When the Texas Longsteers and the OU Runnin Riley's join the SEC, we're looking at a different schedule from there on out. Big question now is 8-9 game schedule. I'm pro-8 just because I want to maintain our rivalry with Louisville and a nine game SEC slate will probably be too much for all but the deepest teams to handle. A lot of good guys will get hurt and worn. Vandy, FloRida, and Mustard Men would be solid rivals.
Future Schedules
- Thread starter JPFisher
- Start date
Sounds good to me. Surprised we are one of Florida's 3 permanent rivals. It needs to be 9 games to make sense.
We can totally own this pod, at least most years. I really like it.
Our record against Florida and Tennessee hasn't been all that great throughout our history. Even in the last five years, with five consecutive bowl seasons, we are 4-6. At least should expect to beat Vandy on a fairly regular basis.
I like having Florida involved. Surprised as well, but Mizzou doesn't have the same punch.
In your opinion, why does it have to be nine to make sense? Ease of scheduling every year?
Last edited:
Not the best record, but we've closed the gap and shot ourselves in the foot to allow them more wins than they deserve. If CMS can bump us up to the next level and get us playing consistently (and healthier) then I think the wins will come against those two.
You play 3 every season and that leaves 12 teams. 9 game schedule means you play 6 one year and 6 the next and then rotate home and away once every 4 years. Playing 9 games isn't gonna hurt the SEC in the playoff and won't when it expands.
And to the guy saying we will own Florida and Tennessee, we haven't seen it yet. Uk can't beat both in the same season so that needs to change asap.
Yeah I can acknowledge getting carried away here. That said we’re trending the right direction and it’s as favorable of a draw as we could realistically get.
I get UK, and all SEC fans wanting as easy a sched as possible.
Fact is even with 3 permanent 'manageable' opponents, there will always be 6 more that ain't gonna be. We're going to see some combination of Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M every other year.
Plus every other year we will have 5 SEC road games. That's a tough row to hoe, don't care what name is on the front of your jersey! SEC fans & media will need to get used to teams finishing 5-4 or 4-5 and they did damn good to get that.
Fact is even with 3 permanent 'manageable' opponents, there will always be 6 more that ain't gonna be. We're going to see some combination of Bama, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M every other year.
Plus every other year we will have 5 SEC road games. That's a tough row to hoe, don't care what name is on the front of your jersey! SEC fans & media will need to get used to teams finishing 5-4 or 4-5 and they did damn good to get that.
I'd much rather keep MSU and lose Florida.
As the other poster pointed out you are gonna draw a giant killer schedule with the other 6 games. We could have LSU, Oklahoma and Georgia in year 1 and Alabama, Texas and Texas a and m in year 2. Gonna be brutal.
Sure and add Missouri for Tennessee if you're doing that but realistically we got about as favorable a draw as you could hope for.
The 4 pods aren't my favorite but everything is pointing to it being the route we are taking. The question is how who is going to be in the pods.
If we went geographical it would look something like this
Southeast. UF, UGA, AU, Carolina
East. UK, UT, Bama, Vandy
Central. Missouri, Arkansas, OM, MSST
West. OU, LSU, Texas, ATM.
I guess you could say group C is weaker than the others but not by alot.
Every year teams play all teams in their pod. Years 1 and 2, play first 2 teams listed in the other 3 pods home and home. Same for years 3 and 4 except its the last 2 teams listed.
Obviously the pods may not be what we end up with and I doubt many are going to be happy regardless of who they get. If Bama and AU want to continue the Iron Bowl, make it a non conference game the years they aren't on the schedule.
If we went geographical it would look something like this
Southeast. UF, UGA, AU, Carolina
East. UK, UT, Bama, Vandy
Central. Missouri, Arkansas, OM, MSST
West. OU, LSU, Texas, ATM.
I guess you could say group C is weaker than the others but not by alot.
Every year teams play all teams in their pod. Years 1 and 2, play first 2 teams listed in the other 3 pods home and home. Same for years 3 and 4 except its the last 2 teams listed.
Obviously the pods may not be what we end up with and I doubt many are going to be happy regardless of who they get. If Bama and AU want to continue the Iron Bowl, make it a non conference game the years they aren't on the schedule.
I don't like the 5/3 home game setup, but the 3 permanent rival scheduling sounds good to me. I'd like to see that and require all teams to play at least one power 5 OOC opponent as well.
Actually things are pointing toward the 3 permanent opponents format rather than pods. I’m pleasantly surprised by that it’s definitely better than pods.
Would that for all intents make it a pod system? The model I attempted in above postworks perfectly for fans wanting to go to all schools every 4 years if 9 games. 8 would be doable but wouldn't get home and home with all teams in 4 years.
Yes that would be 5 conference games 1 year and 4 the next. Schedule a P5 home game on the 4 a year deal and away on the 5 year. Things are changing fast, fans aren't willing to spend the money it takes to attend games against teams looking for a check. And when the playoffs go 12 teams, teams will look at schedules and that will play a big part of the selection.
Different than a pod system because in a pod, all four teams play each other every year. Basically they’re all each other’s three permanent opponents. If we do 3 permanents without pods it gives us more flexibility. For example UK could have UGA and Vandy as permanents, but UGA and Vandy don’t necessarily have to be permanents to each other.
Go to 9 conference games with 3 permanent opponents, you play everyone in conference once every two years. That means every four year player plays at every venue in the SEC, all while maintaining rivalries. I think it’s the best option.
1. 9 SEC games (dropping an October non conference game that is waste of time) makes the season tix happy and creates more games fans want to attend.
2. Bowl eligibility dropping from 6 to 5 games....makes a ton of sense.
3. Seeing more SEC teams more often in Commonwealth is a needed change. Texas AM has never been to Lexington...they've been in conference a decade and we've played them in their place adn not a hint of return to UK.
2. Bowl eligibility dropping from 6 to 5 games....makes a ton of sense.
3. Seeing more SEC teams more often in Commonwealth is a needed change. Texas AM has never been to Lexington...they've been in conference a decade and we've played them in their place adn not a hint of return to UK.
Some local media are pretty sure if SEC goes to 9 the UL game disappears. And it can easily, its in the contract that conference schedule changes can end the series. Like Covid year.
Unless the SEC requires all to sched 1 OOC power 5 opponent.
Unless the SEC requires all to sched 1 OOC power 5 opponent.
Yeah...and I get that. But do we really need to keep playing 3 non conference cupcakes? What does playing Austin Peay in November really mean to fans or player development vs. UL as 3rd non conference game?
I get playing 1-2 non conference cupcakes as the opening game and/or week 2 or 3 games as quasi warm up games to iron out things early in season. But the 12th game added to schedule a while back has resulted in a crap game in October/November that nobody goes to, we play backups most of 2nd half of games, etc and is bye week that we stick it to season tix holders.
At this time of the economics, it's the right thing to get the most value of a our tix and not so many of these useless non conference games (many of these teams could probably be folding programs as the NIL winds will start changing things for all kinds of reasons).
I agree on the 9 conference games is going to be the future, Saban wants it and I think the commissioner wants it, but it ultimately comes down to administration that will decide. I still am not excited how the 2 best teams will be decided. Say a team goes 9-0 in conference, but misses Bama, ATM, UGA. Those 3 beat each other to all be 8-1. Who gets left out?
Ya that’s a good question and the big drawback of losing divisions. Hopefully they set up the rotating six conference games in a way that schedules are well balanced. Everyone should have to play either Alabama or UGA every year maybe lol
That is a very good point....and the risk of 3 permanent games system. You can have those years that you miss the big dogs and slide teams in/our purely on schedule. At least the system we have today...let's say UGA misses Bama but Florida has to play Bama....in the end Florida gets a legit shot as they play UGA head to head. But in these new schedules...that could easily happen and would be unfair.
Is Saban even going to be around when this starts? He can't coach forever.
I agree that scenario would be a pain. I think it's unlikely that happens but we see it in basketball just this past season. Auburn got a favorable conference schedule compared to KY and tn and was able to hang on by one game despite such a favorable schedule.
You guys have some good comments too. About Saban, as far as we, or me anyway, knows he is in excellent health and his teams are still excelling. Now will NIL change the face so much Bama can't keep up with recruiting? I know we are feeling it this cycle, ATM is just offering so much more than all but 2, maybe 3 schools in the conference can. We will be good in 22, real good offensively, defense won't be as good, but not swiss cheese either. I think we will be pretty good down the road, but not sure we will be elite 2-3 years from now with NIL going uncontrolled like now.
IF Arkansas decides to go all in on buying wins, look out, their boosters could buy ATM, Waltons, Hunts, Jones, Tyson's are some big bucks.
But to the scheduling and choosing the top 2, I want it to be done fairly and chances are everyone will play one of the top 2 or 3 teams. I just know if UGA, Bama and LSU were all 8-1 and beat each other for the only loss, I wouldn't be happy with a UF that missed all 3 and went 9-0 getting in the conference championship when all 3 would beat their brakes off.
IF Arkansas decides to go all in on buying wins, look out, their boosters could buy ATM, Waltons, Hunts, Jones, Tyson's are some big bucks.
But to the scheduling and choosing the top 2, I want it to be done fairly and chances are everyone will play one of the top 2 or 3 teams. I just know if UGA, Bama and LSU were all 8-1 and beat each other for the only loss, I wouldn't be happy with a UF that missed all 3 and went 9-0 getting in the conference championship when all 3 would beat their brakes off.
Don't know where you're getting this. Nothing I've seen says any one school's perm opponents will all also have each other as the same perms. Plus, coming up with SEC champ then requires two playoff games. 16 teams together lets the top two always play for champ with a one game playoff.
Not getting g anything g from any where other than BIG12 picking 2 teams to.play for conference championship. Sure having a semi finals conference championship and the the finals would likely get the 2 best teams in the finals. But a 12 team playoff pushes the number of games ro a possible 19. That is a long season. How many top guys opt out because of fear of injury. To be honest, with this NIL thing I don't even care anymore, it's not college football today, it's minor league professional football.
Yes it does. “each school has 3 “permanent rivals” they play every year” lol.
Last edited:
I see this being a frequent conversation because it can be confusing but there is a difference between pods of four and three permanent rivals. Example to show this, imagine a pod of UK, UT, UGA and UF. In a pod, all of those teams play the other three teams. So UK plays UT, UGA and UF. UT plays UK, UGA and UF. And then same for UGA and UF.
In a three permanent rivals scenario, your permanent rivals don’t have the same permanent rivals as you. So if UK’s three permanent rivals were UT, UGA and UF, we’d play these three teams every year. But UT’s three permanents could be UK, Alabama and Vandy. So they’re not locked into playing UGA and UF. There is no pod in this scenario which means more flexibility to preserve rivalries and balance schedules.
Grumpy enjoy reading your perspectives. I am also older guy who has witnessed almost 50 years of UK football futility - but we are now playing competitive football - so fall is now my favorite time of year sports wise! I think the 12 team playoff will come about - it makes too much sense - even for the stupidity of the football alliance schools. They decided to take their ball and go home- but they didn't realize that the SEC has a lot of extra footballs - haha!
The 12 team playoff makes being in the conference championship game a lot less important compared to having a great season otherwise as well. I full believe the SEC will have between 4 and six teams in the 12 team playoff every year if we go to a 9 game conference schedule. As you point out who gets in if three teams go 8-1 and split with each other - well in a 12 team playoff 90% odds all of them make the playoffs - so it doesn't really matter - as we know who remembers who won the SEC championship game last year and who cares - other than the team that won it? But who remembers who won the Natty! I know you and a lot of Georgia fans remember that well - as well as most other people around the country!
Go Big Blue!
South Carolina would be a better permanent rival than either Florida or Tennessee. Not only are we a more similar program right now but there is growing natural animosity between the two programs and fans right now.
If we do the 1-7 format, I think there’s a good chance we get South Carolina just by process of elimination.
I bet I know a Grumpy Dawg that will still be watching Georgia on Saturdays!!
Similar threads
