SEC going to 9 conference games starting in 2026

[TheBannerM]

First off, whatever is decided initially should be taken with a grain of salt. It won’t last longer than 5 years, as there will definitely be more realignment before then.

But, I think we get OM, UK, Auburn. We’ll definitely get at least one traditional SEC West opponent besides OM. I think networks are going to want Bama-LSU as an annual game, meaning Bama has LSU, TN, Auburn as their 3. That should be fine with them since Auburn has been trash for the better part of a decade now.

Auburn needs a 3rd permanent on top of Bama / UGA, and it should also be a traditional West opponent. OM is out, they’ll have us, LSU, and probably Vandy. I think Ark, A&M, OU, and Texas are going to be paired up to take advantage of the SWC / Big 8 historical rivalries. Texas gets A&M, OU, and Arkansas. A&M gets Texas, LSU, and Arkansas. OU gets Arkansas, Texas, and possibly Missouri. Arkansas gets Texas, Texas A&M, and OU. They may swap some things around and give Mizzou another one of the southwest teams, maybe keep LSU and Ark as permanents, but the overall situation is that I don’t see any out of Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, or Oklahoma being available as a permanent opponent for Auburn. That leaves only MSU. Then also it makes sense to give us UK, as that game has been played almost every year in the modern SEC, and those are similar stature programs. Same w/ OM and Vandy.

If they're willing to trash Bama vs. State and LSU vs. State, two of the longest running "rivalries" in the SEC, I don't see why the SEC is beholden to the keeping other former SEC West matchups. Other than the sacred rivalries (Egg Bowl, Iron Bowl, UT-UA, Tex-A&M, Tex-OU, Fla-Ga, etc.) everything should be fair game.

If your matchup doesn't have a trophy or a recognizable nickname, it shouldn't be protected.

 

[Perd Hapley]

A few historical rivalries to consider that many traditional SEC fans may not realize. Texas and Arkansas have played each other 80 times. Texas A&M and Arkansas have played 75 times. Oklahoma and Mizzou have played 97 times. LSU and Texas A&M have played 63 times. All of those exist despite those teams being in different conferences for a good portion of the past 30-50 years. I think all of these will be permanents.

Furthermore, the 2 oldest rivalries in the SEC are Aub-UGA, and the Egg Bowl. 3rd and 4th behind that though? You have Tennessee vs. Kentucky and Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt. Both of those are extremely lopsided though, and Tennessee won’t get both of those as permanents since they have to have Bama and Florida, most likely. I’m betting they get Vandy to keep the in-state rivalry intact.

 

[patdog]

A few historical rivalries to consider that many traditional SEC fans may not realize. Texas and Arkansas have played each other 80 times. Texas A&M and Arkansas have played 75 times. Oklahoma and Mizzou have played 97 times. LSU and Texas A&M have played 63 times. All of those exist despite those teams being in different conferences for a good portion of the past 30-50 years. I think all of these will be permanents.

Furthermore, the 2 oldest rivalries in the SEC are Aub-UGA, and the Egg Bowl. 3rd and 4th behind that though? You have Tennessee vs. Kentucky and Tennessee vs. Vanderbilt. Both of those are extremely lopsided though, and Tennessee won’t get both of those as permanents since they have to have Bama and Florida, most likely. I’m betting they get Vandy to keep the in-state rivalry intact.

I think Okie-Mizzou is a definite as well as Arkansas vs either Texas or A&M, but likely not both. Tennessee-Florida probably won’t happen. They’ll get Bama, Vandy & Kentucky & get the easiest permanent opponents in the league.

 

[Perd Hapley]

If they're willing to trash Bama vs. State and LSU vs. State, two of the longest running "rivalries" in the SEC, I don't see why the SEC is beholden to the keeping other former SEC West matchups. Other than the sacred rivalries (Egg Bowl, Iron Bowl, UT-UA, Tex-A&M, Tex-OU, Fla-Ga, etc.) everything should be fair game.

If your matchup doesn't have a trophy or a recognizable nickname, it shouldn't be protected.

Its possible we may get OU instead. I can see them pairing South Carolina with Auburn as Auburn’s 3rd opponent, and then we’ll have OM and UK. OU will have Texas and Mizzou at minimum. I think A&M gets Tex, LSU, and Arkansas to load them up. Ark gets Mizzou, Texas, Texas A&M. They ditch the LSU-Ark game that no one gives a shít about. LSU gets OM, Bama, A&M. We’d have 2 and OU would have 2 so it kind of makes sense to pair us up by process of elimination.

The hardest one to figure out for me was South Carolina. They don’t really have any natural, long running historical rivalries in the SEC. Even Mizzou has Oklahoma and A&M who they have history against.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I think Okie-Mizzou is a definite as well as Arkansas vs either Texas or A&M, but likely not both.

I think Ark gets both Texas schools and Mizzou. No reason why they wouldn’t. Regionally and historically, it makes sense.

Tennessee-Florida probably won’t happen. They’ll get Bama, Vandy & Kentucky & get the easiest permanent opponents in the league.

No chance that Tennessee keeps both Vandy and UK. Networks are not going to choose UK-Tenn over Tenn-Florida as an annual game. They’ll keep Vandy, though. Tenn-UGA will go to non-permanent.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I think Ark gets both Texas schools and Mizzou. No reason why they wouldn’t. Regionally and historically, it makes sense.


No chance that Tennessee keeps both Vandy and UK. Networks are not going to choose UK-Tenn over Tenn-Florida as an annual game. They’ll keep Vandy, though. Tenn-UGA will go to non-permanent.

If they're sticking with the lower/higher thing, Arkansas can only have 1 of Texas and A&M.

 

[Perd Hapley]

If they're sticking with the lower/higher thing, Arkansas can only have 1 of Texas and A&M.

The “lower / higher thing” can’t possibly be perfectly done, and will be forever subjective as to who belongs in what tier. For example, is Texas A&M a Top 8 program in the SEC? Perhaps by fanbase size and viewership they could be, but are they a better overall program than any one of these: Bama, LSU, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Oklahoma? The obvious answer is no to all of them. All have at least one national title in the past 30 years, most have multiple titles, all but Tennessee have multiple national title game appearances, and all have multiple trips to either the BCS title game and/or the CFP. Texas A&M has none of the above.

It’s more likely that they try to preserve as many long running rivalries as they can that are actually competitive. It’s hard to see them trading Arkansas vs. Texas for Arkansas vs. South Carolina, for instance, when there isn’t any other game that makes sense as a permanent for Texas besides A&M and OU. Basically I think they are going to take the top viewership teams (Texas, Bama, UGA, etc.), ensure that all 3 of the permanents for each of them are desirable TV matchups even if they aren’t necessarily going to be competitive games, and then fill out the rest based on those outcomes. Texas vs. Arkansas moves the needle. A&M vs. Arkansas in Jerry World moves the needle. Texas vs. Kentucky does not. Texas A&M vs. South Carolina does not.

 

[patdog]

The “lower / higher thing” can’t possibly be perfectly done, and will be forever subjective as to who belongs in what tier. For example, is Texas A&M a Top 8 program in the SEC? Perhaps by fanbase size and viewership they could be, but are they a better overall program than any one of these: Bama, LSU, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Oklahoma? The obvious answer is no to all of them. All have at least one national title in the past 30 years, most have multiple titles, all but Tennessee have multiple national title game appearances, and all have multiple trips to either the BCS title game and/or the CFP. Texas A&M has none of the above.

It’s more likely that they try to preserve as many long running rivalries as they can that are actually competitive. It’s hard to see them trading Arkansas vs. Texas for Arkansas vs. South Carolina, for instance, when there isn’t any other game that makes sense as a permanent for Texas besides A&M and OU. Basically I think they are going to take the top viewership teams (Texas, Bama, UGA, etc.), ensure that all 3 of the permanents for each of them are desirable TV matchups even if they aren’t necessarily going to be competitive games, and then fill out the rest based on those outcomes. Texas vs. Arkansas moves the needle. A&M vs. Arkansas in Jerry World moves the needle. Texas vs. Kentucky does not. Texas A&M vs. South Carolina does not.

They went by conference record over the last 10 years. That’s about as fair as you can be.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Also keep in mind when evaluating how "fair" a schedule is, don't just average the 3 permanents. Average every opponent counting the permanents twice and the other 12 teams once. (And the team themselves 0 times.)

So Alabama should get a tougher stack of opponents to make up for the fact that they never play themselves. Same for Georgia, etc. So Alabama getting Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU for their stack actually is fair in addition to being what the networks are going to demand.

 

[Perd Hapley]

They went by conference record over the last 10 years. That’s about as fair as you can be.

Who is “they”? You’re talking about a leaked proposal that didn’t get passed. It doesn’t matter.

And going by record over the past 10 years isn’t really relevant either, because the next 10 years are going to be different. That’s a pointless metric. The permanent opponents should be desirable TV matchups first (as much as possible), based on history / rivalries 2nd, and then based on regionality 3rd. Pairings that check all 3 boxes are guaranteed to be done. Pairings that check 2 of 3 probably will be done, but some might not. Pairings that only check 1 of 3 won’t be done unless it’s to fill out the gaps of what remains after the major matchups are filled.

Records over the past 10 years shouldn’t matter. But the end result is that everyone will still have a manageable schedule. Its just not going to be perfectly balanced based on schedule strength. It never will be as there is no way to predict that. The other 6 non-permanent games are going to weigh much heavier into the schedule strength anyways.

 

[POTUS]

They went by conference record over the last 10 years. That’s about as fair as you can be.

How do you do that when two teams have been in the conference exactly one year?

 

[TheBannerM]

Who is “they”? You’re talking about a leaked proposal that didn’t get passed. It doesn’t matter.

And going by record over the past 10 years isn’t really relevant either, because the next 10 years are going to be different. That’s a pointless metric. The permanent opponents should be desirable TV matchups first (as much as possible), based on history / rivalries 2nd, and then based on regionality 3rd. Pairings that check all 3 boxes are guaranteed to be done. Pairings that check 2 of 3 probably will be done, but some might not. Pairings that only check 1 of 3 won’t be done unless it’s to fill out the gaps of what remains after the major matchups are filled.

Records over the past 10 years shouldn’t matter. But the end result is that everyone will still have a manageable schedule. Its just not going to be perfectly balanced based on schedule strength. It never will be as there is no way to predict that. The other 6 non-permanent games are going to weigh much heavier into the schedule strength anyways.

The 10 year deal sounded good in practice, but the transfer portal made it worthless. You end up with State playing 7 playoff contenders.

The good news is regardless of our permanents, we'll never see another two-year period where everyone has the exact same conference schedule as the year before. Sankey did that for the sole reason of keeping the Texas-Texas A&M and Bama-Tenn games on the schedule while he strong-armed the schools to go to a 9 game conference schedule.

 

[patdog]

How do you do that when two teams have been in the conference exactly one year?

They used their conference records in their conference. Not perfect, but nothing would be. At least it's at objective and not subject to speculation or debate. If that's the criteria (and it was and is), the record is what it is.

 

[paindonthurt]

I’d take Bama if that guaranteed us OM and either Kentucky, vandy or Missouri. Maybe even Arkansas

 

[pseudonym]

We're adding a ninth SEC game next year, and our schedule is going to get easier.

At worst, we're likely trading Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida for Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, and Auburn.

We're also trading Arizona State for Minnesota.

 

[patdog]

We're adding a ninth SEC game next year, and our schedule is going to get easier.

At worst, we're likely trading Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida for Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, and Auburn.

We're also trading Arizona State for Minnesota.

Yep. Schedule next year should be something like this:
Tenn Tech
Minnesota
either Troy or UL-Monroe
UMiss
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Bama
LSU
Auburn
Oklahoma
2 out of Vandy, Kentucky and South Carolina

 

[pseudonym]

We're also trading Arizona State for Minnesota.