Texas, Oklahoma, A & M, and UPIG should all be permanents because of the rivalries from the old Southwest Conference.
SEC 2026 permanent opponents and schedule rotation
- Thread starter Tractorman
- Start date
Ole Miss, Alabama, and Kentucky seem the most likely, but I wouldn't be shocked if State gets absolutely screwed on the permanent opponents.
Other than having the same colors, I don't see why Texas A&M would be a logical or "rivalry" opponent. Alabama would be - less than 100 miles away, plus that would almost guarantee any State team a loss in any given year. Highest screw factor, and whoever our coach is always has the deer in the headlights look.
I might change my list to OM, Alabama, and Auburn (instead of Arkansas).
I might change my list to OM, Alabama, and Auburn (instead of Arkansas).
It's possible, but I think Arkansas is more likely to get Ole Miss and Missouri as their "lower half" permanents.
Because Arkansas has historical rivalries with both Texas and Texas A&M that are significant. Arkansas has also played fewer games against MSU than they have against just about any other historical SEC West team. They’ve also played MSU just 4 more times than they’ve played Oklahoma, and those 2 teams have only been in the same league for 1 of the past 35 seasons.
There’s simply no compelling reason to pair MSU-Ark. It’s not a TV draw, its not a long running historical rivalry, and there’s no geographic proximity. Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Oklahoma, Missouri, and perhaps even Ole Miss all make way more sense to be paired with Arkansas than MSU. I’d bet anything that they get 3 of those 6.
ETA: For context, Arkansas has played both Texas and Texas A&M 80+ times each. They’ve played LSU and Ole Miss 70+ times each. They’ve played Oklahoma only 31 times, but went nearly a 4 decade stretch without being in the same league with them. They’ve played Missouri only 16 times, but they’ve played every year since 2014 and now have a trophy game. Columbia and Norman are also the only two SEC cities that are within 400 miles of Fayetteville. That matters.
Last edited:
I doubt Arkansas gets both Texas and A&M. And I seriously doubt they get Oklahoma. They haven't just been in different leagues for 35 years before Oklahoma joined the SEC. It's been 105 years. They won't get LSU either. It'll be Texas, probably Mississippi, then either MSU or Missouri for them. As far as TV draws go, we're not much of a TV draw vs anyone, so that really doesn't matter.
Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi State
Florida: Georgia, Ole Miss, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Auburn, Oklahoma, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas
Ole Miss: Florida, LSU, Mississippi State
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi State
Florida: Georgia, Ole Miss, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Auburn, Oklahoma, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas
Ole Miss: Florida, LSU, Mississippi State
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee
I mean you may be right, but why can’t they get both? That’s, in theory, an “upper tier” and a “lower tier” team for them….if you believe in that methodology….which I personally don’t necessarily think is guaranteed to trump TV ratings and historical rivalries. Then you add another lower tier like Mizzou or OM or something.
And yet they’ve still played almost as many games against each other as MSU and Arkansas have…..who have played each other every year since 1991. And Norman is the closest SEC city to Fayetteville.
Possibly not, but they are more likely than MSU. 70+ game series history. I think LSU gets OM / Bama and at least one out of A&M and Arkansas. Probably A&M.
In that scenario it would almost assuredly be Missouri.
Correct, but Arkansas is a TV draw. They are a Top 20 brand in College Football, carry an entire state by themselves, and they’ll want to pair them up with regional rivals to maximize their exposure.
MSU’s not a TV draw so they’ll want to pair them up with other non-draws like OM / UK so that they can set an overall ratings floor. Let the teams that don’t get viewers cannibalize each other and not make other games more unwatchable.
Texas and A&M are both upper tier. Arkansas is lower tier. It's believed Arkansas will only have 1 upper tier opponent, so only one out of TX, A&M and Okie.
Okie will almost certainly get Missouri as their lower tier team, since they were in the Big 8 / Big 12 North for 100 years.
Agree, I think LSU gets Bama, Mississippi, and either Florida or A&M. They won't get Arkansas because that would give them 2 bottom tier opponents.
Arkansas isn't much of a TV draw. And even with the whole state, it's a small state. And they'll get that no matter who they play.
ETA: This is all my speculation. You could be right. Or, maybe more likely, we could both be wrong.
Last edited:
If this is correct, Bama's permanents will be LSU, Tenn, and Auburn. Also, OM will be close to the 7th team (I haven't done the math). If that is the case, then we will have OM, Kentucky and Ark as our 3.
There’s simply no way it would work that well for us. Too much PTSD for me to even consider it. Our 3 will be: Bama, UGA & Texas.
Mississippi would easily be a tier 1 team looking at last 5 years. But they're dragged down by the 5 years before that. They're a few games under .500 for the last 10 years. But if they are a tier 1 team, we'll catch a huge break. Could get something like Mississippi, Arkansas and Kentucky. And they could get MSU, LSU and Tennessee. So let's hope they're tier 1.
Given the way they worded the release, I don't think they could do two year home and home chunks. They said something like You will play every other school in two years, and play every school home and away every 4 years. Sounds like the entire 6 team rotating list would have to change every year.
I like that. Keeps it fresh and balanced, and allows for expansion in 2030 without scrapping a scheduling system in progress.
Again, I’m not sure how much it matters because you can’t possibly do it perfectly (especially for OU/Texas since there isn’t hardly any data), but I’d disagree on that tier assessment. I think Texas is upper tier, but Texas A&M is lower tier.
I view the upper tier as UGA, Bama, LSU, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Auburn.
Lower tier is Tennessee, A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, MSU, Kentucky, and Vandy.
The tier breaks are pretty damn obvious. The upper tier contains a bunch of teams that all have national titles and conference titles in the past 30 years. The lower tier contains teams that haven’t sniffed either one….not in the SEC anyway.
I can see this happening. Also they have to get Texas. So, they get another upper tier team?
I could see them getting either A&M or Arkansas. This is where the whole “Tier” system breaks down, because yes they’d get 2 “lower tier” teams under either scenario, but calling OM / A&M “lower tier” based largely on what they were doing when Matt Luke and Kevin Sumlin were still coaching is pretty dishonest. Likewise, bumping UF to upper tier is also dishonest. LSU is a prime example where you have to look at it with a more granular approach than the 2-tier system based on 10-year records or whatever. If they got Bama, A&M, and Ole Miss, there wouldn’t be a soul that thinks they got an easy draw, even though its one upper tier and two lower tiers.
Arkansas is a solid Top 20 TV draw. Comparable to an Auburn or South Carolina. They are a much bigger national draw than MSU, OM, Missouri, Kentucky, and Vandy. But at the same time, they aren’t big enough to carry ratings for a game by themselves. They’ll therefore want to pair up Arkansas against other mid/high draw teams if they can, although Ark / Missouri has some regional appeal with 2 nearby states that each only has a single P4 team carrying the flag.
My vote is with the latter….lol.
The tiers aren't subjective. They're objective. They are based on confernce records over the last 10 years. Teams in the Big 12 for part of that time use their Big 12 records. And A&M is 7 games over .500 in the last 10 years, so definitely top tier. Auburn is 6 games under .500, so lower tier.
There are 7 teams that are clearly lower half: Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss, and us.
The question is whether Tennessee is still the 8th like they were a couple years ago, or if someone has replaced them, such as Auburn, Oklahoma, or Texas A&M. I bet they stick with Tennessee in the bottom half for now and reevaluate in 4 years.
They'll want to keep Auburn on the higher tier so they can keep both Alabama and Georgia as their permanents.
The question is whether Tennessee is still the 8th like they were a couple years ago, or if someone has replaced them, such as Auburn, Oklahoma, or Texas A&M. I bet they stick with Tennessee in the bottom half for now and reevaluate in 4 years.
They'll want to keep Auburn on the higher tier so they can keep both Alabama and Georgia as their permanents.
I tend to agree but I figure they'd keep the Boot game. Maybe not. I could easily do without it myself.
But Texas also needs an easier game. If they don't get Arkansas, hard to find another one to give them. I think we can certainly do without Arkansas/Texas A&M. And I don't know of any real reason for Arkansas to play Oklahoma except logistics, and they are already trying to make Arkansas/Missouri a rivalry.
Its certainly subjective as to whether those “objective” tiers will be followed to the letter. There’s been absolutely no public statement insinuating that will be the ironclad criteria.
What’s also not objective is using Big 12 records for Texas and Oklahoma. That makes no sense. By no means should those teams be in the upper tier for that reason alone. And since both were well over .500 in the Big 12, by default that places two SEC teams that were above .500 in the actual SEC in the lower tier. Would one of those teams be Texas A&M? I’m not sure. But it’s possible. The tiers I listed is what I feel makes the most sense, if such a system were to be used as a baseline (which I don’t think it should be).
ESPN did not drop another bag full of cash on the SEC just have State-Bama become an annual game over Bama-LSU - a ratings monster.We are% getting bama, take that to the bank. Hopefully, we’ll get Ark, Vandy or UK as our third. OM is going to be good for a while.
ESPN says “HELL NAH.” Even without Saban, Bama is a national ratings draw. They’re in the business of creating matchups that people want to see. No one wants to see us play Bama every year. The SEC knows this and will give the network what they want.
100%. The only reason they did the schedule flip this year was to maintain Texas-Oklahoma and Bama-Tenn while Sankey strong-armed ESPN and the ADs for a 9th game, ensuring the 3 annual opponents.
This is the correct answer... but in true Mississippi State fashion it will beOle Miss
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
Alabama
Texas
Georgia
No doubt that will still be ESPN's preference. But I'm not sure Bama is more of a national draw than A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, UGA etc. going forward. The haves in teh SEC that are also winning at the time are going to draw national eyeballs. I don't think you'll see Bama having a much bigger draw than other blue bloods when they are not dominating college football. If they have Bama playing UTenn, Auburn, and MSU, that still leaves basiucally 6 national draws out of the remaining 12 teams (A&M, UTex, OU, UGA, UF, and LSU), so if they divide the schedules roughly equally, that still gives 3 of the remaining 6 games against national draws.
I'm not sure the SEC can't sell that to the networks, along with the argument that if the Sabanless Gumps play UTenn, Auburn, and LSU every, they are going to end up with enough losses to cause national interest to wane, plus you're only picking up one blueblood matchup every other year (again, assuming mthey try to mis the 6 non-permanent opponents between blue blood and non-bluebloods.
Of course the flipside if it really only makes Bama's schedule one game harder every other year, then maybe they actually won't let Bama call the shots.
If Bama got MSU, Auburn, and Tennessee, all 3 of their permanents would have losing SEC records over the past 10 years, with 2 of 3 not having an SEC record over .500 since 2022. Would be an absolute cakewalk draw for them, and absolutely will not happen. They are guaranteed to get Auburn and Tennessee, leaving LSU as the likely 3rd.
Completely agree. BTW, I think you've convinced me we get Kentucky instead of Arkansas as our 3rd annual opponent with A&M and Mississippi.
Its all a mess, because Auburn would probably be “lower tier” based on record over the last 10 years or even the last 5 years, but you know they HAVE to have both Bama and UGA….the 2 strongest programs in the league under any metric you want to want to look at over any reasonable period of time. So that creates a chain reaction that throws off the whole “tier theory” as being viable, in my opinion.
Also knowing the above, its really hard to see Auburn not getting a bottom feeder team as their 3rd permanent, given the strength of the other two. Vandy, Kentucky, Mizzou, MSU, or Arkansas….one of those 5 will be Auburn’s 3rd permanent. Given the context of everything else, I think MSU makes far and away the most sense as the 3rd team for Auburn. And if MSU draws Auburn, OM, and UK as their permanents, I think its pretty hard to complain about that.
I do think its likely that there are tiers, but I think those tiers will be based a lot more on TV / ratings draws than on recent on-field results. There I think you have a Top 9 and a Bottom 7. They’ll want to maximize number of games of the Top 9 against each other and the Bottom 7 against each other. But it won’t be perfect.
Point of order: Oklahoma was never in the Southwest Conference. They were in the Big 8.
Yeah. When the tiers were originally done 2 years ago, Auburn was 44-38 over the last 10 years and were the #8 team. If you re-do them, Auburn is 38-44 in the last 10 years and certainly not in the top tier. Agree about 2nd paragraph. As for third, it was specifically said the tiers were conference records over the last 10 years. I think other than a few true marquee games they're not giving up (Bama-LSU), the rest will all be pretty much even no matter who plays who.