Blog Entry

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Posted on: March 2, 2012 5:45 pm

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

Attention Birmingham residents: don't be surprised if you look in the "help wanted" section of your local Craigslist this weekend and find an ad from a user named "NoJiveSlive6nCounting" seeking "experienced cat-herder, must be able to wrangle up to 14 strong-willed athletic direc ... er, cats, with 14 differing agendas into moving in the same direction. Happily. Or at least, not angrily."

If you do, you can bet it's a response to this week's meeting of SEC athletic directors, where efforts to begin hammering out a football schedule for 2013 -- and, more importantly, a planned rotation for the seasons beyond -- seemed to have gone just an inch or two past nowhere. Reading the comments of those A.D.'s both during and after the meetings, it's easy to see why; not only is every SEC school bringing its own aims and ideas to the table, but they can't even agree on what they think they agree on. Just ask LSU and Florida, who are both willing to give up their annual cross-division rivalry or, in fact, aren't, depending on who you ask.

Of course, anyone who wasn't expecting these kinds of difficulties as soon as Texas A&M and Missouri joined the league wasn't paying attention. As we've repeated ad nauseum in this space, what the SEC wants -- preserved cross-divisional rivalries, semi-regular rotations for other East-West matchups, a divisional round-robin -- and the number of league games in which it wants them -- i.e., eight -- is flatly impossible, the scheduling equivalent of dividing by zero. Some kind of compromise somewhere in that tangled thicket of demands is inevitable.

But which compromise makes the most sense? Let's break down the SEC's options:


Pros: The simplest solution would give the conference room to preserve one annual cross-division game per team (saving the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry and Third Saturday in October), two slots for rotating cross-division opponents (shortening the gap between home-and-homes to four years), and still fit in the NCAA-mandated six-game intra-divisional round-robin. There's little doubt the league's television partners would vastly prefer another round of conference contests to a snoozer over yet another faceless Sun Belt punching bag.

Cons: They are many, the biggest one being that half the league would be giving up the cash bonanza of a guaranteed home game each year; for teams committed to a nonconference rivalry that requires a biannual road game (South Carolina with Clemson, Georgia with Georgia Tech, etc.) that loss will be particularly tough to swallow. There's also the increased difficulty of bottom-rung teams scheduling their way to a bowl berth; the inevitable loss of one-off nonconference series like LSU's with West Virginia; the inherent unfairness of half the league getting five home games and half just four ... all in all, it's understandable why the league would prefer to stick at eight if at all possible.


Pros: In other words, let Georgia play Auburn and Alabama play Tennessee (and maybe LSU and Florida? Arkansas and Missouri?) on an annual basis while everyone else rotates their cross-division opponents. The rivalries that matter are preserved while teams without such rivalries maintain scheduling flexibility.

Cons: For the teams with permanent cross-division rivals and just one rotating cross-division slot, match-ups with the rest of the opposite division will be few and far between--just one home-and-home over 12 years. Will teams in the West who want to recruit Georgia be happy with one trip to Athens every dozen seasons? Will East teams that struggle to fill their stadiums like Vanderbilt or Kentucky be happy with one visit from the Crimson Tide every 12 years? Will traditional rivals Auburn and Florida live with almost never playing each other again? This compromise is better than assigning every team a permanent cross-divisional rival, but it still has major problems.


Pros: As discussed by Mississippi State A.D. Scott Stricklin here, this would require an NCAA waiver or repeal of the current rule requiring conferences to stage intra-divisional round-robins to hold a title game (and such a waiver was granted to the MAC, albeit when that league had 13 teams and needed it to make an eight-game schedule work). But it would free up one key slot for a cross-divisional game--and it's hard to think of a team in the league that wouldn't take someone in the opposite division over someone in their own. League regularly dealt with tiebreaks between teams that hadn't played head-to-head back in the pre-divisional days.

Cons: Just because they dealt with them doesn't mean awkward tiebreaks are somehow a good thing; ask the Big 12 about its 2008 season sometime. And it may all be moot anyway--the NCAA may not be inclined to grant the waiver in the first place.


Pros: If Auburn/Georgia and Tennessee/Alabama need to play every year, why not just lump them all into the same division and make the issue of cross-division rivalries irrelevant? You'd have to ignore geography entirely where South Carolina was concerned, but a "Rivalry" division of Tigers, Bulldogs, Volunteers, Crimson Tide, Gators, Commodores, and Wildcats -- with LSU, A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, the Mississippi schools, and the Gamecocks in the "Other" division -- would preserve almost every classic SEC series. And if you don't like that arrangement, there's always other options.

Cons: Hoo boy, the Gamecocks would not be happy with having their Georgia series dissolved in the above scenario. And even if you convince them, any scenario which lumps both Alabama schools in with the traditional East powers is going to be far too competitively weighted towards that division--the West could have just one team (LSU) that had won the league since 1963. 


ProsMore than one SEC fan has proposed simply doing away with the divisional setup -- allowing teams to schedule as many annual rivals or rotated games as they wish -- and having the top two teams in the standings play off in the league championship game. No other suggestion in this list would make scheduling easier.

Cons: That the NCAA has mandated divisions for a championship game since the game's inception is a hurdle just a shade smaller than the Empire State Building, and of course the money-tree that is the SEC Championship Game is going to go away when Razorbacks fly. Then there's the tiebreaking issues, the regressive feel of reverting to the pre-1992 standings table ... this isn't happening.


Short of pitching two schools overboard, which will happen immediately after the league gives up its championship game to help it live a life of "monastic conferencehood, in which championships are awarded for each team's level of enlightenment," nope.


Simple: go to nine games. For the likes of Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky, this means just two nonconference "paycheck" breathers and some massaging of the road/home split to make sure each team doesn't have too many games away from home in one season.

But guess what? The Bulldogs only played two paycheck games last season, and they ended up all right. LSU played only six true home games last year, only two of them vs. tomato can opposition, and their world somehow continued to spin as well. We're not sure there's a fan in the league that wouldn't be willing to trade two seasons' worth of exhibitions against Cupcake State for one ticket vs. legitimate SEC opposition.


Despite the noises coming from Georgia's Greg McGarity, we expect -- and fervently hope -- that even a money-grab as naked as this round of SEC expansion has its limits, and that those limits stop outside the cancellation of Georgia-Auburn and Alabama-Tennessee. For now, expect the league to opt for option No. 2, where the schools who want permanent cross-division rivalries get them and those that don't don't. And in the long run? When the demands of television viewers and high price of paying off bodybags makes that extra home game more trouble than it's worth, the ninth game will make it debut. 

Unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of scary-sounding statements, and a lot of Mike Slive cat-herding before we get to that or any compromise. Buckle in, SEC, fans.

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the opening kick of the year all the way through the offseason, has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get College Football updates on Facebook   

Since: Sep 3, 2011
Posted on: March 3, 2012 6:06 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Like I have said before
Alabama has to flex it's muscle and Uga-AU and UT-Bama will stay.  

Since: Apr 12, 2007
Posted on: March 3, 2012 5:46 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Keep it at eight games, and if Alabama-Tennessee doesn't come up on the conference rotation, play them as an out-of-conference game.

Since: Oct 17, 2011
Posted on: March 3, 2012 5:38 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Vandy should move to the West and Auburn to the East.  As a Fan, I prefer a 9 game schedule. A game against a conference opponent would be more profitable than playing a Elon, UT Chattanooga or Eastern Kentucky. Those cupcake games do't usually sell out or bring in for the local merchants. I doubt UF would be in favor of this.
The SEC will need programming once the SEC Network is and running.  

Since: Jan 2, 2012
Posted on: March 3, 2012 4:02 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

There is another option although it is not a very satisfactory one. Back in the '50s and early '60s, it seem the SEC scheduled very few games against opponents within the league. For instance, in 1959, the Ole Miss Rebels played Tulane, Kentucky, Tennessee, L.S.U., and Mississippi State. They did not play Georgia Tech, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn or Florida. No-one wants to see that scheduling again, but a version of it may come into being if the Alabama schools are moved to the SEC East.

This will preserve key rivalries like Alabama-Tennessee, and Georgia-Auburn. The important Clemson-South Carolina and Georgia-Georgia Tech rivalries should continue. It offers a way to get Missouri-Kansas back on an annual basis too.

The dilemma, obviously, will only be solved through compromise, and there are a number of tough decisions to be made in the future.  

Since: Nov 18, 2007
Posted on: March 3, 2012 4:01 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Go to nine conference games. Man, I wish conferences couldn't be larger than 12 teams

Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: March 3, 2012 3:54 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Sorry 73rad, but that suggestion will not get off the ground.  One, I do not think the NCAA allows more than a CCG, so playoffs within a conference are out.  The biggest reason is the setup itself.  All of the talent is in the East and West while the Central is terrible.  There has to be some sort of balance of power, and this does not have it. 

Since: Mar 3, 2012
Posted on: March 3, 2012 3:28 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

Add one more team, (e.g. OU), split into three divisions and have a four-team league championship playoff, with the fourth team being the highest ranked non-division champion.

SEC West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma

SEC Central: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

No, it doesn't address any of the difficulties discussed (how the divisions fall depend on who's added), but it does free of the schedule by have fewer required conference games. If Alabama only plays in Columbia, Missouri once every twelve years, who cares?

Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: March 3, 2012 3:11 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

I am all for option #4, but that will never happen.  That would make the East too hard and the West too easy for LSU as there would be much less competition.  Plus, SC has no business in the West.  I really like the no division option, but that is really not an option either unless you can get a waiver from the NCAA.  I doubt they do that.  I think this means, for now, that they should have the cross division games for those teams that want them, and then get rid of them for everybody else.  The drawback there is most teams from the East will not play Bama or Auburn as often.  Would that really bother those teams?  I doubt it.  Nine conference games is also an issue because of the one extra home conference game for some teams.  You could make that fair though by simply having one division each year with the same amount of home games, so one year all the teams from the east would have a 5-4 ration of home to road games, and the next year it would be reversed.  As long as all the teams in each division play the same amount of home games, all seems fair to me.  The increase in TV revenues from the extra conference game should make up for the loss of a home game for the teams.  Let's figure this out and move forward. 

Since: Mar 3, 2012
Posted on: March 3, 2012 12:08 pm

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

If you did that you would be taking 2 teama from the West (Bama and Auburn) and only one team from the EAST (Missouri). That would give you 8 in the East and 6 in the West. 

Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 3, 2012 9:31 am

The SEC schedule paradox: what are the options?

I don't see what is so hard about this really, as one poster suggested merely moving Bama and Auburn to the SEC east while Mizzou and ATM join the west would alleviate most of the cross divisional difficulties and then there is no reason they can't also go to a 9-game conference schedule like the rest of the big conferences are doing anyways.  So a few perennial 6-6 teams might end up 5-7 and miss out on a toilet bowl--if they increase the requirement to bowls to an actual winning record instead of rewarding mediocrity, that will be gone anyways.  And while they are at it they can likely get rid of 10 or more toilet bowls as well.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or