental gymnastics on here to figure out (complain about) how we can avoid playing them. Man up people.

I took the current tie breakers, and modified to eliminate divisional references:

Quote:

---

1. Two-Team Tie: In the event two teams are tied for a division title [place in the CCG], the following procedure will be used in the following order:
A. Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams;
B. Records of the tied teams within the division;
C. Head-to-head competition against the team within the division [Conference] with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record, and proceeding through the division [Conference] (multiple ties within the division [Conference] will be broken from first to last and a tie for first place will be broken before a tie for fourth place);
D. Overall record against non-divisional teams;
E. Combined record against all common non-divisional [Conference] teams;
F. Record against the common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference record (divisional or non-divisional) and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division;
G. Best cumulative Conference winning percentage of non-divisional opponents; and
H. Coin flip of the tied teams

2. Three-Team Tie (or more): If three teams (or more) are tied for a division title [place in the CCG], the following procedure will be used in the following order: (Note: If one of the procedures results in one team being eliminated and two remaining, the two-team tiebreaker procedure as stated in No. 1 above will be used):
A. Combined head to head record among the tied teams;
B. Record of the tied teams within the division;
C. Head to head competition against the team within the division [Conference] with the best overall Conference record (divisional and non divisional) and proceeding through the division [Conference] (multiple ties within the division [Conference] will be broken from first to last and a tie for first place will be broken before a tie for fourth place);
D. Overall Conference record against non divisional teams;
E. Combined record against all common non divisional [Conference] teams;
F. Record against the common non divisional [Conference] team with the best overall Conference record (divisional and non divisional) and proceeding through other common non divisional [Conference] teams based on their order of finish within their division [the Conference]; and
G. Best cumulative Conference winning percentage of non-divisional [Conference] opponents (Note: If two teams' non-divisional [Conference] opponents have the same cumulative record, then the two-team tiebreaker procedures apply. If four teams are tied, and three teams' non-divisional opponents have the same cumulative record, the three-team tiebreaker procedures will be used beginning with 2.A.)
H. Coin flip of the tied teams with the team with the odd result being the representative (Example: If there are two teams with tails and one team with heads, the team with heads is the representative).

---

milner79 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

Quote:

---

• Potato sack 100 yard race between the head coaches.

---

I'd vote for cheerleader jello wrestling ... but whatever floats your boat. The the ratings would be better for my idea

---

Have you looked at our "cheerleaders?" I'm out ...

---

LOL ... you assume we can even make it that far, b) the milkmen could do pretty well ... Ox did in Stripes, lol (he was a lean mean fight'n machine!). And number next ... we could go with the flag girls. They'd represent.

Traveler said:

---

milner79 said:

---

Mac94 said:

---

I'd vote for cheerleader jello wrestling ... but whatever floats your boat. The the ratings would be better for my idea

---

Have you looked at our "cheerleaders?" I'm out ...

---

Yeah but we'd be heavy favorites to win 100% 70% of those matchups.

---

But, but...I'd have to root for the underdog on that one.....

So what if Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and Kentucky all go 9-0 with no head to head meetings. Which 2 teams play in the SEC title game? Or what if 6 teams go 8-1 in SEC play, tied for first? The Divisions will be back with a 10 game schedule. Or maybe fewest points allowed in SEC games?

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

So what if Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and Kentucky all go 9-0 with no head to head meetings. Which 2 teams play in the SEC title game? Or what if 6 teams go 8-1 in SEC play, tied for first? The Divisions will be back with a 10 game schedule. Or maybe fewest points allowed in SEC games?

---

The last option in these tiebreakers is usually something like "which team is highest in the polls" which means that Alabama would play Georgia.

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

So what if Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and Kentucky all go 9-0 with no head to head meetings. Which 2 teams play in the SEC title game? Or what if 6 teams go 8-1 in SEC play, tied for first? The Divisions will be back with a 10 game schedule. Or maybe fewest points allowed in SEC games?

---

I'm pretty sure that's not mathematically possible. You might get 2 undefeated teams (which isn't a problem; there's your 1 and 2 teams for the championship game), but 3 would be, if not impossible, highly improbable. I think 4 actually is impossible.

What's more likely with ties is teams with multiple losses tying for second.

I see A&M being grouped with Miss St. a lot when these discussions come up. Why?

I understand LSU and tu.

Our family preference would be LSU, tu, and Bama. If not Bama, then Auburn or Ole Miss.

BTHO tu forever!!!

AGDAD14 said:

---

I see A&M being grouped with Miss St. a lot when these discussions come up. Why?

I understand LSU and tu.

Our family preference would be LSU, tu, and Bama. If not Bama, then Auburn or Ole Miss.

BTHO tu forever!!!

---

They will probably try to balance things out a bit in the groupings. The strength of your 3 permanent opponents really shouldn't matter much, since you are playing everyone in two years, and stronger permanent opponents will result in weaker rotating opponents; nevertheless, there are some folks who don't see it that way, so it appears that the league will try to have some kind of competitive diversity in the makeup of your 3.

Ole Miss would probably fit in that slot too, but it may be that they've been assigned to someone else. Don't make the mistake that the sips make and think the conference revolves around us.

123qmc said:

---

My understanding is with the pod model, everyone in a pod has to play the same other 3 teams in their pod.

While the 3-6 model, each team can have different 3 protected opponents.

So more flexibility for the conference to protect the match ups that each university wants to protect.

---

It seems they have moved on from pod talk and now only focus on the 3-6 model vs the 1-8 model. And they already seems to be settling on the 3-6 model with a good idea of who each team's opponents will be. And it sounds like we'll be stuck with sip, corndog, and miss st…

Bill Superman said:

---

123qmc said:

---

My understanding is with the pod model, everyone in a pod has to play the same other 3 teams in their pod.

While the 3-6 model, each team can have different 3 protected opponents.

So more flexibility for the conference to protect the match ups that each university wants to protect.

---

It seems they have moved on from pod talk and now only focus on the 3-6 model vs the 1-8 model. And they already seems to be settling on the 3-6 model with a good idea of who each team's opponents will be. And it sounds like we'll be stuck with sip, corndog, and miss st…

---

3-6 (9 games) vs. 1-7 (8 games.). Minor nit.

AGDAD14 said:

---

I see A&M being grouped with Miss St. a lot when these discussions come up. Why?

I understand LSU and tu.

Our family preference would be LSU, tu, and Bama. If not Bama, then Auburn or Ole Miss.

BTHO tu forever!!!

---

The logical choice based on history would put A&M with t.u., Arkansas, and LSU.

Thanks twk and EVA3.

Texags should do a survey of which three permanent opponents the Aggie fan base would prefer. (Maybe they did, and I missed it.)

BTHO tu forever!!!

12thMan9 said:

---

Why do we need tiebreakers if we take the top 2?

Just flip a coin for home team.

---

I'm sure there will be years when multiple teams finish with the same record

HATE any idea involving a ranking- that's just b.s. leaving it open to politics.... I favor:

1) head to head
2) winning % among common opponents
3) if still tied, record against the top finishing teams (going down in order- how did you do vs. 1st place, vs. 2nd place, etc.... till the tie is broken
4). team that has gone longest without CCG appearance (starting with the new system, so this would not be applicable in yr 1) I always liked that, since if two teams are neck and neck in all categories, this is a fair way to reward. kind of a bitter pill for a team like say, Kentucky, who might be tied with Georgia and lose out on coin flip.

If still tied, a coin flip


oh, and if more than two teams then you apply those tiebreakers til one of them drops out, then you start the process all over with the remaining team(s).

Quote:

---

Seems to be a consensus building for a 3-6

---

What are you basing this on?

Well, we know that any tie involving Alabama will go to crybaby Saban.