It was an honest question because I hadn't gone back through the seasons and looked when I asked. I know very well it has a bearing, my question was "had it happened." (Just didn't have time to look it up this morning but knew I'd get an answer here.) Have you looked at what a 6-0-3 schedule would look like? From what I've seen described, using last year as example along with the hypothetical it started next year, it would be somewhere around 2025 before UofSC made a return trip to Baton Rouge. I saw this comment earlier today: A 6-0-3 format with 7 team divisions would mean every school playing every other school at least 3 times in a 7 year period. It would take 14 years for every school to have played every other school an equal number of home and away games. Insane! By dropping both non permanent opponents annually from a 6-1-2 format would mean every school would have played every other school at least once in a 3 year period. And every school would have played every other school at least once home and away in a 6 year period. Sane! I can't speak for its veracity. If true, the 6-0-3 scheduling brings a unique set of problems as well.
That's an assumption on your part because you might not care about the game. There's a reason, despite the inequity between the two teams, it's still a nationally broadcast game. Neilsen ratings for the game last year ranked it as the #1 most watched show on cable that Saturday night.
You're telling me prime-time SEC football is a ratings-grabber? Wow, who knew? UTexas/A&M was also a big rivalry. Yall are big boys, you'd get over it.
Oh, the humanity! How could we live without them? Really Terry, the only team concerned with playing every team in a four-year period is the team that wants to preserve its guaranteed wins against the weakest non-divisional opponents. It's a non-issue to most teams. This business of Nick complaining that players would play a career without seeing some team from the other division is a distraction from the problem of Bama getting an edge from the scheduling. LSU will not let this issue die. Before the SEC went to divisions, LSU almost never played Auburn. When we did, it was a treat. The sky did not fall. What the hell is wrong with playing every other school at least 3 times in a seven year period? What is insane is a situation where LSU must play the top team in the east each and every year, while Bama gets to play a cupcake from the east, each and every year. In your first paragraph you said that 6-0-3 would mean that LSU would not host Carolina for 12 years. Then in the third, you quote that 6-0-3 means that each team would play every other team THREE TIMES in seven years. Time to do some math! Who says that we need to go to 9 games anyway? What is wrong with playing 2 non-divisional SEC games and rotating them so that everybody gets to play the contenders and the cupcakes in an equitable fashion. Sane! The rivalry between Tennessee and Alabama is dying just like the Ole Miss/LSU rivalry did. Ole Miss stopped winning and the rivalry became meaningless.
No, that wasn't what I said. Your assertion that "nobody outside those fanbases could care less about" is in dispute due to the amount of people who watch the game. The two fan bases are likely the most vocal about maintaining the rivalry, but the issue for the conference goes beyond that. It's a ratings draw which in turn brings money to the coffers of the SEC. There's another side to this discussion as well. LSU is the administration pushing the discontinuation of the permanent opponents. There aren't other schools championing this move as loudly. I believe the majority of the athletic directors and school presidents will take into consideration what these games mean as a TV draw—and LSU vs Florida is one of the conferences' strongest. If there is one thing I'm extremely confident in it's the conference will make a decision based on what is best for the conference not what's the desire of one school or another.
And my point is people are tuning in to a prime-time SEC football game on Saturday night because the reputation of the league and the defending NC are a draw unto itself. How many of those viewers actually give a wooden nickel about the Bama/UT rivalry itself? LSU/UGA would be a big draw for the conference. So is Bama/UF. In any given year there would be no shortage of games for the SEC to place on prime-time TV and make tons of money, so I think the league has nothing to worry about there.
You aren't reading that correctly red. It was suggested elsewhere that the 6-0-3 schedule would mean a team returning to an away location would be several years in the scheduling. Again, I haven't put this to paper and looked at it as I specifically stated in that post. As mentioned, it was a comment I ran across earlier today. That's the reason I asked IF you had looked at what it would mean. You call it a distraction. I can see the point of players looking forward to a shot at another SEC during their playing days. Is it that important to them? I don't know. I suspect there would be different answers depending on who you asked. I see you think the rivalry of the Bama vs UT game is dying. Yet, I've seen you agree with the fact football is cyclical and Tennessee will return to being a competitive football team. I don't know if Jones is the guy who is going to get them back to where they were. Hell, how many coaches did Alabama go through that couldn't? I see a salient point in mentioning the lack of success Auburn has had versus Georgia yet I don't see people from Florida pointing to that game and saying it should be discontinued. I can't say I want to see LSU let this die. It makes for good conversations—truly an interesting subject to me. In summation, I've stated on numerous occasions I love the rivalry but if it's best for the conference to discontinue the games so be it. If there is one thing I'm positive about it's the chances of an eight game conference schedule being fair to everyone in a 14 team conference are slim at best. Your Kentucky's will still be your Kentucky's. Your Ole Miss teams your Ole Miss teams. But, even with a move away from permanent opponents we're still going to have years in the future where you'll run across a good Tennessee team and a Florida team that struggles. Heck, we're two years removed from both struggling at the same time.
Then so be it, that's the luck of the draw and that's all I ask for as a fan, rather than the structural bias baked into permanent opponent that puts teams at a perennial competitive (dis)advantage.
Well, I still ask . . . who really cares? Let me ask you this, what is more important to the good of the SEC . . . players getting to play every team home and home in four years (many leave earlier) or establishing a schedule rotation that levels the playing field and doesn't allow certain teams to lock onto cupcake opponents to boost their wins? I can't recall a single player to ever complain that he never got to play Vanderbilt in his college career. I think this is a phony issue compared to fair scheduling. Look how Bama complained about the random circumstance of scheduling all those bye games. This permanent opponent business is a planned inequity. Indeed football is cyclical but these cycles vary widely from team to team both in amplitude and wavelength. Ole Miss was a contender in the 50's and 60's but never came back! On the other hand a regular rotation is unquestionably more equitable and works whether teams are having good years or bad. It all gets spread around. Auburn won a national championship a couple of years ago and has been a serious SEC contender in the last decade. If their rival Georgia got to play Ole Miss every year while FLorida had to play LSU, you might just see some bitching. Tennessee has had nothing going on for 15 years now. What exactly is the case for 9 games over 8 games? The SEC has never been a league where everybody played everybody but if a change must happen, it must be equitable for all members.
You might not. I believe there are a lot that do. I love UGA visiting Bryant Denny. The same with Florida and South Carolina. The notion fans don't care about having other SEC visit their home stadiums is one I don't understand. Planned inequity? Are you saying it was planned inequity when Tennessee won seven in a row from 1995 to 2001? Planned inequity in a series that's evenly split since the divisional split? Streaks like the six in a row with Bama winning have happened on several occasions with this game. If I were to say LSU is running from competition by attempting to remove Florida from their yearly schedule would that be a fair statement? By no means. On the same end it's not fair, or accurate, to say Bama is wanting to continue the rivalry with Tennessee because it is a cupcake win. If Alabama had played a third of the games with opponents having bye weeks as LSU and LSU was the closest team to LSU in the numbers of those games would you have supported asking for relief? The reason this subject keeps being brought up in this discussion is when that relief was applied for other fan bases shed crocodile tears. Yet, that wasn't random considering at that point the SEC schedule was done on 10 year cycles. I've brought that subject up here when there were posts stating there was an SEC conspiracy afoot giving Bama an advantage in scheduling for 2013. It was a counter-point to the suggestion there was an Alabama bias in the SEC office. 15 years? In 2007 they were in ATL playing LSU. It's been 15 years since they won the BCSNC. In the last ten they've been to the Outback twice, the Cotton once, and played in ATL in the Chick-Fil-A. They've "had nothing going on" for the last five years. And that's no different than Alabama not having anything going on for half of the last decade with six of those 10 years having seven or fewer wins. Those 10 seasons between 1950-1969 where Ole Miss was competitive wasn't indicative enough for them to be considered one of the "have's" when the conference split. In fact, I'd dare say the conference schools looked at that stretch in the early 90's when all of this was decided (schedule) and considered it an anomaly. I'm certainly not taking anything away from them. They were winning roughly 70% of their conference games back then. If we change the parameters and take the next twenty years they're winning around 40% of their conference games. The preceding twenty year stretch reflects the same type of winning percentage. A comparison between Ole Miss and Tennessee is an apples and oranges comparison. (Oranges-wasn't intentional but ironic) After all, UT still sits second in the SEC in all time conference championships. They've had down years, but always have rebuilt. For one, it's where collegiate football is headed with the five major conferences. Personally, I want to see more SEC games on the slate versus games against the likes of a Western Carolina or a Towson. (I'm not using those two examples due to them being FCS teams, though that does come into play.)
