TXAGBQ76 said:

---

Saban has done several interviews in the last two weeks where he states he is not for a nine game schedule- along with USC, Kentucky, Mississippi State and one more I can't remember.

---

Saban has long been a proponent for a 9-game schedule, but he's also a proponent for making sure there is equity in the scheduling, so I understand why might not want to play Auburn, LSU and Tennessee for his 3 game opponents while another team might play Ole Miss, Ms State and Texas. He's a proponent of playing a full P5 schedule if he could.

Link from today's meeting

Also, switching from 8 to 9 SEC schedule does not mean a school is losing a home game every year.

At worst, a team loses two years of home games against Cupcake U, for 1 away game but also gains 1 home game against a team like Florida or Tennessee. I'm guessing that most people would happily pay more than double for one SEC game over a game like New Mexico State or Louisiana Monroe.


More likely, a team like Florida plays Florida State on the road when they would have 5 SEC home games and plays Florida State at home when they have 4 so they always would have 5 P5 home games.

I obviously know about his long time support of a nine game schedule. Apparently, (as in all things he supports-or doesn't) he doesn't want it if could impact him negatively.

One of the concerns that Sankey talked about last week was having to get out of some contracts with out of conference teams if we go to 9. It's possible that they might do a bridge schedule, where we only play 8 games for a couple of years, preserving all the rivalry games, before starting a 9 game schedule in 2027. That would allow some time for scheduling adjustments.

TXAGBQ76 said:

---

I obviously know about his long time support of a nine game schedule. Apparently, (as in all things he supports-or doesn't) he doesn't want it if could impact him negatively.

---

I think it is reasonable to say that he's not worried if it impacts him/his team negatively, but he's against it if it primarily impacts his team negatively.

I think he'd be OK with a 12 game SEC schedule, but not if Alabama is the only one playing it.

in one sense...this is a good compromise for the A&M-t.u. rivalry

the Ags will start playing the sips again, but not on an annual basis

would play them every other year...which is fine

this avoids some of the "one-game season" stuff that no one wants to go back to

Iowaggie said:

---

Also, switching from 8 to 9 SEC schedule does not mean a school is losing a home game every year.

At worst, a team loses two years of home games against Cupcake U, for 1 away game but also gains 1 home game against a team like Florida or Tennessee. I'm guessing that most people would happily pay more than double for one SEC game over a game like New Mexico State or Louisiana Monroe.


More likely, a team like Florida plays Florida State on the road when they would have 5 SEC home games and plays Florida State at home when they have 4 so they always would have 5 P5 home games.

---

They would lose a home game every other year when they have to play 5 road conference games.

Using your Florida example they aren't having the 9th SEC game replace their annual home and home with FSU. It would more likely replace their patsy game against Directional Louisiana U. Currently they usually 8 homes games (at Utah this year which is wild for them and rare) when FSU is a home game, and 7 when FSU is a road game. So 15 home games and 9 road games over a two year period. If the conference went to 9 conference games they would have 9 home and 9 conference games over 2 years. Then they would have 5 home games and 1 road non-conference game at FSU as well. That would be 14 homes games and 10 non-conference games.

So essentially each team is giving up the revenue for one additional home game every two years for $0 additional TV dollars. Why would they do that? Because we want them too? SEC already dominates the play-off picture. It is not smart business especially with TV revenue now being divided between 16 teams and not 14.

74AnimalA said:

---

rootube said:

---

Houstonag said:

---

A sip game should be treated like any other game. By having permanent so called rivalry games we do not get a chance to play the entire conference members and non conference marquee games are reduced. I support a rotating schedule where over a period of several years where we play all the teams. We have yet to play Georgia home and home.

---

If you set aside the fact that sip is our best rivalry game are you fine with flushing all the other SEC rivalry games down the toilet to solve the problem of long gaps between playing all teams?

There is an easy solution, 9 game conference schedule with three permanent rivals. ESPN just needs to come up with the money to make this happen.

---

Not convinced the issue is ESPN $$$. All schools play 12 games and it's hard to find a SEC game that doesn't have TV coverage. The Networks are also struggling with how to schedule those games to be able to broadcast them.

Think those schools AGAINST the 9 are figuring that they lose 1 auto Home Crowd win against their Div II opponents, (at pay date, and chance to grow your team, play your younger players, etc.) But also look at the schools complaining the loudest. Their Permanent 3 look to be 3 tough opponents, as opposed to at least probable. Sabin doesn't want to face Tenn, LSU & Auburn with 1 at home, 2 on the road every other year.
They don't want to give up the gate and the Auto W!

---

This is very possible but ESPN throwing in a bunch of money would absolutely make the conference reconsider the extra home game and concessions money.

shady said:

---

Then why were requested by their admin?

Since you are so connected who is it they want for their permanent rival?

Bama? Nope that's Auburn
Florida? Nope that's UGA
Ole Miss? Nope thats State
Arkansas? Nope that's Mizzou?
tu? Nope that's OU

Who is it the corndog fans want?

---

I prefer a 9 game conference schedule with three permanent rivals. If forced to choose only one permanent rival probably 99% of A&M fans would choose LSU (including myself although I can admit horn is our more important rival). I'm just telling you that LSU is far less convinced that A&M is their most important rival and it's not even close.

Quote:

---

This is very possible but ESPN throwing in a bunch of money would absolutely make the conference reconsider the extra home game and concessions money.

---

All reports are indicating that ESPN isn't ready to do that.

rootube said:

---

shady said:

---

Then why were requested by their admin?

Since you are so connected who is it they want for their permanent rival?

Bama? Nope that's Auburn
Florida? Nope that's UGA
Ole Miss? Nope thats State
Arkansas? Nope that's Mizzou?
tu? Nope that's OU

Who is it the corndog fans want?

---

I prefer a 9 game conference schedule with three permanent rivals. If forced to choose only one permanent rival probably 99% of A&M fans would choose LSU (including myself although I can admit horn is our more important rival). I'm just telling you that LSU is far less convinced that A&M is their most important rival and it's not even close.

---

Then who do they want instead?

They cant say "we don't want team x" but then not say which team they want instead of team x

As has been pointed out, all the other schools have rivals already in place

Only one up for debate is Arkansas and mizzou, and mizxou wants that game in the worst way

A&M and lsu have way more history than lsu and arkansas

Maybe they want Arkansas because it's an easier win?

Jimbo is 3-2 vs lsu and they don't like that the tide has started to turn in our favor

Too f'en bad

They pulled the same crap when they backed out of our series in the 90s after we kicked their asses in 5 straight games

rootube said:

---

shady said:

---

Doesn't matter what a couple of corn dogs on a message board said...the permanent rival requests have already been submitted and we chose LSU and they chose us.

---

It's a lot more than just a couple of corn dogs. My impression is that LSU is at best indifferent and at worst strongly against A&M as the permanent rival.

---

Believe I'm about as interested in being tied to those sh**bag possum eating swamp cretins as they are us. In a perfect world there wouldn't be an LSU OR a tu.

If LSU doesn't want Texas Aggies as their perm rival let them have Missouri. We will take Arkansas and play them thanksgiving week. This works>

Tu v ou
Bama v Aub
LSU v Mizzu
Aggies v Ark
Fla v Georgia
Kent v SC
Tenn v Vandy
Miss v MSU

You play your rival and one from each other pair every year.

So, we could get tu, Aub, LSU, Georgia, Kent, Vandy, MSU and Ark year 1
Then ou, Bama, mizzu, Florida, SC, Tenn,Miss and Ark year 2,

Then either repeat the pattern or mix it up every 2 years so,you,still,play everyone home/ away every 4 years.

mjhhawk said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Also, switching from 8 to 9 SEC schedule does not mean a school is losing a home game every year.

At worst, a team loses two years of home games against Cupcake U, for 1 away game but also gains 1 home game against a team like Florida or Tennessee. I'm guessing that most people would happily pay more than double for one SEC game over a game like New Mexico State or Louisiana Monroe.


More likely, a team like Florida plays Florida State on the road when they would have 5 SEC home games and plays Florida State at home when they have 4 so they always would have 5 P5 home games.

---

They would lose a home game every other year when they have to play 5 road conference games.

Using your Florida example they aren't having the 9th SEC game replace their annual home and home with FSU. It would more likely replace their patsy game against Directional Louisiana U. Currently they usually 8 homes games (at Utah this year which is wild for them and rare) when FSU is a home game, and 7 when FSU is a road game. So 15 home games and 9 road games over a two year period. If the conference went to 9 conference games they would have 9 home and 9 conference games over 2 years. Then they would have 5 home games and 1 road non-conference game at FSU as well. That would be 14 homes games and 10 non-conference games.

So essentially each team is giving up the revenue for one additional home game every two years for $0 additional TV dollars. Why would they do that? Because we want them too? SEC already dominates the play-off picture. It is not smart business especially with TV revenue now being divided between 16 teams and not 14.

---

I think you wrote exactly what I wrote. They aren't giving up a home games every year, they are giving up 1 home game every 2 years.

The disagreement is over the value. As a football fan, I would prefer playing a team like Tennessee at home once and then next year watch them play at Tennessee. However, I understand that some "fans" would rather watch the team play home games versus Kent State one year, and then App State the next because the idea of win padding helps the delicate ego.


Also, if I had a choice of paying $100 for a single Tennessee ticket or $50 for Kent State and then $50 for App State the next, I'm choosing Tennessee every time. I know I don't represent everyone, but I do think it shouldn't just be assumed that 2 home games are worth more than 1.

Also, realistically, I'm guessing the 3 cupcakes stay, and games like Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami or Colorado are just replaced with the SEC opponent. I would love for SEC opponents to play a single P5 school OOC and 9 conference games. That's still allows for 2 cupcakes on the schedule.

Super conference my as*. They can't even figure out how to run it. Bet it doesn't last 5 years before some schools bail for b12 or pac12. Just don't see how all these schools can work together and stay content ( except small schools that have to have the money). Already, Saban ranting about how it's unfair. How A&M and tu are spending money like crazy. Worst idea ever and it's all thanks to ESPN wanting their money back. And if it's all about money, why arn't schools asking why b10 deal is 3 xs more and asking for that kind of revenue? Just too much arguing before it even starts. Which means they didn't have a plan to begin with. Which is exactly what everyone was asking when all this was announced. What is plan behind super conferences? It's a joke.

The B1G and the SEC have the best inventory of games (top to bottom). More games are better. More permanent rivalries are better.

6-3 allows more sec games while also assuring we play each team at least twice in 4 years.

Divining Rod said:

---

6-3 allows more sec games while also assuring we play each team at least twice in 4 years.

---

Yea but you get ones less guaranteed home game, and therefore less money.

So **** on that 9 game conference schedule, right?

I prefer the 9 game

Everyone talks about the extra home game but who gives a chit about A&M vs Ball state or Bama vs Mercer ?

play more meaningful games

My nephews, who go to A&M, say that don't care much about 2023 but can't wait until 2024 when tu comes to town. Everyone in the state will be there. Their dad says he'll sell his Bama tickets but he's going to the Texas game.

Jimbo said the Austin school should be the permanent rival. Has Sark commented on a permanent rival?

rootube said:

---

. If forced to choose only one permanent rival probably 99% of A&M fans would choose LSU

---

I doubt it is even 99% among Texags posters much less Aggie fans in general

LincolnBorglum79 said:

---

If LSU doesn't want Texas Aggies as their perm rival let them have Missouri. We will take Arkansas and play them thanksgiving week. This works>

Tu v ou
Bama v Aub
LSU v Mizzu
Aggies v Ark
Fla v Georgia
Kent v SC
Tenn v Vandy
Miss v MSU

You play your rival and one from each other pair every year.

So, we could get tu, Aub, LSU, Georgia, Kent, Vandy, MSU and Ark year 1
Then ou, Bama, mizzu, Florida, SC, Tenn,Miss and Ark year 2,

Then either repeat the pattern or mix it up every 2 years so,you,still,play everyone home/ away every 4 years.

---

I think this is likely if the LSU push back is loud enough.

All in all, LSU is most likely. If not, I would think second most likely is Arkansas. tu is unlikely in a 1 perm rival set up due to OU.

rootube said:

---

If forced to choose only one permanent rival probably 99% of A&M fans would choose LSU .

---

100% false

If LSU was such a big deal why are the A&M/ LSU games not the most attended on each other's schedule?

A&M and LSU tried to replicate the A&M- Texas thanksgiving night game but had to move off thanksgiving because nobody cared to attend the game

Since A&M joined the SEC in 2012 only the initial 2012 season was LSU the top attended game at Kyle Field . It's been 4th on the list each of the last 2 seasons LSU has come to Kyle Field

In Baton Rouge , A&M has never been the top attended game. Usually finishing 3rd or 4th. 2019 was the only year the A&M game had the 2nd highest attendance .. and in 2021 the A&M game was the lowest attended game on the LSU home schedule

So attendance numbers at Kyle field and Tiger stadium do not suggest that either side consider it a big rivalry game

How about baseball.. what was the most attended baseball game at Olsen this year? Was it the weekend series vs #1 LSU? Nope it was the midweek game vs Texas. Same as it was 2 years ago when Texas came to Olsen.
How about at Alex Box ? Is the A&M series the most attended? Nope has not even finished in the top 3 of attended series in any years A&M has gone to Baton Rouge.

The A&M - LSU is a series that was a regional rivarly in the late 80's and early 90's. We had some baseball postseason encounters during the same time frame with added to it .. but is has since dissolved.

A&M - LSU so called rivarvly today is nothing but a fabricated rivarly that some A&M fans push because they so badly want it to replace the Texas rivarly.
It won't happen. People just don't care about A&M/ LSU

And the attendance numbers show that

rootube said:

---

shady said:

---

It's already set if it's the 1-7 model.

OU and tu chose each other and the Ags and LSU chose each other.

Every school had to submit their request to SEC office a while ago and those were it.

---

Sounds great. One small detail is that LSU is about as interested in A&M as their permanent rival as the horn crybabies on Texags.

#LSU fans do not want to get stuck with #TexasAM as a permanent rival. pic.twitter.com/S5ZPtWkMOW

— Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) May 30, 2023

---

Who would LSU be matched up with if not us? The only real other option is Arkansas and they will likely be tied with Missouri. LSU's other "rivals" already have a bigger permanent rival.

Alabama/Auburn
Ole Miss/MSU
A&M/LSU
Arkansas/Mizzou
Oklahoma/t.u.
Florida/Georgia
Tennessee/Vandy
South Carolina/Kentucky

Most of these are obviously locked in. The only ones I see that could be up for debate are SC/Kentucky and UT/Vandy.

Aggie said:

---

I prefer the 9 game

Everyone talks about the extra home game but who gives a chit about A&M vs Ball state or Bama vs Mercer ?

play more meaningful games

---

I can tell you who doesn't care about A&M vs Ball State. ESPN. They want the 9th conference game, just like the other Power 5 conferences. The only question is how much is it worth to ESPN. Using the 8 game schedule to hold hostage annual games such as Georgia/Florida, Alabama/Tennessee, LSU/Alabama and A&M/Texas is a great way to get ESPN to cough up more money to the SEC.

Thanksgiving weekend is a tough weekend to play anyone if you are trying to draw your maximum crowd. In the waning years of the Texas rivalry, we had a hard time selling out as student would go home rather than stick around for this game. I wouldn't draw any conclusions regarding who a school wants as its one permanent rival (if that is the way things go) from attendance numbers.

Since OU and Texas are going to be paired up (and the East is all accounted for), basically, you've got Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, and A&M in a pot to come up with two matchups. Given those teams, the TV folks would go for A&M-LSU and Missouri-Arkansas over any other combination, and the administrators at LSU know that, even if some internet blowhards want to dump on that pairing.

Anything you read on Tiger Droppings is utter garbage. I haven't ventured to that site in several years because the people the run it are trash.

W said:

---

in one sense...this is a good compromise for the A&M-t.u. rivalry

the Ags will start playing the sips again, but not on an annual basis

would play them every other year...which is fine

this avoids some of the "one-game season" stuff that no one wants to go back to

---

This. Out of this whole crap sandwich of Texas and OU being let into the SEC, my one hope was that A&M kept LSU as their Thanksgiving weekend game and only played Texas every other year. The "one game season" stuff was one big reason for me wanting that. A&M left for the SEC for a reason. Dropping LSU for Texas on Thanksgiving weekend because "that's how it always was" would just feel like going back to the old days.

Interesting, lots of angles to this. I believe all the other P5 conferences are at or are moving to a 9 game schedule, Saban was initially for a 9 game conference schedule but appears to have backed off that. It does not appear that ESPN is willing to pay more $$ (other than the pro-rata) for addition of cow and OU. So, the expected windfall of extra $$ will not happen unless ESPN agrees to renegotiate the contract to pay more, but they are only going to do that if the SEC goes to 9 games and there is more premiere games content.

I am fine with a 7-1, though would prefer our permanent to be Pig, though lsu is fine. 16 teams, 15 opponents, 1 permanent opponent leaving 14 to rotate through. As such a 7-1 format allows you to play ALL teams in a 4 year cycle and play them all in a home-away rotation in a 4 year cycle. That is acceptable.

If UT / Bama / Auburn / UGA (and to a lesser extend FL) all agree to this that means they are OK playing their secondary rival once every 2 years instead of annually and once every 4 years at home instead of once every 2 years. It is an interesting dynamic as UT-Bama is just as big for Bama as the Iron Bowl, Auburn - UGA is just as big for Auburn as the Iron Bowl, Auburn - UGA is just as big to UGA as the UGA - FL game in Jax....

For A&M, I am fine with either a 6-3 or 7-1 model, will be interesting to see how it gets resolved. I would assume the Iron Bowl in-state rivalry will trump UT-Bama and Auburn-UGA, leaving UGA-FL as a permanent rival. cow and OU will want to keep the pop-gun classis, so that leave lsu or Pig for A&M as a permanent, either make more sense than USC.

As for 5 vs. 4 home conference games with a 9 game schedule, many of the arguments on this thread are way off mark. A&M gets the same TV $$ whether we play Bama or Sam Houston. The gate (tickets / concessions / parking) is certainly higher when we play Bama vs. Sam Houston but it is not a HUGE difference, it is a minimal difference. If you play 5 home SEC games it means you have 2 home non-conference games, if you play 4 home conference games you will play 3 home non-conference games, and the $$ is about the same either way. The economics arguments solely come down to if the TV partners will pay more for the 9 game schedule than they will for the 8 game schedule.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

W said:

---

in one sense...this is a good compromise for the A&M-t.u. rivalry

the Ags will start playing the sips again, but not on an annual basis

would play them every other year...which is fine

this avoids some of the "one-game season" stuff that no one wants to go back to

---

This. Out of this whole crap sandwich of Texas and OU being let into the SEC, my one hope was that A&M kept LSU as their Thanksgiving weekend game and only played Texas every other year. The "one game season" stuff was one big reason for me wanting that. A&M left for the SEC for a reason. Dropping LSU for Texas on Thanksgiving weekend because "that's how it always was" would just feel like going back to the old days.

---

I don't think you have to worry about dropping LSU for Texas on Thanksgiving, even if we go with the 9 game schedule. LSU pretty much has to play one of its three permanent rivals (Bama, Ole Miss, or A&M) on the final weekend, and the other two have long-standing commitments. We will play LSU, Texas will play Arkansas. OU and Missouri will either play each other, or Ok. State and Kansas if some kind of deal can be worked out. If the Texas game becomes an annual fixture, it will find a new place on the calendar, like the first or second Saturday in November.

I really don't see a point in trying to map out a long term schedule. College football keeps changing so much that we will end up doing this all again in a few years anyway.

If we are going to stick with 8 games, then I say allow every team to have 2 permanent rivals and randomly rotate through the rest. I realize it won't work perfectly the way a 1-7 schedule would, but it would preserve rivalries and still allow everyone to reasonably rotate through all of the other teams. Who cares if some teams we play every two years and others we play every three. I would rather have the t.u. game every year and hate to see other big games like UT/BAMA, FLA/GA, AUB/GA move away from annual matchups.

I know all of the arguments against t.u. joining the conference and all of that, but they are coming. It just makes zero sense to have our biggest historical rival back in the conference and not play every year. I look forward to LSU as a big game each year but it doesn't bring out the same kind of hate I have for t.u.

The teams LSU has played the most with total games, Rice is the interesting one.

Miss State 113
Ole Miss 106
Tulane 90
Alabama 86
Florida 69
Arkansas 67
Texas A&M 60
Kentucky 58
Rice 56

LSU should schedule Rice and Tulane ever year

Well, perhaps this whole thing was not well thought out.
Shocking.

If the schools decide on 8 conference games, add tu to the West, Oklahoma to the East, and make them permanent cross division rivals. Problem solved until this whole thing comes up again in a few years with further expansion.

TheSwingingGate said:

---

Well, perhaps this whole thing was not well thought out.
Shocking.

If the schools decide on 8 conference games, add tu to the West, Oklahoma to the East, and make them permanent cross division rivals. Problem solved until this whole thing comes up again in a few years with further expansion.

---

That doesn't solve the primary problem that the league has been trying to address for several years now -- setting up a schedule so that all league teams play each other regularly. In fact, it makes the problem worse. So, that solution will not be adopted.