I've heard speculation on a 7-1 model with only one permanent opponent. Do you think this will be how it goes? I can't imagine most fanbases would be happy with this.

Who would A&M's perm be in that scenario? I'm assuming LSU

Mac94 said:

---

zafzo said:

---

If this were true, it would be Texas.

Why are rookies allowed to post again?

---

You think the SEC would cast the OU-Texas game aside?

---

No, they wouldn't which is why the OP is silly. I edited my response to clarify.

I think they are going to have to decide at the spring meetings.

Sankey has tried to frame the choice as between 7/1 and 6/3, because he would like to get to 9 games, viewing the loss of rivalry games that would come with 7/1 as a poison pill. I think Sankey is right that 9 games are needed, but it seems that enough schools are scared of going to 9 that it won't happen without more money from ESPN, and I don't see ESPN coming through with anything significant.

Saban and Bama coming out against 6/3 when they saw what the league office had in mind for Bama's 3 was what sunk the deal. The idea that we can, or even should, try to balance out who your 3 opponents are competitively is ridiculous, since that means that they would need to redo the permanent opponents every four years or so based upon new data. They should be making this decision based on historic ties and geography only, as those factors do not present a moving target.

Although I haven't seen anything suggesting this, I have a sneaking suspicion that we may end up with a sort of weasel move, like the Big Ten, where some teams have more permanent opponents, and others less. It would bother everyone with a touch of OCD because there would not be certainty on who you are playing year in and year out with regard to rotating opponents, but that may be the best we can do. I don't think 7/1 is going to fly, as we would lose a bunch of rivalry games (including ours against the sips) starting in 2026.

I'm just wondering. I'm not the one who proposed the model.

Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of it.

Personally? Id want a 9 game SEC schedule with 3 permanent opponents (tu, swamptards, ark)

I just got flashbacks of the Ags getting jobbed by the refs in Athens (2018)

The other thing to consider with future scheduling is what are they going to do with the playoffs going forwards.
If they try to wrap up the playoffs earlier, it might result in the elimination of the CCGs which could impact the way conferences might want to do scheduling.

Of course, since the conferences are all corrupt and don't care about trying to determine who the best teams are in their conference/nation and deserve to make the playoffs but would rather game the system and get as many teams from their conference in the playoffs for the money, the scheduling will probably be done annually and be based on who they think will be good going into the season and they will give those teams easy schedules so they can have good records and make the playoffs.

LETTUCE PRAY said:

---

I'm just wondering. I'm not the one who proposed the model.

Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of it.

Personally? Id want a 9 game SEC schedule with 3 permanent opponents (tu, swamptards, ark)

---

Let us spray as one preacher's kid once said…

33 said:

---

The only reasonable solution is a 9 game conference schedule.

---

can't do that after only 3 SEC teams made the 12-team playoff

the ACC, Big 12, and Notre Dame would love, love, love for the SEC to increase to 9 conference games

There's no way they would disrupt that many rivalry games. 9 game conference schedule is more feasible than taking away secondary rivals games like Florida/Georgia, or the 3rd Saturday in October, or Auburn/Georgia, or LSU/Alabama. I'm going with 6 +3; 6 random SEC teams plus 3 permanent rivals.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

The other thing to consider with future scheduling is what are they going to do with the playoffs going forwards.
If they try to wrap up the playoffs earlier, it might result in the elimination of the CCGs which could impact the way conferences might want to do scheduling.

Of course, since the conferences are all corrupt and don't care about trying to determine who the best teams are in their conference/nation and deserve to make the playoffs but would rather game the system and get as many teams from their conference in the playoffs for the money, the scheduling will probably be done annually and be based on who they think will be good going into the season and they will give those teams easy schedules so they can have good records and make the playoffs.

---

Conference CCG make too much money to eliminate in my opinion. They will probably start the season a week earlier like before Labor Day.

LETTUCE PRAY said:

---

I just got flashbacks of the Ags getting jobbed by the refs in Athens (2018)

---

Yep. And it's BS that tu got them at home in Year 1 and they've yet to play a game at Kyle.

LETTUCE PRAY said:

---

I'm just wondering. I'm not the one who proposed the model.

Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of it.

Personally? Id want a 9 game SEC schedule with 3 permanent opponents (tu, swamptards, ark)

---

Except Arkansas would want tu, OU, and Mizzou. I think there should be 2 geographic rivals and 1 from the newbys/old guard: in our case, tu, OU, and South Carolina.

jmfshr said:

---

LETTUCE PRAY said:

---

I'm just wondering. I'm not the one who proposed the model.

Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of it.

Personally? Id want a 9 game SEC schedule with 3 permanent opponents (tu, swamptards, ark)

---

Except Arkansas would want tu, OU, and Mizzou. I think there should be 2 geographic rivals and 1 from the newbys/old guard: in our case, tu, OU, and South Carolina.

---

I thought most people thought our 3 permanent rivals would be Texas, LSU, and Mississippi State.

jmfshr said:

---

LETTUCE PRAY said:

---

I'm just wondering. I'm not the one who proposed the model.

Surely this isn't the first time you've heard of it.

Personally? Id want a 9 game SEC schedule with 3 permanent opponents (tu, swamptards, ark)

---

Except Arkansas would want tu, OU, and Mizzou. I think there should be 2 geographic rivals and 1 from the newbys/old guard: in our case, tu, OU, and South Carolina.

---

But there is not real historical rivalry between Arkansas and Missouri. They've only played 16 times since 1906. Obviously a geographical proximity, but that never translated into an intense rivalry. I don't see Arkansas choosing Missouri over Texas A&M, I would imagine they would round out their selection with t.u. and Tennessee/LSU (all for recruiting purposes.) As for us:, t.u. LSU, and Arkansas. Ask yourself, how many people do you know of that went to South Carolina?

Quote:

---

Wgaf what dumbass sankey does w the schedule

Let's go to the B1G & get paid

---

The B1G doesn't just add teams and get the same team payout. You'd have to be a bigger dumbass than Sankey to not know that.

Kick ou and tu out. Then we are back to being just fine

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wgaf what dumbass sankey does w the schedule

Let's go to the B1G & get paid

---

The B1G doesn't just add teams and get the same team payout. You'd have to be a bigger dumbass than Sankey to not know that.

---

The B1G deal would be renegotiated when the state of Texas & the national A&M brand was added to the footprint.....

No- it wouldn't. Because it's already overvalued.

Money doesn't just grow on trees.

There isn't much history with Miss State.

There are three schools in the SEC in which A&M has substantial history with: Texas, LSU and Arkansas

20ag07 said:

---

No- it wouldn't. Because it's already overvalued.

Money doesn't just grow on trees.

---

Overvalued? The entire footprint of that conference covers every major media market we have in this country, except for DFW and Houston--which would get covered with a simple addition.

Quote:

---

There isn't much history with Miss State.

There are three schools in the SEC in which A&M has substantial history with: Texas, LSU and Arkansas

---

You are using tunnel vision.

MS State, Mizzou, South Carolina have to have permanent rivals too. And Arkansas doesn't want to have 3 upper-tier perms.

33 said:

---

The only reasonable solution is a 9 game conference schedule.

---

Exactly. Maybe more; that's what fans want. Every SEC team currently dedicates 25% of their season to glorified scrimmages against cupcakes. Needs to end; especially in the new era of NIL $$$$$.

Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wgaf what dumbass sankey does w the schedule

Let's go to the B1G & get paid

---

The B1G doesn't just add teams and get the same team payout. You'd have to be a bigger dumbass than Sankey to not know that.

---

The B1G deal would be renegotiated when the state of Texas & the national A&M brand was added to the footprint.....

---

With cable model failings no longer true. National eyeballs are more important which is why the Big Ten emphasized over-the-air broadcasters given they still have more aggregate national viewers than SEC does in large part due to more population and somewhere larger historical national fan bases.

This has reinvigorated the local TV franchise while forcing cable news to streaming. CNN tried once with CNN+ but canceled and is now trying again with reduced personnel costs.

Who cares about rivals anymore?

Kozmozag said:

---

Who cares about rivals anymore?

---

So…the good news is if they carry through with the rotation of the other 14 teams semi annually we play everyone home avd joke ecerof four years. LSU will be every year.

So we don't lose the rivalry games but focus on one primary SEC rival. Out of SEC rivals can still be played annually with no restrictions like Carolina and Clemson.

I prefer ten game conference schedule a la 2020 (though we didn't play the tenth game.)

zafzo said:

---

If this were true, it would be Texas. But it's not true because there are too many teams with multiple huge rivalries that the don't want to lose. (A&M vs Texas/LSU, Alabama vs Auburn/Tennessee, Florida vs Georgia/Tennessee, Texas vs OU/A&M)


Why are rookies allowed to post again?

---

You obviously just started following SEC football yesterday. Texas and OU joined the SEC with the guarantee that their rivalry would remain in tact.

W said:

---

33 said:

---

The only reasonable solution is a 9 game conference schedule.

---

can't do that after only 3 SEC teams made the 12-team playoff

the ACC, Big 12, and Notre Dame would love, love, love for the SEC to increase to 9 conference games

---

This. It's a terrible idea, and only punishes sec teams even more. No thanks.

greg.w.h said:

---

Mr. Fingerbottom said:

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wgaf what dumbass sankey does w the schedule

Let's go to the B1G & get paid

---

The B1G doesn't just add teams and get the same team payout. You'd have to be a bigger dumbass than Sankey to not know that.

---

The B1G deal would be renegotiated when the state of Texas & the national A&M brand was added to the footprint.....

---

With cable model failings no longer true. National eyeballs are more important which is why the Big Ten emphasized over-the-air broadcasters given they still have more aggregate national viewers than SEC does in large part due to more population and somewhere larger historical national fan bases.

This has reinvigorated the local TV franchise while forcing cable news to streaming. CNN tried once with CNN+ but canceled and is now trying again with reduced personnel costs.

---

I've seen it posted that the Big 10 has more national aggregate viewers, but not how it's calculated.

Is that based on the fact that the Big 10 has two additional teams so they get to add those two teams' games to the aggregate? Is it based on the fact that the Big Ten has a 9 game conference schedule vs the SEC's 8?

Is the Big Ten getting to add somewhere in the realm of 10-24 more games than the SEC to the total to get the aggregate win in the quote? Because on average the SEC has higher viewership.

8 of the top 10 teams this past season in average viewership per game were in the SEC. For the Big 10 to have more viewership It's clearly it's a function of getting a lot more games with much less eyeballs on them, assuming it's even true since the posts rarely are accompanied by a link. If we gave the Big 12 another 4-6 teams and 40-60 more games it might have more aggregate viewership than either the Big Ten or SEC.

Nice.

https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2024/nielsen-shares-college-football-conference-champs-and-overall-top10-based-on-season-viewership-rankings/

Quote:

---

. . . Here are the top 10 teams of the 2024 season (average total viewership per game):

University of Georgia (8.6 million viewers)
The Ohio State University (6.8 million viewers)
University of Alabama (6.6 million viewers)
University of Texas (6.4 million viewers)
University of Tennessee (5.4 million viewers)
University of Michigan (5.2 million viewers)
Texas A&M University (4.9 million viewers)
Louisiana State University (4.8 million viewers)
University of Kentucky (4.5 million viewers)
University of Florida (4.3 million viewers)
. . .

---

Whenever the SEC gets to renegotiate its deal (assuming the conference paradigm isn't done by then), the per team payout will reflect that vs. the Big Ten.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

There isn't much history with Miss State.

There are three schools in the SEC in which A&M has substantial history with: Texas, LSU and Arkansas

---

You are using tunnel vision.

MS State, Mizzou, South Carolina have to have permanent rivals too. And Arkansas doesn't want to have 3 upper-tier perms.

---

Eyeballs matter. More people give AF about A&M/Ark than Ark/Mizzou

I get your reasoning though. It's probably a nightmare for the league office trying to sort this all out.