Nine Game SEC Conference Schedule with and Eye Toward OU

[harveycmd]

I've watched a couple of Sooner channels talk about CDC's comments on the nine game schedule and the Longhorns playing A&M every year. There is a mixture of Sooner reaction to the nine game schedule. About half want to keep the extra cupcake on the schedule that goes with having eight conference games, knowing it's going to be really tough for them to take another heavy hitter every single year. The other half says, that's why they joined the SEC, so let's do it.

What really interested me was that there was some conjecture on the "one permanent rival" game if there isn't a nine game conference schedule. If the Longhorns play the Aggies every year, and there's only one permanent rival with an eight game schedule, then where does that leave Texas/OU? I would personally love to see OU denied the opportunity to play the Longhorns every year. That would be the best way to take them out of being able to recruit well in Texas, and would eventually then result in them being somewhere between Arkansas and Nebraska. I know that's not going happen, but I would like to see it.

[Bobby Burton]

The SEC won’t get rid of Texas-OU or Texas-A&M. I know people think it might look like it, but there are other schools similarly situated.

Alabama will always play Auburn and Tennessee every year. 

[harveycmd]

5 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

The SEC won’t get rid of Texas-OU or Texas-A&M. I know people think it might look like it, but there are other schools similarly situated.

Alabama will always play Auburn and Tennessee every year. 

That doesn't surprise me. As I said, I basically knew it wasn't going to happen from a common sense perspective. What I found instructive was the worry you could see from the Sooner guys at just the thought that they wouldn't be able to play Texas every year. After that, they became what I think of as irrational by saying they think the Sooners will be much better next year with a new QB, a completely new offensive line and pedestrian run game while the Longhorns will almost certainly be noticeably worse than they were in 2023. They offered no analysis on that.

[Hookah Horns]

I will be shocked and appalled if the 8 game conference schedule is retained beyond 2025. It would be truly absurd to see a chest-pounding so-called super conference that wants to play OOC 1/3 of the time.

Because not everyone has 3 true rivals that should be played every year, my format preference would be 2 permanent rivals for each team, with a third semi-permanent rival that is reviewed and potentially changed every decade or so. The review would be based on a considerations including performance trajectory (with the aim of avoiding anyone having 3 world-beater or cream-puff rivals) and whether both teams want to continue playing annually. Anyone who wants to maintain their semi-permanent rival (for instance because they're a true rival, such as Arky for us) could waive such review. 

[BubbaJacques]

I would like to play our traditional rival Vanderbilt every year. It will be tough, since we are 3-8-1 against them all time, but we are the Texas Longhorns, and we don't back down from anyone.

[harveycmd]

I would prefer to move the Red River Rivalry to LSU. Play it in Houston every year. The Red also runs through Louisiana, LSU is better than OU, and it will do more for Longhorn recruiting. As a side benefit, it will place the Sooners in recruiting purgatory. 

[harveycmd]

Someone asked who OU would then have as their permanent rival(s). I don't really care, but geographically Missouri makes the most sense if Texas puts OU in the place where they belong. If OU has two, they can add Arkansas. If the SEC goes to nine games, I still want OU shut out of the game with the Longhorns. A&M wants LSU and then probably Texas. You could then give the Aggies an easier one with Arkansas. The Razorbacks certainly want a permanent Texas team. Arkansas could then have OU, Missouri and A&M. I don't think LSU wants A&M, but if they think about their best long term interests, they will conclude they better off with A&M and Texas as two of their permanent rivals. They can then pick Ole Miss or Alabama. Bama could have Auburn, Tennessee, and then either LSU or Ole Miss. Georgia would probably like Florida, Auburn and then either Tennessee or Texas (the Longhorns from a recruiting perspective). Florida takes Georgia, Tennessee, and then Texas or whomever. For the long term interests of the Longhorns, it's A&M, LSU and then either Florida or Georgia. OU can have Missouri, Arkansas, and then Mississippi State or whomever.

Obviously there's are many other teams who would need to sort out their one to three rivals. My point is that it's in our interest to remove OU from the rivals of the Longhorns if we seriously want to consistently play for titles and pursue what's in our best interest.

Edited February 21 by harveycmd

[harveycmd]

Someone else asked, "How are you coming up with this?" The answer is demographics, which control the two factors that make up the lifeblood of college football: recruiting and television audience. Now, those two factors are correlational, if not in some kind of reciprocal cause and effect relationship. That said, demographic trends project to favor Texas, Florida and Georgia over the next generation, if not longer. I threw LSU, Auburn and Tennessee (although Tennessee has positive demographic trends too) in the mix because I don't think you can get both Georgia and Florida to give them up.