SEC Football Scheduling: An Exercise in Futility

Why are we talking about this?

The football scheduling uproar has come and gone this offseason, but it's not going away altogether. Some coach is going to complain that their cross-divisional games were tougher.  It happened at SEC Media Days and it will probably happen some time during the season.  Lots of talk has been dedicated to "solving" this problem.  There have been three basic options thrown out there.

1. Keep the scheduling as it is.  You play six divisional games, one permanent cross-divisional game, and one rotating cross-divisional game for a total of eight games. (6-1-1)
2. Eliminate permanent cross-divisional rivals.  You play six divisional games, and two rotating cross-divisional games for a total of eight games. (6-2)
3. Add a ninth game.  You play six divisional games, one permanent cross-divisional game, and two rotating cross-divisional games for a total of nine games. (6-1-2)

Each school has a preference and there is very little agreement.  Auburn, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee want to keep playing permanent cross-divisional rivals.  LSU wants to eliminate said rivals so that they don't have to play Florida every year.  Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida don't want nine SEC games because they also play Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State every year, respectively.  Despite all the disagreement, there may be another option, no matter how unlikely.

The 3-5 plan

Andy Bitter laid out a plan for ACC scheduling that I think can be directly applied to SEC.  I'll let him explain it.

Here it is: Eliminate the divisions. Have every team play three fixed rivals per year. Play five more games against non-fixed opponents in a given year, then the other five the next, allowing for each team to play everybody in the league at least once on the road and at home in a four-year cycle. Then have the teams with the best two records play in the [SEC] championship game.

He goes on to explain that there are some problems.  For example, the NCAA only allows conference championship games if there are round robin divisions.  Also, some great annual division games wouldn't be played every year.  Good thing we can all agree on which teams will be fixed rivals, right?

The fixed rivals...

• Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
• Arkansas: Missouri, South Carolina, Texas A&M
• Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi State
• Florida: Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
• Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
• Kentucky: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
• Louisiana State: Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
• Missouri: Arkansas, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
• Mississippi State: Auburn, Louisiana State, Ole Miss
• Ole Miss: Louisiana State, Missouri, Mississippi State
• South Carolina: Arkansas, Georgia, Florida
• Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
• Texas A&M: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri
• Vanderbilt: Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee

The underlined teams are the ones I considered the most obvious.  Of course Auburn plays Alabama and Georgia every year.  Ole Miss has to play LSU and Miss State each year.  Some teams' list of three were easy to fill out.  Tennessee has three teams to play each year by default, but others, especially newcomers Missouri and Texas A&M don't have obvious answers.

After the obvious teams were put together, I used this chart to help with the rest.  It shows each FBS school and the teams they have played the most in their history.  He explains his methodology here, but the specific number of games isn't that important for this purpose.  I just wanted to know which teams have played each other the most.  Auburn has played Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Miss State the most, and since Georgia Tech isn't in the SEC any more, Miss State was added to Auburn's list.  Texas A&M hasn't played any SEC teams that often, but LSU is on the list, so they go together.

Sorry, South Carolina; You're Welcome, Tennessee

Every year, LSU some team complains about their schedule, and some team makes it to the SEC championship game because they didn't play the best teams in the other division.  In fact, in the 2012 regular season, Alabama didn't play any of the three best East teams and Georgia didn't play any of the three best West teams.

So are these fixed rivals fair?  In a word, no.  But I think they are close.  The graph below shows a team's own record compared to their new rivals' records, all since 1998, the BCS era.  (The numbers came from this handy calculator.)  The further right the team is, the better they have been for the past 15 years, and the higher they are, the better their three rivals have been.  Teams above the purple line have rivals with a better record than they do.  Teams below have played better than their new rivals.

As you can see, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Auburn are very close to the line, so they are evenly matched with their group.  Vanderbilt and Kentucky have such poor records in the last 15 years, no list of rivals could reach that low.  Similarly, Florida, LSU, and Georgia have done so well that they are clearly better than their rivals.

At the extremes, South Carolina is in the unfortunate position of playing the best set of rivals, Arkansas, Georgia, and Florida.  Tennessee has the benefit of playing the worst set of rivals, Vanderbilt and Kentucky, along with Alabama.

What is gained/lost?

There is a downside.  For Auburn, newer rivalries with LSU and Arkansas are gone as annual games, and neither Tennessee nor Florida become annual as they once were.  The same goes for a lot of the top teams in each division.  Alabama doesn't play LSU every year, Tennessee doesn't play Florida or Georgia every year, and so on.

The main benefit is that each team actually plays each team in the conference in a timely manner.  In the current system, Vanderbilt holds a two game streak over Auburn and when is the next opportunity to end it?  Probably about 5 years from now, and then 6 years after that.  This year may be the last year Auburn plays Tennessee until 2019 or so.  In the 3-5 schedule, the other 10 conference teams are fully rotated, home and away, in 4 years.  Every player would get to play every other team at least once.  Every player that uses all four years of eligibility will play every team twice.

I titled this an exercise in futility for two reasons.  First, no SEC administrators are reading blogs to help them solve the scheduling issues.  But second, you are probably thinking, "South Carolina shouldn't play those teams every years.  They should play these."  I'm no SEC historian, so let me know if the list of rivals should be different and why.