(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.