Started By
Message
3 permanent opponents
Posted on 9/22/25 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 9/22/25 at 1:17 pm
Looks like Tennessee won the permanent opponent sweepstakes
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, LSU
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina
LSU: Arkansas, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Alabama
Missouri: Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas
Ole Miss: Mississippi State, LSU, Oklahoma
South Carolina: Georgia, Florida, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma
Texas A&M: LSU, Missouri, Texas
Vanderbilt: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, LSU
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina
LSU: Arkansas, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Alabama
Missouri: Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas
Ole Miss: Mississippi State, LSU, Oklahoma
South Carolina: Georgia, Florida, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma
Texas A&M: LSU, Missouri, Texas
Vanderbilt: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
8
Posted on 9/22/25 at 1:33 pm to Maryvilledawg
It’s only for 4 years but yeah, UT and UF got it easy
Posted on 9/22/25 at 2:08 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
These people are fools, UT UF is too big a game to sacrifice.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 2:22 pm to Maryvilledawg
No Bama/LSU? And Florida/Kentucky instead of Florida/LSU makes zero sense.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 2:54 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
These people are fools, UT UF is too big a game to sacrifice.
Tennessee lobbied for Vandy and UK. If I had to guess, Florida probably said, "that's fine, we're good with USCe and UK". It's a pragmatic decision for both programs; no need to make the schedule harder than it has to be.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 3:09 pm to Maryvilledawg
I was seroiusly rooting to get Kentucky but not Vanderbilt lol.
I was suprised to find out that we've actually played South Carolina more times than Kentucky, For some reason I imagined that we played Kentucky every season back in the day, but obviously I was wrong.
https://sicemdawgs.com/uga-football-records/vs-all-opponents/
I was suprised to find out that we've actually played South Carolina more times than Kentucky, For some reason I imagined that we played Kentucky every season back in the day, but obviously I was wrong.
https://sicemdawgs.com/uga-football-records/vs-all-opponents/
Posted on 9/22/25 at 3:15 pm to wdhalgren
This conference expansion sucks. I think it added more parity and got rid of the possibility that East or West division would have an easier schedule, but it sucks for maintaining traditional rivalries. These rivalries are tradition because people like and enjoy going to these games on a home/away on an annual basis. SC has been a traditional rival since 1958 so it makes sense for us. Still miss playing UT every year.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 3:46 pm to wdhalgren
Rivalries are what make this sport. Big10 did its best to make people care about Illinois and I Diana but no one cared. They want the named rivalries
Posted on 9/22/25 at 4:14 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
These people are fools,
honestly this is as good as I could've hoped for. All this bullshite that's happened to teh sport the last few years has completely whitewashed and erased history and tradition. These pairings actually preserve. I am absolutely thrilled they didn't get too cute and try to make every single grouping on a completely level and even playing field as far as parity. We're gonna have parity anyway considering there are 6 other league games yearly and you're going to play literally every team in the league every couple years.
quote:
UT UF is too big a game to sacrifice.
this isn't 1998. Both teams are a shell of their former glory, and the only reason that rivarly became "a thing" anyway is because of being in the east (post 1992) and usually being the first SEC game of the year.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 4:34 pm to agentoranj1990
It's all Missouri's fault.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 5:11 pm to WG_Dawg
Your making my point, UF and UT haven't been great in years but people still tune in to that game in larger numbers than random opponents.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 5:31 pm to Maryvilledawg
Those are the 3 I'd choose for us. I'm good.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 6:17 pm to Maryvilledawg
I for one like the USC game. We went 1-3 vs. them when I was in undergrad, so I've always held that as a grudge. Plus Willy B is an easy trip and has a solid tailgating scene
Posted on 9/22/25 at 7:11 pm to Maryvilledawg
Hot damn. 11 posts in 10 years.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 7:57 pm to Maryvilledawg
What's the source?
Still not seeing anything confirmed by any legit SEC media source other than on3
Still not seeing anything confirmed by any legit SEC media source other than on3
This post was edited on 9/22/25 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 9/22/25 at 8:16 pm to Maryvilledawg
So, just strictly talking about the 3 permanent opponents we got,
I think they nailed it. Auburn and Florida were must-haves.
I understand some people wanted Tennessee as a constant, but there was no way the league was gonna stick anyone with 3 blueblood permanents. That’s why Bama-LSU isn’t happening.
If the third option came down to Carolina, Kentucky or Vandy, I’m glad it was USC. We’ve got a ton of history with them going back to their days in the ACC. Georgia-South Carolina used to be an early season SEC staple in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
Plus, compared to UK and Vandy, it has WAY more of a “rivalry” feel, although I think that mainly comes from the USC side of the equation.
I think they nailed it. Auburn and Florida were must-haves.
I understand some people wanted Tennessee as a constant, but there was no way the league was gonna stick anyone with 3 blueblood permanents. That’s why Bama-LSU isn’t happening.
If the third option came down to Carolina, Kentucky or Vandy, I’m glad it was USC. We’ve got a ton of history with them going back to their days in the ACC. Georgia-South Carolina used to be an early season SEC staple in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
Plus, compared to UK and Vandy, it has WAY more of a “rivalry” feel, although I think that mainly comes from the USC side of the equation.
Posted on 9/22/25 at 9:15 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
Rivalries are what make this sport. Big10 did its best to make people care about Illinois and I Diana but no one cared. They want the named rivalries
I think most athletic directors know how this is gonna work and ours better figure it out too. If the team wins, fans will support the team. If some old fans drop out in protest of ending a rivalry or two, some new fans will fill those seats and buy those jerseys, as long as we're winning games and competing for championships. If the team starts losing more often and drops out of the championship hunt, fan support will decline, even if it's traditional rivalry games. NIL money will decline, and that's a negative feedback loop. Until we have something other than unrestricted free agency, or UGA has several billionaire donors forking over money, we have to play this dirty game better than we're doing right now.
It will take a brutal 9 game SEC schedule and a brutal 15, 16, or maybe 17 game season to win titles. Having an extra easy game or two strategically scattered throughout will be critical, for building depth, getting healthy, dividing up the schedule so you don't have multiple tough games in a row. Teams that ignore the importance of those schedule fluffers will fall back.
Kirby should be all over his athletic director to fight for every advantage we can get, starting with scheduling for next year. Tell Sankey we won't accept 3 or 4 SEC opponents with bye weeks before UGA next season, or the season after that. Maybe one or zero to make up for '24 and '25. Tell him we want Vandy and Arkansas next season since he gave us Texas and Alabama for the last two. Start having serious discussions about how much we're willing to sacrifice for Georgia Tech.
This post was edited on 9/23/25 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 9/23/25 at 3:40 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
1992
A lot longer ago than it sounds like.
Posted on 9/23/25 at 10:31 am to BranchDawg
quote:
If the third option came down to Carolina, Kentucky or Vandy, I’m glad it was USC. We’ve got a ton of history with them going back to their days in the ACC. Georgia-South Carolina used to be an early season SEC staple in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
True, but they have more history with Vandy and Kentucky.
I don't have a problem with SC, it's understandable. However, I would much rather had Kentucky just for the trip to Lexington.
Posted on 9/23/25 at 10:41 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Hot damn. 11 posts in 10 years.
Recently retired from the military and was out of country and a little busy most of that time.
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News