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

There is literally zero reason to link Oklahoma and Florida.  Just another made-up, pulled-from-someone's-ass idea just like our pairing with LSU was in 1992.

The only issue with the trios is that some programs' ideal trios are all helmet schools.  That's tough on the schedule.  So the best way AND a more flexible way is to get 2 of those plus a weaker program you have played a ton in the past.

Texas' trio of OU, A&M, and Arky is fine, because Arky is a have-not.

Auburn's ideal trio is probably too tough - Alabama, Georgia, LSU....ouch.  So keep the 2 you must (Bama & UGA), then add MSU or OM or whoever. 

If you do this, everyone's mostly happy and isn't killing themselves on the scheduling aspect every year.

I agree with your take on OU and Florida being annual "rivals." The history of the two programs has intersected a grand total of twice. Both times in bowl games. And, as I posted earlier, Gainesville is the SEC campus farthest away from Norman, and it's probably true the other way around.

OU just doesn't have much history with longstanding SEC programs. 7 games with Bama, 3 games with Auburn, 4 games with LSU, 5 games with Tennessee, 2 games with Florida, 3 games with Kentucky, 2 games with Ole Miss, 1 game with Georgia. We've had 15 games with Arkansas, but only 3 in the last 99 years. We've had 31 games with Texas A&M, but the Aggies have much longer rivalries with Texas and Arkansas. OTOH, we've had 97 games with Missouri, going back to Big 6 days, so an annual OU-MU matchup makes historical sense, even if it has never been the major rivalry for each school. OU doesn't have a natural opponent for the 3rd permanent rivalry. Somehow, Florida is the choice that is being bandied about.

Supposedly, each of the top 8 SEC teams--as measured over the last 10 years--with have permanent rivalries with 2 other top 8 programs and 1 bottom 8 program. My source for this is columnist Berry Tramel of the Tulsa World:

[R]eports about the SEC's projected nine-game schedule included the eight most recently (10 years) successful programs — Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana State, OU, Texas, Florida, Texas A&M and Auburn — would play two games annually against each other. OU couldn't get both Missouri and Arkansas, under that scenario.

I don't know what metric is being used to rank the SEC programs 1-16. I did a ranking based on total points in final AP polls over the last 10 years and I got a list somewhat different than Tramel's.

1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Oklahoma
4. LSU
5. Texas
6. Florida
7. Ole Miss
8. Tennessee

I guess we'll see how it all works out in the next 3-4 months.

It might be conference record or overall record.  Something lazy, I'm sure.

As for 2 consecutive vs the same non-rival 6 OR alternating years, I think I'd prefer alternating.  The continuity is with your 3 rivals.  You'll play everyone else every 2 years, so it's sort of irrelevant.

I kinda do see a little logic in the 6 one year and the opposite 6 the next year. That way you play 100% of the entire SEC every two years. Not sure if I like that approach but it’s…different. With players moving around so much it ensures anybody who stays two years will see 100% of the conference. 

Yeah I think that's what they're going for.  I get it, I don't hate it.

But I also think we'll miss out on a little mini-rivalry that might form from one year to the next, where it's more likely it'll be at least some of the same players from the prior year's team.

Let me throw out a complete hypothetical.  Say, Texas beats Florida in Austin pretty badly one year, like, I don't know, 49-17.  But then the Horns have to travel to Gainesville the next year against a Gator team with many of the same players, who are highly motivated to knock the Longhorns' block off.  That might make for an interesting matchup, I think.

But if it rotates every single year, then it's gonna be 2 years in between those games, and most likely, neither team will resemble the ones that met previously.

But I can see it either way, and in the world of mega-conferences, nothing is ever going to work out perfectly.

Your conclusion is the same as mine.  Even the talking heads will go back on last years games and break them down, and talk about returning players....etc.  Every 3 years.....will be almost a completely different team.  Almost certain to not have the same starting QB as most will only play 2 good years and if they're that good they're gone to the NFL or portal in 2.  

Yeah, I can see it both ways too. I may just like the way the Big 12 used to do it better just because I liked how it worked in the Big 12. I liked the "you ruined our season last year but now we'll get payback" factor. My only beef about Big 12 scheduling was that OU and Nebraska couldn't play every year.

Speaking of which, I maintain my longstanding wish OU and Nebraska would decide to play each other annually. Ideally, it could take its place among the big OOC rivalries. But neither A.D. has asked for my opinion on that subject.

I always thought it was so strange that OU/Neb let the Big 12 split-up their rivalry like that.  I vaguely recall that there were whispers that since Neb was so damn good at the time there were people saying that OU didn't mind it, only getting Neb every 2 out of 4 years....but it wasn't long the scrip was flipped and OU was very strong and Neb wasn't nearly as good as the 90's.  I'm not certain I believe that line of crap and it certainly would have made scheduling challenging to have Neb/OU as a cross-divisional rival.  About the only other explanation I have is that they thought they would meet up in the CCG that it would be an annual thing anyways, and sometimes 2x a year.  Without looking, I'm not certain OU/Neb ever met in the CCG, or am I forgetting something?

Long ago, when the late, great Hooky Hornstein was the big bull of the CFN Big 12 board, we got into this subject. I expended much time and many pixels in explaining how OU and Nebraska could have played every year in the Big 12.

It would have required that every program have a full-time inter-divisional rival. That would have meant playing only 2 of the other programs in the other division each year. IIRC, you'd play the non-permanent-rival programs 4 (rather than 5) times in 10 years.
Some of the permanent matchups I proposed would have made sense; others, not so much.

Texas was opposed to this idea at the time of the formation of the Big12, probably because Texas had no existing rivalry with any of the programs in the North Division. And OU supported the Texas position. I have understood that OU (1) generally wanted to be in agreement with Texas and (2) was tired of getting its ass kicked every year by then-mighty Nebraska. I don't know if any OU insiders would concur with that on the record, but it sounds plausible to me.

Plausible and embarrassing. Like the "Locked On LSU" guy stating clearly (at 6:26) that he wants LSU's permanent opponents to be Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Mississippi State.


https://youtu.be/YlsQ_XkJFYU

2010....bad memory.  A&M was actually competitive in the B12 South for the first time in...a while.  We dropped an early game to oSu due to our QB basically blowing out his arm earlier in the season and Sherman refused to switch to our "other" QB, who he had playing WR.  We then went on to beat OU in the regular season but lost the "tie breaker" which back then was BCS standing.  I was curious how we would've fared against Neb in the title game and then I remembered that we already beat them, at Kyle, I think 9-3 or some low-scoring total.  Very close, competitive game, had some kind of fracas at the end.  

Coincidentally, our "other QB", who was playing WR went on to have a modestly successful NFL career...at QB, not WR.  I think he even played up until last year.  Ryan Tannehill was his name.  Starter at Miami and Tennessee for a dozen or so years.  Hell, he may be still playing as a backup, I don't keep up with the NFL worlds.