The SEC will reveal its new 9-game schedule model on Tuesday (9/23)

[BigOrangeTrain]

Oh boy can’t wait

 

[TrueOrange]

I guess. But if the people who complain about us getting Vandy and Kentucky each year never raised a peep about us having to play Alabama, Georgia, and Florida every year for the last 30 years then idc what they have to say

Not sure which people you’re talking about not saying things. The thing is, the divisions were designed with balance in mind, relative to both the top 6 stronger programs and the 6 not-as-strong-programs.

The SEC took the top 6 strong programs (Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, LSU - let’s just call them the “Power 6” from here on out) and split them in half in 2 divisions. Each Power 6 team played 2 others from that group (Alabama, LSU, and Auburn in the West, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia in the East).
They then paired each Power 6 team with another permanent cross-division opponent of that level: Tennessee with Alabama, Georgia with Auburn, Florida with LSU (to be fair, originally LSU AND Auburn, but it was reduced to just LSU in 2002).
All the 6 stronger programs played annual games against 3 of the other programs of that level (In the East: Tennessee regularly played Georgia, Florida, and Alabama; Florida regularly played Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU; Georgia regularly played Florida, Tennessee, and Auburn…likewise in the West: Alabama regularly played LSU, Auburn and Tennessee; Auburn regularly played Alabama, LSU, and Georgia; LSU regularly played Auburn, Alabama, and Florida).

Similarly, the same was done with the 6 not-as-successful programs (Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Arkansas - let’s just call them the “little 6). They were split up into 2 groups (Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas in the West; Vanderbilt, Kentucky, South Carolina in the East) and each given a permanent cross-division opponent of that level (Ole Miss with Vanderbilt, Kentucky with Mississippi State, and Arkansas with South Carolina), so that each of the “little 6” played 3 annual games against teams of that level.

That way, none of the strong, power teams got to have more of an unequal scheduling advantage by getting to dip more into that pool of not-as-successful programs; the Power 6 teams all had 3 other “Power 6” level annual opponents plus 3 “little 6” level annual opponents.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia didn’t say anything about it because they all pretty much played the same setup UT had, as well. Honestly, the only one who verbally complained about schedule difficulty as “unfair” ever was LSU, and that’s mostly because Les Miles was hoping LSU could get Florida off its schedule and be able to get a years where the rotation made their 2 opponents from the East, like, Vanderbilt and Kentucky (or some mix-in South Carolina).

 

[OffTackleVol]

I'm hearing that for us it will indeed be Alabama, Kentucky, and Vandy.

That's who it should be, IMO.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I guess Vandy for tradion sake but man, we have to play Bama and Florida each year. I can see Georgia too, I guess but, those other two are our largest rivals.

Look at it this way--every single season, we're going to have to play half of Georgia, Florida, Texas, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Auburn. And the following year, the other half of that. We're gonna have NO SHORTAGE of challenging matches, each and every season.

That's life in the SEC.

So let others whine. We'll still have just as tough a schedule as most of them, if not all.

Go Vols!

 

[LegionnaireOfTheMiserable]

Why?

UT would get Alabama(slightly above Average)
UT would get Vandy(Very Good this year and back to sucking next year)
UT would get KY(Our gimme game)

Seems balanced to me

We would get 2 of the 3 worst teams historically. I really hope that we get that schedule, but I have to assume you’re joking to say it’s balanced.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The SEC took the top 6 traditionally successful programs (Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, LSU - let’s just call them the “Power 6” from here on out) and split them in half in 2 divisions.

This part isn't true, man.

In 1992, when the divisions were formed, Florida was nowhere near the top 6 in conference. At that point in history, VANDY had more "traditional power" than Florida. So did Ole Miss. So did newcomer Arkansas. It looked like this:



The conference may have divided the divisions by perceived current strength at the time, because Spurrier was already making Florida a newly interesting program. But there was zero tradition to it.


Nah, I think the SEC divided the teams geographically, east and west.* Simple as that.

Either way, I think this puts paid to your premise about the divisions being designed for balance. It may have been a factor, but certainly wasn't the be-all and end-all.

Go Vols!


*really, Northeast versus Southwest -- Vandy is geographically a bit west of Auburn, but if you angle the dividing line just a bit, you keep the two Bama schools in one division together, as well as the two Tennessee programs. So they did that.

SEC - Wins over Time

A Flourish data visualisation by JP

public.flourish.studio

 

[UTK]

It hs to be Bama, UK, and Vandy. I get we won’t see UK or Vandy as top 3 rival, but who besides us do Vandy and UK actually consider a “rival” in this conference?

 

[McDad]

I'm hearing that for us it will indeed be Alabama, Kentucky, and Vandy.

Seems the most logical

 

[McDad]

This is going to be interesting. How does Sankey and SEC office handle Bama? Do they get Auburn, Tennessee and LSU? Or does Ms St become one of their rivals?!?!
This was an entertaining debate on the Finebaum show a few weeks ago when the Bama homers were saying all the good teams are now Bama's rivals. Georgia and Texas were even mentioned.
Does Bama get the "good" teams or does Ms St and Vandy become annual opponents?!

Bama has to be Auburn, UT, but it feels unfair to give them LSU. Even though they are a current rival. Not traditional rival though

 

[Dadof2Vols]

Bama has to be Auburn, UT, but it feels unfair to give them LSU. Even though they are a current rival. Not traditional rival though

Life isn’t fair, too bad!

 

[Ned Ray McWorkher]

Look at it this way--every single season, we're going to have to play half of Georgia, Florida, Texas, LSU, A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Auburn. And the following year, the other half of that. We're gonna have NO SHORTAGE of challenging matches, each and every season.

That's life in the SEC.

So let others whine. We'll still have just as tough a schedule as most of them, if not all.

Go Vols!

The difference is now everyone will have it a bit tougher. We use to have Florida Alabama and Georgia in the first half of each season up until very recently.
We always played that gauntlet every year while Alabama never played Florida and Georgia never played Alabama. Some real ********.

 

[McDad]

Life isn’t fair, too bad!

Lol.
Think about my home life though? I married a 'Tigah'

 

[volfanstuckinga]

well I don't know who the "other 6" will be next year, but I can guarantee Texas will be one of them. I REALLY want to see Arch come to Neyland.....that would be poetic. If the SEC scheduling gurus have the same sense of humor/irony that the NCAA Selection Committee has in basketball, we should see the Horns in Neyland next year.

 

[TrueOrange]

This part isn't true, man.

In 1992, when the divisions were formed, Florida was nowhere near the top 6 in conference. At that point in history, VANDY had more "traditional power" than Florida. So did Ole Miss. So did newcomer Arkansas. It looked like this:

View attachment 774608

The conference may have divided the divisions by perceived current strength at the time, because Spurrier was already making Florida a newly interesting program. But there was zero tradition to it.

Nah, I think the SEC divided the teams geographically, east and west.* Simple as that.

Go Vols!


*really, Northeast versus Southwest -- Vandy is geographically a bit west of Auburn, but if you angle the dividing line just a bit, you keep the two Bama schools in one division together, as well as the two Tennessee programs. So they did that.

SEC - Wins over Time

A Flourish data visualisation by JP

public.flourish.studio

Fine. Maybe “traditional” wasn’t the right term to use there. Maybe “then-current” strength or “perceived strength” or something involving how big a brand they were or something regarding success over the last 20-30-40 years (especially given how Vanderbilt dramatically fell off after the, what, 1940s? Maybe even late 1930s?) or even just “stronger” programs.

If you look at the setup, though, and the way that when they switched from the 6-2-1 scheduling format to the 6-1-2 scheduling format, the permanent cross-division opponents chosen to remain from the pair each team had were the pairs that kept the stronger schools paired against each other (Tennessee-Alabama, Florida-LSU, and Georgia-Auburn) and the not-as-strong schools paired against others of that level (Ole Miss-Vanderbilt, Mississippi State-Kentucky, South Carolina-Arkansas).

There was clearly an effort made to balance scheduling things in that regard. (If not, then LSU would have continued playing UK each year and UF be playing Mississippi State).

(I don’t know if you read any of the rest of the post; I’m kind of guessing, based on the focus of the reply, that you stopped at that part; if you did, then my apologies about the assumption.)

…Also, I’m kind of curious now. You gave me a graph of total wins, but what do the overall win percentages look like for each program look like pre-1992?

 

[deatojl]

well I don't know who the "other 6" will be next year, but I can guarantee Texas will be one of them. I REALLY want to see Arch come to Neyland.....that would be poetic. If the SEC scheduling gurus have the same sense of humor/irony that the NCAA Selection Committee has in basketball, we should see the Horns in Neyland next year.

If I had to guess, assuming our three annual opponents are Bama, @Vandy and UK, I'd say the other 6 are Texas, LSU, @South Carolina, Missouri, @Ole Miss and @A&M.

 

[VOLINVONORE]

Gotcha. Anonymous "inside" source with vague connections.

But, he is correct.

 

[Jkm0920]

Everyone bitching in 3…2…1..

I laughed.

 

[Gandalf]

It hs to be Bama, UK, and Vandy. I get we won’t see UK or Vandy as top 3 rival, but who besides us do Vandy and UK actually consider a “rival” in this conference?

Thats just it - they have to give preference also to not only who WE see as a rival but who sees US as a rival. TSIO is a given (now especially) and is no doubt mutual. Vandy is our instate little brother who surely would say of all teams on the schedule, they want to beat us the most. And UK? Before they did away with it, the whole beer barrel, etc gave credence - UK has us marked as their primary rival I would expect.

 

[Jkm0920]

Life isn’t fair, too bad!

Give them the KC Chiefs. That would be good football.

 

[Ernie McCracken]

Who gives a sh!t if other teams complain! We've been playing all 3 every year anyway. Besides it's all cyclical. UK and Vandy won't be door mats forever. Umm.... NO wait.

GBO

 

[sonofUT62]

I guess Vandy for tradion sake but man, we have to play Bama and Florida each year. I can see Georgia too, I guess but, those other two are our largest rivals.

We’ve played Bama/UGA and Florida every year for 30 + years. I’m ok with clocking out for a few. Florida will keep Georgia and LSU I’m pretty sure. They may want Miss State or Missouri for a minute.

 

[RDU VOL#14]

Even if we get Bama, Vandy and UK (that’s in order of hardest to weakest programs ) it’s still gonna be brutal. Not sure how it works, but I’m guessing an either or kind of schedule
Texas or OU
LSU or aTm
Mizzou or Arkansas
UF or UGA
USCjr or Auburn
Ole Miss or Miss St.

And then mix and match it.

Bama @ home
@ Vandy
UK @ Home
@ Texas
aTm @ Home
UF @ Home
@ Ole Miss
Mizzou home
@ USCjr

Not necessarily in that order. In 2027 we only get 4 conference home games

 

[kcvols1]

Perfect scenario

There’s no way we get such a favorable draw.

Like NO WAY IN HADES

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Fine. Maybe “traditional” wasn’t the right term to use there. Maybe “then-current” strength or “perceived strength” or something involving how big a brand they were or something regarding success over the last 20-30-40 years (especially given how Vanderbilt dramatically fell off after the, what, 1940s? Maybe even late 1930s?) or even just “stronger” programs.

If you look at the setup, though, and the way that when they switched from the 6-2-1 scheduling format to the 6-1-2 scheduling format, the permanent cross-division opponents chosen to remain from the pair each team had were the pairs that kept the stronger schools paired against each other and the not-as-strong schools paired against others of that level.

There was clearly an effort made to balance scheduling things in that regard.

(I don’t know if you read any of the rest of the post; I’m kind of guessing, based on the focus of the reply, that you stopped at that part; if you did, then my apologies about the assumption.)

…Also, I’m kind of curious now. You gave me a graph of total wins, but what do the overall win percentages look like for each program look like pre-1992?

Yep, I read your post in its entirety. Much of it was based on the first flawed premise, but the other parts, I agreed with. I do think you were going kind of in the right direction, that the SEC front office did somewhat try to inject balance into the divisions (among other considerations, such as geography and proximity)....though 4 of the top 6, hell 5 of the top 7, historically performing teams at that time went into the west: Bama, LSU, Auburn, Arky, and Ole Miss...with only Tennessee and UGa counter-balancing them in the east.

But the main thing I wanted to point out was your error in giving Florida way too much credit for the vast majority of the SEC's existence. They were an after-thought from the 1890s to the 1980s.

Heh, in short, you're good man, just Florida sucks.

Go Vols!


p.s. The win percentages pretty closely follow the total wins, throughout the history of the programs. Mainly because most schools in the same conference tended to play (more or less) the same number of games, year to year.

 

[IndianaVol]

Anyone else catch that they will evaluate the "annual opponents" every 4 years?
So if Bama tanks in the next few seasons, it's possible that in the re-evaluation in 2030 UT would lose one of Bama, UK, or Vandy and pick up say UGA for 4 yrs.