quote:
LINK

While the rest of you are bitching about problems, I'm searching for solutions.

At first glance, this seems a little convoluted. However, after looking at it for a few minutes, it isn't nearly as complicated as it first appears and is by far the best SEC scheduling solution I have seen.

Is there anyone that finds a problem with this concept?

How do we, the lowly minions of the SECRant, get this type of idea on the radar of those that matter?

Not that I disagree with the premise of the column, but it does cause me to wonder-why the SEC made no big deal out of not playing everyone in the conference, on a regular basis, prior to expansion?

Cases in point, Florida and Tennessee did not play from 1956-1968, yet the conference got-along just fine. Georgia and Bama did not play from 66-71. Ole Miss and Florida did not play from ... well, let's put it this way. They've only played 23 times in the entire history of the conference, several times going a decade or more between games. MSU and Kentucky have only played 40 times, most of those coming after expansion.

Conversely, Georgia and South Carolina have played 62 times and only twice going more than five years between games, once in the 20s and once in the 40s.

So I contend that playing one another on a regular basis is not as important to the conference as some here may be suggesting.