Reader poll: SEC schedule debate, 8 or 9 games?

I’ve gotten a few e-mails in response to my posts about the SEC’s scheduling dilemma.  Some have agreed with my position (expand the conference schedule to nine games to accommodate long-standing rivalries).  Others have not.  I thought it might be interesting to gauge everyone’s temperature publicly.

While you’re at it, share your thoughts in the comments.


Filed under SEC Football

92 responses to “Reader poll: SEC schedule debate, 8 or 9 games?

  1. econdawg

    Before conference expansion, I was hoping they would add Clemson as a permanent non-conference rival to keep that rivalry going. One cupcake a year and Vanderbilt should be plenty.

  2. WH

    I’ll admin, when conference expansion got all this 8-vs-9 talk started, I didn’t yet have an opinion. I get the argument that the SEC is the nation’s toughest league, and it’s already a brutal slate at 8 games.

    The more I’ve considered the different scenarios, the more it seems obvious which is the right choice, especially if we have to choose between “8 games, lose a traditional rivalry game” and “9 games, lose a cupcake.”

    People (looking at you, GMcG) will try argue that this is about what’s good for the league “brand,” the school, the players and not about money. The evidence suggests that’s pretty disingenuous.

  3. Irishdawg

    Why is it a zero sum game? If we stay at 8, we HAVE to lose Auburn every year? Why? I thought the SEC had already said that longstanding rivalries like UGA-AU and Bama-UT were staying?

    • If you do that, it means you won’t see the rotating members of the other division for twelve years. No way TV goes for that.

      The ADs have made it clear if something gives, it’ll be the permanent division rivalry game.

      • Dawgwalker07

        Why don’t we just expand to 16, move auburn and Alabama to the east and Missouri to the west, and call it a day?

        • DW07. My question exactly. Ala.& Aub.Move to the East; Missouri & TA&M to the west. That should work for everyone. No rivalry games lost.

          I do not STRONGLY Agree Or Disagree. Either way works for as long as all SEC schools play by the same rules.

          • Will (the other one)

            I thought that too, though it would make the SEC East rather insane, while handing the SEC West to LSU every year they successfully get past Arkansas.
            But it makes the most geographic sense.

      • sUGArdaddy

        That’s not true. That’s only true if you have a home and home model, but if you switch the rotating team every year it’s not so bad. They just have to think creatively. For example, if we play auburn every year, then rotate like this:

        2013 @ Bama
        2014 host LSU
        2015 @ Arkansas
        2016 host MSU
        2017 @ tamu
        2018 @ ole miss
        2019 host bama
        2020 @ LSU
        2021 host Arkansas
        2022 @ MSU
        2023 host tamu
        2024 host ole miss

        You’d play teams every 6 years. Right now it’s every 4

        • SCDawg

          Good point. No reason we have to have the home and home model, is there?

        • Cojones

          I don’t like playing the other div teams every 6yrs. Play two rotating and keep it at 4yrs. Of course you have to consider that I’ll be 72 this year and may never see us play Bama, LSU and Ark if it takes 6yrs. Think I’ll start an “Ole farts for four” meme. You can go back to 6yrs when you are on your last legs(literally). Of course, playing FU, Tech and Aub every year will keep me feisty as hell. Beating those three every year(include Tenn as well) doesn’t come around too often in my life. Let me enjoy that phenomenon and the Coach who has accomplished it a little while longer, you friggin’ crumbsnatchers.

    • MT

      The other alternative would be stay at 8 and keep Auburn as a permanent OOdivision rival, and just take forever to rotate through the rest of the West. I think the implication though is that the TV renegotiation as well as general AD push won’t leave it there

  4. Aubiece

    If Slive gets rid of the AU – Ga game, Bama – UT, UF – LSU games as the price for playing a cupcake or letting Mizzou and the Aggies in, there will be a revolt by the rank and file SEC fans.
    Those games make the SEC what it is.
    Not Furman, Samford, UT Chattanooga or whatever flavor of Sunbelt cupcake you like.
    If the price for the traditional rivalries is 9 games, do it.
    Problem with 9 SEC games is UF, Ga, USC all have ACC end games so that is 10 pretty tough games, so there will be little room for a Boise State type game for them.
    Maybe the model is 6 Div game, 1 permanent non Div game and 1 rotating game. Problem is it will be years before some schools come to your place.

    • Cojones

      Right on and I don’t have that kind of time left. What I wouldn’t give for a few doses of curable cancer to hit a few of you antisenior shitheads to get the point across.🙂

  5. Biggus Rickus

    If they did 8 and kept the permanent rival intact I could live with it. It might even create more of a rivalry between the divisions, like the old days in Major League Baseball. However, since that’s not on the table, I’d rather they go to 9 league games and do away with the neutral site for GA-FL.

  6. Irishdawg

    Nice job, Slive, you short sighted fuckwit.

  7. charlottedawg

    I think we should and will go to 9 Conf games in order to preserve its rivalries. I think the ADs and Slive are holding the 9th game hostage to wrangle more $$ out of the networks. The Pac 10 and Big 10 plus one had 9 conf games and i suspect the SEC will do the same. As for the burden of an extra conference game especially for schools who have a permanent OOC opponent. I say leave that up to the school to decide if they want to keep that opponent. I’d rather lose Tech than Auburn and if USC whines about having to play Clemson every year who cares? it’s USC.

  8. TomReagan

    As I stated at the time expansion came up, my greatest worry was that expansion would leave us with three unappealing options:

    “This is why expansion is a bad idea If the SEC expands, we either go to 9 conference games or lose the traditional cross-division rivalry games every year.

    If we lose Auburn every year I will be furious. While you are correct that Georgia, Auburn, Bama, and Tennessee fans would be upset—the coaches certainly wouldn’t be.

    If we go to a 9 game conference schedule, then I don’t see any way we don’t lose the Cocktail Party. With McGarity’s views on the number of home games we’re going to be playing from here on out, and with the push to move it coming from some of our folks, I don’t think we’d keep it there. At least, not as long as we play Tech every year, and in a battle of keeping Tech versus keeping the Florida game where it belongs, I think the Tech game would win.”

    I believe that the most likely outcome is that we go to a 9 game schedule and lose Jacksonville, which is awful. But I suppose it’s better than losing Auburn. Expansion sucks.

    • Go Dawgs!

      Losing Jacksonville would suck bad. I love that game and would hate seeing it home and home. But at least we’d still play.

      Losing Auburn completely, save for every six or eight years or so? Brutal.

    • retwely

      Along those lines, maybe a question to consider for UGA fans is: Which of these three traditions would you hate to lose the most.
      2)Georgia/Georgia Tech
      3)Jacksonville location for Georgia/Florida

      That is my personal order, I’d prefer all three stay, but Georgia/Auburn being yearly is the most important of those three to me.

      • stoopnagle

        I can live without the Tech game, honestly. Nothing to gain except keeping the boot on their pencil-necks.

      • TomReagan

        I agree, Retwely. I don’t see any way that one of those doesn’t go by the wayside because of expansion. Maybe not right away, but eventually.

        Unless the NCAA adds another game, that is.

  9. Go Dawgs!

    Expansion was a crushing and brutal mistake if we can’t even preserve conference history in the face of welcoming in our new friends in Missouri. This is utter and complete horseshit. This is the one and only issue that I’ve ever bothered contacting the athletic director about. Not black helmets, not ugly Pro Combat uniforms, not coaches winning enough games or not winning enough games, but this thought of losing Auburn-Georgia was enough to actually motivate me to email McGarity. The response was about what you expect, something along the lines of “I hear you, thanks for writing!” But this game means too much to me, and too much to Bulldogs in general to let it slip away just because we wanted more TV money and didn’t bother thinking things through before we went and expanded. They’ve got to know that we can’t stand for this.

    • Cojones

      It really wasn’t about not thinking through expansion, it’s the angst they’ve perpetrated on us in their negotiations.

      It’s occasions like this that push me toward a contract with Partners for Pets that involves them packaging dog terds in ziplocks and I will irradiate en masse to be certified as sterile and sold to all Dawg fans. You could send them wherever and to whomever you like (McGarity? Slive?) when situations like this arise. Sterile certification would go with every bag such that you have no personal liability.

      Holy Smokes! Miss St would broaden the market. And I forgot about UConn and Washington and…. . Then I could branch out with chickenshit that appeals to a wider market and….

      Wow! Gotta get on this . Anyone available to write marketing plans? “Go Dawgs Doo”, “Steaming Pile Rewards”, “Cluck You”, “Cluck-Face-Adoo”, Man, the marketing brands know no bounds.

    • Macallanlover

      Stop with the blame game on expansion, the blame is on the nutless decision makers that won’t go to a 9 game SEC schedule. We have three other games OOC, that is plenty, as many as we have ever had until just recently. All conference rivalries could be maintained, and the fans would get more bang for the buck. I am not saying expansion was necessary, even though I am not opposed to it, but let’s keep the blame where it belongs.

      If that means GT goes to a Ga Southern type rotation and has to just play us at home, so be it, but keep Auburn as an every year game.

  10. paul

    In my opinion, cupcakes suck. Period. I’d rather lose to Alabama than pummel the likes of Coastal Carolina. I have no desire to spend time and money traveling to Athens and setting up a tailgate for Buffalo or Florida Atlantic. The fact that we can beat them proves exactly nothing. If we do who cares? If we look lethargic or less than inspired in doing so it is held against us. The entertainment value is less than zero. The games are not fun to attend or watch. If this is the sort of scheduling McGarity is trying to protect, then I think we got the wrong guy.

    • Will (the other one)

      Especially as McGarity has continued the horrid tradition of 1pm or earlier kickoffs for all cupcake games. At least LSU schedules their disemboweling games later in the day (and it’d be better for Athens too, as some of the South GA folks would finally cave and get hotel rooms.)

  11. Bubs

    I love the Auburn game as much as anyone, but I love the Dawgs more. I want to see them win multiple MNCs, and that right soon. If putting an extra cupcake on the schedule makes that happen then I am all for it. We have plenty of East rivalries to make us more than content each and every season. Florida, Tennessee, and SC being the main SEC ones, plus the Tech game to put a cherry on top of every season. That’s 1/3 of our games that no Dawg fan will want to miss. Throw in Vandy, KY, and Missouri and you’re at 7 great to above-average games already (and before you start laughing, the KY game is often very close, Vandy isn’t quite the cupcake they once were, and Missouri is better than both of them).

    I think a lot of our fans would have a different opinion of this scheduling change if all (or most) of our rivals were performing at the high level that they have played in the last decade or so. Imagine going through the schedule above against high-powered FL, TN, SC and Auburn every year. FL is a perennial loss (2011 notwithstanding), SC has won 2 in a row, TN shouldn’t be too difficult but they’ll become a good team again eventually, and Auburn is always a tough game (again, 2011 notwithstanding). If we lost half or more of those games, we would be crying foul about our permanent West rival (Auburn) while a team like Arkansas gets to whip up on the likes of a lower-rated East opponent every year. Not everyone can be happy with this arrangement and I, personally, would like to see the Dawgs get as many Ws as they can and compete for MNCs as opposed to having more mediocre seasons just because we couldn’t let go of tradition.

    • I’m at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I couldn’t care less about positioning us for a MNC if it comes at such a high cost. Keep the rivalries, win the SEC, and the rest will take care of itself. I want my kids to hate Auburn as much as I do, and playing them twice a decade ain’t gonna cut it.

      • The other Doug

        I’m with ya.

        • Bob

          Amen. I am so disgusted with the whole MNC BS. I want a team that is competitive for an SEC title and if we win the MNC, fine. But what makes CFB so awesome is the week to week REGULAR SEASON. And when that week to week is filled with garbage like it is this year, the 3 months of Fall are diminshed tremendously. We can kill Coastal Carolina. We all know that. I would rather lose any day of the week to Bama or Ohio State or hell, even Clemson than be playing these cupcakes.

  12. BuzMan

    So why do we have to play everyone in our division every year again?

    • Dante

      Who do we skip? I’d rather lose our yearly with Auburn than miss even an occasional match-up with Florida or Tennessee.

  13. Irishdawg

    “The games are not fun to attend or watch.”

    I disagree here. The team and my blood pressure both need some tune up games each year, and getting into a title game is going to get tougher if we dump a few easy games when other teams don’t (and they won’t, believe me.) And it is satisfying watching Georgia thrash a team before halftime and let some of the scrubs play.

    The bottom line is that everything worked fine before the greedy goddam SEC decided to expand. Now it’s anarchy, and the fan base is getting angry.

    • Cojones

      What’s wrong with 9 SEC games, Tech and two cupcakes? Throw the off-week in anywhere you want. Personally, I’d like to see a cupcake between the off-week and the toughest opponent type of scheduling.

      • WH

        If there’s a “compromise” out there, this is probably the best one.

        The SEC is the toughest conference. No ifs, ands or buts. No member school should have to apologize for scheduling only 1 tough opponent out of 3 OOC games. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a shill for the lesser leagues or has a completely different ax to grind.

        Keep round-robin divisions, keep the traditional rivalry games, keep the cupcakes. It’s about as good as I could hope.

  14. reipar

    I just have not seen enough to convince me this is an either or scenario. I still feel it is likley we will end up with 8 games and keep Auburn. We just rotate the rest of the SEC West through at a snails pace, which personally I am ok with.

    • HK

      I don’t want seeing UGA at night in Baton Rouge, or tailgating in the Grove to be a once every 12 years opportunity.

      • HK

        National Championships be damned, I want to see some good football, every year, and enjoy it, not see a crystal football 5 times every 100 years instead of twice.

      • reipar

        And I do not want to have to go to MSU and Arky every 4 years. Would rather have a home cupcake than be sentenced to tailgating there.

        Now as far as MNC be damned you are on your own on that argument. Pretty sure UF fans are not too upset about playing The Sisters of the Weak and winning two MNC in four years. I think if the poll at the top was “Win t MNc in 4 years playing 8 conf games v play 9 conf games and win 0 MNC” the majority would be for a couple MNC. Maybe I am wrong, but until I see that poll on here showing me differently I am betting I am not.

        • Cojones

          And we think less of FU for that kind of scheduling. We are Georgia and we don’t follow pussies that take shortcuts. How can you have pride in your University as a leader when all you want is a symbolic trophy in football? How you get it is the most important ingredient in any pride of chase. You don’t give a thought to your reasoning about what will happen in a 7-8 game schedule. There is no guarantee of winning when playing the East schedule. Short on the logic and long on the Bozo.

          • reipar

            Really? You think a team that plays an 8 game conference SEC schedule and the SEC championship and GTU going undefeated will not play in the MNC? Not sure if you are aware but we actually had an all SEC rematch for the MNC last year. Any SEC team that wins out will play for MNC. If you do not belive that then there is no reason to take the dicsussion any further.

            If you think less of FU because of the schedule they played those years, which included winning the SEC East, Winning the SEC and beating the 2nd best team in the county in the MNC then I would be proud for you to think less of us. As a UGA fan it is this kind of blind rage directed towards FU that makes the rest of us look bad. It is no better then the GTU fan that uses the come back that FU beat us. An apt response to this is “so what”.

        • HK

          You are completely missing the point. I don’t care that Florida takes advantage of the cupcake slots they have, I think we should too; and the AD, who came from Florida, has said thats his strategy so everyone here SHOULD know that UGA is going to use all the cupcake slots they can. However, the point is that nothing that can be done with scheduling will give anyone in the SEC more cupcake slots than the rest of the league. We’re all going to have the same amount, whether its anm 8 or 9 game schedule; the playing field will be level. So what’s the point of sacrificing a rivalry so we can ALL have one more cupcake game? It give nobody any competitive advantage.

          • HK

            As in if the playing field is going to be level in the league regarding scheduling, which it will be no matter what, I want as much SEC football as possible, as in rivalries. There is no shame in winning the SEC and not making it to the national championship simply because you had one loss to a good team; I don’t care if Mark May says undefeated Oregon beating some other undefeated shit conference team after running the table over its own shit conference schedule is better.

            We have the privilege of watching awesome football every year and knowing that simply winning the conference is a feat to be admired, and no other conference does and its awesome. Every other conference’s reality is that winning the league means dick, and its only a good year if you don’t lose to the 2 or maybe 3 good teams a year you play, roll over the rest of the shitty competition, and win a national title, which you only made it to because an SEC team didn’t go undefeated.

            • HK

              Diluting the conference and destroying rivalries jeopardizes that.

            • reipar

              Glad to know you are ok being left out of the MNC. I guess you are just one of those rare people who were not bothered when it happened to us a couple years ago. Others….not so much so, but to each their own.

    • But TV won’t be. It’s a non-starter.

    • Keese

      Senator seems to believe that since the TV networks and SEC conference were vetted together at the time of expansion, that this is a static negotiation. On one hand he mentions that the SEC doesnt need to discuss in public and on the other hand says that the SEC usually does not discuss negotiations in public. What other reason could it be other than to strike a better deal…? Prepare the fans for tge worst?Although a counter argument could be made that by making this public, tge fan backlash could favor the TV networks to go to 9 games. Obviously some of this whole ordeal doesn’t make much sense, and yeah..why is it being bought our for public consumption. I’m with you on this reipar… I just think there might be some posturing by the conference. Just don’t think either party wants the UGA-AU game gone. Thats why i think it will wont happen. It’s just one of several rivalries being used for negotiating the deal. Care to share your thoughts senator? Sans the assery

      • “Sans the assery”? Ouch.

        The TV networks aren’t going to make the SEC choose the size of the schedule. They’ll simply price the options.

        I’m not sure Slive and Company know what they’re doing, to be honest (although they probably think they do). They’re motivated by the fact that their once great deal is now merely third best and they’re looking for a way to sexy that back up.

        What’s been vetted is that increasing the size of the league in the two nice, new big markets will lead to an adjustment in the TV contracts. But the how much is still up for negotiations.

        Here’s where I think things are at: the coaches want to stay at eight games, for the cupcake win. The ADs want to stay at eight games for the extra home game every other year. The presidents want to make the most money they can. There is some tension there, obviously.

        I think the public posturing is being done to soften fan reaction if the SEC stays at eight games and does away with the rivalry games, which, again, I think will be a given because there’s no way TV is going to accept the best teams in the East and West only seeing each other twice in a decade.

        • Keese

          The context lead me to believe that was your intent on yesterday’s thread. If not: handshake.

          I understand what your saying a little better in that the path of least resistance could yield individual school rivalries lower in the pecking order. Either way it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Count me as a pissed fan if we lose that game

        • reipar

          I certinaly could be way off base, but I just do not see the TV networks caring that much about how often the non-rival SEC East/West teams rotate across schedules. I would expect TV would be more excited to make sure they have UF v LSU, AU v UGA, UT v UA every year than worrying about if this is the year we get UGA v. UA and LSU, but that is followed by 4 years of being stuck with UGA v Ole miss and Miss St match-ups.

          Seems to me it will all work out in the long run. I guess that is why I am still not sold that we have to make the choice of 9 v losing AU. I mean last time we increased the number of teams in the SEC things turned out pretty well and I recall a lot of people who thought that would be the end of the SEC and they were going to stop watching/going.

          • Keese

            What your saying has been my assumption all along. Both party’s are going to weight out the scenarios that will generate the biggest matchups and most dollars while maintaining balance. I could be wrong but I think that the 8 game schedule rotating cross conference opponents and keeping rivalries make shake out as the largest money games as a collective

          • If you think CBS is okay with Alabama-Florida, for example, showing up every twelve years or so…

            • Keese

              I could live without reciprocating home games in consecutive years just to get the matchups. I have a right to be delusional i guess, right :)?

  15. HK

    This is ridiculous. It was nice like ten years ago when we could all just talk about football, not all this other bull shit…. hot seats….. ridiculous “upgraded facilities” that don’t really upgrade anything that needed it except the ability to show recruits something new and shiny… conference expansion….. TV contracts and absurd kickoff time scheduling…… now we’re actually discussing, with a straight face, whether or not its “worth it” to ditch a 100+ year old rivalry so we can all (ALL OF US, as in absolutely nobody gains any real advantage) have maybe a better shot at a national title…. F’n ESPN.

    We already have football and it ain’t like its going to go away if we don’t get more more more money, so what exactly is the point? We must all be revolutionizing the way we give scholarships to non-athletes and developing better academic programs with all this new money, right?

    Remind me again how much of this football money goes beyond the athletic programs, please, so I can at least feel like maybe we’re gaining something from all this sacrifice, other than to stay on the same footing with everyone else, just with much more expensive facilities and staffs.

    • Keese

      I agree 100%. I just think your seeing a lot more of this now since college football has become so much more popular beyond its traditional fanbase and viewers. Its translated into BIG dollars. I think what we’re witnessing is a gravitation by the conferences and networks to grab larger audiences/fans/TV watchers, hence some of the things we’re seeing you mentioned.

  16. ag

    Just put alabama and auburn in the east and miss, and a&m in the west…bam…boom..problem solved.

  17. Mike

    Without some of the rivalries happening every year, I will love SEC football less. I voted for 9 games.

    • Cojones

      And that coming from a Florida fan. That ought to shame a few Dawgs.

      • Junkyard Dawg '00

        Well Senator, I voted for the nine game conference schedule but since our resident gator voted the same, is it possible for you to change my answer? 🙂

  18. The ATH

    Anyone heard if an uneven rotation might be the answer to stay at 8 games? Everyone’s current “permanent” cross-division rival could do a home and home 2/4 years?

    For Example:
    Yr1: Miss & LSU
    Yr2: LSU & Miss St
    Yr3: Miss St & AU
    Yr4: AU & A&M
    Yr5: A&M & Bama
    Yr6: Bama & Ark
    Yr7: Ark & AU
    Yr8: AU & Miss
    Yr9: rinse & repeat…

    This allows us to have our cupcake and eat it too. That keeps the Auburn rivalry more relevant than the rest of the west while keeping us at 8 conference games. Nearly every student would see a home & home w/ AU during their time in Athens.

    Of course all of this will be irrelevant when we move to 16 teams, but in the mean time, it’s a better solution than scrapping AU entirely IMO.

    • Cojones

      I would think that the exuberance for 16 games has lost it’s halo in this clusterfuck. Why even mention it? And losing the continuity of the Auburn game is what a good deal of the talk here has been about. No. We don’t want to do it.

      • The ATH

        Haha – I assume you meant teams instead of games, and while the halo may have worn off for you and I (I was perfectly happy at 12), the $ says we’ll be at 16 teams – it’s not if but when my friend.

        There’s no ideal solution out there. McGarity and others are right that 1) a 9-game schedule will inevitably lead to less SEC national champs (less $) and 2) converting to a 9-game schedule would be a nice bargaining chip for future negotiations (again about the $).

        Slive, McGarity and others know that fans won’t boycott no matter the solution, but I’d rather have half the baby than none.

  19. AusDawg85

    I voted for the 9 games and felt…that if I were in ADGM’s chair with a similar vote,…I’d be doing the right thing while giving-up any sense of parity in pursuing the MNC. I would probably go ahead and lock CMR into a lifetime contract, for as many have noted, he’s the type of coach you want leading the “franchise” though may never take the shortcuts…legal and otherwise…that seem to be necessary to get to the MNC game.

    Of course, playoffs will not fix all of this too…?

  20. WarD Eagle

    I don’t care what the solution is as long as AU plays UGA every year. If the game gets cut, I hope the ADs are wise enough to schedule AU/UGA as an “OOC” game for the next 100 years.

    While I’m asking, I would like FU and UT back, too.

    Other than USM, I don’t think I’ve been to an AU v. NonBCS game in 30 years.

    I don’t care if AU ever wins another MNC as long as I can get some undefeated, 1- or 2- loss seasons in there against good competition.

  21. Slaw Dawg

    It’s easy for me. 9 games. Keep WLOCP, keep AU, keep GT. There’s no reason on earth to sacrifice any one of them so we can play Buffalo or Florida Atlantic. And make sure we don’t have to wait more than 4 years to play any SEC team. I disagree completely that this endangers our chances of a MNC. Every SEC school will be playing by the same rules. 3 other East teams (besides UGA) have annual non-conf rivals. The SEC has and will continue to dominate the BCS, and that won’t change unless we dilute the brand by killing its traditions and feasting on patsies.

    The one other alternative I’ve seen that’s palatable is some sort of 4/4 in which we play UF (in Jv), AU, SC and UT every year, rotate the others (I know that’s a bit off balance, but so is the current process).

    But all this just so we can be sure to have at least 2 cupcakes a year? Good God, y’all!

  22. NC Dawg

    My initial thought was and is, further expansion only weakens the league. Who cares about a rivalry with A&M or Missouri? I know, it’s the money, stupid. But if you keep watering down the product, that may ebb away as well. Whose model are we following, the ACC’s? Hasn’t that worked out well for them.

  23. Bob

    The idea that a 9 game schedule would threaten an SEC team legitimately making the title game is silly. First, starting in two years it looks like at least 4 teams will get a shot. Second, those same naysayers said exactly the same thing when the SEC title came about in 92. It has been anything but what the sky is falling folks proclaimed.

    Go to 9 games. Play Tech every year. Every 4 years or so have a home and home with Clemson or Ohio State or Notre Dame or whatever. Still gives us 1-2 cupcakes and a week off. And yeah, the SEC is tough..brutal. But we have our share of weak ass teams too and not all 14 teams are great.

  24. fishook dawg

    I believe all the other conferences are going to a 9 conference schedule in order to try and force the SEC to follow. Their sick and tired of hearing and seeing how good the SEC is and tired of them winning all the BCS championships every year. Since none of the other leagues can compete against the SEC, why not make them play another conference game and knock each other off. That way they might stand a chance at a BCS title and also boost their recruiting..

  25. dawgohol

    College football has changed. People now see through teams that go undefeated or have 1-loss but play weak schedules. It’s not all about having the best record anymore. A 1-loss SEC team now garners more respect than an undefeated Big Ten or Big 12 team. We need to shift our thinking and stop worrying that another conference game will hurt one of our team’s chances of making the championship game.


    Why, someone tell me please, would Georgia be compelled to fill out the non-conference schedule with “cupcakes” if the 9 game conference schedule prevails? Could you not still schedule Auburn or Florida as a fill-out game instead of Coastal Carolina? Why couldn’t that happen if the ADs of those schools were agreeable? I’m sure I’m missing something big here.
    Any help?

  27. I have decided that expansion can go fuck itself it in its left ear. If you include the ACC expansion Auburn has lost Ga. Tech, Tennessee, Florida and now Georgia is on the clock? Nothing we could do about Ga. Tech but it was a bitter blow to folks of my dad’s generation who grow up hating Ga, Tech (Auburn didn’t play Bama until his sophomore year). The loss of UT was offset somewhat by picking up LSU and Arkansas, but there was no mitigation to losing Florida (the first SEC team to go to a home and home with Auburn) and if Georgia goes—well expect a strongly worded letter to follow. What else am I going to do? Not go to games? Not watch it on TV?

  28. My problem with an 8-game schedule is that the value of the home game experience is beginning to stink. Why send in a huge donation and buy a season worth of tickets with a home slate that includes schedules like this (2012)? Seriously? With the way these teams played last season, the only game on here is Vandy:
    Buffalo Bulls
    Florida Atlantic
    Ole Miss
    Georgia Southern
    Georgia Tech

    • Cojones

      Looks like a lot of people have a hard time selecting their games this year and see the season’s ticket as a waste of money, even though it goes to the betterment of our U. That means to me that the weakened schedule in order to go for an MNC (like it’s a Cross too far) is hurting our collection plate and attitudes toward good competition. McGarity, you done made a large mistake listening to the whiners and pussies.

  29. The General

    The way I see it, if it stays at 8 conference games, the divisions should look like this:

    WEST: A&M, Ark, UK, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Mizzou
    EAST: AU, Bama, UGA, UF, SoCar, UT, Vandy

    That would preserve all in-state and traditional rivalries and still has some semblance of geography. Kentucky-Mizzou is a border war, you know. If you are mad because we would only see the best of the other division on a 12 year rotation, just win our own side, and we’ll see the other’s best every year. Who would this alignment piss off?

    • The General

      Check that, it would be a 7-year rotation, i.e., you would have a home-&-home followed by a 5 years hiatus with each West team, for example:

      Y1 A&M, Ark
      Y2 Ark, UK
      Y3 UK LSU
      Y4 LSU OM
      Y5 OM MSU
      Y6 MSU MU
      Y7 MU A&M

  30. Mayor of Dawgtown

    I demand a recount.