Currently, the SEC operates under a 6-1-1 scheduling format,
meaning that 6 conference games are played against a team's divisional opponents,
1 game against a rotating team from the other division, and 1 game against a
rival/tie-in from the other division.
This scheduling format has sparked significant debate,
notably since the SEC expanded to 14 teams. Coaches, such as Steve
Spurrier (South Carolina) and Les Miles (LSU) have argued that the current
format is not fair due to their conference tie-ins. South Carolina's
tie-in is Texas A&M, while LSU's is Florida. When creating the
tie-ins, the SEC tried to match cross-division opponents based on a combination
of rivalry and success. Other notable conference tie-ins include
Tennessee-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn.
From a traditional standpoint, Tennessee-Alabama and
Georgia-Auburn make sense. Looking at the all-time AP rankings of NCAA
programs, Alabama and Tennessee are the only SEC programs in the top 10, and
Georgia and Auburn, in addition to being the "Deep South's Oldest
Rivalry," are ranked in the 10-15 range. However, in recent years,
Tennessee and Auburn have struggled, providing Alabama and Georgia with weaker
tie-ins than South Carolina and LSU.
Steve Spurrier made the argument that it's not a coincidence
that Georgia and Alabama made the SEC Championship last year. To a large
extent, Spurrier makes a sound point. From his perspective, Georgia
avoided Alabama, LSU, and Texas A&M, while South Carolina played LSU and
Arkansas (South Carolina’s previous tie-in who was ranked in the top 10
preseason). I believe he is ultimately arguing for more conference
parity, which is reasonable. Sure, Georgia and Alabama were good teams, but
their tie-ins were significantly weaker than those of LSU and South Carolina. Steve
Spurrier and Les Miles are not alone. Others have argued that the SEC
should abandon the tie-ins all together.
But, as Mark Richt (Georgia) argues, it would destroy
longtime rivalries, such as Georgia and Auburn, which have lots of meaning for
the players and fans involved. Richt also noted how the Florida
State-Miami-Florida rivalries were abandoned during conference expansions and
how important games and traditions were lost. Further, other rivalries
such as Nebraska-Oklahoma or Texas-Texas A&M have been nixed due to
conference expansion. So, why can't the SEC take measures to be the
exception and maintain rivalries?
Here's what I suggest. Many may not realize what the NFL
does for parity in terms of scheduling. Did you know that division
winners from a given year are required to play the other division winners the
following year. That is, since the Atlanta Falcons won the NFC South during the
2012-13 season, they are required to play Washington (NFC East winner), San
Francisco (NFC West winner), Green Bay (NFC North winner) during the 2013-2014
season. This format allows for parity in that past division winners must continue
to prove themselves year after year, while other division teams who didn't win
benefit from not playing all of the division winners. This format
ultimately helps the NFL product, as there is frequent shuffling at the top of
divisions, keeping fans engaged in their team.
So, why can't the SEC adopt a similar format and still keep
the conference tie-ins? Let's look at last year as an example. Alabama
won the SEC West and Georgia won the SEC East. Suppose the 6-1-1 format
were tweaked where the rotating 1 game required the division winners to play
one another. Thus, for the 2013-14 season, Georgia would play the other 6
SEC East teams, Alabama (SEC West winner), and Auburn (conference tie-in). This
would seem to silence Spurrier's and Miles's opposition at least a bit, and
maintain the conference tie-ins.
Some may argue this is a scheduling nightmare that has to be
addressed every year. But, I argue that if the NFL can do it, why can't the SEC?
For, the SEC is the closest thing to the NFL in college football.