The SEC Forum at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Let's get one thing straight.  On a college football board, slinging shit is always more fun. 

Don't act like you didn't try to defend the picks just a few posts later and say that Vandy and Kentucky were harder than Florida.  We can dig up those receipts too.   Vandy is ranked -- FLorida is not.  Currently, Vandy is a better team.  There's your receipt.  No one ever said Kentucky was, a team that is also a UF perma-rival (trash).

I think it was discussed, multiple times by various parties, that it was questionable why out of all the rivalries UF/UT did not make the cut while somewhat lesser rivals did.  And given the UF/UT record over the last 20 or so years, I think I'd be furious if I were a UT fan that you couldn't scratch back some of that lopsided record vs Florida, while it looks like UT is trending up and Florida is at best treading water, and possibly staring down another decade of mediocrity.   The "lesser" rivals aren't "lesser".  They just are mostly doormats, but they are our doormats -- for a century and change.  I clearly said I'd rather have Florida, so it was vaguely discussed, but traditionally --- Vandy and KY make perfect sense.  You Johnny Come Lately SWC/BIG 12/BIG 8 infiltrators have much to learn.

I disagree with OAM on a lot of stuff, but sometimes he's like a stopped clock....sooner or later he'll be right (just not twice a day)...LOL. 

The "any and every era" I took as mere trash talk, because I'm not sure what else to make of it in in the divisional era (both UF and UT played in the east division so they should have had common opponents). 

At least Bama was a rival of yours.  You all hijacked the rest of the conference and invented all the other "rivalries" besides UGA-AU.

And I'd much rather be a douche than whatever you are.  You and your friend Dan can crawl back into your shithole cesspool at your earliest convenience.

Some of the proposed annual rivals that circulated on the internet the last few years as possible solutions to the current conference configuration were more to my liking.  However, I don't recall each and every team's draw, and it's possible fans of some other teams wouldn't have been happy with those.

This worked out "okay" for us.  Not great, but not bad.  If it were up to me, I'd have kept Ole Miss, Florida, and either of the Alabama schools.  Alternatively, I'd be just about as okay with Ole Miss and both Alabama schools, dropping Florida. 

Ole Miss needs no explanation. 

Florida won't pass mustard for a lot of older fans, and very young fans probably don't feel the same about that game as I do, but for my age group, Florida is a real thing, even though we know the SEC contrived it in 1992.  But I was 13 and now it's hard to remember before that when we didn't play them every year.  The Florida game has generally been such a great barometer of what the team is in a given year, and whether both teams are good, bad, or uneven, many of the games have been memorable. 

LSU and Auburn is also something of a "new" thing, but for fans no older than myself, AU has basically been there forever, and however memorable the LSU/UF games are, multiply that x2 or x3 for the AU game.  Alabama is a team that we've always played, there's no question about the history there, and of course, they are historically so good that it's one of games you really look forward to.  Bama/LSU is a marquee game for fans of all ages, far as I can tell. 

Now, I fully expected to get A&M, because it's the kind of thing the conference thinks we would want.  And, I have to say, I'm not really against that.  Though I personally don't care about playing A&M every year, many LSU fans remember the old ooc ongoing series and have found them to be a good addition to our schedule in recent years.  I'm meh on the whole thing, but it's important to note that I'm not cold to the idea.  I understand the history, but it is ooc history, and this is about locking in conference history, not a fun ooc opponent.  Nevertheless, history in some fashion is there, and the geography works, so A&M was both expected, and an acceptable addition to Ole Miss. 

Arkansas is the one that really disappoints me.  Nobody I know cares anything about Arkansas, or ever has.  They are well below the wish-list toppers of Alabama, Auburn, and Florida.  Either of those three would've been preferable to Arkansas.  That's one I hope is part of the "revisit" in 4 years. 

Competitively, seems like Ole Miss, Arkansas, and A&M is a favorable draw.  Whether that amounts to anything for us, I don't know, I doubt it.  But from a fan wish-list perspective.....it's okay. 

. . . So all this to say that even if you don't like having A&M as a semi-permanent opponents, who would you then pair A&M up with that makes sense for A&M?  OU?  meh, I don't think either party cares much for that.  Too much Big 12 bad blood.  Miss State?  Ole Miss?  Nobody else makes much sense.