Just saw this on the Big 10 board and thought it could be a good idea in the SEC if we get stuck at 14 teams for a while. With a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, and 3 permanent rivals, all schools would play 6 out of 10 years (2 years on, 2 years off, 4 years on, 4 years off). Take a read, especially Frank's original article linked on the first thread: http://csnbbs.com/thread-677717.html

How would this look for the SEC, and could we embrace such a setup? Some compromises would have to be made, especially among the eastern schools to get South Carolina in the mix (Georgia and Florida could have easily left USC high and dry by staying with more traditional Tennessee)

Team - rival #1, rival #2, rival #3

Florida - Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn
Georgia - Florida, South Carolina, Auburn
South Carolina - Georgia, Florida, Mississippi State
Alabama - Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
LSU - Texas A&M, Mississippi, Arkansas
Tennessee - Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Auburn - Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Mississippi - Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, LSU
Arkansas - Missouri, Texas A&M, LSU
Kentucky - Tennessee, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M - LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
Vanderbilt - Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi
Missouri - Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Mississippi State - Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina

Good stuff overall.

I'd bet the Missouri and A&M would rather have new SEC opponents than each other.

I mean we played for a while in the Big 12 and had some good games in Basketball and football but this series never meant anything to either side and I think we'd both rather forge new, more meaningful ties in our new home.

I'd like to submit for A&M:

LSU/Ark and trips to the Grove..er Ole Miss!

I don't envy whoever would have to make the final call on these matchups, 10th. Getting 2 of the 3 rivals for every school isn't too bad, but trying to make everyone happy with that 3rd team is nearly impossible. Maybe Missouri and Vandy could play to free up Ole Miss and TAMU, but Vandy and Ole Miss have a long history. That is where things get tough. Tennessee, for example, loses both Georgia and Florida to give USC a fighting chance at making that structure work. I don't feel too bad, though, because Tennessee legitimately has 6 longstanding rivals in Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida. Something had to give somewhere. Getting rid of Tennessee/Georgia every year would not go over well.

Well if you had a situation where 2 protected rivalries will do it over 3 (I can see the B1g needing 3 to accommodate games like Michigan/MSU, Michigan tOSU and Michigan/Minnesota) then why not just do 2 protected games?

You get to everyone else a lot quicker.

Tennessee is kind of the odd man out with rivalries with everyone in the east, but they could probably be pretty happy with Bama and Vandy

The big benefit is that You'd get to play everyone at least twice in a 4 year span which is the average stay for students.

Very good point, 10th! If the SEC wanted to keep 8 conferences game, they could do two rivals and rotate the same as described above. Better, yet, I like having one permanent rival, going to 9 conference games, and playing everyone 2 out of every 3 years. That one would be much easier to manage:

Florida-Georgia
Alabama-Auburn
Mississippi-Mississippi State
Missouri-Arkansas
TAMU-LSU

How to handle South Carolina and Vanderbilt gets more sticky. I think UT-Vandy and UK-USC is the best balance for the long-term. What we really need is UNC or NC State to give USC a natural rival, but that is a totally different topic.

(02-25-2014 01:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Well if you had a situation where 2 protected rivalries will do it over 3 (I can see the B1g needing 3 to accommodate games like Michigan/MSU, Michigan tOSU and Michigan/Minnesota) then why not just do 2 protected games?

You get to everyone else a lot quicker.

Tennessee is kind of the odd man out with rivalries with everyone in the east, but they could probably be pretty happy with Bama and Vandy

The big benefit is that You'd get to play everyone at least twice in a 4 year span which is the average stay for students.

I totally agree with you 10th. Two is fine. I believe conference continuity involves playing your opponents often... not every six years.

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas A&M, Louisiana State
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Florida: Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Tennessee, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Louisiana State: Texas A&M, Mississippi, Arkansas
Mississippi: Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M: Louisiana State, Arkansas, Mississippi
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky

I didn't go with manufactured rivalries from 1992. I tried to balance them a bit and take into consideration geography as much as possible.

Also Frank borrowed the idea from the ACC board in all fairness, but it is a good idea nonetheless.

(02-25-2014 01:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Very good point, 10th! If the SEC wanted to keep 8 conferences game, they could do two rivals and rotate the same as described above. Better, yet, I like having one permanent rival, going to 9 conference games, and playing everyone 2 out of every 3 years. That one would be much easier to manage:

Florida-Georgia
Alabama-Auburn
Mississippi-Mississippi State
Missouri-Arkansas
TAMU-LSU

How to handle South Carolina and Vanderbilt gets more sticky. I think UT-Vandy and UK-USC is the best balance for the long-term. What we really need is UNC or NC State to give USC a natural rival, but that is a totally different topic.

South Carolina belongs in the ACC.........attrib: Steve Spurrier

(02-25-2014 12:21 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Good stuff overall.

I'd bet the Missouri and A&M would rather have new SEC opponents than each other.

I mean we played for a while in the Big 12 and had some good games in Basketball and football but this series never meant anything to either side and I think we'd both rather forge new, more meaningful ties in our new home.

I'd like to submit for A&M:

LSU/Ark and trips to the Grove..er Ole Miss!

From what I've seen of Ole Miss coeds, wouldn't everyone want them as a permanent rival?

(02-26-2014 11:22 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:21 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Good stuff overall.

I'd bet the Missouri and A&M would rather have new SEC opponents than each other.

I mean we played for a while in the Big 12 and had some good games in Basketball and football but this series never meant anything to either side and I think we'd both rather forge new, more meaningful ties in our new home.

I'd like to submit for A&M:

LSU/Ark and trips to the Grove..er Ole Miss!

From what I've seen of Ole Miss coeds, wouldn't everyone want them as a permanent rival?

Oxford is a crazy fun tail gate...