Are equal permanent opponents necessary?

I wouldn't mind zero permanents for LSU. We've never had a huge rival and we seem to be almost everyones 3rd biggest rival.

Rather have gone to a 13 game schedule.

You mean besides Ole Miss? You must be young.

If you want that schedule, join the Big Ten. That's how you get a school like Indiana playing only one real opponent and making the playoffs.

quote:

---

We've never had a huge rival

---

LSU is everyone's rival. It's just none of us want to play you.

quote:

---

You mean besides Ole Miss? You must be young.

---

I'm 55, so you're right. I'm too young to remember when that rivalry was relevant. All of our rivalries are circumstantial. Ole Miss in the 50s and 60s, Auburn in the 80s, Florida in the early 00s, Bama in the later 00s and early 10s. Circumstatial rivalries are great, but they are not real rivalries like several others in the conference have. For that reason, it would make sense to have zero permanents and play everyone on an equal basis, making the rotation through the conference must faster.

I'm ok with the 3 we have and would love to have Bama, Auburn, and/or Florida, but to answer the OP's question, I would be ok with something different, such as no permanents.

You would play 9 SEC teams, and see each team twice every three years. Very unlikely that someone has only 1 SEC team with a pulse in a given year--just stagger traditional powers so that everyone would have 2-3 a year.

Plus, I have no problem with Auburn, Ole Miss, etc... having their important games as permanents.
Mizzou just isn't part of that with anyone SEC. Closest would be our long history of noogies from the paperclips.

I would have said yes until I saw what LSU was given. Now I might rather there were none.