SEC Scheduling and Parity: Can the SEC learn from the NFL?

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.