(03-08-2019 11:17 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I still think divisionless is the best of all worlds

It acknowledges that everyone has those couple games a year they MUST play and everyone else is “it’s okay if we only see you most years”

So 4 permanent games to cover all major regional and rival games then 5 games that rotate home and way

You play everyone home and away at least once in a standard 4 year student career

The problem with no divisions is that there are some schools no one wants a permanent rival with. For example, who is clamoring to maintain series with UK or Vandy. I'd say both MS schools fall into that category as well.

This isn't to say the 4 teams divisions solves the problem either as that is no different that having 3 permanent rival in a divisionless system

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:14 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:39 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 06:21 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  We know it’s not a rivalry. It’s just a permanent cross division game, which I think is the right term for pretty much all of them with the exception of UA/UT and AU/UGA. Though I will say Arky/Mizzou makes sense too because of geography

Auburn and Alabama to the East, Missouri to the West, and adding two more schools in the West (preferably UT, OU, or KU) sure solves a lot of problems on paper. However, I can see that clean of a break causing the SEC to feel more like two separate conferences.

Auburn and Alabama fans, would this setup cause an amazing amount of angst in terms of competing against rivals? I know that Alabama and Mississippi State are historic rivals, but it especially seems that Auburn would be in their sweet spot with knowing that Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida are on the schedule every year. It never hurts to have some padding from Vandy and Kentucky most years in football.

Swapping Missouri and Auburn makes a ton of sense as well. Eliminate the Alabama/UT game and make Alabama/Auburn the only protected rivalry (Big Ten does this with Indiana/Purdue I think)

Maybe if Alabama beat UT another 10 times in a row UT will finally wise up.

The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:14 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:39 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Auburn and Alabama to the East, Missouri to the West, and adding two more schools in the West (preferably UT, OU, or KU) sure solves a lot of problems on paper. However, I can see that clean of a break causing the SEC to feel more like two separate conferences.

Auburn and Alabama fans, would this setup cause an amazing amount of angst in terms of competing against rivals? I know that Alabama and Mississippi State are historic rivals, but it especially seems that Auburn would be in their sweet spot with knowing that Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida are on the schedule every year. It never hurts to have some padding from Vandy and Kentucky most years in football.

Swapping Missouri and Auburn makes a ton of sense as well. Eliminate the Alabama/UT game and make Alabama/Auburn the only protected rivalry (Big Ten does this with Indiana/Purdue I think)

Maybe if Alabama beat UT another 10 times in a row UT will finally wise up.

The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

ATU, you made a good point that eventually adding that ninth conference game could alleviate most in-conference scheduling issues. In turn, out-of-conference scheduling matters could become more acute. Those with in-state ooc P5 rivalries played each year will essentially leave only two "free choices" for scheduling. And in most situations, schools in the conference will want those games to be at home and are considered to be easy wins. G5 and FCS would continue to provide much of that. For certain schools though, undertaking a second ooc P5 game may be avoided.

I suggest if the conference does go to 9 conference games, they agree on modest new guidelines for ooc scheduling such as the following:

(a) 9 conference games

(b) 1 required P5 ooc game (in-state/permanent rivalry or a rotated ooc P5 games on home to home set-up

© And do one of the following:

-1- If play 2 ooc P5s, 12th game can be anyone from FBS or scholarship FCS. The FCS game counts in power ratings.

-2- play two from G5 if scheduled only 1 ooc P5 game

This may drop the number of SEC games with FCS schools who need the revenue, but something needs to give if consistency and some measure of equity in the standards for scheduling become even more important.
It could reduce the overall number of cupcake games

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:14 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:39 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Auburn and Alabama to the East, Missouri to the West, and adding two more schools in the West (preferably UT, OU, or KU) sure solves a lot of problems on paper. However, I can see that clean of a break causing the SEC to feel more like two separate conferences.

Auburn and Alabama fans, would this setup cause an amazing amount of angst in terms of competing against rivals? I know that Alabama and Mississippi State are historic rivals, but it especially seems that Auburn would be in their sweet spot with knowing that Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida are on the schedule every year. It never hurts to have some padding from Vandy and Kentucky most years in football.

Swapping Missouri and Auburn makes a ton of sense as well. Eliminate the Alabama/UT game and make Alabama/Auburn the only protected rivalry (Big Ten does this with Indiana/Purdue I think)

Maybe if Alabama beat UT another 10 times in a row UT will finally wise up.

The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:14 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Swapping Missouri and Auburn makes a ton of sense as well. Eliminate the Alabama/UT game and make Alabama/Auburn the only protected rivalry (Big Ten does this with Indiana/Purdue I think)

Maybe if Alabama beat UT another 10 times in a row UT will finally wise up.

The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

Look at it another way. If we added a Texas and Oklahoma or Kansas after we have already added Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M have we not added our OOC P game by simply absorbing them into the conference? And by 2037 (maybe beyond my years) if we add Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech have we not accounted for them?

(03-13-2019 12:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

Look at it another way. If we added a Texas and Oklahoma or Kansas after we have already added Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M have we not added our OOC P game by simply absorbing them into the conference? And by 2037 (maybe beyond my years) if we add Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech have we not accounted for them?

As far as schedule strength goes, yes, they do more or less replace them, although I could see the occasional Big Ten or PAC 12 team still scheduling a big OOC game even with a conference schedule like that. But, that’s not all of it. I would love for Georgia to play USC (the one in LA), Notre Dame (more), Oregon (my other favorite P5 team), etc. I even like seeing the matchups with Clemson who we play about as often as Florida plays Miami. Because of the Jax game, we can’t do that with only 3 OOC teams, and we have to save a slot for Georgia Tech too. Auburn & Alabama don’t have that problem because you guys don’t play any neutral site conference games and you both play in the SEC, so an OOC slot doesn’t have to be used just so you guys can play each other. The Jax game is never going to go away and I’m fine with that as long as the SEC continues to allow 4 OOC games. I will reluctantly accept the Jax game if the SEC mandates 9 conference games, but I won’t like it personally. The main reason the game is in Jax other than tradition is that allows Georgia fans in south Georgia to watch the Bulldogs in person when otherwise they would never have the chance. It is for that reason I grudgingly put up with the game.

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

If we're being honest, truly great OOC matchups are very few and far between as it is now.

(03-14-2019 12:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

If we're being honest, truly great OOC matchups are very few and far between as it is now.

The ACC/SEC Rivalry Week games are among the best.

(03-14-2019 07:56 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

If we're being honest, truly great OOC matchups are very few and far between as it is now.

The ACC/SEC Rivalry Week games are among the best.

There are no great Big 10/PAC OOC regular season games. The Big 12 has a few with the SEC and the SEC and ACC share some at both ends of the season, and Notre Dame has USC and Stanford, and that's about it.

(03-13-2019 12:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The old guard at Alabama will have to be good and dead before they stop caring about playing Tennessee. There are even many people in my generation who regard UT as an equally important game.

The Iron Bowl gets a lot more attention and generates more ticket sales, but part of that is the fact tons of people who grew up in the state who might not have attended either school circle that one on their calendars. Among alumni, however, UT is still very important.

But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

Look at it another way. If we added a Texas and Oklahoma or Kansas after we have already added Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M have we not added our OOC P game by simply absorbing them into the conference? And by 2037 (maybe beyond my years) if we add Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech have we not accounted for them?

In that 2037 scenario, JR, I only see the following OOC annual needs:

Kentucky vs. Louisville
Kansas vs. Kansas State (political compromise)
Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State
Texas vs. Texas Tech (political compromise)

That's about it, right? I'm sure our eastern teams will want to face off with the NC and VA schools every now and again, but the schools you included pretty much becomes a league.

(03-14-2019 10:10 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-09-2019 06:16 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-08-2019 08:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  But at what point is one game between two fanbases enough to keep the other 12 schools from going to a much more sensible schedule? Auburn for example had to abandon a ton of rivalries in 1992 and they have managed to do just fine. SC, TAMU, and others are forced to play games every year to protect certain rivalries.

Besides, if the conference goes to 9 games and abandons permanent opponents they will basically be playing every other year so it's not like the game will never happen again. People can still circle it on the calendar.

Well, Auburn didn't lose Georgia. It's more like 4 fanbases holding the other 10 from having a more reasonable schedule. Games like Bama/UT and AU/UGA are what built the league. They shouldn't be tossed aside lightly. The answer is to find a way to bring back old rivalries, not get rid of even more.

But I think you answered the question...it's basically a temporary problem.

Eventually, we will expand and add a 9th game. Virtually every scheduling problem will go away at that point.

I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

Look at it another way. If we added a Texas and Oklahoma or Kansas after we have already added Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M have we not added our OOC P game by simply absorbing them into the conference? And by 2037 (maybe beyond my years) if we add Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Georgia Tech have we not accounted for them?

In that 2037 scenario, JR, I only see the following OOC annual needs:

Kentucky vs. Louisville
Kansas vs. Kansas State (political compromise)
Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State
Texas vs. Texas Tech (political compromise)

That's about it, right? I'm sure our eastern teams will want to face off with the NC and VA schools every now and again, but the schools you included pretty much becomes a league.

Yes with those 20 (remember Kansas or Oklahoma not both) then certainly 1 OOC game would cover any remaining needs.

In 2010 the gentlemen's agreement was just the opposite of what Travis and other's reported. Slive asked that we not nominate our in state rivals for membership until the 2 new markets clause with ESPN was satisfied so that we could renegotiate our contract. He promised that in the future that requirement would no longer stand but profitability would remain the criteria for nominations.

The reason this was even necessary was because both Florida and South Carolina were antsy about expanding for fear that more eventual conference games would squeeze out their main money games (Clemson & F.S.U.) around which their whole donation priority was based. Georgia acknowledged state political pressure to try to place Georgia Tech back into the conference, and Kentucky was the only school with an in state rival that did not desire their inclusion. That's why I suggested Georgia Tech, Florida State and Clemson. I tossed in Miami because that would appease both Florida and Florida State in such a scenario.

So that SEC might look like this:
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Clemson, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

So if that's the case then to play everyone every 3 years it takes 9 conference games (4 for your division and 5 for your rotating division.) To protect one permanent rival make it a 10 conference game schedule.

That leaves 2 OOC games to schedule anyone a school desires.

The unaccounted for rivalries would be: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Louisville.

That's not much.

(03-14-2019 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:56 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 12:51 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 12:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I'm not looking forward to that though. We can kiss all of our big OOC matchups goodbye. Darn!!!

IMO, the real answer to our scheduling problems is to go divisionless.

If we're being honest, truly great OOC matchups are very few and far between as it is now.

The ACC/SEC Rivalry Week games are among the best.

There are no great Big 10/PAC OOC regular season games. The Big 12 has a few with the SEC and the SEC and ACC share some at both ends of the season, and Notre Dame has USC and Stanford, and that's about it.

Exactly.

Just looking at the SEC the past 10 years or so, there's only a few OOC series that have been truly great.

FSU/UF, UK/Louisville, SC/Clemson, GA Tech/UGA are obviously all important.

The various Clemson series are all good. UGA/ND is a good one. Some of Alabama's opening season games have been good, the upcoming ones with Texas, Southern Cal, and ND look better. Outside of those they're mostly all forgettable.