The House of Blue

I have to agree with Joker on this and his answer was perfect. i would like to see a 6-2 split so you can see the other side more often.

A 9 game schedule would end the Louisville series for sure. As a UK fan I agree with JP 110% on this matter. We could possibly be trading Louisville with an LSU or Alabama. I like our schedule the way it is.

Eventually , the Bama Tennessee game is going to get passed on. Auburn -Georgia is going to get off schedule. Some old tough but fun rivalries will come to a partial end and that sucks.Thats what happens with expansion . I wish they would all go back to the Big 8, SWC, etc days and do the playoff with all the old conference champions so the old rivalries can continue.

Well stated. Don't know that 8 vs. 9 impacts outside views & the SEC shouldn't care/base their decision on that. But the rest is dead on IMO, particularly the 14 team point. You add teams to your conference & then not play them???? Stupid & silly.

I think guys like Saban, Miles, and even Spurrier understand that a 9 game SEC schedule would make getting to the MNC game more difficult for everyone in the SEC. I just don't see it happening, at least not anytime soon.

Once the TV networks demand a 9th game in exchange for tens of millions in more conference money, it will happen no matter if all 14 coaches are against it. And the UL series ought to continue, so should Georgia-G Tech, Fl-Fl State, SCar-Clemson.

In fact, to protect those rivalries if & when the 9 game schedule happens every conference member ought to be REQUIRED to have on their schedule at least 1 out of conference opponent from one of the 6 major conferences. It certainly would be completely unfair for UK to have UL plus 2 "gimmie" OOC games when the likes of Ole Miss or Arkansas would play 3 rumdums.

Huh? It improves your strength of schedule. Wouldn't the all-knowing selectors see that? Or are you saying they'd be biased against tough schedules? That's not to mention all the other conferences going to 9 games.

Joker pretty clearly put it out there that if we go 9 games we will drop Lville. Whether on purpose or not, it was a good move to go ahead and lay the ground work for that.

I look to our schedule this year, and we play Mizzou. And since they are East, we'll play them every year. We'll also eventually play Texas A&M. So I don't get your last few statements about expansion.

I think the 6-2 is a good way of doing it as mentioned by another poster above. No team has a "permanent" opposite division rival, and you rotate through every team in the West (for UK) every 3-5 years or so.

If we go to 9 game SEC schedule, I'm pretty sure the UL series will be gone. No way we play them, with a 9-game SEC schedule. The only other way I see this happening, without dropping UL, is if the college football regular season increasing to 13 games - and I doubt that's on the table.

I read it to mean, 1 more hard SEC battle/game to play and possibly lose.....and therefore lose your chance at playing for the NC.

I'd rather see us develop a rivalry with another conference, similar to the Big10/Pac-12 agreement now. I hate them, but the committee will look very favorable when Southern Cal plays 9 conference games, Notre Dame, AND a Big 10 opponent.

I think either incorporating a lot of current rivalries and go to a SEC/ACC matchup for each team, OR tip the hat to the new kids and play a SEC/Big XII series. The numbers aren't as clean there though like with the now 14 team ACC.

A 6-2 format with no permanent opponent is not good, IMO. Doing away with Tennessee-Alabama and Georgia-Auburn is a shame and not good for the conference. These games and rivalries, among others, are part of what makes the SEC so unique. It'd be like doing away with Duke/UNC or OSU/Michigan. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and completely changing the landscape of college football and the SEC despite its current popularity is very unwise, IMO. But as we all know, money drives everything.