Texas and Oklahoma SEC in 2024

[DAG 34,045]

14 minutes ago, AUwent said:

Trying to keep most rivalries (all the big ones) while avoiding screwing anyone too much. So no one gets three historic powers, as much as I want to pair UAT with LSU...and I know they really really want MSU:

Alabama--Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Arkansas--Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M

Auburn--Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Florida--Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee

Georgia--Auburn, Florida, Kentucky

Kentucky--Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Louisiana State--Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Mississippi--Louisiana State, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Mississippi State--Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri

Missouri--Arkansas, Mississippi State, Oklahoma

Oklahoma--Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas

South Carolina--Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi

Tennessee--Alabama, Florida, Vanderbilt

Texas--Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Texas A&M--Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas

Vanderbilt--Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee

Well this makes no sense because the point of keeping the three games is solely for rivalry purposes. Good try though.

[AUwent 3,778]

1 hour ago, DAG said:

Well this makes no sense because the point of keeping the three games is solely for rivalry purposes. Good try though.

It's called compromise. UAT-MSU is such a great rivalry--much better than UAT-LSU, right?

Come on. We both know that the real reason they want MSU instead is because they don't want three traditionally stronger teams.

All major rivalries would still be played every year, lesser ones played every other.

Of the 24 pairings I made:

-Eight (one third) are obvious rivalries, the ones that have been deemed as musts.

-Another four have been permanent SEC opponents going back to at least 1982.

-Another three are rivals dating back to the SWC and Big 8 days.

-Another three have been east rivals since the SEC split into divisions, including the rivalry of the '90s.

-Another two have been Thanksgiving matchups since 2014.

-Another was a BCS title matchup.

Ok, that's three matchups that are questionable from a rivalry standpoint. And it could be more if I didn't feel the need to put the Turds with the Cowbells like they seem to want.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by AUwent

[DAG 34,045]

46 minutes ago, AUwent said:

It's called compromise. UAT-MSU is such a great rivalry--much better than UAT-LSU, right?

Come on. We both know that the real reason they want MSU instead is because they don't want three traditionally stronger teams.

All major rivalries would still be played every year, lesser ones played every other.

Believe it or not, most fans want to keep their rivalries intact. Missouri vs Miss state? Come on man. You might get your wish with Vandy, but try to be realistic. 

[AUwent 3,778]

7 minutes ago, DAG said:

Believe it or not, most fans want to keep their rivalries intact. Missouri vs Miss state? Come on man. You might get your wish with Vandy, but try to be realistic. 

I get that. But how many GOTTA HAVE IT rivalries does MSU really have? I'm giving them Ole Miss and Alabama.

My proposal keeps 11 of these together. I would put Alabama and LSU together but Alabama by all accounts wants MSU instead.

https://www.si.com/college/olemiss/football/rebels-sec-football-rivalries-conference-realignment-red-river-iron-bowl-southwest-classic

Edited February 11, 2023 by AUwent

[Quietmaninthecorner 1,949]

9 minutes ago, DAG said:

Believe it or not, most fans want to keep their rivalries intact. Missouri vs Miss state? Come on man. You might get your wish with Vandy, but try to be realistic. 

We could just  just go with a 20 week season  18 games .  15 conference games (everyone plays everyone).  then a 4 team  playoff for the SECC.   3 weekends off each.   Allow for more scholly players per team to make up for injuries from the longer season.     Who doesn't want more football

 

But of course, if I had my way,  we would have football  from August 1st to March 15th .  then 6 weeks of playoffs.  

[ellitor 33,114]

4 hours ago, DAG said:

Well this makes no sense because the point of keeping the three games is solely for rivalry purposes. Good try though.

@DAG Sorry if I missed it but has that been said by anyone affiliated with the SEC? That withstanding I thought the major point of 3 permanents is it allows for playing every team in the conference with most efficiency, every 2 years at worst.

[ellitor 33,114]

3 hours ago, DAG said:

Believe it or not, most fans want to keep their rivalries intact. Missouri vs Miss state? Come on man. You might get your wish with Vandy, but try to be realistic. 

playing teams every other year is in no way separating rivalries IMO.

[DAG 34,045]

6 minutes ago, ellitor said:

playing teams every other year is in no way separating rivalries IMO.

Do you want to get into this or are you going to delete post again? Having Missouri and Mississippi State play each other on a permanent basis literally makes no sense on several fronts.

Edited February 11, 2023 by DAG

[ellitor 33,114]

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

Having Missouri and Mississippi State play each other on a permanent basis literally makes no sense. 

Not every part of a 3 6 6 is going to be perfect. There will be compromises. The other reason for the 3 6 6 is to try for some overal conference balance.

[DAG 34,045]

Just now, ellitor said:

Not every part of a 3 6 6 is going to be perfect. The other reason for the 3 6 6 is to try for some overal conference balance.

Obviously but once again, Mississippi state vs Missouri makes no sense has a permanent opponent. This is where you decided to interject so lets' go through this.

1). It makes no sense from a rival standpoint

2). It makes even less sense from a geographical standpoint.

My point to that poster was make it make sense. If we play Vandy, cool, but it will make sense from a Geography and Efficacy standpoint. They are not going to have us going to Missouri every year. Literally makes no sense. 

[ellitor 33,114]

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

1). It makes no sense from a rival standpoint

Again, haven't seen anywhere that the 3 permanents are set to try to be each team's top 3 rivals. You very well may be right that it turns out that way butI'm not assuming it at this point and thinking every team gets 2 of their top 3 and the 3 will in some cases be a crap shoot.

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

2). It makes even less sense from a geographical standpoint.

Also have not seen that as a talking point and will not assume it works that way for every team either.

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

They are not going to have us going to Missouri every year. Literally makes no sense. 

Ok but I thought you were talking about Mizzou playing Miss State, not us? Yes it makes no sense but I think figuring out the schedule for the permanents will flow from the top down. I think more weight will be given to figuring the Big 9s 3 permanents like us then figure out the bottom 7 to an extent. So when you get down to the Mizzou's of the conference I think there are going to be 1 or 2 WTF permanent match ups in the bottom 7.

ETA: As we all know I could be very wrong.

[W.E.D 11,070]

15 hours ago, AUwent said:

I'd like to be able to compete for championships, thanks

Us competing for championship has nothing to do with our schedule. It solely has to deal with us stepping on landmines we planted and blowing off our own legs.

[W.E.D 11,070]

13 hours ago, AUwent said:

called compromise. UAT-MSU is such a great rivalry--much better than UAT-LSU, right?

Considering geographical distance and the fact they've played like 25 more times than LSU/Bama....yes.

You're being completely delusional giving us Vandy then trying to state the pairings are due to historic rivalries. At least call it what it is

Edited February 11, 2023 by W.E.D

[VicTree 143]

Vandy should be begging to be one of our permanents.  It seems like the only time they are any good is when they are on our schedule. 😂

[AUwent 3,778]

5 hours ago, W.E.D said:

Considering geographical distance and the fact they've played like 25 more times than LSU/Bama....yes.

You're being completely delusional giving us Vandy then trying to state the pairings are due to historic rivalries. At least call it what it is

And there’s several teams we’ve played more than UAT.

Pairings are due in part to historic rivalries. The majority of them are, in fact. But it isn’t, nor should it be the only factor.

There is no other team in the country that has to play the type of schedule you’re asking for year in and year out. It is simply unrealistic to expect us to compete for championships if you got your wish. Injuries are far more likely to happen when a team does play that killer a slate.

And don’t give me the “it’s cyclical” line. UF and LSU have always been vastly better than MSU. Furthermore, I’m not privy to sacrificing the next decade of our program waiting for Nick to quit (possibly next two for Kirby)--so since we're still going to play both of them, sorry, we need a bottom dweller in that third spot.

***

Also, please tell me the Athletic was purely speculative. The title said "could look like," but I see their list being talked about like they made it with inside info.

Edited February 11, 2023 by AUwent

[AUwent 3,778]

https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-for-sec-football-scheduling-with-oklahoma-texas-officially-joining-in-2024-194215493.html

If the league decides on a nine-game schedule, as many expect, the biggest hurdle would be choosing the three permanent opponents for each team.

The ACC, which has 14 members, went through that song and dance with its 3-3-5 format. The 3-3-5 scheduling model has teams play three primary opponents annually and face the other 10 teams twice during a four-year cycle, once at home and once on the road.

Some ACC fan bases were not thrilled with their three permanent opponents. That’s sure to happen in the SEC, but Sankey said “balance and fairness” have been “guiding principles” in this process.

“We’ve looked at the bandwidth of balance and fairness in a schedule,” Sankey said. “We’ve worked with athletic directors to define what that means. You’re always going to have variances in the competitive nature of a schedule based on the other teams’ success and your team's success in that particular season."

***
Could Sankey be BSing? Sure, but this is hopeful. Tradition must be a heavy factor but it must be balanced by scheduling equity, even if there is variance. The fact is, MSU and Vandy are never going to be as good a program as LSU and Florida.

Edited February 11, 2023 by AUwent

[AU-24 3,121]

On 2/10/2023 at 11:51 PM, Mikey said:

Oops, my mistake!

Unlike others, you mean, you just admitted it? Some people have such a hard time with it, but you just admitted you made a mistake. Of course, we are all only human, great job Mikey!

[AU-24 3,121]

On 2/11/2023 at 6:59 AM, AUwent said:

I'd like to be able to compete for championships, thanks!

Now if everyone had different record requirements for playoff seeding based on SoS (9-3 with the schedule you want, then top 8 seed) then I can accept it. But we played the schedule you're asking for every year in 2019--and we still would've narrowly missed the playoffs in favor of Memphis. So something tells me that there'd literally be no reward.

And the folks at Auburn that don’t get your quote: (I’d like to be able to compete for championships, thanks!)
 

Are at least part of the reason we don’t compete for more championships.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by AU-24

[Win4AU 4,055]

I’ll happily trade LSU for Vandy.  That being said LSU Auburn has been a major rivalry since the late 80s and the earthquake game.  Bama and LSU wasn’t really that big a deal until Saban.  Georgia will be interesting because you have Florida, Tennessee, and Auburn that could be considered permanent rivals.  Florida obviously isn’t getting dropped so could you see Auburn or Tennessee dropped in favor of another permanent opponent?

[JerryAU 1,696]

Even if teams aren't permanent opponents, they still play every other year and that's what the SEC wants.  They don't want 12 yrs to elapse and UGA hasn't been to College Station.

They will use permanent opponents to protect the longest-standing games.  And there will now be plenty of marketable matchups for TV ratings as viewers will get every single one over the span of 2 yrs.

So it could easily end up that we get UGA/UAT/Vandy as our 3 perms and still have to play UF/LSU/Texas, etc in the same season as well. 

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

14 minutes ago, JerryAU said:

Even if teams aren't permanent opponents, they still play every other year and that's what the SEC wants.  They don't want 12 yrs to elapse and UGA hasn't been to College Station.

They will use permanent opponents to protect the longest-standing games.  And there will now be plenty of marketable matchups for TV ratings as viewers will get every single one over the span of 2 yrs.

So it could easily end up that we get UGA/UAT/Vandy as our 3 perms and still have to play UF/LSU/Texas, etc in the same season as well. 

Yeah, people complaining about a "hard schedule" are going to be really crying when they come out with the Home/Away rotation.  The meet is really going to be on that.  If we don't get UF or UT as our 3rd, at least we are playing them much more often.  

[JerryAU 1,696]

Just now, W.E.D said:

Yeah, people complaining about a "hard schedule" are going to be really crying when they come out with the Home/Away rotation.  The meet is really going to be on that.  If we don't get UF or UT as our 3rd, at least we are playing them much more often.  

BINGO!

It's almost like people don't understand how this new system works.  Auburn's getting uga/uat/??? + 6 more SEC games every year, some of which won't be the caliber of bottom dwellers Mizz/Vandy/Arky/SoCarl/Miss schools. 

[AUApostle 7,663]

 

[Old fan 47 775]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:47 PM, JerryAU said:

BINGO!

It's almost like people don't understand how this new system works.  Auburn's getting uga/uat/??? + 6 more SEC games every year, some of which won't be the caliber of bottom dwellers Mizz/Vandy/Arky/SoCarl/Miss schools. 

Exactly. Not sure we come out of this expansion in good shape. We’ve been behind the eight ball for 3 years and now we are adding two legendary programs to the SEC. If in fact, we keep Bama and UGA each year, AU will remain a mid to bottom tier program. No current scenario looks very favorable. 

[AUwent 3,778]

2 hours ago, Old fan 47 said:

Exactly. Not sure we come out of this expansion in good shape. We’ve been behind the eight ball for 3 years and now we are adding two legendary programs to the SEC. If in fact, we keep Bama and UGA each year, AU will remain a mid to bottom tier program. No current scenario looks very favorable. 

If Vandy or even say MSU is our third, this can absolutely level the playing field in our favor. I hear people arguing that we should play the toughest schedule because it’s “always been that way!” Something tells me these folks would’ve been for keeping our home IBs in Birmingham…

Edited February 19, 2023 by AUwent