re: Will Alabama continue to fight against the 9 game schedule?

quote:

---

You’re sort of illustrating there’s 9 resource rich schools for 8 slots. In your solution you’ve got Texas playing 3 big schools per year instead of Bama. Don’t you think they’ll fight that for the same reason? You’re also giving aggy a built in advantage but it’s aggy so

---

You can create a much more balanced schedule by ignoring a "top" and "bottom" designation and just making sensible 3 team selections based on historical rivalries and geography.

The last 10 years results creates more problems due to Auburn and Tennessee both being in the bottom half. The top 10 teams over the last 10 years are Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, Florida, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Texas.

If you start in 2013 (when Mizzou and A&M joined) you get Bama, UGA, OU, LSU, A&M, Auburn, Ole Miss...and Mizzou (no Texas or UF).

If you start in 1992 (when Arkansas and SC joined the SEC) you get UGA, Bama, OU, Florida, LSU, Texas, AU and Tennessee (Big 6 plus Texas/OU).

If you start in 1933 (when the SEC was formed) you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.

If you start with the beginning of time... you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.

If you take the most recent conference champs, you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.

if you're dead set of making a top and bottom half... you should end up with the big 6 plus OU/Texas in the top.

quote:

---

Y’all are still discounting the networks get a say, and they want LSU-Alabama regardless of what the gumps on here cry about.

---

I don't think ESPN cares that much.

LSU vs Florida, OU, Texas or A&M are all just as valuable network wise as LSU/Bama. People just think of it as mattering as it's been important for figuring out the West since Saban went to Bama.

But that's just recency bias. The same thought makes people think Tennessee vs Florida matters when the reality is that it is a game with little history and it only mattered when Spurrier and Fulmer were the coaches.