With the Big Ten introducing it and now the ACC using it, the SEC probably has to follow...

Rivalries that should be protected:
Ones that need no explanation: Ohio State-Michigan or Iron Bowl in the SEC's case.

In State. Most Big Ten and ACC in state ones were protected. I believe Wake Forest was the only one left out, the Triangle schools all protected each other as did Miami and Florida State and Virginia and Virginia Tech. In the Big Ten, Michigan-Michigan State, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern.

Historical or Border. Ohio State-Michigan falls in this category although they don't need an explanation. North Carolina-Virginia does as does Georgia-Auburn. This also explains Illinois-Purdue which was a head scratcher to me (why Illinois-Purdue and not Illinois-Indiana?)

No One Else Wants Them. Maryland-Rutgers. New Jersey and Maryland don't border each other but are geographically close and in the Big Ten where there aren't that many "Eastern" schools it does make sense. In the ACC, SMU got both Cal and Stanford because "no one else wants them".

Reasons to not protect a rivalry:

Too difficult a schedule: It's possible Ohio State didn't want to protect both Michigan and Penn State and obviously OSU is going to play UM so PSU is the casualty. Supposedly there were 3-6-6 proposals with the SEC going to 9 games but the most likely 3 games for Alabama were Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU and I believe Nick Saban objected. Had Saban voted for 3-6-6, they probably would have that format now.

Popular teams want to be played: Coaches have input but so do AD's. A coach would rather play Vanderbilt than Alabama. An AD would rather Alabama come to visit than Vanderbilt because more tickets are sold. Another theory I have for Ohio State-Penn State not being protected is that if OSU-PSU play annually it means the rest of the Big Ten play OSU and PSU less often and that's bad for their wallets. The same is obviously true for the SEC and Alabama. There is no debate for Auburn and Tennessee but the other schools may draw the line at LSU. Maybe Georgia doesn't get to protect a rival for that reason.

The obvious protects I can think of:

Ala: Aub, Tenn
Aub: Ala, Ga
Fla: Ga
Ga: Aub, Fla
Miss: Miss St
Miss St: Miss
Okl: Tex
Tenn: Vbilt
Tex: Okl, A&M
A&M: Tex
Vbilt: Tenn

Ark, Ky, LSU, Mo, SC currently have none.

I think if Ala-LSU was going to be protected we would have had 3-6-6 by now. I feel that is not going to be protected.

I think Ky-Tenn has a decent chance of being added. With A&M likely ending with Texas, LSU might make Arkansas their season ender and that could be added. Maybe Oklahoma could keep Bedlam as a season ender and Missouri could restart with Kansas, otherwise Oklahoma and Missouri could end with each other annually. Oklahoma-LSU could be a decent annual rivalry with Arkansas-Missouri staying.

Fla-Tenn is a good one but I feel most of the SEC schools want to maximize their trips to Florida so that could be a hard sell. This is the same reason USC (and UCLA) only protected each other, not even Oregon and Washington are protected rivals even though it would have made geographical sense. Schools also want to travel to Texas so that would limit schools getting both Texas and Texas A&M as rivals (they will get each other assuming there's no bad blood and the Red River Rivalry is non negotiable).

What else should be added? I'm sure the SEC has its Illinois-Purdue as well.

To "blaze their own path" I could see the SEC electing to standardize 2 rivals apiece. Playing 6 of the other 13 teams doesn't really set them up for an easy rotation, but thems the breaks.

I took your list (and acronyms) and set everything to 2.

Ala: Aub, Tenn
Aub: Ala, Ga
Fla: Ga, SC
Ga: Aub, Fla
Miss: Miss St, Vbilt
Miss St: Miss, Ky
Okl: Tex, Mo
Tenn: Ala, Vbilt
Tex: Okl, A&M
A&M: Tex, LSU
Vbilt: Tenn, Miss
SC: Fla, Ky
Mo: Okl, Ark
LSU: A&M, Ark
Ark: LSU, Mo
Ky: Miss St, SC


But... easy is just to do flex-protect.

You've demonstrated well why the SEC shouldn't go to 2 for everyone. You really excited for Florida to play South Carolina every year? How long has it been since Steve Spurrier coached there? Wouldn't you rather have more games against Tennessee or Alabama, maybe Auburn? If Florida could get a third rivalry game vs. Tennessee, wouldn't you want it?

I'm sure Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt was set up in the days when Mississippi wasn't as good. Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt now with Mississippi a Top 10 team and each team only having two annual opponents (you can justify it with divisions when Mississippi also has to play Alabama every year)??? That would really be an unfair advantage for them. If I'm Nick Saban or Kirby Smart, why let Lane Kiffin have a guaranteed win every year? You can say the same about Tennessee but the in state aspect probably makes that one justified. Kentucky doesn't get Tennessee and gets two of the least popular conference schools instead? They'd make basketball a year round sport in Lexington. You can't have everyone having two rivals when Auburn literally has the two best conference teams every year.

The Big Ten (and ACC) have spoken. You don't have to force schools that don't want to play each other to play each other (well except for Illinois and Purdue that is).

(11-01-2023 05:38 AM)schmolik Wrote:  You've demonstrated well why the SEC shouldn't go to 2 for everyone. You really excited for Florida to play South Carolina every year? How long has it been since Steve Spurrier coached there? Wouldn't you rather have more games against Tennessee or Alabama, maybe Auburn? If Florida could get a third rivalry game vs. Tennessee, wouldn't you want it?

I'm sure Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt was set up in the days when Mississippi wasn't as good. Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt now with Mississippi a Top 10 team and each team only having two annual opponents (you can justify it with divisions when Mississippi also has to play Alabama every year)??? That would really be an unfair advantage for them. If I'm Nick Saban or Kirby Smart, why let Lane Kiffin have a guaranteed win every year? You can say the same about Tennessee but the in state aspect probably makes that one justified. Kentucky doesn't get Tennessee and gets two of the least popular conference schools instead? They'd make basketball a year round sport in Lexington. You can't have everyone having two rivals when Auburn literally has the two best conference teams every year.

The Big Ten (and ACC) have spoken. You don't have to force schools that don't want to play each other to play each other (well except for Illinois and Purdue that is).

It was set up in 1894 and they've played 95 times. Oxford to Nashville is a 231 mile drive, or just 51 miles more than Vanderbilt vs Tennessee. It was a pleasant trip by rail. In the early days and up until the 1940's Vanderbilt was as strong as anyone in the SEC. So, think again. Ole Miss vs Vanderbilt is a historic and regional series for the two schools.

8 conference games with 16 schools isn't as clean as it sounds. 9 conference games would be much cleaner (3-6/6) but the networks would need to pay for the additional 8 games.

(11-01-2023 05:38 AM)schmolik Wrote:  You've demonstrated well why the SEC shouldn't go to 2 for everyone. You really excited for Florida to play South Carolina every year? How long has it been since Steve Spurrier coached there? Wouldn't you rather have more games against Tennessee or Alabama, maybe Auburn? If Florida could get a third rivalry game vs. Tennessee, wouldn't you want it?

I'm sure Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt was set up in the days when Mississippi wasn't as good. Mississippi vs. Vanderbilt now with Mississippi a Top 10 team and each team only having two annual opponents (you can justify it with divisions when Mississippi also has to play Alabama every year)??? That would really be an unfair advantage for them. If I'm Nick Saban or Kirby Smart, why let Lane Kiffin have a guaranteed win every year? You can say the same about Tennessee but the in state aspect probably makes that one justified. Kentucky doesn't get Tennessee and gets two of the least popular conference schools instead? They'd make basketball a year round sport in Lexington. You can't have everyone having two rivals when Auburn literally has the two best conference teams every year.

The Big Ten (and ACC and now Big 12) have spoken. You don't have to force schools that don't want to play each other to play each other (well except for Illinois and Purdue that is).

100% agree. I was simply imagining a world where the SEC was being contrarian. Forcing a 2nd game does no favors from a scheduling aspect anyway. Unsure if Tennessee-Vanderbilt "has" to happen.

The only question left that I can see is if season-ending games need to be the same every year. LSU-Arkansas and Missouri-Oklahoma works well enough. Could the SEC flex these games? Maybe put LSU-Oklahoma at the end of the season when those teams are on each others' schedules?

(11-01-2023 12:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  8 conference games with 16 schools isn't as clean as it sounds. 9 conference games would be much cleaner (3-6/6) but the networks would need to pay for the additional 8 games.

Found mine from the early days. Works well for 8 or 9 games:

(11-01-2023 03:15 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  8 conference games with 16 schools isn't as clean as it sounds. 9 conference games would be much cleaner (3-6/6) but the networks would need to pay for the additional 8 games.

Found mine from the early days. Works well for 8 or 9 games:

Just a guess, but I think Arkansas and Missouri would likely prefer to play Texas A&M, and LSU...

(11-01-2023 04:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 03:15 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(11-01-2023 12:16 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  8 conference games with 16 schools isn't as clean as it sounds. 9 conference games would be much cleaner (3-6/6) but the networks would need to pay for the additional 8 games.

Found mine from the early days. Works well for 8 or 9 games:

Just a guess, but I think Arkansas and Missouri would likely prefer to play Texas A&M, and LSU...

Missouri plays those teams on a 12 year rotation. Once home, once away. They’ll see them much more than that in this scenario. True, Arkansas values those games. But Texas is a handsome replacement for A&M, rivalry wise. The Longhorns will also likely be the year-end opponent, an upgrade from Missouri which was a paltry replacement for the Golden Boot.

With the 4-division model, the SEC can create loci of competition which these other Super Conferences will lack.

No.

SEC has done just fine doing it their way.
They need to twist ESPN's arm to get paid to go to 9 conference games and do a 3-6.

(11-02-2023 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  No.

SEC has done just fine doing it their way.
They need to twist ESPN's arm to get paid to go to 9 conference games and do a 3-6.

Like the ACC, the SEC doesn't really have much leverage to "get paid". The SEC hasn't settled on what "their way" is, unless you mean releasing 16-team schedules 1 year at a time.

Not football related, but worth noting.

Been thinking about it and I think I got a good idea generally that is similar to the B1G's flex protect. Not going to go into details such as the protected rivals and who they play 3x in 5 years becauae I don't think anyone would know the exact protected rivalries.

SEC Flex Protect:
- Up to 3 rivals protected (must be agreed on by both teams)
- 8 conference games
- H&H guaranteed every 5 years
- # of teams vs. geographic opponents/unprotected rivals 3x in 5 years based on # of protected rivals

- 0 Protected Rivals = 10 Opponents 3x in 5 Years
- 1 Protected Rival = 7 Opponents 3x in 5 Years
- 2 Protected Rivals = 4 Opponents 3x in 5 Years
- 3 Protected Rivals = 1 Opponent 3x in 5 Years

This is optional, but maybe for teams and their opponents who both have 1 or less protected rival, if both teams agree to it, they could play 4x in 5 years and play less teams 3x in 5 years.