Because the conferences, in their greed, have become too big, I don't think there should be any permanent opponents. Teams should play a random selection of conference opponents, and then the following year play those teams that they didn't play the year before. So, yes, I like the idea of playing everybody every two years: That is a fair approach--or as fair as you're going to get given how laughably large the SEC is going to be--and it wants to add still more teams, apparently. It's all greed and nonsense. The league seems to be making a lame attempt to keep some traditional rivalries, when if it really cared about tradition and rivalries it wouldn't have become this bloated conference with a bunch of new schools. Tennessee would be stupid to accept having Alabama as our one permanent opponent--we'd immediately be at a disadvantage compared to every other school in the conference. I say no permanent opponents, and if you lose bama-auburn or georgia-florida, too bad. The league has only itself to blame.