Back when the conference realignment saga was still moving along hot and heavy, most bystanders, many at Dawg Sports included, hailed the addition of Texas A&M as a great "get" for the SEC. Most of us (around these parts, at least) were less excited about the annexation of Missouri, favoring Clemson or West Virginia instead, but at least the Midwestern Tigers have a loyal, dedicated fanbase and multiple athletics programs with at least a modicum of success to their name.
Now, however, we are learning more about how the piper is to be paid for this expansion-a-palooza. We first heard the rumors, and now the rumors have been confirmed by none other than our own Athletic Director. As part of a commitment to remain on an 8-game conference schedule with a 14-team conference, the SEC is seriously considering the idea of dropping all permanent inter-division rivalries.
This scheduling change, while a bad idea, is not merely a bad idea. Believe me when I tell you that there could be rioters in the streets over this move. Fortunately, however, this situation that is quickly becoming untenable has a simple solution.
Simple, as in "not rocket science." (Via)
First, though, some historical perspective:
When Georgia began its football program in January, 1892, we played two games that first season. The first was against Mercer University. The second was against The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama, later renamed Auburn University.
Before we played in Sanford Stadium (or Sanford Field), before Georgia's sports teams were known as the "Bulldogs," before we had a Bulldog for a mascot, hell... even before our colors were Red and Black, we were playing Auburn.
Georgia's four most-played opponents over the years are as follows:
(As of the 2011 season, Georgia has not played any other school more than 65 times, and the schools at that position are Alabama and Kentucky.**)
I'm sure you will note that Georgia's two most-played and most traditional, historic rivalries are not in the SEC East, and one isn't in the SEC at all (anymore). The Auburn and Georgia Tech rivalries are older and more-played than any other rivalry we have, and simply cannot be sacrificed under any circumstances. I know we like to flick the Engineers around like the bugs they are now, but we cannot stop scheduling them any more readily than we could stop scheduling a patsy 1-AA or Sun Belt team every year. We have been playing both sets of opponents literally since 1893, and we simply can't stop now. To do so would irreparably damage the history, tradition, and very genetic makeup of Georgia Bulldogs football.
The simplest solution, I suppose, would be to keep the 8-game conference schedule and go back to having 12 teams rather than 14 in the SEC. And personally, I would keep A&M, add Clemson, and dump Arkansas, Mizzou, and South Carolina. Rather than make that radical suggestion that has no possibility of actually happening, however (I've already done that, for the record), I will stick to an option that is more plausible... and, in fact, makes the most sense from a scheduling standpoint.
After securing an NCAA waiver to continue having a conference championship game, the SEC should drop the divisional structure of the league. Instead of being forced into some odd "geographically aligned" divisional system that requires us to play Missouri more frequently than we play Auburn, the SEC should implement a system that allows each team to preserve its most important rivalries while giving the league the greatest amount of flexibility to rotate teams' schedules.
That solution is to assign each team in the conference 3 "permament rivals," then rotate the final 5 conference games between all of the remaining conference opponents. At the end of the season, the teams with the two best conference records (regardless of geography) would meet in Atlanta. For example, the SEC's new "preserved rivalry" lineup could look something like this (rivalries listed roughly in order of importance to each school):
| Team | Rival 1 | Rival 2 | Rival 3 |
| Alabama | Auburn | Tennessee | LSU |
| Arkansas | Texas A&M | Mizzou | Mississippi State |
| Auburn | Alabama | Georgia | Mizzou |
| Florida | Georgia | LSU | South Carolina |
| Georgia | Auburn | Florida | South Carolina |
| Kentucky | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | South Carolina |
| LSU | Alabama | Ole Miss | Florida |
| Mississippi State | Ole Miss | Arkansas | Texas A&M |
| Missouri | Texas A&M | Arkansas | Auburn |
| Ole Miss | Mississippi State | LSU | Vanderbilt |
| South Carolina | Georgia | Florida | Kentucky |
| Tennessee | Alabama | Kentucky | Vanderbilt |
| Texas A&M | Arkansas | Mizzou | Mississippi State |
| Vanderbilt | Tennessee | Kentucky | Ole Miss |
See how I did that? With 5 games used to rotate between the remaining 10 teams, every school could make a complete home-and-home circuit of all conference teams in 4 seasons. And I didn't even get paid a single dollar, let alone the mind-boggling figures the geniuses in AD's offices around the conference get paid to come up with this stuff.
The most difficult part of the whole affair, in fact, would be lobbying the NCAA to allow the SEC to hold a conference championship game with no divisions. But, then, to argue that point successfully, one only needs to look to the regular season in 2011. LSU and Alabama were clearly the two best teams in the SEC, but an arbitrary geographically-drawn line prevented them from playing for the SEC Championship. Instead, LSU faced a Georgia team that was spirited, but not really up to their level of competition.
The 2011 SEC Championship Game should have been LSU vs. Alabama. Those were clearly the two best teams in the SEC last season, and that would have helped us avoid the debacle of a rematch that we saw in the BCS National Championship Game. The rematch would have been where it belonged... in a conference championship game to determine which team earned the right to advance to New Orleans.
This "permanent rivals" scheduling scheme not only preserves the SEC's oldest and most storied rivalries; it also ensures that the two most deserving teams every year compete in the SEC Championship Game. And, really, aren't those the two most important things that a schedule should do?
Drop the divisions, Mike Slive. Don't allow them to kill our rivalry with Auburn, Greg McGarity. There is a simpler solution, and one which involves a skillset that is right up an administrator's alley: politicking and lobbying the NCAA for a rules change. Get the waiver, and make this change before the 2013 football season. It's the only way to avoid having people show up at the Butts-Mehre Building with (proverbial, I hope) torches and pitchforks.
* - Yeah yeah, suck it revisionist Gator partisans.
** - For reference purposes for the curious, here is a table of every team Georgia has ever played, listed by number of times the match has been contested:
| Team | Total |
| Auburn | 115 |
| Ga. Tech | 103 |
| Florida | 90* |
| Vanderbilt | 72 |
| Alabama | 65 |
| Kentucky | 65 |
| South Carolina | 64 |
| Clemson | 62 |
| Ole Miss | 43 |
| Tennessee | 41 |
| North Carolina | 30 |
| LSU | 29 |
| Tulane | 25 |
| Furman | 23 |
| Mississippi State | 23 |
| Mercer | 22 |
| Virginia | 19 |
| Arkansas | 13 |
| Sewannee | 13 |
| Miami (FL) | 12 |
| Florida State | 11 |
| Yale | 11 |
| Citadel | 10 |
| Chattanooga | 9 |
| NC State | 8 |
| Oglethorpe | 8 |
| Dahlonega | 6 |
| Maryland | 6 |
| NYU | 6 |
| Davidson | 5 |
| Southern Miss. | 5 |
| Texas A&M | 5 |
| Baylor | 4 |
| Boston College | 4 |
| Ga. Southern | 4 |
| Houston | 4 |
| Oklahoma State | 4 |
| Pitt | 4 |
| Savannah A.C. | 4 |
| Temple | 4 |
| Texas | 4 |
| VMI | 4 |
| Centre College | 3 |
| Holy Cross (MA) | 3 |
| La-Monroe | 3 |
| Michigan State | 3 |
| New Mexico St. | 3 |
| Oregon State | 3 |
| Presbyterian | 3 |
| Richmond | 3 |
| Southern Cal | 3 |
| TCU | 3 |
| Texas Tech | 3 |
| Va. Tech | 3 |
| Wake Forest | 3 |
| Wofford | 3 |
| Ala. Presbyterian | 2 |
| Arizona State | 2 |
| Arkansas State | 2 |
| Augusta A.C. | 2 |
| Boise State | 2 |
| Cal | 2 |
| Cal State-Fullerton | 2 |
| Central Florida | 2 |
| Cincinnati | 2 |
| Colorado | 2 |
| Columbia | 2 |
| Daniel Field | 2 |
| Dartmouth | 2 |
| Memphis | 2 |
| Michigan | 2 |
| Navy | 2 |
| Newberry | 2 |
| Purdue | 2 |
| Tennessee Tech | 2 |
| Tulsa | 2 |
| UAB | 2 |
| UCLA | 2 |
| Western Carolina | 2 |
| Wisconsin | 2 |
| Arizona | 1 |
| Atlanta A.C. | 1 |
| BYU | 1 |
| Central Michigan | 1 |
| Chicago | 1 |
| Cumberland | 1 |
| Duke | 1 |
| Duquesne | 1 |
| East Carolina | 1 |
| Fordham | 1 |
| Geo. Washington | 1 |
| Gordon | 1 |
| Hardin-Simmons | 1 |
| Harvard | 1 |
| Hawai'i | 1 |
| Howard | 1 |
| Idaho State | 1 |
| Jax NAS | 1 |
| Kent State | 1 |
| La-Lafayette | 1 |
| Locust Grove | 1 |
| Marshall | 1 |
| Miami (OH) | 1 |
| Middle Tenn. St. | 1 |
| Missouri | 1 |
| Murray State | 1 |
| Nebraska | 1 |
| Northwestern St. (LA) | 1 |
| Notre Dame | 1 |
| Ohio State | 1 |
| Oregon | 1 |
| Penn | 1 |
| Penn State | 1 |
| Rice | 1 |
| SMU | 1 |
| St. Mary's | 1 |
| Stanford | 1 |
| Stetson | 1 |
| Syracuse | 1 |
| Troy | 1 |
| Utah State | 1 |
| Villanova | 1 |
| West Virginia | 1 |
| Western Kentucky | 1 |
| William and Mary | 1 |
| Wyoming | 1 |
7 recs | 158 comments
the easiest way
would be to stop being greedy (or scared) and play 9 games like everybody else will eventually do. Barring that, I think its easier to keep divisions, but just have the divisional alignment change every two years. Yes, its stupid. But its the no fuss answer. With the above, you could still have situations where 2 teams who haven’t played are tied for a spot in the seccg. But for all our big talk about this league being tough, we’re actually too scared to play the teams in it. End of rant.
Mark Mandingo - February 16, 2012 via mobile
I think we go to 9 games
but not until we get ESPN and CBS to pay us more to get there.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
9 games is a simple solution
I read the article, and the thread below. Now, I’m not an SEC fan, but it seems like the SEC should move to 9 games to clear this mess up. 14 teams and only 8 games — well it just means that some SEC teams are going to be relative strangers to others. It might cost the SEC an edge into the national championship game, but it looks like we’re all headed to a 4-team playoff, which would blunt the pain of that. I’m a Cal fan, and it seems that Pac-12 fans are just fine with 9 games. Time the 9-game transisition with a negotiation in a TV contract, and it’ll be worth it. There’s just too much mental gynmastics trying to shoehorn all your secondary rivalries into an 8-game schedule.
ginfizzbear - February 19, 2012
Only issue
is that if I’m not mistaken, NCAA bylaws require a conference to play in divisions (and play a round-robin w/in the division) to hold a championship game. I suppose the SEC could ask for a waiver to ignore either requirement — the MAC got one to prevent the 7 teams in its 7-team division from playing round-robin when it had 13 teams — but I doubt they’ll get one on the divisional-split stipulation, since it might open the door to every league in the country playing a title game whether they’ve got divisions, 12 teams, whatever.
I’d like to see them ask for one on the round-robin requirement—keep one permanent cross-division rival, rotate two cross-division opponents, and have one of a pool of like three intra-division opponents rotate off the schedule each year. It’s not like you guys would mind missing Missouri or Kentucky occasionally, right? (Or, on my end, one of the Mississippi school or A&M or Arkansas.)
In any case: I agree 100 percent (as does every Auburn fan I know) that whatever the solution, one has to be found, no debate, no questions asked.
JCCW Jerry - February 16, 2012
I'd almost guarantee the SEC could get a waiver
the NCAA is already looking to scale back arbitrary and useless rules, of which this would be amongst. And if the SEC wanted to play hardball, we make the money they take a cut from. And if we wanted to, we could always secede to reestablish our true southernness (after adding those border folk from Mizoura). We could bring the ACC and Big 12 with us, get our own TV deals, and wait on the Pac 12 to join us. We can blackball the Big 10 until they learn to count and quit being uppity Yankees.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Good luck with that as long as Sam the Eagle is running the B1G
AuditDawg - February 16, 2012
You say that as though I want them involved
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Thanks, vineyarddawg.
I would only add that the SEC has eliminated divisional play in men’s basketball, so such a move would not be entirely unprecedented. Since the loophole Roy Kramer utilized to create the SEC Championship Game in football initially was a rule implemented to apply to basketball, I would think this would require only very minor maneuvering to accomplish.
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
Yea, they act like this division thing is some 11th commandent, but their are (were) other conferences without divisions.
And they allowed this mess to happen, so changes require adjustments.
Can we run Mike Slive out ala Kiffen style? Burn his T Shirt? I need some of that.
tankertoad - February 16, 2012
Just as an aside, it's Mizzou, not Missou.
Unless you were being sarcastic and trolling, then, by all means, proceed.
Bryan Ashlock - February 16, 2012
My mistake, Bryan.
I’ll make that change immediately. No aspersions were meant to be cast against the Tigers from the Midwest.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Thanks, Bryan.
For the record, that’s the first time a conference rival has ever accused us of using overly accurate spelling in a shorthand reference! :)
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
All part of getting to know our new conference brethren.
This whole thing is going to be weird. I don’t like this sticking with the 8 game schedule. Mostly because I’d hate for Mizzou to be the cause of the ending UGA-Auburn and other inter-division rivalries.
We’ve lost our biggest rival because of the move to the SEC and it would be a shame for it to happen to other schools.
Bryan Ashlock - February 16, 2012 via iPhone app
Praise Welsh Jesus
Another Spurs fan! You have no idea what it’s like man… I’m surrounded by Liverpudlians.
And this, Dawgsports, has been your daily EPL thread derailment. You’re welcome Kyle.
RedCrake - February 16, 2012 via mobile
Did you just call Jesus Christ
a candy-reared flopper?
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Call him what you will...
… but he sure does own some good soccer players.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Pato after yesterday's humiliation of Arsenal?
But the kit colors, much much better out of you. We may make you a proper fan yet.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
That's Kaka.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Flagged
vine’s using dirty language again.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Jesus saves
but throws outlet pass to Weezus who tears down the left wing and scores.
olorcain - February 16, 2012
Flopping? Perhaps.
But for better or worse (definitely worse) its part of the game. Unlike, say, kicking a guy in the gut midair like ya boy Suarez. :-)
RedCrake - February 16, 2012 via mobile
Now that I'm looking at it in detail, my one criticism would be this:
Auburn’s three biggest rivals are (in order) Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. (Well, actually, they’re Alabama, Georgia, and Georgia Tech, but the Yellow Jackets are out of our league, literally and metaphorically.)
Would it upset your arrangement if Auburn substituted Florida in place of Missouri, Florida substituted Auburn in place of South Carolina, South Carolina substituted Missouri in place of Florida, and Missouri substituted South Carolina in place of Auburn? It would renew an historic rivalry (Auburn-Florida) and ensure an annual Missouri-South Carolina battle alternating between Columbia and Columbia. It wouldn’t be as good as an annual Clemson-LSU game alternating between the Tigers hosting in Death Valley and the Tigers hosting in Death Valley, but you can’t have everything.
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
I actually had it arranged that way to begin with, in fact.
But I could imagine the howling from Gamecock fans that we “screwed them again” by giving them Mizzou as an annual rival at the expense of closer, more regional teams. Missouri isn’t very close to Auburn, either, but it’s at least closer, and the Auburn-Florida rivalry has already been sacrificed in the name of “progress.” And under the new scheme, they could possibly play twice every 4 years instead of twice every 6 years, as they have been doing.
I could go with it either way, though. I wouldn’t mind if Florida went back to playing the Tiglesmen the week before the game in Jacksonville, for that matter.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Auburn/Mizzou/Florida/LSU
Instead of this:
Auburn/Mizzou
Florida/LSU
I like this better:
Auburn/Florida
LSU/Mizzou
Sure, it ruins LSU/UF, but it gets AU/UF back and gives Mizzou a third permanent rival that’s further west.
OrangeBritches - February 16, 2012
Man, everyone wants a date with Auburn.
I guess there are some benefits to being universally despised in the conference.
Spears - February 16, 2012
Well, they are Clemson without a Lake
/edsbsmeme
//butwithoutthelake,wouldthatmakethemadry****?
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
If we had the choice of LSU or Auburn
as our yearly rival, I would want Auburn, but best case for this Florida fan would be to boot South Carolina from our list, and just substitute Auburn in.
Cardsfan25 - February 28, 2012
GT
My brother and I were talking about Tech’s historic rivalries just the other night. The Jackets’ change in conferences (departing the SEC for independence then joining the ACC) and SEC expansion cost Tech all but one of their historic rivals. They have a more significant history with Tennessee than do we. We have a more significant history with Clemson than do they. But here we are.
NCT - February 16, 2012
Cause history is for suckers!
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
When I did this months ago
the hard decisions were who to cut from Tennessee and LSU. Both have multiple solid rivalries going right now (yes, ignoring the historical argument, I’m focused on the post-merger era since 92)…
Tennessee with Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Vandy, Alabama, and SC (arguably the Gamecocks second biggest in-conference foe)
And then LSU, has a natural set up with new member Texas A&M, plus it’s current battle with Bama, and border rivalries with Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Miss St. And then there’s the Battle of Corntigers against Auburn.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Auburn actually should be on there too
the addition of SC and AR killed that
goldballs - February 16, 2012
with three, it's easy enough for Tennessee
we’ve played Vandy, Kentucky, and Alabama about 90 times each and nobody else anywhere near that much. But if you went to four, there are a host of other games with historical (Auburn, Ole Miss) or recent (Georgia, Florida) significance to choose between
Incipient_Senescence - February 16, 2012
Great work, vineyarddawg
I think, perhaps, that my identity as a fan of the Georgia Bulldogs includes the sense that the Georgia Bulldogs’ identity as a rival of Tech and Auburn is more significant than the Georgia Bulldogs’ identity as a member of the Southeastern Conference. That is not to mean that I wish to leave the Conference. It is meant to express the importance of maintaining those rivalries.
ESPN and the Internet have changed what once was a regional sport with an entertaining national component into a national sport with cute regional features. Ironically, the superficially regional “S-E-C” chant by which the rest of the country knows us is a symptom of this change and not a reaffirmation of the regional nature: we don’t shout “S-E-C” to each other but to everybody else.
Regional sport: for a school like Georgia, which was on the eastern edge of the SEC when it was formed, our rivals were not defined by the Conference but by geography. It simply worked out that our geographic rivals include several conference members. As your numbers show, our most-played contests are against rivals defined by geography rather than conference membership: Auburn, Tech, Florida, Vandy, Bama, South Carolina, Clemson. South Carolina is among this handful for reasons that have almost nothing to do with its 20-year membership in the SEC (and appears higher on the list than Clemson only because of its 20-year membership in the SEC). Although it’s mere speculation, I respectfully submit that for the first 100 years of Georgia football, we would have had deeply entrenched histories with Auburn and Tech and Clemson and South Carolina and Florida even if the concept of “conference” did not exist and even if all of those schools were in different conferences.
I’m very, very pleased that my school is a member of the Southeastern Conference. It is in no way obvious to me, however, that the interests of the SEC are so important relative to everything else that the other traditions of my school (and it is, after all, to UGA and not the SEC that I am tied by blood, books, and bourbon (and I just may have discovered my book title)), should be subordinate.
NCT - February 16, 2012
That book would be a bestseller on title alone
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
and for the record
2 meetings with the Boilermakers were enough for me. I never want to tangle with them again.
Mark Mandingo - February 16, 2012 via mobile
But what about that time Drew Brees got the MVP from that bowl game?
Man, he played awesome that day. Who won that game, anyway?
/done poking Kyle with a stick
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Problem with the MSU rivalries
Two biggest games of the year are Ole Miss and Alabama… for the third one, the most exciting is usually Auburn or Arkansas. I would prefer TAMU if Auburn is not available. We have been playing Bama forever and are only an hour or so apart. Cannot kill that rivalry just like GA, Auburn.
Frankly, just to make it easy, put Mizzou in West, move Auburn to East and have them play Bama as a standing rivalry.
MSUjeff - February 16, 2012
But then whither Bama-Tennessee?
NCT - February 16, 2012
Exactly, the whole reason Missou went East in the first place
of course, when we expand to 16, it all goes to pot again, and we’re back reshuffling.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
The identity of each school's 3 protected rivalries can, of course, be changed.
I don’t know if either LSU or Bama would want to give up their rivalry, however, which also extends back to 1893.
I actually noticed that I was severing the MSU/Bama rivalry, but the only way to really remedy that situation would be to create 4 “permanent rivals” for each team. The benefit would be to salvage the MSU/Bama rivalry and the Auburn/Florida rivalry, but it would mean rotating the remaining 9 conference teams in a 4-game schedule for each school, which would create an odd rotation schedule.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
yeah its tough
to kill an important game for someone in the process of trying to set things up to save your own important games. The only thing I guess I would ask is this. Would Bama consider it one of their top 3 games. If not, I would say it falls down on the list of protection. But if both teams have it in their top 3 (in the fans mind anyway) then it should be protected.
Mark Mandingo - February 16, 2012 via mobile
Under this logic
South Carolina would have no rivals.
Jman781 - February 17, 2012 via mobile
no sec rivals worth protecting
That’s what happens when you hang out with the ACC for so long.
Mark Mandingo - February 17, 2012
Thanks, But Let's Be Real
Not so sure I want to give up the annual UT slugfest, but this is certainly a noble and thoughtful (and info packed) effort. Unfortunately, with respect, ain’t gonna happen.
Based on reports, there are apparently only 3 real options under consideration: (1) 8 game SEC schedule with no permanent cross-division rivals; (2) 8 game SEC schedule with 1 permanent cross-division rival, play all others less than once a decade; (3) 9 game SEC schedule with 1 permanent cross division rival, play all others within 6 year period. I hope and trust all self-respecting Dawg (and Tiger, Tide, Vol, Gator and Bengal) fans find (1) to be utterly unacceptable. (2) should at least be unpalatable—teams in the “Southeastern Conference” should give priority to playing teams in the “Southeastern Conference” over teams in the MAC or Conference USA. Option (3) keeps the rivalries, permits us to play all other opponents at least once (and many twice) in the same decade, still allows for Tech, one other occasional tough OOC foe and a cupcake.
The argument against (3) seems to be: “but then we have only 1 cupcake!” The person taking such a position must believe it’s more important for the Georgia Bulldogs to play 2 cupcakes every year than to (1) keep its permanent cross division rival; (2) play Tech; and/or (3) meet all other non-division conference foes more than once a decade (on average). This is a position with which I, for one, will never be in agreement, so option (3) seems much the best.
Let me arrive at the point: it’s all well and good to propose better, fairer, saner arrangements—down the road, one hopes they’ll be taken up by the powers that be. But FOR NOW, if you think either (2) or (3) are superior to (1), then I urge you to contact the offices of Mr. McGarity and/or Mr. Slive and let your voice be heard. It may be naive to believe fan sentiment is taken into account, but silence has its own loud voice.
Chickasaw - February 16, 2012
To get historical on the "annual UT slugfest"
playing them 2 out of every 4 years is a whole lot more regular than the rivalry was more than 20 years ago.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Yeah...
Well, they wear orange, they whine worse than the barners, we’ve had some of our greatest games against them (my God! A freshman!; …with a hobnail boot!), they’re great to make fun of, and I gotta admit they have a helluva venue for football (tho in the midst of a grotesque campus). Plus I have an annual bourbon bet with a friendly Hillbillly and I see years of free Maker’s in my future; you can’t rightly expect me to give that up!
Chickasaw - February 16, 2012
"[W]e've had some of our greatest games against them."
Actually, we’ve had three of our greatest games against them, and you named two of them. (1973 was the third.) In fact, it has been remarkable how few competitive games the series has produced.
We play Florida, Auburn, and Georgia Tech every year because they’re rivals. Tennessee is the opposite; the Volunteers are our rivals because, and only because, we play them every year. If we quit playing the Big Orange annually, no one would miss them within a decade, probably less.
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
In fact, a perfect example of this argument...
… is Ole Miss.
If not for The Grove, I doubt any Georgia fans would truly miss our mini-rivalry with the University of Mississippi (which only spanned 36 years, from 1966-2002).
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
likewise
we’ve had some great moments against y’all (that 4th quarter in Athens in 2006 is one of the greatest quarters ever), and if we didn’t play every year, we probably wouldn’t care
Incipient_Senescence - February 16, 2012
Well, unfortunately,
If we quit playing Florida, Auburn, and Georgia Tech annually, it wouldn’t take much longer than a decade for anyone but us old farts to miss them. The student body is, for the most part, the womb of rivalry passion. (Personally, I like the aptness of where this analogy is going, but it might be distractingly icky or politically charged, so let me back up a bit.)
The student experience is the fiery furnace from which the passions of tradition are forged. Cut off the supply of this or that metal for just a few years, and the traditions are gone. You and I are cast already. We are powerless to impose our rivalries on the next generation, except in isolated efforts, if the smiths aren’t keeping things fresh where it begins. [And here’s where I wish I could figure out a way to incorporate the sentence, “I am the son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar”, but it’s just not working out.]
NCT - February 16, 2012
Don't worry; you're doing fine work today.
So, like, writing a book containing a game-by-game account of a storied Georgia rivalry that no longer is played frequently wouldn’t help? Damn! Now you tell me!
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
Since when...
does a game have to be close to be great? Hell, I savored every frickin’ second of the UT beat down in ‘81 & the drubbing administered in 2003. And don’t tell me you haven’t gleefully relived every blow administered to, say, UF in ’97 and ’07, or against AU in ’07 or this year, notwithstanding the distance between our scores. But even if we define the thing by its closeness and grittiness, I would have to add the ’68 and ’88 UT games (the latter in real doubt until we ate up yards and clock in the 4th), and a lotta people were so taken with the win in ’00 they tore down the damn goalposts! Nor, I point out, good sir, did you refute my other reasons for enjoying an annual opportunity to bitchslap the ’billies.
Still, I’ll concede that I could give up the annual UT thing much sooner than UF, AU or GT, and maybe ever Sakerliny, or the opportunity to face everybody else at least @ 1.5 times a decade. I’d just have to make my annual bourbon bet with some poor sucker from the Plains, I reckon, and one thing about the ’billies is they know their liqour.
Chickasaw - February 16, 2012
Good post and fresh take vineyarddawg. I'll pick one fight with you though -
You convinced me with your numbers GT is in fact a very long, traditional rival. And I like history and tradition where we can have it in our schools and sports. I like to maintain them. However, GT, in my lifetime, simply hasnt been a modern rival in a competitive sense, only someone we have played a long time and someone the old boys think we are supposed to play. We do them much more of a service than they do us in this game in terms of fame, fortune and good old cash. That game means very much less to very many more people now. I don’t enjoy it, I don’t care about them, it brings little reward and GT is continually showing they are not dedicated to getting a full on football program. I can’t argue the history, but we also used to play Mercer historically, and I wouldnt want to play them either.
tankertoad - February 16, 2012
On that point re: Mercer...
… I didn’t have a logical place in my article in which to insert this little factoid, but from 1892 until they disbanded their football program (the first time) in 1941, we played Mercer, on average, about once every other year (22 times in 49 years).
So, you see, there is historical precedent for continuing to play an in-state rival that is clearly inferior to us. :-)
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
"fresh take"?
Hangs head in shame. I get no respect, no respect at all I tell ya. No regarads neither.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
You got a whole blog full of fresh takes!
tankertoad - February 16, 2012
for some reason, I don’t think that’s a compliment. I’ll take it though.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
"If this is anyone other than Steve Allen, YOU'RE STEALING MY BIT!"
Thief! Damn Evertonian trying to sully the good, grand ideas of us rightful Reds.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
What can I say?
When communists say it, it’s a bad idea. When capitalists say it, it’s a good idea.
/History’d
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
dang, vineyarddawg stole all your stuff. He and his silly historical habersham.
tankertoad - February 16, 2012
AND
he did a worse job of it than I did.
/notreally,hisisbetter
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Had no idea that UGA played my alma mater
George Washington, back when we used to have a football team. Didn’t expect to see that name on the list.
elfcrash - February 16, 2012
Way back in 1951, in Athens.
As one might expect, Georgia cruised to an easy 33-0 victory.
Your alma mater’s sacrifice is noted and appreciated. :-)
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Apparently we sacrificed early
and sacrificed often back then, which is probably why we no longer have a team, unfortunately. The good news: we were 1-0 against Auburn. I’ll take that to the bank.
elfcrash - February 16, 2012
I love this idea.
We have a long history with both Arkansas (68 games) and LSU (50 games) so I’d like to see Texas A&M play them both. But otherwise, I think this is brilliant.
1st Generation Ag - February 16, 2012
Brilliant article.
To state a much less eloquent version NCT’s comment, at a time when ESPN and CBS are so busy turning the SEC from a conference into a brand, it’s nice to see a proposal that makes sense to those of us who have no skin in the game other than to see our traditions upheld. After all, it’s those traditions that have lined the wallets of so many through these billion-dollar deals.
I hope this post makes the rounds of the internet and picks up some serious steam. It certainly deserves it.
Ludakit - February 16, 2012
Excellent post.
I like everything except having South Carolina as one of our permanent rivals instead of Tennessee. I know they’ve only been a rival for a short period, but as I’ve explained on here before, I grew up in North Georgia where everyone’s split about 50/50 for UGA/UT. No amount of statistics will convince me that it’s not a big rivalry; it’s too deeply ingrained.
(BTW, have you finished your ST: Voyager re-watch yet? When you’re done, I’d be interested in hearing any thoughts you have on how well it holds up, whether the bad rep is justified, etc.)
MidnightFrost1701 - February 16, 2012
True
Plus I have waaaay too many creamsicle and butter jokes to ever accept that rivalry going away.
RedCrake - February 16, 2012 via mobile
I miss Phil Fulmer because of all the Great Pumpkin jokes.
Spears - February 16, 2012
See Kyle
UT > Clem
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
You had all the fools in town on your side, and that gives you a majority in any town.
/MarkTwain’d
(Mark Twain was from an SEC state, y’know.)
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
Did you just call Midnight a fool?
/Rangers’d
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Normally I'd be upset.
But when it’s a Twain quote, it’s forgiven. The entertainment value far exceeds the slight.
UT vs Clemson? Meh. Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.
/OscarWilde’d
MidnightFrost1701 - February 16, 2012
We don't have to play a team every year to still have a heated rivalry.
See: Tigers, Clemson
And we still would be able to play the Vawls 2 years out of every 4, so it’s not like Knox-vegas would become unknown to us or anything.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Ask any fan under 35
the ones from Hartwell might, MIGHT consider them a rival, but very very few others would consider Clemson a rival.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Show me a Georgia fan who doesn't consider Clemson a rival, . . .
. . . and I’ll show you a Georgia fan who doesn’t know enough about his own history to be taken seriously as a fan.
The argument that the last 20 years have made Tennessee a more significant rival than Clemson is a legitimate one, even though I believe it to be wrong. The argument that Clemson is not a rival is, quite frankly, ignorant at best, and stupid at worst.
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
Clemson WAS a rival
whether they still are is a legitimate question.
Mr. Sanchez - February 16, 2012
Right on, man.
England was a rival. Mexico was a rival. Now we’re all pals. I’m all for re-instating the rivalry with Clemson given the history, but right now we ain’t rivals.
Spears - February 16, 2012
This comment makes me sad.
Now, not only do I want to revive the rivalry with Clemson, I want to declare war on Great Britain, too.
They’re cookies, you limey bastards! Biscuits are something completely different!
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
What would you get
if you asked for biscuits and gravy in Britain?
Cherokee's Grip - February 17, 2012
Uh . . .
. . . sick at my stomach, maybe?
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
When setting up the permanent rivalry system, the other teams' interests would have to come into play too
There is no doubt that we’re SCAR’s biggest SEC rival. It would be an injustice to them to deny them their biggest SEC game because we are split over who’s our #3 SEC rival. This proposed system would need quite a bit of support (unanimous?) if it were to ever come up and be adopted; it would be just poor negotiating tactics to try and deny the Gamecocks their biggest SEC game.
The984 - February 16, 2012
But SCAR doesn't really need us...
They have SOS and an elusive 10 win season. We have the weakest schedule in the history of college football. We need them a lot more than they need us… It’s a Fact!!!!
RedCrake - February 16, 2012 via mobile
Oh snap!
But if we don’t line up as one of their permanent rivals under this system, all we would hear is them crowing about how we’re avoiding them and blah blah blah.
The984 - February 16, 2012
The "you didnt play us" meme has worn me out. Win 14 games, the rest dont matter. Unless your Bama or LSU, then you can get buy with a few.
tankertoad - February 16, 2012
You avoid everyone, we all saw what happened when you played good teams last year…you lost. You can win all your games but youll lose any title game you are ever in when you never get tested.
Delbi - February 17, 2012 via iPhone app
Let's compare titles, shall we?
How many does South Carolina have? If you are going to join only one blog on SBnation, and do it just to troll, you won’t last long.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
When we beat SC this year, it will still be the same - we didnt play anyone.
tankertoad - February 17, 2012
lolwut
Mark Mandingo - February 17, 2012
So it's your position that Georgia hasn't played anyone in the last 12 years
You know, the time frame where we won the division 5 times and the conference twice? But SCAR only plays the hard teams and that’s why last year was your first ever division title?
Your team has two 10+ win seasons in its history. Mark Richt has 8 alone. You’ll forgive us if we don’t see those two things as being on the same level… But I’m probably overlooking the fact that all 8 of those 10+ win seasons were the result of us avoiding the tough competition.
RedCrake - February 17, 2012 via mobile
So i guess that out of the 64 times we have played South Carolina
the Gamecocks were NOBODY and UNABLE to TEST the University of Georgia 46 of those times…hmmm just proves the point that South Carolina is nobody…Troll Away Troll
Dawg2011 - February 18, 2012
Yeah, we have to be paired up with South Castlevania.
It’s kind of like pairing LSU up with Ole Miss instead of Texas A&M. LSU fans could care less, and would probably prefer the latter… it’s the Ole Miss fans that would be howling. Same thing for Gamecock fans.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Precisely.
Well said.
T Kyle King - February 16, 2012
While I get your position. And it's true that USC values the series more than Georgia does....
This is really the root of the problem. It’s about what is good for the whole conference and what the other teams want. It’s hard to suggest just moving Auburn and Alabama to the East. Because while that completely solves the issue of the rivalries between Georgia and Auburn and Alabama and Tennessee without interrupting the Iron Bowl, it introduces new problems with LSU/Bama or Bama/Miss State, or Auburn/LSU.
I really appreciate Mr. Sanchez’s effort previously to do a mock draft for permanent rivals considering against whom each team would most like to compete. The results were pretty similar to Vineyarddawg’s results above. It’s just a tough one. I would be interested in seeing a draft done by more teams. Maybe some of the guys could get together at TSK. It would be entertaining to see who everyone ended up with as an opponent.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
Yes to your other question re: Voyager.
I guess everyone’s personal preference is… well, is their own personal preference. After I finished my Voyager marathon, I started back watching DS9. I normally start watching DS9 in season 4 (well, technically the cliffhanger from the end of Season 3, but you get the idea), but I started from Season 1 this time just to recalibrate myself, so to speak.
And I have to say that it speaks volumes to me, personally, that I found Seasons 1 and 2 (which I’m now in the middle of) entirely watchable and enjoyable after finishing my run in Voyager. I thought Voyager was ok when I was watching it, but compared to DS9… well, there’s no comparison to me. I would put the best seasons of Voyager on par with the first two seasons of DS9… which I would say were the worst seasons of DS9.
it depends on how bad Voyager‘s rep is as to whether or not it’s justified, I guess. I would say it’s on par with the first two seasons of DS9 and the entire series is really kind of on par with TNG, except for all of the episodes when Picard is just OMG TEH AWESUMZ like “Best of Both Worlds,” “Sarek,” “The Inner Light,” “Gambit,” and so on.
vineyarddawg - February 16, 2012
Haven't watched DS9 S1-3 in quite a while.
I don’t remember being terribly impressed, I guess because it just didn’t stand out enough from the other shows. But maybe when I get bored I’ll return to it.
Overall Voyager is by far the inferior show to TNG or DS9, but it has its high points. Mostly revolving around Janeway (S4 onwards), Seven, and The Doctor. If they’d put the same effort into the other characters that they did those three, I think it could have held its own.
MidnightFrost1701 - February 16, 2012
Fair and balanced view.
tankertoad - February 17, 2012
Fox News ain't got nothin' on me.
I have a bigger soft spot for Voyager than most Trekkies, due in no small part to its better treatment of female characters compared to the other Treks. But I try not to let that blind me to the show’s many faults.
MidnightFrost1701 - February 17, 2012
We must have been in school around the same time.
Intellectually, I know I should hate other rivals more, but we suffered more heart-breaking losses to Tennessee during my time as a fan… (Yeah, I’m including Florida because my fandom did not begin in earnest until “we always lose to Florida” was a thing.)
Spears - February 17, 2012
Lets just go back
Dawg2011 - February 16, 2012
Why not just
move Auburn to the East? Was this ever considered by Slive et al?
Good work, vine.
DavetheDawg - February 16, 2012
because Tennessee/Alabama is just as non-negotiable as Georgia/Auburn
Incipient_Senescence - February 16, 2012
Got it...
here’s my suggestion:
New SEC East:
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Auburn
Tennessee
Kentucky
Vandy
Save the Whales!
DavetheDawg - February 16, 2012
poor South Carolina
but other than that, no complaints. except that it’s one hell of a tough division
Incipient_Senescence - February 16, 2012
Realistically,
Alabama and Auburn could move to the East, Vanderbilt and Mizzou could move to the West.
Many ‘Bama fans would decry the loss of our annual games against LSU (Sabanbowl/lately competitive), Ole Miss (Grove, girls, bourbon, tradishun), and Mississippi State (82 miles on Hwy 82!/They USED to be good/They think we’re rivals). I, however, think that the rivalries against UT and Auburn are to be protected at all costs.
Thus, the conference might look like this:
WEST
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Missouri
Texas A&M
Vanderbilt
EAST
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
As long as Tennessee and Vanderbilt are paired as permanent rivals, everything else regarding scheduling would shake out nicely.
animalcracker - February 17, 2012
Except
that bodes extremely well for LSU (easy schedule!) and turns the East in to an absolute meat grinder.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
No doubt, my proposed East looks much more competitive top-to-bottom,
given the current state of those teams. However, I think it would even out nicely. The program that stands to lose the most in this arrangement is Tennessee. I think they would be relegated to second-tier status.
animalcracker - February 17, 2012
I can't see it evening out
because who has the finances to compete like UGA, UF, and Bama? LSU, and probably A&M, but the rest don’t.
And South Carolina would pitch a hissy fit about how we’re keeping them down.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
On the other hand,
South Carolina would pitch a hissy fit about [insert anything here].
NCT - February 17, 2012
No us SC fans will throw a fit how you play no good teams other than us anymore. SC doesnt have the history of UGA but recent history has shown SC keeps putting UGA away when it counts, and has become a power in the East. Long gone are the days of SC being a joke, just ask Clemnson, Florida, UT, and UGA these past couple of years. And btw, we are showing no signs of slowing down. So live for your past and well live for the moment and the future. Goodluck when you come to Columbia this year youre gonna need it!
Delbi - February 17, 2012 via iPhone app
Please learn to spell
and yeah, we face the same SEC East foes, a better yearly ACC opponent, and a generally superior annual SEC West foe. But South Carolina is the only good team we play? Funny stuff Del.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
I think Clemson and Tech are actually pretty even.
I’m only offended by Vineyarddawg’s desire to kick us out. But as the last man in before 2011, it is certainly understandable.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
It's not a hate thing, honestly.
It’s just the fact that we’ve been playing the Gamecocks annually for 20 years, have played Clemson only 4 times (I think) during that span, and we only just recently passed the mark where we’ve played y’all more than we’ve played them.
I understand that most Gamecock fans consider Georgia their primary SEC rival, but with all due respect, Clemson is a more traditional rival for us than South Carolina.
(And Herschel should have won the Heisman in 1980, too. We gotta get some payback for that shit.)
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
That is true.
And I can’t find the year of the first contest between UGA and Clemson. But I would venture a guess that the first game between USC and UGA in 1894 predates the first tilt between Clemmy and UGA.
And with the fact stated now that USC has played UGA more often than Clemson has played UGA, our rivalry is now important historically and contemporaneously.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
It was 1897.
Clemson began its football program in 1896.
In the 20 years from 1897 to 1916, the only team Georgia played all 20 seasons was Clemson. Not Auburn, not Florida, not Georgia Tech . . . Clemson.
In those same 20 years, the only team Clemson played all 20 seasons was Georgia. Not Georgia Tech, not N.C. State, not South Carolina . . . Georgia.
Prior to the current break, Georgia and Clemson had never gone more than seven years without playing one another.
Georgia and Clemson have played a neutral site series (at Augusta) and a home-and-home series. Georgia and Clemson have opened the season against one another and closed the season against one another; they have met on Labor Day and on Thanksgiving Day.
Few series in college football history have had a run like the one between Georgia and Clemson from 1977 to 1987, in terms of the closeness of the contests, the evenness of the outcomes (5-5-1 during that stretch), and the importance of the games (for three straight seasons, the Georgia-Clemson winner played for the national championship in its bowl game).
No disrespect is intended to South Carolina; the Bulldogs’ rivalry with the Gamecocks is longstanding, closely-contested, and important, both in its non-conference and SEC East incarnations. Clemson, however, is one of Georgia’s four major historic rivals. I would think Gamecock fans, of all people, could understand and respect the statement: “The Georgia-South Carolina game is a big deal, but it’s not as important as our game against Clemson!”
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
In the musical spirit of Free Form Friday, Kyle must be a Jethro Tull fan
/hopingtoinstigateanother"getoffmylawn"rant
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
Georgia and Clemson traveling all the way to Augusta to play a neutral-site game?
That would be like Florida and Florida State going to Miami to play a neutral-site game. Kinda out of the way, ain’t it?
I would have lobbied for the game to be played in Fair Play, SC. You know… for the puns.
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
One time, we played in Anderson.
At the time, Augusta was the site of the annual Georgia-Carolina Fair, the highlight of which was the weekday football game between the Crackers (as the Bulldogs were then called) and the Tigers at the fairgrounds.
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
No, SC wants to think the rivalry is more important. Just because you care, doesn't mean we do.
tankertoad - February 17, 2012
It isn't that I expect you to care.
It’s the preference of Clemson over South Carolina that stings. We get that you care about playing Auburn. Actually, I am opposed to dropping both of the Auburn/UGA and Alabama/UT rivalries. I think rivalries such as those are what makes this conference so great.
And as the last team into the conference and as a team that has an extremely underwhelming history I understand that UGA or other SEC members may covet another school in USC’s place.
But Clemson? c’mon. At least suggest kicking out USC and bringing in Oklahoma or Texas. I mean Clemson? So you’re saying bring in another school from a neighboring state against whom you have a nearly identical series record?
skandrewj62j - February 21, 2012
Again, though, skandrewj62j, . . .
. . . it’s taken 20 years of Georgia and South Carolina playing every year, during a 20-year period during which Georgia and Clemson have taken their longest break in series history, for the Gamecocks to catch up to the Tigers in series record.
Moreover, that record has been compiled through a series of sporadic two-game winning streaks by the Gamecocks. It’s not to say the games haven’t mattered—-they have mattered a great deal: Georgia’s only loss in 1959 was to South Carolina; Georgia’s only regular-season loss in 1978 was to South Carolina; Georgia’s loss to South Carolina in 2007 certainly kept the Bulldogs out of the SEC Championship Game, and may well have kept the Bulldogs out of the BCS National Championship Game—-but there simply has never been a Georgia-South Carolina series heyday comparable to that enjoyed by Georgia and Clemson between 1977 and 1987.
That could change; indeed, recent series results, which have featured consistently close contests and a significantly larger percentage of South Carolina victories than has been the historical norm, strongly suggest that we may be entering such a period. We aren’t there yet, though, and, until we are, you’ll have to excuse us for our affinity for a rivalry that has history, geography, and national significance on its side.
Besides, Danny Ford said in the early 1980s that one reason the Georgia-Clemson rivalry was so intense was that the two fan bases had so much in common. Given South Carolina fans’ view of Georgia fans and Clemson fans alike, I would think that would be a sentiment the Gamecock faithful would share.
We wouldn’t insult y’all by suggesting that Oklahoma or Texas would be even remotely as meaningful a rival for Georgia as South Carolina is. We have no history at all with the Sooners, and only a limited history with the Longhorns (though the 1984 Cotton Bowl remains a fond memory). Historically, South Carolina is Georgia’s fifth-biggest rival, and the Gameocks rank that low only because the Bulldogs have more natural rivals than average. There are more than 110 Division I-A teams I would consider lesser Georgia rivals than South Carolina is, Alabama, LSU, and Tennessee among them.
Clemson just happens, historically, to be a bigger rival. That’s not an insult to South Carolina, it’s a compliment to Clemson. I consider Clemson a bigger rival than Georgia Tech, and, if you’d asked me in 1990, I’d have told you Clemson was a bigger rival than Florida. I apologize if that comes across as an insult to South Carolina, but, as is often the case when Gamecock fans interpret the things Bulldog fans say, no offense is intended, truly.
T Kyle King - February 21, 2012
What time is it in Texas?
(oblig.)
vineyarddawg - February 21, 2012
Thank you for the reply.
And I get that Clemson is a big deal for Georgia. But I guess for me, I would expect UGA to want a team that brings more to the table than Clemson. And I wasn’t talking about a history between UGA and Oklahoma and Texas, but rather the strength of their traditions. I see that I was wrong when I was thinking that Georgia would place that as more important than regional proximity and series history.
And while I get that our best winning streak stands at a whopping 2. Even during this time most recent time period where the Gamecocks are 4-7 from 2001-2011. Yeah, And that’s supposed to be good? While the contests during this time have all been close except for the 2003 USC loss at UGA 7-31 of course, I certainly understand how lopsided the series is in the favor of UGA.
But what I am saying is that we still have proximity, we have been playing longer, while our inclusion in the SEC might be the only thing that allowed us to catch and pass Clemson in times a series has been contested, the series stands that USC has played UGA more times AND MY MAIN POINT to a similarly lopsided result.
Perhaps in a perfect world you could ditch Florida and pick up Clemson in the SEC since Florida has done so much to close the gap in the series history. Surely UGA would favor not having to drive to Jacksonville, not losing to Florida, and not having to see those danged Jorts.
That last paragraph was meant mostly as a joke, so please don’t take me the wrong way.
Thanks.
skandrewj62j - February 21, 2012
Understood, skandrewj62j.
The bottom line is that history and tradition matter a great deal to us, which is why Oklahoma and Texas (who have fine traditions, just not with us) are meaningless from a potential rivalry standpoint.
Obviously, Clemson is nowhere near the powerhouse that it was in the 1980s, but that legacy remains a part of the tradition of the rivalry; Florida and Georgia Tech remain significant rivals, even though our dominance of the Gators and our struggles with the Yellow Jackets have been reversed (and, all trends being temporary, will be reversed again in the future). Clemson also has the virtue of proximity; traditionally, the Georgia and Clemson baseball teams play a two-game midweek home-and-home series on consecutive days, in Athens one night and at Clemson the next. With what other rival would that be feasible?
Again, none of it is meant to be a disparagement of South Carolina. To some extent, the Gamecocks have just been unlucky; the 1980 clash between Herschel Walker and George Rogers, for instance, likely would have been considered one of the all-time classic victories in Georgia history, but it happened to come in a season that featured all-time classic victories over Clemson, Florida, and Notre Dame. That is a credit to those other teams, not a rip on the Gamecocks.
T Kyle King - February 21, 2012
So...
What you’re essentially saying is that South Crackolina is pre-season National Champions. Thank you for that. I was beginning to think the meme had died.
DavetheDawg - February 17, 2012
I stand by lolwut
Mark Mandingo - February 17, 2012
Sorry, Mr. USC fan. Guess you're right and we're just wrong.
Fight on, brother!
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
Why wouldn't you want to continue playing USC?
The averages certainly suggest that we will return to mediocrity/terribleness eventually. Does Georgia not want to win football games?
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
#FireMikeBobo
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
No no no vine, you got it all wrong
Is andrew’s kindness showing. He’s advocating to #HireMikeBobo, as Spurrier’s replacement. Operation Manchurian Coach continues!
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
#MikeB4USC
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
I am all for that.
tankertoad - February 17, 2012
Now that has a catchy sound to it.
It just rolls off the tongue like, “Carlton Thomas up the middle,” or “First-and-bomb.”
Cherokee's Grip - February 17, 2012
It'll be interesting to see where South Carolina moves post-Spurrier
do they keep working the squeeze a little more juice before they get put out to pasture route of Holtz and SOS? Do they try to keep momentum going with a young, energetic coach on the rise? And of course, as we see with the Darrin Horn issues, just how much can South Carolina pay, and as the money wars keep rising, can they keep up financially?
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
I'm no Eric Hyman.
But I am starting to think they Shawn Elliott or Lorenzo Ward might be getting groomed to become a head coach. But, I am very curious to see what’s going to happen. I know that Spurrier will be gone sooner or later.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
Ward would need several more years before I'd think he has the necessary experience
Elliot would be similar, except he’s never even been a full fledged coordinator. It’s an interesting idea, but definitely going the cheap and inexperienced route. That route can certainly pan out, but it’s very risky as well.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
I think we have a few years to find out how Ward/Elliott perfom.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
/SRS note
I’m starting to think the other way, actually. I’m wondering if Spurrier is actually really liking it at South Carolina, since it’s not nearly the pressure-cooker, fire-his-ass-after-an-8-win-season that Gainesville was.
In spite of his reputation, I don’t think Spurrier really wants to sit around and play golf all day, every day. I think he likes coaching football. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him stick around in Columbia for a while yet.
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
I think you're right, but I think he'll be here 5 more years max.
He does enjoy it. It’s like playing Dynasty mode on EA Sports NCAA Football ’##.
Playing with some team that you don’t know very well and building them up. Every thing that’s good he does is a first. I think he enjoys that part. I know I would.
skandrewj62j - February 17, 2012
I agree, vineyarddawg.
Spurrier gives no indication of being ready to ride into the sunset.
I’m curious, skandrewj62j, whether Mark Dantonio is a serious contender to take the job when Spurrier eventually retires.
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
When South Carolina can sport more than a 2 year winning streak...come back
Dawg2011 - February 18, 2012
you could actually argue that Tennessee stands to gain the most
we already play Alabama every year, and we’d presumably continue playing Vandy every year. So the UT schedule stays pretty much the same as it always is, while everyone else’s gets harder.
Incipient_Senescence - February 19, 2012
Saw a similar post on TSK in the fall
Liked it then, Like it now. There’s only one problem with this setup and I think its going to make it a non starter.
The problem – Given the right set of circumstances three teams could finish the conference schedule undefeated. And then there is no fair way to pick two put of the three to play in the SEC championship game.
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
Same way the Big 12 decided their 3 way tie when Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech ended with similar records
and each a loss to the other. Use BCS rankings to keep the top teams alive, so that whichever wins can represent for a national title. It’d also potentially leave the 3rd left out as a candidate for opponent in the title game/4 team playoff.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
they all lost once though
in my book you lose the right to complain once you lose a game…so i’m ok with picking teams based on arbitrary rules but to deny an unbeaten team a championship spot on a technicality is unacceptable. If you go undefeated, you should get a spot in the sec championship game otherwise whats the point of having a conference?
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
The chances of 3 teams ending undefeated seems pretty slim at best
and again, you’d have 2 playing for the conference title, with a 3rd capable of redemption and a national title. If it ever came up.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
Heck, there's no need to go out of conference for an analogy, Mr. Sanchez.
We had to go to the last tiebreaker to choose an Eastern Division representative in 2003.
It happens. Not often, but it happens, and, when it does, you deal with it, and you move on from there.
No big deal.
T Kyle King - February 17, 2012
You flip a coin at some middle of nowhere diner late at night with radio coverage
/fridaynightlights
tankertoad - February 17, 2012
There's an easy solution
When there are three undefeated teams, and one of them is Auburn, Auburn doesn’t get to go. They’re used to it. (too soon?)
The984 - February 17, 2012
I was about to say
if this scenario actually plays out auburn’s likely to be the one getting shafted….again
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
So let it be written,
so let it be done!
animalcracker - February 17, 2012
Is that actually possible?
I will be the first to admit that I’m not good at maffs… but you have 14 teams, 3 of which go undefeated (and didn’t play each other, because they’re all undefeated).
That leaves 11 teams to spread around to an 8-game conference schedule between 3 teams. Is that actually something that could happen?
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
Its a low probability thing since you have three guaranteed rivals
and the historically strong teams have each other as rivals, but it is possible especially now that teams like Arkansas and SC are doing really well
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
But what are the chances of it?
You’d have not just the permanent rivals, but at least 5 of the other 10 teams. I could see two teams going undefeated after missing each other. But 3, that’s an unlucky draw right there. I’m not good enough at the maths to determine how those rotating teams would work to even say if that’s a possibility.
/Wastoldtherewouldbenomath
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
Too lazy to calculate right now
but trust me when I say its possible…in fact if you go back and look at the TSK post there is a scenario outlined where this could happen(again too lazy to do it myself :)
but you are right its a low probability scenario…three teams good enough to go undefeated and not playing each other would be pretty rare but the one year it does happen….
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
I agree, it's "possible"
but then so is having an undefeated team from every major conference, and we’ve never seen it. I think the chance is so remote it may as well be nothing, and that the only ones who would even be concerned about it are Auburn fans (understandably so after 2004). And that if at large berths in the upcoming national championship playoff were available, it wouldn’t be a bad thing since it’d guarantee that omitted team a spot in the playoffs.
Mr. Sanchez - February 17, 2012
I guess my point got lost there
What I wanted to say is that, this possibility makes it less likely that the powers that be will move away from the divisional setup …. as resistant to change as they are
AU Falcon - February 17, 2012
I hear what you're saying, AU Falcon.
I remember the TSK thread you’re referencing (I think i mentioned dropping divisions in that thread, too, if I recall correctly, so I’m not exactly reinventing the wheel, I guess).
I’m just not a math person, so I didn’t know if it was mathematically possible or not. Since it is, however, you’re right… there’s always the potential for that one weird year when the faeces hits the faen.
vineyarddawg - February 17, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawg Sports to post a comment.