SEC Protected Rivalries 5+1

I chose a 5+1 protected rivalry format because I feel 3 protected rivalries for the SEC isn't enough with how many rivalries there are in the conference. Every team gets 5 opponents annually, 1 opponent (parenthesis) they would play twice in a 3 year rotation (4x in 6 years), and plays the other 7 opponents once every 3 years (home and home every 6 years). This cuts the time each time would travel to every SEC stadium in half while preserving rivalries and key matchups. The rivalries can be adjusted (there are a couple forced matchups and couldn't get Auburn-LSU and South Carolina-Tennessee), but I'll let you decide.

Alabama- Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Miss State, Tennessee (Vanderbilt)

Arkansas- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas A&M (South Carolina)

Auburn- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ole Miss, Tennessee (Missouri)

Florida- Auburn, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee (LSU)

Georgia- Alabama, Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt (Tennessee)

Kentucky- Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt (Miss State)

LSU- Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Miss St., Texas A&M (Florida)

Mississippi- Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Miss State, Vanderbilt (Texas A&M)

Mississippi St.- Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Texas A&M (Kentucky)

Missouri- Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt (Auburn)

South Carolina- Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas A&M (Arkansas)

Tennessee- Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt (Georgia)

Texas A&M- Arkansas, LSU, South Carolina, Missouri, Miss State (Mississippi)

Vanderbilt- Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee (Alabama)

5 Protected Rivals - Annually
1 Protected Rival (Parenthesis) - Twice in 3 Years
All Other Opponents - Once in 3 Years

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

(07-09-2021 07:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

You don't HAVE to have a permanent rival. It's a 6 year schedule. There's 7 pairs of teams (14 teams). Have Purdue-Indiana play every year, and have the other 6 rotate.


Or you could have 4 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 3 pairs rotate to play each other twice. Or you could have 5 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 2 pairs rotate to play each other 3 times.

(07-09-2021 08:31 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

You don't HAVE to have a permanent rival. It's a 6 year schedule. There's 7 pairs of teams (14 teams). Have Purdue-Indiana play every year, and have the other 6 rotate.


Or you could have 4 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 3 pairs rotate to play each other twice. Or you could have 5 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 2 pairs rotate to play each other 3 times.

Don't tell me, tell the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC scheduling offices.

(07-09-2021 08:46 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 08:31 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

You don't HAVE to have a permanent rival. It's a 6 year schedule. There's 7 pairs of teams (14 teams). Have Purdue-Indiana play every year, and have the other 6 rotate.


Or you could have 4 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 3 pairs rotate to play each other twice. Or you could have 5 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 2 pairs rotate to play each other 3 times.

Don't tell me, tell the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC scheduling offices.

And every ACC or SEC, or Big school who wants a "balanced" schedule......

You can protect a lot of rivalry/trophy games with a division-less schedule. Playing 8 conference games allows the 14-school leagues to protect 3 games and then play the other schools home/way every four years. For the leagues that have 9 conference games, you can protect 5 games. That can provide a nice regional feel to a schools schedule while preserving rivalries and seeing all schools in your conference home/away every four years.

Keeping divisions, however, gives you the possibility of hanging another banner for winning a division. How important is that to players, coaches, and fans?

(07-09-2021 08:31 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

You don't HAVE to have a permanent rival. It's a 6 year schedule. There's 7 pairs of teams (14 teams). Have Purdue-Indiana play every year, and have the other 6 rotate.


Or you could have 4 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 3 pairs rotate to play each other twice. Or you could have 5 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 2 pairs rotate to play each other 3 times.

You are absolutely right that they didn't have to do the schedules this way. The 6-year schedule was done to appease the networks paying out the big money for the TV rights. The networks wanted the big names playing each other more often. You can see that in the second round of the 6-year schedules too (UW-OSU, UNL-UM). By the time the contract with FOX is up, they won't care about future B1G schedules unless they won the next contract.

I'd rather keep divisions in the ACC. It's easier to win the coastal division than to finish in the top 2 of Clemson FSU Miami VT UNC GT and Louisville in a normal year.

(07-09-2021 09:32 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 08:31 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

So are many of the SEC cross division "rivalries" and a few of the ACC ones as well. To give a few of the schools a rivalry you have to give everyone one.

You don't HAVE to have a permanent rival. It's a 6 year schedule. There's 7 pairs of teams (14 teams). Have Purdue-Indiana play every year, and have the other 6 rotate.


Or you could have 4 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 3 pairs rotate to play each other twice. Or you could have 5 of them with permanent rivals, and the other 2 pairs rotate to play each other 3 times.

You are absolutely right that they didn't have to do the schedules this way. The 6-year schedule was done to appease the networks paying out the big money for the TV rights. The networks wanted the big names playing each other more often. You can see that in the second round of the 6-year schedules too (UW-OSU, UNL-UM). By the time the contract with FOX is up, they won't care about future B1G schedules unless they won the next contract.

Ohio State vs. Wisconsin, sure!
Michigan vs. Nebraska, okay, I guess?
Penn State vs. Illinois? Iowa vs. Rutgers? Come on, man!!!

(07-09-2021 12:56 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I'd rather keep divisions in the ACC. It's easier to win the coastal division than to finish in the top 2 of Clemson FSU Miami VT UNC GT and Louisville in a normal year.

Divisionless scheduling is about better regular season. More VT/Clemson and VT/Florida State games (even VT/Louisville is better than playing Duke).

Also, remember who you are, Chris. Hokies aren't afraid of playing the tough schedule! Hokies don't want to back-door into the CCG. "We're the men of VPI!"

(07-09-2021 07:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 12:56 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I'd rather keep divisions in the ACC. It's easier to win the coastal division than to finish in the top 2 of Clemson FSU Miami VT UNC GT and Louisville in a normal year.

Divisionless scheduling is about better regular season. More VT/Clemson and VT/Florida State games (even VT/Louisville is better than playing Duke).

Also, remember who you are, Chris. Hokies aren't afraid of playing the tough schedule! Hokies don't want to back-door into the CCG. "We're the men of VPI!"

Losing a bunch of lesser performing football schools to the coming stipend/NIL/Pay4Play apocalypse would also improve the schedule. We'll have to see how it shakes out.

(07-09-2021 08:46 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Don't tell me, tell the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC scheduling offices.

And the media partners that advised on the media value of different alternatives.

It's perfectly within the rules to have some permanent games, and set up ad hoc divisional alignments every year around those permanent games ... and not necessarily with "pods" (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers), since it is perfectly within the rules for some of those permanent games to be cross division in some years. All you need to do is to have a complete divisional round robin, and the CCG of the two divisional champions is allowed.

However, I expect that the media partners like to say "a critical Western Division match-up!" and have at least many of the more serious fans know what that means. So they probably advise that doing it with ad hoc divisions every year is not going to earn as much media money.
________________

(07-09-2021 07:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ohio State vs. Wisconsin, sure!
Michigan vs. Nebraska, okay, I guess?
Penn State vs. Illinois? Iowa vs. Rutgers? Come on, man!!!

Penn State vs Illinois makes some sense ... since they did lobby hard for Maryland and Rutgers to be added in the first place. "You wanted a football team like Rutgers on your annual schedule? Really? Well, here's another."

(07-10-2021 03:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Penn State vs Illinois makes some sense ... since they did lobby hard for Maryland and Rutgers to be added in the first place. "You wanted a football team like Rutgers on your annual schedule? Really? Well, here's another."

Oh come on, you know I have an in with the Big 10 office and wanted my two alma maters to play each other!

I for one, hate the contrived, 6-years straight crossover series that the Big Ten does.

(07-10-2021 03:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 08:46 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Don't tell me, tell the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC scheduling offices.

And the media partners that advised on the media value of different alternatives.

It's perfectly within the rules to have some permanent games, and set up ad hoc divisional alignments every year around those permanent games ... and not necessarily with "pods" (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers), since it is perfectly within the rules for some of those permanent games to be cross division in some years. All you need to do is to have a complete divisional round robin, and the CCG of the two divisional champions is allowed.
________________

Exactly. There are no official rules that says the divisions need to permanent, or exactly the same every year.

Conferences could easily, yes, even under existing CCG and existing divisions rules, set up a schedule with 3 permant rivals and play everybody else 50% of the time. Its just that the divisions they set up would need to be different every year.

(07-13-2021 06:43 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(07-10-2021 03:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-09-2021 08:46 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Don't tell me, tell the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC scheduling offices.

And the media partners that advised on the media value of different alternatives.

It's perfectly within the rules to have some permanent games, and set up ad hoc divisional alignments every year around those permanent games ... and not necessarily with "pods" (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers), since it is perfectly within the rules for some of those permanent games to be cross division in some years. All you need to do is to have a complete divisional round robin, and the CCG of the two divisional champions is allowed.
________________

Exactly. There are no official rules that says the divisions need to permanent, or exactly the same every year.

Conferences could easily, yes, even under existing CCG and existing divisions rules, set up a schedule with 3 permant rivals and play everybody else 50% of the time. Its just that the divisions they set up would need to be different every year.

In theory, the pods of the old 16 team WAC were fine.

Assuming a 16 team SEC with Texas and Oklahoma,

A: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia
B: Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
C: Arkansas, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri
D: LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I would probably avoid A and D together because they are too strong but alternate B and C would work.

With a 14 team conference, you'd have to have two "mini divisions" of four and two of three and divisions would have to be one mini division of four and one mini division of three.

Big Ten:
A: Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
B: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
C: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
D: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Terrible geographically but guarantees in state rivals are in the same mini divisions. Penn State and Ohio State/Michigan are guaranteed to never be in the same division and PSU (and Maryland and Rutgers) have a 50-50 shot at getting stuck with Mini Division D (the West division). Mini Division A is by far the biggest loser here, Mini Division C the biggest winner. I don't think rotating quads work for the Big Ten because any "East/West" split would split Indiana and Purdue or Michigan or Michigan State and if you have the outers be the 3 divisions Indiana and Purdue can never be in the same division.

SEC:
A: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
B: Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
C: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
D: Arkansas, LSU, Texas A&M

Biggest issue here is Alabama and Tennessee are guaranteed to not be in the same division. You could move Missouri to Mini Division D but that would make it geographically bad and Alabama and LSU would never be in the same division.

ACC:
A: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
B: Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech
C: Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
D: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Considering the ACC divisions are mixed up, the mini divisions here might make the most sense as geography matters the least as opposed to the Big 10 and SEC. The North Carolina schools are either the biggest winners or the biggest losers as they would be the ones that can't be in a division with Clemson (they also lose the chance to be in a division with the Florida schools).

Feel free to adjust the mini divisions.

(07-09-2021 07:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-07-2021 08:01 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}

Purdue-Indiana makes sense. The rest seem more or less random.

Iowa gets stuck with Rutgers????!!!!

I can’t believe the big 10 allowed Rutgers and Maryland. They don’t belong. They aren’t even worthy of the CUSA let alone the AAC. Yuck!!

(07-13-2021 08:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I can’t believe the big 10 allowed Rutgers and Maryland. They don’t belong. They aren’t even worthy of the CUSA let alone the AAC. Yuck!!

Look at Rutgers' and Maryland's NIH funding, for starters. Then add on the fact that Maryland has an online global campus. Then add in the fact that U of Maryland is located in the Baltimore-Washington, DC Beltway (number 4 metro in the US if you look at Baltimore and Washington, DC as twin cities rather than individual ones). Then add in the fact that Rutgers history dates back to the American Revolution and is located in the NYC metro, and does have some (albeit limited) fan support. Then add in the fact that both the states of Maryland and New Jersey are very rich recruiting states for football and basketball. The Big Ten could have done much worse, IMO.