Interesting - N. Carolina schedules Wake Forest in a NON-conference series

[WizardofhOgZ]

Wonder if we'll see some of this if the SEC stays at 8 conference games?

https://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12230742/acc-rivals-north-carolina-tar-heels-wake-forest-demon-deacons-agree-nonconference-series

I wouldn't think so, and I really hope not.  To me, it's a little unstable.  What if one or both of these teams was in the fight for a Conference title, yet their win (loss) to another ACC team does not factor in?  Just odd, IMO.

[bigdaddyhawg]

It's what Tenn-Bama should have done instead of making the entire SEC change what the rest wanted simply to keep Bama happy.

[Hawghiggs]

 That simply doesn't make any sense. How can you designate a game with a conference member as a non-conference game? If this is allowed then we need to cancel the Michigan series and just play Kentucky every year.

[go hogues]

.....instead of making the entire SEC change what the rest wanted simply to keep Bama happy.

Every decision the SEC makes begins and ends with this question. Better to come to terms with it than let it affect you too much.

[Hogwild]

It's what Tenn-Bama should have done instead of making the entire SEC change what the rest wanted simply to keep Bama happy.

Bama & Ole Miss play a OOC game one year, because of the Bama/Tenn series.  This was before the SEC expanded to 12 teams

[Hogarusa]

I would be all for a non conference game vs an East team

[passinghog]

Look to see more of this to boost attendance at non-conference games.

[ChicoHog]

If we could just go back to 10 and maybe even 12 team conferences this would not happen.  And play more conference games, not less.  Why even be in the same conference if you don't play each other but once every 7 years?  And they are only 100 miles or so apart?  Ridiculous.  All NC schools in the ACC should play each other consistently.  Wake, Duke, NC St and UNC. 

[bennyl08]

It's what Tenn-Bama should have done instead of making the entire SEC change what the rest wanted simply to keep Bama happy.

Every single problem with that goes away if you put vandy and Mizz in the west and the two alabama schools in the east. every major rivalry is maintained.

[snoblind]

Totally different situation than anyone in the SEC - those schools are about 45 minutes apart.  Why are they in a different division?

[Professor Psychosis]

If we could just go back to 10 and maybe even 12 team conferences this would not happen.  And play more conference games, not less.  Why even be in the same conference if you don't play each other but once every 7 years?  And they are only 100 miles or so apart?  Ridiculous.  All NC schools in the ACC should play each other consistently.  Wake, Duke, NC St and UNC. 

I'd be all for smaller conferences and more conference games across the board.

Since that's not likely to happen right now, what the ACC needs is to realign their divisions.

Division 1 can be Clemson, Duke, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech.  The Old ACC teams.

Division 2 can be Florida St, Miami, Va Tech, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville.  The New ACC teams.

Why they didn't do this is beyond me.  The old ACC has history.  The new ACC has more history with each other than the old ACC.

[Murr]

Mathematically speaking, if every school had 5 yearly rivals, in three years we could cycle through the rest of the SEC members in three years.  The two with the best SEC record goes to Atlanta.  I would like to play some of our eastern foes more often.

5 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 14

Yearly Rivals: Texas A&M, Mizzou, LSU, Ole Miss, Auburn

I'd be happy with that schedule.

[ZERO]

I really don't like that they can do this, honestly. How dumb.

[CFB_Fanatic]

Every single problem with that goes away if you put vandy and Mizz in the west and the two alabama schools in the east. every major rivalry is maintained.

Interesting. That is a good suggestion. Though I assume Bama/AU would pitch a fit and Vandy would gripe about only getting to play one of the two between Kentucky and Tenn since I think they consider both rivals. Still the best option out there. Having Mizz in the east was the most idiotic thing the SEC has done

[ChicoHog]

I'd be all for smaller conferences and more conference games across the board.

Since that's not likely to happen right now, what the ACC needs is to realign their divisions.

Division 1 can be Clemson, Duke, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Wake Forest, and Georgia Tech.  The Old ACC teams.

Division 2 can be Florida St, Miami, Va Tech, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville.  The New ACC teams.

Why they didn't do this is beyond me.  The old ACC has history.  The new ACC has more history with each other than the old ACC.

That's a great call.  When they originally did the Coastal and Atlantic divisions there 12 teams and of course Maryland was in there so the "new" vs the "old" did not come out even.  Now it does.  Makes a lot more sense then what they have now.  I'd say the only possible snafu is Va Tech and UVA in separate divisions but they can be each other's permanent rival I guess.  I think you should send your idea to the ACC office!

[Murr]

That's a great call.  When they originally did the Coastal and Atlantic divisions there 12 teams and of course Maryland was in there so the "new" vs the "old" did not come out even.  Now it does.  Makes a lot more sense then what they have now.  I'd say the only possible snafu is Va Tech and UVA in separate divisions but they can be each other's permanent rival I guess.  I think you should send your idea to the ACC office!

Or you call it what it was: ACC and Big East.

Rumor time: Supposedly the ACC Network is in the works and the ACC schools are disagreeing with how to best maximize the value of that channel.  Some supposedly want to keep the 8 CG schedule while others want to push for 9.  If you go with 9 CGs you are looking at having less than 7 home games some seasons, hence why UNC and WF scheduled each other OOC.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Every single problem with that goes away if you put vandy and Mizz in the west and the two alabama schools in the east. every major rivalry is maintained.

It's still a "change" that Bama didn't care for.  It would have taken traditional SEC foes OM, MSU, LSU off their annual schedule.

They are the perfect example of "want their cake and eat it too", and that's exactly what they got/get.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Every decision the SEC makes begins and ends with this question. Better to come to terms with it than let it affect you too much.

Coming to terms with it doesn't preclude a person's commentary on it.

[BearsBisonsBoars]

Every single problem with that goes away if you put vandy and Mizz in the west and the two alabama schools in the east. every major rivalry is maintained.

Agreed. I remember a lot of chatter about this when it was Oklahoma and A&M who were rumored to be joining us (before we knew about Mizzou)

It's nice to think about though. With Alabama and Auburn in another division, LSU would be our only consistent challenge for superiority in the west.  :razorback:

[bigdaddyhawg]

It's nice to think about though. With Alabama and Auburn in another division, LSU would be our only consistent challenge for superiority in the west.  :razorback:

You might want to include TAMU.  And OM.  And MSU.  And Mizzou.

They all finished above us last year.

[BearsBisonsBoars]

You might want to include TAMU.  And OM.  And MSU.  And Mizzou.

They all finished above us last year.

That was a little bit of intentional homerism. The  :razorback: was meant to be subtle homage to that. Maybe it was a little too subtle.

But on the other hand, the key word was consistently. I don't think Ole Miss, MSU and Mizzou are sustainable. Last year was one year. We traditionally do better than those programs. And I think a resurgent Texas hurts TAMU more than it hurts us. They're already stealing recruits if I read correctly. (Can't find the link or I'd post it)

[hogcard1964]

Just me spitballing and this may be shortsighted...But what would be wrong with the SEC not venturing outside of the SEC and playing only SEC opponents?

[bigdaddyhawg]

That was a little bit of intentional homerism. The  :razorback: was meant to be subtle homage to that. Maybe it was a little too subtle.

I wondered about that, but chose to interpret the other way, not knowing your post history.

But on the other hand, the key word was consistently. I don't think Ole Miss, MSU and Mizzou are sustainable. Last year was one year. We traditionally do better than those programs. And I think a resurgent Texas hurts TAMU more than it hurts us. They're already stealing recruits if I read correctly. (Can't find the link or I'd post it)

Don't know about that.  Past history is kind of irrelevant.  I think recent history, that is the history since their HC's have been there, indicates what we already knew: we are in a dogfight for our lives each and every year.

The variable that can always change these things is if a HC leaves and the instability that can come with replacing him.  Freeze was mentioned a little this last coaching search carousel.  So has been Mullen and Sumilin, but both of those guys expressed they weren't going anywhere.

And Pinkel seems to be a fixture in Columbia and has a good thing going there.

[BearsBisonsBoars]

Don't know about that.  Past history is kind of irrelevant.  I think recent history, that is the history since their HC's have been there, indicates what we already knew: we are in a dogfight for our lives each and every year.
[...]
And Pinkel seems to be a fixture in Columbia and has a good thing going there.

Very good points. We've all seen what underestimating Pinkel & Mizzou gets you. And we've seen how Spurrier has elevated USC, which was probably the weakest program in the conference behind Kentucky and Vandy before he took over.

I think we are intrinsically better than the three schools I mentioned - all other things being equal. But we are not better by such a margin that we can overcome a lack of stability and good coaching. However, I have faith that Bielema is providing both in sufficient measure as to allow our program to heal and grow.

[bigdaddyhawg]

Very good points. We've all seen what underestimating Pinkel & Mizzou gets you. And we've seen how Spurrier has elevated USC, which was probably the weakest program in the conference behind Kentucky and Vandy before he took over.

I think we are intrinsically better than the three schools I mentioned - all other things being equal. But we are not better by such a margin that we can overcome a lack of stability and good coaching. However, I have faith that Bielema is providing both in sufficient measure as to allow our program to heal and grow.

I hope we get to the point under CBB where we can look down on those schools.  I would love to see the Hogs fighting every year, at the top, for the SECWC.

[ChicoHog]

Very good points. We've all seen what underestimating Pinkel & Mizzou gets you. And we've seen how Spurrier has elevated USC, which was probably the weakest program in the conference behind Kentucky and Vandy before he took over.

I think we are intrinsically better than the three schools I mentioned - all other things being equal. But we are not better by such a margin that we can overcome a lack of stability and good coaching. However, I have faith that Bielema is providing both in sufficient measure as to allow our program to heal and grow.

Holtz had a few good years at SC before Spurrier but also had some struggles especially initially.  I don't think they are going to drop down as far as they were back in the early 90s but I doubt they stay at the 10+ win level they have achieved recently until this year. 

[NaturalStateReb]

Bama & Ole Miss play a OOC game one year, because of the Bama/Tenn series.  This was before the SEC expanded to 12 teams

Back before the mid-70s, all SEC games were by contract and the schedule wasn't regularized.  That's why you'll see some SEC teams with shorter series against other SEC teams, despite the fact that they've been conference mates since the 30s.  For instance, Johnny Vaught and Bear Bryant didn't schedule to play each other that often for obvious reasons.

Letting Tennessee and Bama play each other as a non-conference game might be a good work around.  I doubt they'd go for it, though.

[WizardofhOgZ]

Which is why I am among many who view ALL SEC "Championships" before the 80's as suspect.  Any system which not only allowed teams to "gerrymander" who they played or didn't play within the conference, but who also allowed teams to designate certain select non-conference opponents as "SEC games" at the same time is unstable. 

And that's the most charitable description I can give it. 

Back before the mid-70s, all SEC games were by contract and the schedule wasn't regularized.  That's why you'll see some SEC teams with shorter series against other SEC teams, despite the fact that they've been conference mates since the 30s.  For instance, Johnny Vaught and Bear Bryant didn't schedule to play each other that often for obvious reasons.

Letting Tennessee and Bama play each other as a non-conference game might be a good work around.  I doubt they'd go for it, though.