In general, no I don't believe the permanent opponent is how you describe it to be. Today, and the last few years, it's weighed in our favor due to the downturn Tennessee is having right now. However, I don't believe Tennessee will remain where they are. As an analogy they are in about the same situation we were in when we were post Stallings, pre-Saban. They are trying to find the right coach. I firmly believe UT will be at the top of the East again—there's simply too much there for it not to be. The rotation of opponents will soon swing in LSU's favor. Last year we had Florida on our schedule. The year before Florida and South Carolina joined Tennessee. The next time that lineup swings around on our schedule you'll be looking at the same schedule you had last year with Kentucky. In the end, it equals out. 2009 you had Vandy and UGA. Next year is going to work in our favor. For one, we are going to face four teams with new coaches while you'll be facing two of the West with two new coaches. Four, because of UT and because UK rolls back on our schedule. Before the season some thought Mizzou would be more competitive than A&M. It sure didn't work out that way. Going into next season, even though you travel to UGA, I don't see that team being on par with this years. Is it going to be on par with UT or UK? I doubt it. But, this is a UGA team that struggled to beat both of those teams this season. "Pull a schedule out of our asses" isn't something I'd agree with when it comes to what the SEC is doing with the schedules. I don't know what they are thinking when trying to create a decent rotation with all fourteen teams. I don't think I've seen anyone break it down so I have my doubts anyone really knows outside of the SEC officials. All that said: Growing up in N. Alabama UT was the school I considered to be the biggest game of the year. As an adult, it's a game I look forward to more than any. So no, I don't want to see it disappear. But, I can see that being a distinct possibility. It almost seems like it would be a given if we go to a nine game conference schedule which is something I'm in favor of doing. If we make the jump to 16 teams? Lord only knows how the handle the schedules then!
If they went to 16, they'd probably do away with inter-divisional games almost entirely. You play the other seven teams in your division, your permanent cross-division "rival", the SECCG, and that's it.
I'd guess over the last twenty years for every one game UT won, UF won two. Spurrier had that kind of impact on the program in Gainesville. When it comes to Bama playing UT, before we had the SEC divisional split we probably played the Vols three times as many games as UT faced UF. And if you recall, when those splits were made with the teams it was done in two groups—the haves and the have nots. UT and UF considered haves as well as LSU and Bama. Auburn and UGA were the other two teams so it just made sense to make those groupings in permanent opponents. We've seen things change dramatically over the last year, since 1998 and the advent of the BCS, since 1992 and the SECCG. So, it's likely we'll see even more change in the future. That's just the way it's happened. There's certainly no "conspiracy" as some tend to allege. The addition of the two teams is what's change where Georgia has fallen. We were supposed to play them in Athens this past season but ended up having to travel and play Mizzou. I still wish we would have played them in Athens this year. It's one fan base I certainly don't mind seeing disappointed.
BTW, if you look at Mizzou's schedule, it looks like the odd numbered years are the ones that'll work in their favor. They'll have their permanent against the Aggies at home, along with UF, UofSC, and UT.
