Why Retaining the Eight-Game SEC Schedule is in the Georgia Bulldogs' Interests

But as I’ve expressed here before, my great fear is that if we are limited to two interdivision games a year, the sentiment of a majority of the conference will be to drop the permanent rivalry, because it just doesn’t matter to most teams. I understand that the early years of divisional play only had one rotating opponent, but my response to that is 1) we changed that because we didn’t like it, and 2) the problem is even worse when you’re rotating through six teams instead of five. I think it’s easier for UGA, Auburn, UT, and Alabama to continue to insist on our storied rivalries when doing so doesn’t prevent LSU from visiting Athens (or Florida to Tuscaloosa, etc.) more than once a decade.

I haven’t done the math, but in another thread someone said 9 games can’t work with 14 teams. But The984 says here that eight doesn’t work either. So I don’t know about all that. But at least for me, and I assume for most of us, and I know for you, keeping the Auburn game protected is a crucial issue. (Seth’s interview, unfortunately, does not assure me that McGarity is solidly in that camp.) I would love to get back to playing Clemson and as many decent OOC teams as McGarity will allow, but we’ve only got so many weeks.

Go to a 9 game conference schedule and drop the NATS as a permanent game. Let them rotate on the schedule every few years. We could selectively schedule them or Clemson in years where we have an easier SEC slate. Oh and we would only play them in Athens, no home and home.

Prior to 1991 it sounds as though each SEC school had some say over which of the other conference teams they played. There was no set rotation, and thus why UGA played UT, LSU, and MSU so infrequently. Why not go back to that style of scheduling for inter-divisional opponents? IE: Let the Eastern schools negotiate with the Western schools individually to determine how often they’d play. UGA would want to pick Auburn and Ole Miss every year, but might occasionally drop Ole Miss to pick up a home/home series with LSU or Alabama. Everyone from the West might want to play Vandy and Kentucky every year, but those two Eastern schools would also have their own agenda and wouldn’t want to lock themselves into playing LSU and Alabama every year, so a natural rotation would likely develop. Those with important rivalries like UGA/AU and UA/UT could be satisfied along with those who have no real inter-divisional rivals.

There is no “need” to go to a 9-game conference season provided everyone realizes there is no “need” to play every inter-divisional opponent regularly just because you’re in the same conference.

I’m a debbie-downer of sorts on this whole thing. As the king conference of college football, I believe we jumped the gun on expansion and will have nostalgic regret about this whole thing when we go the better part of a decade without seeing the LSU Tigers or Alabama Crimson Tide Between the Hedges. We already have arguably the most boring and mundane home schedule, what with the Florida game being in Jacksonville. We’re getting a double dose of boredom and monotony in my opinion. Less conference opponent rotation and OOC scheduling with all eyes towards getting to the BCS championship game.

I know the goal is to win a national title, but in a sport with no playoff, I think you really sell your fanbase short if that becomes the only important thing. How many times did we hear: "we want to win because its [Florida, Georgia Tech, Boise State in the dome, etc] ? Are we now going to say, "we want to win because it’s the Citadel ?"

As Georgia fans, we’re often criticized by our houndstooth brethren for being completely satisfied with 10-2 seasons, while being on the outside-looking-in for the BCS title. I’d rather confirm that criticism if that means having a regular season we enjoy while playing the likes of Clemson, Boise State, or Ohio State. If playing more interesting games means 1 less national titles over a [x] year period, I’m honestly indifferent to it. I’d rather see us beat Clemson 31-0 in 120 degree Death Valley heat, while risking injury and defeat, than play New Mexico State ever again. These are important moments that make UGA football what it is. January 8th in Tempe/Nola/Miami/Pasadena is not the only important thing. Maybe this is crazy talk, but I think it’s crazy to pin all your hopes on 1 single game that, regardless of scheduling, takes a little luck to get into. We also saw in LSU the idea that you can play the best and still get there. Are your odds longer ? Sure, but I ask again, what are we really after here ?

Is it plausible that scheduling Boise State cost us, not just one, but two losses ? Heck yes, when you consider the preparation time and physical wear and tear that Boise took away from South Carolina, as opposed to playing somebody like the Kent State Golden Flashes. Would I rather have played a cupcake than Boise State ? Heck no ! The excitement and anticipation leading up to that game is a valuable piece of Georgia football.

Because:

- I don’t see the choice as between 9 SEC games vs 8 + a strong OOC opponent. I see it as a choice between 9 SEC games vs maintaining 2 patsies. Given that choice, I’ll take the 9 SEC games + Tech + a Clemson or other tough Div I foe and, if we must, 1 patsy. We’re Georgia. We shouldn’t be afraid to play anybody, and shouldn’t feel a need to double up on patsies.

- The 4 East teams with OOC rivals already have those rivals, meaning they already have one more built in “tough” game than their West counterparts, so I don’t get why that changes just because all those teams will add one more SEC opponent—the competitive disadvantage already exists.

- While I, too, would like to see UGA v Clemson more often, I would hate even more to put the annual UGA-AU tilt (or, for that matter, UA-UT) at risk and I fear an 8 game SEC schedule may lead to that.

- I simply (though respectfully) disagree that the historic infrequency of certain SEC meetings is a rationale for returning to that infrequency. I do want to see the other 6 (non AU) West teams more often than once a decade. In fact, I would have liked to see Dooley’s Dawgs play Bryant’s Tide or whoever’s LSU more often back in the day, and would gladly go back in time and give up games against Tulane, Oregon State, Richmond, Temple, etc. to make that happen. Just think, Kyle—Herschel Walker never got to play against Bama or LSU; I think that’s a damn shame, don’t you?

- And, finally, I point out that in 1980, there wasn’t a guaranteed patsy in the scheduled bunch—and that didn’t turn out too badly!

You can put me in the “don’t know why we had to expand to 14 teams in the first place” camp, but I still hate the Designated Hitter and wild card teams, so perhaps I’m hopelessly archaic!

Maybe Dave or Vine could explain Priemer Cup relegation to us and work that into the mix. Move Kentucky and Miss St back and forth between the divisions to try to keep it competatively even.