SEC must return to divisions and should have four based on geography

[truebluewildcat]

I like your ideas on a solution. Unless I am misunderstanding their post some want a sport with every team equal, if someone is doing a better job they get punished, but if they do a poor job they are given advantages.

I like your idea of exhibition games, how bout adding it to being played on your by weeks and your top 44 don't play? Makes for a competitive game, gives your younger players experience and giys who just can't climb the depth charts a chance to play. It wouldn't count on your records.

UGA won’t suffer or be “punished” with non traditional scheduling.

Dawgs playing any combination of opponents other than traditional east foe won’t affect them.

UK playing Arkansas, Miss St, and Missouri next year instead of UGA, UF, and Vols…that’s a game changer.

How fair is it that we get Texas two years in a row? With those 3 teams being our “perm/rival” games.

Big dogs still get theirs in any scheduling format.

See BIG. Their elites got theirs. IU got a little nibble. Got lucky with a schedule. Next year it may be some other middle or lower class team that doesn’t get stuck with 4-5 best programs in the conference and country.

Go look at the Vols schedule this past year and next year compared to ours. Absolute bullshit.

When do we get a beatable OU? Playing Horns two years in a row…their best teams ever maybe…again, bullshit.

 

[gamalielkid]

I like your ideas on a solution. Unless I am misunderstanding their post some want a sport with every team equal, if someone is doing a better job they get punished, but if they do a poor job they are given advantages.

I like your idea of exhibition games, how bout adding it to being played on your by weeks and your top 44 don't play? Makes for a competitive game, gives your younger players experience and giys who just can't climb the depth charts a chance to play. It wouldn't count on your records.

I like that idea also Grumpy. I know you can as I can - I remember when we had freshman football games. They would play 2 or 3 each year.

Go Big Blue!

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

UGA won’t suffer or be “punished” with non traditional scheduling.

Dawgs playing any combination of opponents other than traditional east foe won’t affect them.

UK playing Arkansas, Miss St, and Missouri next year instead of UGA, UF, and Vols…that’s a game changer.

How fair is it that we get Texas two years in a row? With those 3 teams being our “perm/rival” games.

Big dogs still get theirs in any scheduling format.

See BIG. Their elites got theirs. IU got a little nibble. Got lucky with a schedule. Next year it may be some other middle or lower class team that doesn’t get stuck with 4-5 best programs in the conference and country.

Go look at the Vols schedule this past year and next year compared to ours. Absolute bullshit.

When do we get a beatable OU? Playing Horns two years in a row…their best teams ever maybe…again, bullshit.

Not sure i am following you here, you think UGA had a soft schedule but UK got the shaft? We played 5 of the same teams and each other. You beat OM and they throttled us.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Not sure i am following you here, you think UGA had a soft schedule but UK got the shaft? We played 5 of the same teams and each other. You beat OM and they throttled us.

I don’t necessarily mean this year. Dawgs had a tough schedule we had a tough schedule. Great.

I’m talking over the course of time I think UK gets the shaft when 3 of our regular games are UGA, UF, UT.

I don’t see anything wrong with going through an entire conference schedule over the course of two seasons.

We don’t have divisions anymore and thats a start. I see no reason or harm in cycling through the complete roster of teams now.

If folks want to keep a rival they just can’t live without. Cool. I’d argue UK doesn’t have one, and we sure as hell don’t have two or three programs we need to see every year for the sake of nostalgia. So no need to play all the above mentioned every year.

 

[sieken]

I don’t necessarily mean this year. Dawgs had a tough schedule we had a tough schedule. Great.

I’m talking over the course of time I think UK gets the shaft when 3 of our regular games are UGA, UF, UT.

I don’t see anything wrong with going through an entire conference schedule over the course of two seasons.

We don’t have divisions anymore and thats a start. I see no reason or harm in cycling through the complete roster of teams now.

If folks want to keep a rival they just can’t live without. Cool. I’d argue UK doesn’t have one, and we sure as hell don’t have two or three programs we need to see every year for the sake of nostalgia. So no need to play all the above mentioned every year.

That actually would work currently with 16 teams, even with a permanent rivalry game.

Year #1
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games

Year#2
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games rotating home and away from previous year

Year #3
Permeant Rival
(7) (new teams) conference games

Year #4
Year#2
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games rotating home and away from previous year

Year #5
start all over

 

[truebluewildcat]

That actually would work currently with 16 teams, even with a permanent rivalry game.

Year #1
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games

Year#2
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games rotating home and away from previous year

Year #3
Permeant Rival
(7) (new teams) conference games

Year #4
Year#2
Permeant Rival
(7) conference games rotating home and away from previous year

Year #5
start all over

Exactly.

With that, overall SOS evens out because everyone plays everyone more often.

Top tier teams don’t really suffer because they can pretty much survive and thrive in any schedule.

Middle lower tier teams have opportunities at catching an IU type of season.

 

[sieken]

Exactly.

With that, overall SOS evens out because everyone plays everyone more often.

Top tier teams don’t really suffer because they can pretty much survive and thrive in any schedule.

Middle lower tier teams have opportunities at catching an IU type of season.

Agreed for the most part. Even with doing it that way, the effort should be put towards balancing the difficulty of everyone's schedule. To the best of their ability, eliminate the cupcake schedules and the murder's row schedules.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I don't have an answer, I would like some kind of balance. I don't think the conference wants the top 6 teams playing on the top teams or the bottom 6 playing only the bottom 6 every year. UF hadn't been to a bowl in 2-3 years but look to have things turned around, while playing what was the toughest schedule in the country in pre season. I expect AU to be much improved in 25 after 3 sub par seasons. As much as I hate it, turning a program around is as simple as buying top players who have hit the portal. Not career backups, they are backups for a reason, but starters from other teams, it isn't cheap, but the only reason a team doesn't make a big jump is because they aren't spending enough. Nothing to do with history anymore, kids are auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Agreed for the most part. Even with doing it that way, the effort should be put towards balancing the difficulty of everyone's schedule. To the best of their ability, eliminate the cupcake schedules and the murder's row schedules.

Yeah like I said in another post about UT.

Look at their schedule last season and next compared to ours.

I want to avoid that.

Also don’t know that we have to play teams consecutively for sake of home and home. Could go home, off, home.

OU/Horns perfect example. We’re getting the best version of Horns two years running. Vols and everyone else that got Sooners are getting a down and very beatable OU twice.

We didn’t get a transitioning Bama. We don’t play them next year. Our luck we’ll get them year 3 and 4 when Deboer has figured things out and got his roster and system humming.

That’s the type we f shit I want to avoid and spread out evenly amongst everyone.

 

[gamalielkid]

Absolutely not.

No thanks.

Perfect scenario for rich getting richer and nothing really changing.

Like I said in another post. If you want status quo, same teams winning, in the playoffs, etc then strict scheduling with divisions and a “rival” or “perm” opponent is how you will proceed.

So from a Big Dawg perspective I get it. Traditional scheduling locks in the top tier programs ability to do what they’ve been doing.

UGA owns that division. Occasionally UF gets one over on them. AU is a hot mess so dawgs own the “perm/rival”…

Bama owns theirs. Occasionally UT nips at them.

“Midwest” about the fairest of the bunch but the way Kif recruits, gets good QBs, and coaches offense rebs probably have the edge. Drink gets some licks in if he hits in portal.

Nobody is touching Sark for the near future. Especially next year or two with Manning.

I think Grumpy's 4 divisions absolutely make sense. 3 of the divisions are very fair based on the past. The "weaker" division is obvious - but those teams have had football history in the past. I'm talking about Ole Miss, Miss. State, Arky and Mizzou. But all of those teams have been powerhouses at some point. UK and SC have been very equal over history in reality and two of the lower performing teams in the conference. I really don't see how UK could get a better division if the goal is to also be fair to all the schools. I believe most of these teams would be very happy in that divisional pairing and permanent rival.

Go Big Blue!

 

[gamalielkid]

Yeah like I said in another post about UT.

Look at their schedule last season and next compared to ours.

I want to avoid that.

Also don’t know that we have to play teams consecutively for sake of home and home. Could go home, off, home.

OU/Horns perfect example. We’re getting the best version of Horns two years running. Vols and everyone else that got Sooners are getting a down and very beatable OU twice.

We didn’t get a transitioning Bama. We don’t play them next year. Our luck we’ll get them year 3 and 4 when Deboer has figured things out and got his roster and system humming.

That’s the type we f shit I want to avoid and spread out evenly amongst everyone.

Trueblue last year and this year are set and are not fair - but it will never be fair for everyone! It is impossible to predict who will be the powers in the future. I remember Miss. State being ranked #1 in country and top 10 for a few years in a row. I remember Missouri winning SEC East a few years in a row. The only team that has been similar to UK in the entire conference has been Vanderbilt if you are being honest. South Carolina and Arky have been up and down over the years. Auburn traditionally has been a good program. How would you make 4 divisions and a permanent? I doubt you can do as well as the geographical one that Grumpy did?

Go Big Blue!

 

[truebluewildcat]

Trueblue last year and this year are set and are not fair - but it will never be fair for everyone! It is impossible to predict who will be the powers in the future. I remember Miss. State being ranked #1 in country and top 10 for a few years in a row. I remember Missouri winning SEC East a few years in a row. The only team that has been similar to UK in the entire conference has been Vanderbilt if you are being honest. South Carolina and Arky have been up and down over the years. Auburn traditionally has been a good program. How would you make 4 divisions and a permanent? I doubt you can do as well as the geographical one that Grumpy did?

Go Big Blue!

I wouldn't make 4 divisions and a perm.

Any kind of divisional set up favors about 4-5 teams. Florida, UGA, Bama, LSU, Auburn. There's a couple of teams who had some blind squirrel finding a nut moments, but for the most part, the past 30 years it's rinse and repeat in terms of winning division getting to title game.

Even with in that group Florida, UGA, and Bama have a significant edge in title game appearances.

I think that would change in a situation where everyone cycles through a complete conference schedule. No consecutive years of repeating games. No getting to whoop on the same whipping boys for 3-4 games a year.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I wouldn't make 4 divisions and a perm.

Any kind of divisional set up favors about 4-5 teams. Florida, UGA, Bama, LSU, Auburn. There's a couple of teams who had some blind squirrel finding a nut moments, but for the most part, the past 30 years it's rinse and repeat in terms of winning division getting to title game.

Even with in that group Florida, UGA, and Bama have a significant edge in title game appearances.

I think that would change in a situation where everyone cycles through a complete conference schedule. No consecutive years of repeating games. No getting to whoop on the same whipping boys for 3-4 games a year.

Not sure how I gave UF and UGA and advantage when they are in same division, UT won something like 15 in a row against Bama until Saban arrived, and have won 2 out of last 3. AU and Bama is always a war, so not a huge advantage for Bama. But it really doesn't seem you want equal treatment for all 16 teams, you want punishment for the good teams for having good years by making their schedule tougher and rewarding teams for having bad years. Are the teams struggling willing to take a 70% share of revenue like what it appears the ACC is doing to keep a conference? If not there really isn't a reason to complain, get better, take the full payout or leave the conference and join a smaller one. Every team in the ACC is capable of beating any one of the others

 

[Edgarman]

Trueblue last year and this year are set and are not fair - but it will never be fair for everyone! It is impossible to predict who will be the powers in the future. I remember Miss. State being ranked #1 in country and top 10 for a few years in a row. I remember Missouri winning SEC East a few years in a row. The only team that has been similar to UK in the entire conference has been Vanderbilt if you are being honest. South Carolina and Arky have been up and down over the years. Auburn traditionally has been a good program. How would you make 4 divisions and a permanent? I doubt you can do as well as the geographical one that Grumpy did?

Go Big Blue!

I agree that TN have one of the easiest schedules in 2024. The reason our schedule is ranked hard in a sense is because so many teams we play are or were so much better than us. We have been so bad that we hurt other teams strength of schedule. It has been and continues to be hard to watch us play teams that have a pulse. Does anyone have any words of encouragement for 2025? Is there a snowball chance in hell of being bowl eligible?

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Yeah like I said in another post about UT.

Look at their schedule last season and next compared to ours.

I want to avoid that.

Also don’t know that we have to play teams consecutively for sake of home and home. Could go home, off, home.

OU/Horns perfect example. We’re getting the best version of Horns two years running. Vols and everyone else that got Sooners are getting a down and very beatable OU twice.

We didn’t get a transitioning Bama. We don’t play them next year. Our luck we’ll get them year 3 and 4 when Deboer has figured things out and got his roster and system humming.

That’s the type we f shit I want to avoid and spread out evenly amongst everyone.

I am really not understanding your complaint, you want an easy schedule but want to stay in SEC if I am getting your argument. You want the top 8 teams to only play other top half teams and the bottom 8 to play the other bottom 8 teams. Why would any conference want to make a schedule that would make it tougher getting teams in the playoff? You either do what it takes to get better, continue to complain about unfar scheduling or join a new conference.

Sure some teams had tougher schedules than others, but who can see the future? Who knew Vandy was going to be bowl eligible or that UF would win 8 games, or SC winning 9? Or Vandagriff was going to be a huge bust.

 

[truebluewildcat]

I am really not understanding your complaint, you want an easy schedule but want to stay in SEC if I am getting your argument. You want the top 8 teams to only play other top half teams and the bottom 8 to play the other bottom 8 teams. Why would any conference want to make a schedule that would make it tougher getting teams in the playoff? You either do what it takes to get better, continue to complain about unfar scheduling or join a new conference.

Sure some teams had tougher schedules than others, but who can see the future? Who knew Vandy was going to be bowl eligible or that UF would win 8 games, or SC winning 9? Or Vandagriff was going to be a huge bust.

I'm not sure I understand the resistance to change. Playing everyone in the conference is kind of the whole point of a conference.

I know football's shorter season compared to other sports hinders the ability for everyone to play everyone in a single season, but it can be done over the course of two seasons.

I'm not complaining so much as arguing for change. Everything else in sports change, scheduling can too.

No where do I say top teams play top teams more often.

I'm arguing for everyone to play everyone more often in a 2-year cycling full conference schedule.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I'm not sure I understand the resistance to change. Playing everyone in the conference is kind of the whole point of a conference.

I know football's shorter season compared to other sports hinders the ability for everyone to play everyone in a single season, but it can be done over the course of two seasons.

I'm not complaining so much as arguing for change. Everything else in sports change, scheduling can too.

No where do I say top teams play top teams more often.

I'm arguing for everyone to play everyone more often in a 2-year cycling full conference schedule.

You have changed stances several times this thread, so it is not easy keeping up with what you want. Multiple times you have said Bama, UGA, Texas, LSU, UF should be playing more often and that UK, and others, shouldn't face that difficult a schedule. Why not, they all det the same conference tv money, it's not the conferences responsibility to see everyone is bow eligible. And this chance we just had, you didn't like it.

 

[Blue wood]

There is a reason The NFL,NBA, NHL, and any league with more than 12 teams has divisions . It gives the have nots like us HOPE of winning our division . Without that why buy tickets to see your team that has no realistic chance each year of winning anything . It’s not by accident that the two most wealthy athletic programs in the nation played for the national championship last night . We will never compete with them for a championship. Maybe an upset here or there but never a sustained winning season to compete with their HUGE. advantage .

If at least we could play three regional rivalries and compete for a division championship our fans would have an incentive to buy tickets . Now it’s just to see football I guess and hope we come in fourth or fifth in the league rather than 13 th or 14th. Not a way most fans like me want to spend their time and money .

Sorry, hate divisions

 

[truebluewildcat]

You have changed stances several times this thread, so it is not easy keeping up with what you want. Multiple times you have said Bama, UGA, Texas, LSU, UF should be playing more often and that UK, and others, shouldn't face that difficult a schedule. Why not, they all det the same conference tv money, it's not the conferences responsibility to see everyone is bow eligible. And this chance we just had, you didn't like it.

I haven’t changed stances. I keep repeating myself pretty clearly.

EVERYONE PLAYS EVERYONE MORE OFTEN.

There was a post I mentioned the conference using data and analytics.

That it would make sense if the conference saw a particular game of note that got great numbers, to maybe push that game if they want to repeat games consecutively. However I don’t think it’s mandatory.

It just makes business sense. All the pro leagues do it. When a couple of teams are really good and have big stars. Then after a couple of seasons rosters change. Other match ups become the hot story line.

I’m not arguing for the scheduling department to intentionally concoct a situation that purposely screws top end programs.

I think an argument could be made for using all the data to improve scheduling overall and put forth a better product.

That doesn’t specifically mean UGA, Bama, Texas, Vols…the top getting stuck perpetually playing one another.

It might not be the conference’s responsibility, but it is in their interest to have as many teams bowl eligible as possible.

This idea of new scheduling seems unfair from your perspective and probably most fans of the top 4-5 teams. I get it.

Try looking at scheduling from everyone else’s perspective who have seen the same 4 teams end up winning their division and playing in the title game for most of the last 30 years.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I haven’t changed stances. I keep repeating myself pretty clearly.

EVERYONE PLAYS EVERYONE MORE OFTEN.

There was a post I mentioned the conference using data and analytics.

That it would make sense if the conference saw a particular game of note that got great numbers, to maybe push that game if they want to repeat games consecutively. However I don’t think it’s mandatory.

It just makes business sense. All the pro leagues do it. When a couple of teams are really good and have big stars. Then after a couple of seasons rosters change. Other match ups become the hot story line.

I’m not arguing for the scheduling department to intentionally concoct a situation that purposely screws top end programs.

I think an argument could be made for using all the data to improve scheduling overall and put forth a better product.

That doesn’t specifically mean UGA, Bama, Texas, Vols…the top getting stuck perpetually playing one another.

It might not be the conference’s responsibility, but it is in their interest to have as many teams bowl eligible as possible.

This idea of new scheduling seems unfair from your perspective and probably most fans of the top 4-5 teams. I get it.

Try looking at scheduling from everyone else’s perspective who have seen the same 4 teams end up winning their division and playing in the title game for most of the last 30 years.

Your main complaint, as I saw it, was UK getting Texas 2 years when they are on top, and missing on Bama in their transition to a new coach. But UGA got Bama, who beat us by the way. Then it was the continuation of rival games, Bama-AU, Bama-UTn, Bama-LSU, UGA-AU, UGA-UF, OM-MSST, UTx-A&M, UTx-OU, you want those rivalries to end is that correct, or just not play every year.

I am expecting UGA to be down, new QB, Losing 4 OL starters and keeping OL coach it appears,

But in closing down here we just disagree on what we want for a conference schedule wise, I am on board with if it's not broken let's not try to fix it and you are on board with let's build a better mousetrap.

 

[truebluewildcat]

Your main complaint, as I saw it, was UK getting Texas 2 years when they are on top, and missing on Bama in their transition to a new coach. But UGA got Bama, who beat us by the way. Then it was the continuation of rival games, Bama-AU, Bama-UTn, Bama-LSU, UGA-AU, UGA-UF, OM-MSST, UTx-A&M, UTx-OU, you want those rivalries to end is that correct, or just not play every year.

I am expecting UGA to be down, new QB, Losing 4 OL starters and keeping OL coach it appears,

But in closing down here we just disagree on what we want for a conference schedule wise, I am on board with if it's not broken let's not try to fix it and you are on board with let's build a better mousetrap.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summation

UK gets the best Texas program in 20 years right of the bat. Not once in a rotating schedule in which 7 different teams would have to play them next year...but twice in a row. They may even be better next year with Arch.

I know UGA plays them again as well. For the third time. Kind of my point. Haven't seen a UGA v LSU match up in a few years. Would be cool to see UGA Oklahoma as well. Same goes for us.

UGA will not have a down year next year. They'll win double digit games, be top 3 in the conference, most likely top 2 and end up in Atlanta. If not, they'll still be in the play offs.

That QB is a stud in the making. He'll be one of the best in the conference in short order.

As far as the rivalries. I'm fine with 1. Any more repeating games limits the ability for everyone to play everyone more often. Also, yes you can have a rivalry with someone you don't see every year.

 

[vhcat70]

The reason most UK fans would be glad to drop UL is because UL spent 3 decades as one of the worst cheat schools in the country and parlayed that into an undeserved jump from CUSA to the ACC. Tom Jurich was one of the most sinister, diabolical, dishonest ADs in all of college athletics. But if UL hadn't been forced to dump Jurich during the Katina Powell scandal, the SOB would still be there with full support of their fan base and the CJ. Everything Jurich did was a scandalous scheme, and that's why their entire Board and their President had to resign. The whole thing still stinks. Any logical way you look at it, any association with UL is a lose-lose deal for UK. It has nothing to do with any distinction between football and basketball. Getting beyond the so-called "rivalry" with UL would be a growth step in the right direction for our school.

Amen. And I'm not religious.

 

[rrdd2021]

It's not as easy as you seem to believe. OSU, I'm sure you would agree brings in more revenue than anyone, with maybe a couple of exceptions and they were $37mm in the red last year and that was before the school starts paying players directly. The B1G effed up and expanded too far geographically, which increased their income and increased their expenses even more. My guess is they went against the advice of their bean counters and took the emotional choice.

That's misleading as OSU's revenue making sports men's FB and MBB (as with most schools) - were very profitable. The problem - they support more sport teams than any other NCAA school - 36 of them - and quite a few of them are in the red BIGTIME (like other schools). And the $37 million occurred in 2023 when they played only 6 home games - the norm for OSU is 8 home games. They'll just drop a few of the money -losing sports if needed.

The B1G did not eff" up" as you said. They now control around 52 % of all of the TV markets in the country with metros like NYC, Philly, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Baltimore, D.C., Minneapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Seattle, Portland, etc....and are now looking at the Phoenix market. I know I've missed a few. The B1G is expected to pay each member somewhere around $100 to 110 in TV money in 2026 and it's only going to vastly increase in the following years.

The point: the B1G is now a national conference - the SEC is a regional - like it or not - and have won the last 2 NCs (Michigan and OSU) with their massive NIL-money alumni bases. Like it or not, the B1G is leaving everybody else in the rear

 

[R.O.T.Muckinfush]

UK should just join acc. Can't compete in big money sec for football or basketball anymore.

 

[satcheluk]

That's misleading as OSU's revenue making sports men's FB and MBB (as with most schools) - were very profitable. The problem - they support more sport teams than any other NCAA school - 36 of them - and quite a few of them are in the red BIGTIME (like other schools). And the $37 million occurred in 2023 when they played only 6 home games - the norm for OSU is 8 home games. They'll just drop a few of the money -losing sports if needed.

The B1G did not eff" up" as you said. They now control around 52 % of all of the TV markets in the country with metros like NYC, Philly, Chicago, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Baltimore, D.C., Minneapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Seattle, Portland, etc....and are now looking at the Phoenix market. I know I've missed a few. The B1G is expected to pay each member somewhere around $100 to 110 in TV money in 2026 and it's only going to vastly increase in the following years.

The point: the B1G is now a national conference - the SEC is a regional - like it or not - and have won the last 2 NCs (Michigan and OSU) with their massive NIL-money alumni bases. Like it or not, the B1G is leaving everybody else in the rear

I guess the regional conference has more people than the national one or maybe it's just the SEC puts a better product on the field because the data doesn't lie. The current TV contract pays the B1G more, but the expense of traveling with all your non-revenue sports all around America eats away at the profits. It reminds me of the guy who goes from making $80k to $125k, but doubles his mortgage and buys two new BMW's. More income doesn't mean more wealth if you expenses rise more than your income does.

RANK	TELECAST	DATE	NET	START (ET)	VIEWERS (000)
1	Georgia-Alabama	9/28	ABC	7:30pm	11,985
2	Oregon-Ohio State	10/12	NBC	7:30pm	10,400
3	LSU-USC	9/1	ABC	7:37pm	9,200
4	Texas-Michigan	9/7	Fox	12:00pm	9,186
5	Texas A&M-Notre Dame	8/31	ABC	7:37pm	8,200
6	Georgia-Clemson	8/31	ABC	12:00pm	7,900
7	Oklahoma-Texas	10/12	ABC	3:30pm	7,625
8	Kentucky-Georgia	9/14	ABC	7:37pm	6,600
9	Florida-Miami	8/31	ABC	3:40pm	6,600
10	USC-Michigan	9/21	CBS	3:30pm	6,321
11	Colorado-Nebraska	9/7	NBC	7:30pm	6,300
12	Tennessee-Oklahoma	9/21	ABC	7:30pm	6,271
13	Alabama-South Carolina	10/12	ABC	12:00pm	5,997
14	Tennessee-Arkansas	10/5	ABC	7:30pm	5,291
15	Oklahoma-Auburn	9/28	ABC	4:00pm	5,042