marvin616
Dirt road alumni
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,206
- Likes
- 3,397
Posted this before but I'll do it again and maybe it'll get traction lol
No Divisions
3 permanent and rotate 6 a year
UT: Bama, UF, UK
UF: UT, LSU, UGA
AUB: Bama, UGA, Miss St
Bama: UT, LSU, AUB
LSU: Bama, UF, Ole Miss
UGA: UF, AUB, SCar
UK: Vandy, UT, SCar
SCar: UGA, UK, Arkansas
Mizzou: Arkansas, A&M, OU
Vandy: Ole Miss, UK, Miss St
Ole Miss: Vandy, Miss St, LSU
Miss St: Ole Miss, Vandy, AUB
Arkansas: Mizzou, Texas, SCar
A&M: Texas, OU, Mizzou
Texas: OU, A&M, Arkansas
OU: Texas, Mizzou, A&M
You don't balance with 3 games. You balance with 9. Make the other 6 games make sense. This is for RIVALRIES. That's it. Besides it's fairly balanced between all teams.I’m sorry but championships are a joke if there is no “balance” at all the the schedules. If you think for a second Alabama is gonna sign off on Tenn, LSU & Aub, you’ve been asleep the last 50 yrs.
You don't balance with 3 games. You balance with 9. Make the other 6 games make sense. This is for RIVALRIES. That's it. Besides it's fairly balanced between all teams.
That doesn't correlate at all. Matter of fact, 3 would make it average out better. And if there are no divisions, you have more freedom in who the other 6 teams will be every other year. We wouldn't be playing the same teams as UK except for Bama or Miss St. And to add onto that, the rivals competition level are mostly relative to the competition level of said team.If you got 3 “average or below” permanent opponents, you’ll have an advantage over schools with 1 or 2 dominant teams. No need to look any further than Ky’s “resurgence “ to see the advantage of having Miss St. as the permanent opponent now. Imagine the advantage when it becomes 3 schools.
That year 1 schedule for us would be no joke. Which begs the question as to why some don’t want Vandy either on the schedule or in the Conference? Having Bama and Vandy as permanent kind of equals things out a little bit. Not only that, but Saban won’t be coaching Bama in 5-10 years. There will be a gradual drop off in their program. That betters our chances of not having a built in loss.That doesn't correlate at all. Matter of fact, 3 would make it average out better. And if there are no divisions, you have more freedom in who the other 6 teams will be every other year. We wouldn't be playing the same teams as UK except for Bama or Miss St. And to add onto that, the rivals competition level are mostly relative to the competition level of said team.
But for example the schedule might look like this:
View attachment 475454View attachment 475455
Then flip AUB and SCar around. It was just an example. The point was the schedules are going to be tough for everyone. You could switch UK for Vandy but if you're trying to keep rivalries then UK would have Miss St or equivalent so they would have it even easier. I want to play Bama and UF every year. I don't care about difficulty but this was what I feel was a reasonable solution for everyone I came up withThat year 1 schedule for us would be no joke. Which begs the question as to why some don’t want Vandy either on the schedule or in the Conference? Having Bama and Vandy as permanent kind of equals things out a little bit. Not only that, but Saban won’t be coaching Bama in 5-10 years. There will be a gradual drop off in their program. That betters our chances of not having a built in loss.
Then flip AUB and SCar around. It was just an example. The point was the schedules are going to be tough for everyone. You could switch UK for Vandy but if you're trying to keep rivalries then UK would have Miss St or equivalent so they would have it even easier. I want to play Bama and UF every year. I don't care about difficulty but this was what I feel was a reasonable solution for everyone I came up with
If Bama gets Auburn and us, we should get them and Florida IMOAlright, so being an ex-business major, I just had to whip up an Excel file for this. All I did was, for the first column, filled in the one opponent every school must play above all. If there were any left over, I paired them with a school that wasn't taken. Repeat for column 2 with essential secondary rivalries, pair the rest with untaken schools. Repeat for column 3. This is what I came up with. See if you like it.
View attachment 475464
Ohio State, Arizona State, Montana in Bozeman. Yokusika Seahawks in Tokyo.The less permanent annual games the better, IMO. There are dozens of intriguing collegiate matchups, yet we play Vandy, KY, USCjr etc every single year forever. Boring if you ask me.
How about Kansas, or Minnesota, or Duke, or Michigan State etc etc etc etc?
If Bama gets Auburn and us, we should get them and Florida IMO
Then flip AUB and SCar around. It was just an example. The point was the schedules are going to be tough for everyone. You could switch UK for Vandy but if you're trying to keep rivalries then UK would have Miss St or equivalent so they would have it even easier. I want to play Bama and UF every year. I don't care about difficulty but this was what I feel was a reasonable solution for everyone I came up with
What makes Georgia and Florida a bigger rival than Vandy and Kentucky or even Auburn? Like if the SEC was to do something like this why not make it more about what is relevant over the last 15 years rather than what was 20 years ago. Alabama is the only one on the list that you can look at and say hey they are a long standing rival the other 2 not so much just 30 years that is all.UF, Bama, UGA in that order
Because I want to beat those teams the most and the OP said it was my decisionWhat makes Georgia and Florida a bigger rival than Vandy and Kentucky or even Auburn? Like if the SEC was to do something like this why not make it more about what is relevant over the last 15 years rather than what was 20 years ago. Alabama is the only one on the list that you can look at and say hey they are a long standing rival the other 2 not so much just 30 years that is all.
I think we should play Bama and UF no matter what and pick from the other 2.So, we are going to play Bama and Vandy, no matter what. Lock that in. The question is just if we play UF or UK. Historically (number of games played: 105 vs 51) and geographically, it makes sense to play UK. UF is actually the team we have played 6th most, behind Vandy, UK, Bama, Ole Miss and Auburn. Plus, like it or not, we are viewed as a bottom half team in the league, so it is acceptable to only play 1 top half team instead of 2. UK is no slouch right now either, even though we have dominated them and will continue to do so. And 1 more thing, we play every team in every venue every 4 years, so this isn't that big of a deal, honestly. We will still play UF bi-annually.