SEC changes basketball scheduling format to 3-2-8

#1
TrueOrange

TrueOrange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
50,334
Likes
5,931
#1
(SIAP)

So each team will now have 3 permanent home and home conference opponents. The 3 teams for each team haven't been announced yet, but I'm guessing this means home and homes with Kentucky will likely make a return to being a yearly part of UT's schedule.

SEC Adds Two More Permanent Rivals In Hoops (Just As We Suggested) - MrSEC.com | SEC Football News | SEC Basketball News | SEC Football Recruiting | SEC Basketball Recruiting

Yesterday, we wrote that the Southeastern Conference should change its basketball scheduling format from its current 1-4-8 plan to a 3-2-8 plan. The idea would be to create two more permanent foes for each league member, allowing the league to rekindle some of the SEC’s most often-played hoops rivalries.

The SEC has been playing an 18-game schedule featuring one permanent rival (home and road games), four rotating opponents (home and road games) with the last eight games (home or road) coming against the remaining eight teams in the conference. The 18-game part will live on, but the league’s power-brokers indeed voted yesterday to adopt the 3-2-8 plan that we had floated on this site. The permanent opponents already assigned will remain. No word on who each school’s additional permanent rivals will be.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
I'll guess UK, Vandy, & Bama will be our three unless they want to keep old Eastern Division ties a part of it, in which case I'd guess UK, Vandy, and Florida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
bleedingTNorange said:
VQ has said it would be UK, Florida and Vandy.
Click to expand...

From another article:

18-game hoops slate with three permanents: Slive said the conference's athletic directors have decided to continue to play an 18-game basketball schedule and move from one permanent opponent to three.

"One of those three permanents will be the existing permanent and the two others will be decided over the next several months, Slive said.
Click to expand...


So I'm not sure if what VQ says is/would be official yet.
 
#6
#6
zansdad said:
I just don't see how having 3 teams all play each other as 2 of their 3 traditional rivalries can work out. It would be nice if those were UT's 3 teams but it seems unbalanced to me.
Click to expand...

Are you questioning the format, or Tennessee drawing UK/VU/UF?
 
#8
#8
bleedingTNorange said:
Are you questioning the format, or Tennessee drawing UK/VU/UF?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can have 3 teams all sharing the other 2 as a traditional opponent. At some point with 14 teams mathematically it doesn't work out. So are only UK/UF/UT going to be allowed to do it or can Ole miss, Miss st, and LSU form their own little group? And if so then can Arkansas, Mizzou, and A&M do the same? Now there are 5 teams trying to figure out who plays whom. If UK, UF and UT all play each other twice then that really has to be an exception not the rule. And if it is an exception why allow it?
 
#9
#9
zansdad said:
I don't think you can have 3 teams all sharing the other 2 as a traditional opponent. At some point with 14 teams mathematically it doesn't work out. So are only UK/UF/UT going to be allowed to do it or can Ole miss, Miss st, and LSU form their own little group? And if so then can Arkansas, Mizzou, and A&M do the same? Now there are 5 teams trying to figure out who plays whom. If UK, UF and UT all play each other twice then that really has to be an exception not the rule. And if it is an exception why allow it?
Click to expand...

Idk, I mean how would you decide it then, 2 random draws? Whoever draws UK is gonna whine about getting a tough draw then.

I see what you're saying, but if Tennessee is willing to step up and play tougher opponents making other team conference schedules easier wouldn't they likely be ok with that?
 
#10
#10
Hope uk is one of the teams miss going to rupp and tba in the same year,go vawls!!!!!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#11
#11
This has the potential to be a much better format. Every team would still play at every arena at least every other year. But we get to keep some rivalries that deserve to be played more than once a year.

I'm guessing UT gets Vandy, UK and one of these 3: UGA, UF, Bama
 
#12
#12
bleedingTNorange said:
Idk, I mean how would you decide it then, 2 random draws? Whoever draws UK is gonna whine about getting a tough draw then.

I see what you're saying, but if Tennessee is willing to step up and play tougher opponents making other team conference schedules easier wouldn't they likely be ok with that?
Click to expand...

I think UT gets UK and Vandy and then a 3rd team. UK gets UF and UT and a 3rd team. I don't know who Florida considers a rival enough to guess at who they would get outside of UK.

I'm not arguing that I don't want UK and UF. Or even that it won't happen. I'm just saying that by putting those 3 teams all playing each other twice it creates imbalance to the league schedule.
 
#13
#13
zansdad said:
I think UT gets UK and Vandy and then a 3rd team. UK gets UF and UT and a 3rd team. I don't know who Florida considers a rival enough to guess at who they would get outside of UK.

I'm not arguing that I don't want UK and UF. Or even that it won't happen. I'm just saying that by putting those 3 teams all playing each other twice it creates imbalance to the league schedule.
Click to expand...

Tennessee's conference football schedule because of Bama is typically imbalanced too though no?
 
#17
#17
On a side note, I'd like to see them go to a 20 game schedule and go back to Divisions. Top team from each division gets a 1 seed in the SEC tourney and everyone else seeded by record.
 
#18
#18
zansdad said:
Yes. It would almost be a little division of its own inside the SEC.

I would like to have UK and UF both home and home each year but I don't think it will happen. Jmo
Click to expand...

I'm still confused. Why would they all have to play one another twice?

Why can't UT play UK, Vandy, UF;

UK plays UT, Vandy, Missouri;

Vandy plays UT, UK, Bama;

UF plays UT, GA, Bama;

(or whatever)

Why does it have to be some sort of mini-conference? I must be reading this differently from others. :dunno:
 
#19
#19
VolNExile said:
I'm still confused. Why would they all have to play one another twice?

Why can't UT play UK, Vandy, UF;

UK plays UT, Vandy, Missouri;

Vandy plays UT, UK, Bama;

UF plays UT, GA, Bama;

(or whatever)

Why does it have to be some sort of mini-conference? I must be reading this differently from others. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Because UK already plays UF and that matchup will stay.
 
#20
#20
VolNExile said:
I'm still confused. Why would they all have to play one another twice?

Why can't UT play UK, Vandy, UF;

UK plays UT, Vandy, Missouri;

Vandy plays UT, UK, Bama;

UF plays UT, GA, Bama;

(or whatever)

Why does it have to be some sort of mini-conference? I must be reading this differently from others. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I tried to draw it out for the entire conference twice, and both times came up with one team who only had two natural rivals while the other 13 teams had three.

I wasn't a mathlete in school, so I could have done something wrong, but twice I came up one game short for an opponent.
 
#21
#21
VolNExile said:
I'm still confused. Why would they all have to play one another twice?

Why can't UT play UK, Vandy, UF;

UK plays UT, Vandy, Missouri;

Vandy plays UT, UK, Bama;

UF plays UT, GA, Bama;

(or whatever)

Why does it have to be some sort of mini-conference? I must be reading this differently from others. :dunno:
Click to expand...

UK/UF are already matched as rivals, just like UT/VU, it's said that those rivalries will stay and 2 permanent rivals added to them.
 
#22
#22
I think Exile is a little confused but I think I see his point....

Just because UT is matched up with UK and UF and Vandy doesn't mean that Florida and Kentucky have to also match up with Vandy. UK could take UF, UT and Mizz while Florida takes UK, UT and LSU. (Vandy could take UT, Ole Miss, Georgia)

But I think what others are saying is that UT-UK-UF would all three be matched up with each other and that would create an imbalance due to those being three of the bigger draws and three of the better teams in the conference.

From a personal standpoint, I wish we could go back to the 16 teams we had before expansion. A&M and Missouri have done nothing but water down one of the things that made this conference so special. (especially in football)
 
#23
#23
BigZiti09 said:
I think Exile is a little confused but I think I see his point....

Just because UT is matched up with UK and UF and Vandy doesn't mean that Florida and Kentucky have to also match up with Vandy. UK could take UF, UT and Mizz while Florida takes UK, UT and LSU. (Vandy could take UT, Ole Miss, Georgia)

But I think what others are saying is that UT-UK-UF would all three be matched up with each other and that would create an imbalance due to those being three of the bigger draws and three of the better teams in the conference.

From a personal standpoint, I wish we could go back to the 16 teams we had before expansion. A&M and Missouri have done nothing but water down one of the things that made this conference so special. (especially in football)
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about it from a strength stand point or a bigger draw stand point. I'm saying if 3 teams all have each other as 2 of the 3 rivalry game it creates an imbalance in scheduling the other 11 teams. Essentially UF, UT, and UK would each have 4 common games and you cannot do that consistently throughout a 14 team conference.

Vandy is not part of the problem. The 3rd team could be different for each of UF, UK and UT. The problem is each if them playing each other.
 
#24
#24
cncchris33 said:
I tried to draw it out for the entire conference twice, and both times came up with one team who only had two natural rivals while the other 13 teams had three.

I wasn't a mathlete in school, so I could have done something wrong, but twice I came up one game short for an opponent.
Click to expand...

Mathematically I think it's doable. Imagine a clock with 14 positions instead of 12. Every team plays the 2 teams adjacent to it and the team directly opposite. How to do that in the real works is a little trickier. I bet each old East team gets 2 old East teams as rivals and one old West team and the exact opposite for the old West teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
BigZiti09 said:
I think Exile is a little confused but I think I see his point....

Just because UT is matched up with UK and UF and Vandy doesn't mean that Florida and Kentucky have to also match up with Vandy. UK could take UF, UT and Mizz while Florida takes UK, UT and LSU. (Vandy could take UT, Ole Miss, Georgia)

But I think what others are saying is that UT-UK-UF would all three be matched up with each other and that would create an imbalance due to those being three of the bigger draws and three of the better teams in the conference.

From a personal standpoint, I wish we could go back to the 16 teams we had before expansion. A&M and Missouri have done nothing but water down one of the things that made this conference so special. (especially in football)
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I was trying to say. And I'm always confused, so no surprise there, along with forgetting about the UK/UF link. (I was picking examples out of the sky.)

I should have realized that BTO cncchris would have already tried to draw up the bracket. :)
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top