No one is discussing an eight-game schedule with two protected rivalries because the math doesn't work cleanly unless every team has a designated counterpart that they just never play (which would be pretty funny). 2+6+6 = 14, meaning you'd need to start shifting the rotational opponents in the third year to account for the missing opponent.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Jake81

Member since Jul 2021

238 posts

Posted on 6/6/22 at 4:54 pm to TrumpedUpVol

quote:
No one is discussing an eight-game schedule with two protected rivalries because the math doesn't work cleanly unless every team has a designated counterpart that they just never play (which would be pretty funny). 2+6+6 = 14, meaning you'd need to start shifting the rotational opponents in the third year to account for the missing opponent.

YEs this is fine

2 + 6/13 is a fine option,

I don't think the coaches want to prepare for 6 new conference opponents every year anyway so whether is 3+6/12 or 2+6/13 I think you will see 3 of the "rotating" opponents repeated and 3 new ones each year

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Whentheleveebreaks

Member since Aug 2020

1938 posts

Posted on 6/6/22 at 5:03 pm to TrumpedUpVol

Yes

I get it, it would make scheduling harder and maybe they have concerns with tie breakers and determining who plays in champ game. However, it appears it would take care of the two most important aspects being brought up.

Keeping 2 permanent games which a few of the schools would like.

And 8 conference games which the majority of the schools would like.

0 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board