(11-24-2019 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 07:47 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 12:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 10:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  A&M doesn't have ties like the rest of the SEC does. A&M, Missouri and Arkansas are not like the rest.

A&M has plenty of ties and history with Arkansas and LSU so in this setup it makes sense that they be 2 of the 3 protected rivalry games.

The third game would be Missouri since they are the ones who have no real ties to anyone in the SEC and we are the next closest thing from the B12 days.

The point is the A&M is barely tied to the SEC. 10 schools in the SEC have been together for 100 years. So that A&M only cares about 2 schools is totally irrelevant.
What matters is the ties of those 10 schools with close ties.

You understand that I’m talking about a potential divisionless SEC setup where everyone has 3 permanent games and rotates through everyone else right?

And I was saying that it makes the most sense in that setup for A&M to have its 3 permanent opponents be Missouri and our rivalry games with Arkansas and LSU.

Not sure why you seem to find this idea problematic

The problem is it would be like Texas joining with, say WVU, in the ACC and then telling the ACC how many rivalries needed to be fixed.

Except no one is dictating to anyone. The SEC will all sit down together and hammer out what makes the most sense for the league

I can’t say what that will be for 100% certain but I am saying that it MAKES SENSE for A&M’s HYPOTHETICAL configuration to include Arkansas and LSU as these are series that have historic, regional and recruiting appeal for all parties