Offseason Topic: SEC Schedule (Pre- Mizzou and A&M)

#1

Championships6

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2013
Messages
244
Likes
199
#1
I was born in 1991 so I have always known USCjr and Arkansas as SEC teams. I just wanted to know people's thoughts on the additions of Mizzou and Texas A&M.

I enjoyed the old schedule how we played every team at least every 2 years. I do not look forward to playing Mizzou and Texas A&M. They do not fit in this conference imo. Weird fan bases and not true southeastern schools imo.

More-so, I miss playing teams more frequently such as Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn. Those are great tailgating sites we're missing out on, as well as traditional opponents.

What are your thoughts on Mizzou and A&M?

No discussion as to why the teams were brought in or as to who we should have brought in instead. Just wondering if you liked how it was or how it is now?
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
aTm belongs, passionate fans, excellent venue, and a good program. Mizzou will be a Kentucky or a USCe. They aren't a power program, never have been. I assumed they were brought in for basketball but it appears they are bottom dwellers there too as of recent.
 
#3
#3
Ya, I'm fine with the addition of TAMU. Missouri is definitely looking like a poor choice though. Taking WVU, VTech, UNC, or Louisville would have added a lot more. At this point, even NC State, UVA, USF, GTech, or even a second Texas school would have been better additions.
 
#4
#4
Mizzou was brought in to expand the SEC geographical footprint with the St. Louis metro TV market. A&M was brought in for the same reason in the Texas markets.
 
#6
#6
Mizzou was brought in to expand the SEC geographical footprint with the St. Louis metro TV market. A&M was brought in for the same reason in the Texas markets.

I understand as to why they were all brough it. I'm just saying i enjoyed the 12 teams better than 14. I'd rather have not expanded.
 
#7
#7
Missouri has won the East twice in their 5 years in the conference.

I don't think anyone can chastise them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
I was not a fan of expansion, but there is too much money to go back now. In a perfect world MIZZ and TAMU go somewhere else and we return to twelve teams. This would revive some of the traditional SEC rivalries lost to expansion. I just hope we don't expand the conference any more.
 
#9
#9
I was not a fan of expansion, but there is too much money to go back now. In a perfect world MIZZ and TAMU go somewhere else and we return to twelve teams. This would revive some of the traditional SEC rivalries lost to expansion. I just hope we don't expand the conference any more.

Basically how I feel. Just wanted to know if they liked the SEC of the 90s or how it is now. I didn't intend for this to get into a discussion of why it expanded and which schools should have been brought in. I just like traditionalism.
 
#11
#11
Ya, I'm fine with the addition of TAMU. Missouri is definitely looking like a poor choice though. Taking WVU, VTech, UNC, or Louisville would have added a lot more. At this point, even NC State, UVA, USF, GTech, or even a second Texas school would have been better additions.

(in response to the bolded ones) No, no, no, no, and no.

As for the others, Virginia Tech would have been a nice add, but the school shot down interest by the conference / any advances twice during the process. Although they would have also been a nice add, UNC - as we later found out in the next offseason - had no interest in joining the SEC. As for NC State, it was never a realistic option; it's part of the UNC system (unlike what A&M's relationship was with Texas). Eight of the 13 members on their board who would vote on such a thing are members hired / put in place by UNC...there's no way they'd ever agree to vote for something that could feasibly end up hurting the people who put them there (UNC).
 
#12
#12
(in response to the bolded ones) No, no, no, no, and no.

As for the others, Virginia Tech would have been a nice add, but the school shot down interest by the conference / any advances twice during the process. Although they would have also been a nice add, UNC - as we later found out in the next offseason - had no interest in joining the SEC. As for NC State, it was never a realistic option; it's part of the UNC system (unlike what A&M's relationship was with Texas). Eight of the 13 members on their board who would vote on such a thing are members hired / put in place by UNC...there's no way they'd ever agree to vote for something that could feasibly end up hurting the people who put them there (UNC).

Don't want to turn this topic into who we should have added. Just if you like how the SEC was in the 90s or how it is now.
 
#13
#13
I'm with you OP. I don't like the addition of either. But, A&M was at least a solid choice (Football-competition wise).

Yes, Missouri won the East two years in a row. But the other 3 years they've gone 5-7 or worse and aren't particularly good at anything else. They also brought the safe-spaces junk with them...
 
#15
#15
I was born in 1991 so I have always known USCjr and Arkansas as SEC teams. I just wanted to know people's thoughts on the additions of Mizzou and Texas A&M.

I enjoyed the old schedule how we played every team at least every 2 years. I do not look forward to playing Mizzou and Texas A&M. They do not fit in this conference imo. Weird fan bases and not true southeastern schools imo.

More-so, I miss playing teams more frequently such as Ole Miss, LSU, and Auburn. Those are great tailgating sites we're missing out on, as well as traditional opponents.

What are your thoughts on Mizzou and A&M?


9 game conference schedule. That's the easiest solution. The Pac-12, Big 12, and Big 10 all already do such (and the only reason the ACC doesn't is because their deal with Notre Dame results in 5 ACC teams having to play the Irish each year).

To be fair, though, the "played home and homes at every team over 5 years" was relatively a newer thing over a shorter period of this the conference's history, really a 10 year period. It's actually been pretty far from a norm for this conference.

The conference schools didn't see each other even remotely regularly until starting around 1992, following the expansion (Tennessee and Georgia, for example, only saw each other at best 2-3 times a decade prior to that...in fact they didn't even play each other between 1937 and 1968. Tennessee and Florida were similar, with the two teams pretty much skipping the 1960s).

And the conference's first 10-11 years with 12 teams (starting with the 1992 season through the completion of the 2002 season) had the conference following a 5-2-1 setup. For clarification, that was the following: 5 same division opponents, 2 permanent opposite-division opponents, and 1 alternating opposite opponent (during that period Tennessee played Alabama and Arkansas yearly). It was pretty close to the entirety of that period for teams to make it through the entirety of the conference home-and-home rotation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
9 game conference schedule. That's the easiest solution. The Pac-12, Big 12, and Big 10 all already do such (and the only reason the ACC doesn't is because their deal with Notre Dame results in 5 ACC teams having to play the Irish each year).



To be fair, though, the "played home and homes at every team over 5 years" was relatively a newer thing over a shorter period of this the conference's history, really a 10 year period. It's actually been pretty far from a norm for this conference.



The conference schools didn't see each other even remotely regularly until starting around 1992, following the expansion (Tennessee and Georgia, for example, only saw each other at best 2-3 times a decade prior to that...in fact they didn't even play each other between 1937 and 1968. Tennessee and Florida were similar, with the two teams pretty much skipping the 1960s).


And the conference's first 10-11 years with 12 teams (starting with the 1992 season through the completion of the 2002 season) had the conference following a 5-2-1 setup. For clarification, that was the following: 5 same division opponents, 2 permanent opposite-division opponents, and 1 alternating opposite opponent (during that period Tennessee played Alabama and Arkansas yearly). It was pretty close to the entirety of that period for teams to make it through the entirety of the conference home-and-home rotation.

Thanks for doing the research on this. I agree that a 10 team league whereby everyone has an opportunity to play one another is the fairest and most balanced way for conference play. If a conference feels a need for a championship game maybe the top 2 teams at season's end could square off for the championship. It's nice that Tennessee plays Bama every year from a fan's perspective but it squarely puts UT in a one game hole in it's divisional race against the likes of UF and UGA who only have to play Bama on a rotational basis of every six years.
 
#19
#19
Until they were in the SEC they were irrelevant to me. Now that they are in the SEC I will count them as gimmies or expected wins.

The worst part is the last 4 teams to be added to the SEC have beaten us the first time we have met as SEC foes.

9 games SEC schedule with a quality power 5 OOC team, two paydays for who cares(some other TN team), one to start the season and one for Homecoming.

When is the next time we play A&M in Texas?
 
#20
#20
I am okay with any solution that preserves the Third Saturday in October. Bama has been dominant for almost a decade, but we owned them for almost a decade before that. It is a streaky series, our time will come back around. We are historically the two top teams in the conference. I like that we play every year.

I understand the argument for getting rid of the TSIO, but Florida plays LSU and Georgia plays Auburn every year, so it isn't completely unfair when you look outside of the Saban era. I just like the idea of the two most successful teams playing every year. Plus I hate Bama. I want us to have a chance to ruin their season every year.

Edit:some words
 
#21
#21
I don't mind the addition of A&M and Mizzou. A&M adds significant value, both opening the state of Texas more fully to SEC recruiting and programming, and in the quality of its institution and athletics. Mizzou not so much of either, but it does bring us the St Louis area as already mentioned.

Both are at the extreme limit of the "southeastern US," but still arguably a fit. We didn't go entirely outside the Southeastern footprint to get them, the way the B12 went outside the Great Plains for W Va, or the B10 went outside the Midwest to get Rutgers.

I wouldn't mind the SEC expanding once more, to 16 teams. Have even spent time thinking about how we could manage that. Here's what I came up with (warning: kinda long):

~ ~ ~​

Expand to 16 teams:
  • Pick up Virginia Tech and West Virginia
  • Alternative 1: add Clemson and Georgia Tech
  • Alternative 2: add Florida State and Miami
  • (though some would like to go after UNC, I know from having lived there many years: we're not going to split up the 4 NC schools, UNC, NC State, Duke and Wake Forest; the first three in particular are a package, like, forever and ever, amen)
Structure the expanded conference into 4 divisions (North, South, East, West):
  • West = A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas, LSU
  • North = Kentucky, West Va, Va Tech, Vandy
  • East = Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida
  • South = Bama, Auburn, Miss St, Ole Miss
SEC16%20Main.png


Or Alternative 1:
  • West = unchanged
  • North = Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee, Clemson
  • East = South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida
  • South = unchanged
SEC16%20Alt1.png


Or Alternative 2:
  • West = unchanged
  • North = Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee, Georgia
  • East = Florida, FSU, Miami, South Carolina
  • South = unchanged
SEC16%20Alt2.png


Annual Game Rotation:
  • Each team plays every team in its division annually (3 games)
  • Each team plays 2 teams from every other division each year (6 games)
  • Rotation for non-divisional play goes like this: home, then away (or away, then home), then off the schedule for two years. Example: In Year 1, Tennessee plays Alabama (at home) and Ole Miss (away) from the SEC-South ... in Year 2, Tennessee plays Ole Miss (home) and Auburn (away) ... in Year 3, Tennessee plays Auburn (home) and Miss St (away) ... and in Year 4, Tennessee plays Miss St (home) and Alabama (away) ... in Year 5, the cycle begins to repeat. Same type rotation for teams from the other two divisions.
  • Permanent non-divisional rivalries no longer exist. On the other hand, every SEC team plays every other SEC team at least 2 years out of every 4, so rivalries like the Third Saturday in October can continue on an intermittent basis. On the side of balance, no non-divisional rivalry is favored over any other (improves fairness across schedules, over time).

~ ~ ~

Yep, sorry so long, heh. Just been thinking about it for a while. I think it could work well, preferably with Va Tech and W Va, but could go with either alternative really well, too. Of course, it would be hell stealing some of those teams away from their existing conferences, esp. the ACC which is currently riding the crest of a wave of success.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
#22
#22
I liked 10 schools but didn't really mind Ark & USCjr joining in 92. A&M & Mo, not so much but A&M is a great fit. WV would probably have fit the sec better but their academics weren't up to snuff in the kings eyes! VT couldn't come without UVA, kinda like the NC package. I don't want to expand any more. The Big 12 needs 2 more teams like Houston BYU Cincy or Colorado St, but I digress!
 
#23
#23
Nice job JP.

I don't care who we add. I like the 4 divisions. Rather not be in the north out of principle, the teams are fine but call it something other than north(I'm being petty, I am what I am).

I wouldn't approve of any schedule where we don't play bama every year.

Fl, Ga, LSU,and Auburn I would like to play every year too.

The rest of the current SEC teams don't matter.

Depending on the new ones I might want them every year as well.
 
#24
#24
Nice job JP.

I don't care who we add. I like the 4 divisions. Rather not be in the north out of principle, the teams are fine but call it something other than north(I'm being petty, I am what I am).

I wouldn't approve of any schedule where we don't play bama every year.

Fl, Ga, LSU,and Auburn I would like to play every year too.

The rest of the current SEC teams don't matter.

Depending on the new ones I might want them every year as well.

Thanks, man.

Understand what you mean about a "North" division in the Southeastern Conference. "West" doesn't seem bad, but "North" does just sound wrong.

We could call them "Plains" (for West), "Mountains" (for North), "Ocean" (for East) and "Gulf" (for South) instead. Or "Mississippi, Appalachian, Atlantic, and Gulf" if you prefer proper names. Or something else like that.
 
#25
#25
Before 92 we played Auburn and Ole Miss every year, while Florida and Georgia rolled onto our schedule every 6 years or so. I felt the same way you do when Arkansas and SCjr were added. I didn't feel like they added anything to the conference, and for the most part they haven't. Back then Auburn was one of our biggest rivals and we lost that. OTOH we gained 2 new rivals. Time will tell if the new additions will add anything of value to the conference. I think A&M will.
 

VN Store



Back
Top