Question: Who should be our 3rd Permanent Rival?

[tusks_n_raider]

This is more right than wrong compared to other predictions I’ve seen today.

The main error I see is AU and FLA should be each other’s 3rd rival.

OU seems to be one of the more difficult teams to pick a 2nd or 3rd rival for that wouldn’t interfere with a better rivalry so just stick them with Vandy instead I guess.

 

[BamaMoon]

It’s LSU

Is is recent? Yes

Is it because of CNS? Yes

Those games from ‘08 to ‘24 have been some of the most intense and hyped games of every season.

I believe LSU has only not been ranked in the Top 15 about 3-4 times so it’s almost always a Marquee matchup.

Miss St is a big nothing burger.

It’s LSU

Then the same should apply to the UT/Florida series. There wasn't a better, more intenste game in the SEC with those two for several years during the 90's and 00's.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Vandy?

We do owe them

 

[BamaMoon]

This is more right than wrong compared to other predictions I’ve seen today.

The main error I see is AU and FLA should be each other’s 3rd rival.

OU seems to be one of the more difficult teams to pick a 2nd or 3rd rival for that wouldn’t interfere with a better rivalry so just stick them with Vandy instead I guess.

At least that one has UF and UT together!

I still don't like the idea of LSU for Bama.

 

[CrimsonTitles]

I think we should limit it to 1 permanent conference opponent per team. Having 3 permanent opponents makes zero sense in the playoff format we are headed towards.t The decision to move to 9 games, is very likely to be a precursor to adopting the 4-4-2-2-1-1 formet, so in this playoff model, all the SEC schools are competing against each for 4 playoff spots, because there wouldn't be any ar large bids unless Notre Dame lost a bunch of games. The 3 permanent conference opponents would make sense in the 5-11 model (or any model variation that would limit the auto bids to 1 per conference), but I really don't think that's where we're headed.

Let's use Auburn as an example, so it doesn't come across as homerism. Their permanent opponents are almost guaranteed to be Alabama and Georgia, so that's already a gauntlet in itself. The third opponent could be LSU. I don't think it will be, but it might if we get MSU over LSU. So for argument's sake let's assume it's LSU. So they would have to play Bama, Georgia, and LSU EVERY year, while say, Ole Miss's projected permanent opponents are Mississippi State, Arkansas and LSU according to google. That's a drastic difference, even if you replaced LSU with someone else on Auburn's. How is that fair? What are the odds of Auburn EVER finishing in the top 4 of the SEC with that schedule. It's fine with me because it's Auburn, but it wouldn't feel good if the shoe were on the other foot. There are also way too many SEC teams to be clogging up the schedule with 3 permanent opponents. It would probably take a decade for every SEC team to face each other at least once.

 

[BamaMoon]

I think we should limit it to 1 permanent conference opponent per team. Having 3 permanent opponents makes zero sense in the playoff format we are headed towards.t The decision to move to 9 games, is very likely to be a precursor to adopting the 4-4-2-2-1-1 formet, so in this playoff model, all the SEC schools are competing against each for 4 playoff spots, because there wouldn't be any ar large bids unless Notre Dame lost a bunch of games.

Let's use Auburn as an example, so it doesn't come across as homerism. Their permanent opponents are almost guaranteed to be Alabama and Georgia, so that's already a gauntlet in itself. The third opponent could be LSU. I don't think it will be, but it might if we get MSU over LSU. So for argument's sake let's assume it's LSU. So they would have to play Bama, Georgia, and LSU EVERY year, while say, Ole Miss's projected permanent opponents are Mississippi State, Arkansas and LSU according to google. That's a drastic difference, even if you replaced LSU with someone else on Auburn's. How is that fair? What are the odds of Auburn EVER finishing in the top 4 of the SEC with that schedule. It's fine with me because it's Auburn, but it wouldn't feel good if the shoe were on the other foot. There are also way too many SEC teams to be clogging up the schedule with 3 permanent opponents. It would probably take a decade for every SEC team to face each other at least once.

Excellent!

And it's the same reason UT should never get KY and Vandy as their's.

Most years, that two guaranteed wins, assuming UT is their traditional self.

It's why I have a problem with Bama having AU/UT and LSU.

Those three games, if mandated, would be like AU getting stuck with Bama, Georgia AND LSU OR UF.

Basically, you could be mandated to play 3 very loseable games from one year to the next, again, if these teams play to their traditional selves.

 

[BamaMoon]

And before someone says, but the barn is a traditional 8-4/7-5 team. While true, the fact they are a state rival that lives to play/beat Alabama for relevance is not anything to be compared to UT vs. Vandy.

That's like saying Texas and Sam Houston St are rivals.

 

[BamaHoopsBoi]

I would love Georgia but I think it would be too much on a year to year basis.

I've grown a hatred for the purple and gold over the last few decades. 3rd HAS to be LSU.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

My main take when it comes to Bama is I want the rivalry games to actually be a rivalry.

A Rival is someone who is passionately competitive with you to achieve a goal by any means and an obstacle to your success.

It doesn’t matter how long Bama has played MSU.

They are not a ‘Rival’

They’ve won 1 West Title and 1 SEC title in their entire history.

For the last 15-20 years the SEC West went through the LSU/Bama game except for the odd year here and there AU won the west.

They HATE us and we generally do not like them either because we’ve been competing annually to win the West.

Divisions are gone now and so is CNS but it’s a still a Great Game.

MSU is a joke. We might as well have Kentucky or Vandy as a ‘Rival’.

I don’t care about how it affects SOS.

I don’t want Bama running from tough games.

It’s a 12 team playoff.

Go 10-2 or better and make the field.

That’s only asking you to beat the 9 teams you should beat and win 1 out of 3 vs Rivals.

 

[arthurdawg]

We have computers to arrange the schedule... So maybe let teams deem 1-3 rival games and then schedule around it. Rebalance if and when needed.

Honestly... I don't even care to play Auburn and let them aim for relevance year to year.

 

[Titans&Tide]

My main take when it comes to Bama is I want the rivalry games to actually be a rivalry.

A Rival is someone who is passionately competitive with you to achieve a goal by any means and an obstacle to your success.

It doesn’t matter how long Bama has played MSU.

They are not a ‘Rival’

They’ve won 1 West Title and 1 SEC title in their entire history.

For the last 15-20 years the SEC West went through the LSU/Bama game except for the odd year here and there AU won the west.

They HATE us and we generally do not like them either because we’ve been competing annually to win the West.

Divisions are gone now and so is CNS but it’s a still a Great Game.

MSU is a joke. We might as well have Kentucky or Vandy as a ‘Rival’.

I don’t care about how it affects SOS.

I don’t want Bama running from tough games.

It’s a 12 team playoff.

Go 10-2 or better and make the field.

That’s only asking you to beat the 9 teams you should beat and win 1 out of 3 vs Rivals.

I see where you're coming from, but asking Bama to beat AU (who lives to beat us), UT (who lives to beat us), and LSU (who - you guessed it - lives to beat us) every year while UT has to play us, Vandy and UK?

Come on man.

I'd much rather have MSU than LSU. Historically, they're not great, but it at least gives us the same breather UT/UGA/AU etc. will get.

 

[Nothingfaced]

historical context? I don't remember ever giving any thoughts on playing them. They were historically terrible.

To be fair, Battle for Highway 82 makes sense to due the short distances between campuses.

Mississippi State was the very first team ranked No. 1 in the 4-team playoff.

 

[BamaMoon]

My main take when it comes to Bama is I want the rivalry games to actually be a rivalry.

A Rival is someone who is passionately competitive with you to achieve a goal by any means and an obstacle to your success.

It doesn’t matter how long Bama has played MSU.

They are not a ‘Rival’

They’ve won 1 West Title and 1 SEC title in their entire history.

For the last 15-20 years the SEC West went through the LSU/Bama game except for the odd year here and there AU won the west.

They HATE us and we generally do not like them either because we’ve been competing annually to win the West.

Divisions are gone now and so is CNS but it’s a still a Great Game.

MSU is a joke. We might as well have Kentucky or Vandy as a ‘Rival’.

I don’t care about how it affects SOS.

I don’t want Bama running from tough games.

It’s a 12 team playoff.

Go 10-2 or better and make the field.

That’s only asking you to beat the 9 teams you should beat and win 1 out of 3 vs Rivals.

I don't want us running from tough teams too, but us playing AU, UT and LSU and UT playing KY and Vandy is not even remotely close to the same difficulty.

We could be loads better than a UT team and possibly skull drag them but go 0-2 against the Barn and LSU (assuming they are pretty good that year). And UT, could skate thru UK and Vandy and be 2-0.

That arrangement WILL NOT identify the best team near the end of the year.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

I don't want us running from tough teams too, but us playing AU, UT and LSU and UT playing KY and Vandy is not even remotely close to the same difficulty.

We could be loads better than a UT team and possibly skull drag them but go 0-2 against the Barn and LSU (assuming they are pretty good that year). And UT, could skate thru UK and Vandy and be 2-0.

That arrangement WILL NOT identify the best team near the end of the year.

Tenn's Top rivals are to me Bama, Fla, and either Vandy or Kentucky as the 3rd

I can't imagine them doing away with Tenn vs Fla

But even if it were unbalanced and Tenn had Kentucky and Vandy I still wouldn't care.

If Bama goes 10-2 with two losses to AU and LSU they would still be in the CFBP and Tenn would have to go 11-1 in that scenario to possibly be seeded higher.

If Bama is really the better team it will shake out in the end.

If Bama went 9-3 because they lost to AU, LSU, and Team X and miss the Playoffs then that's Bama's fault. Don't lose any one of those three games.

AU doesn't always have a good team and LSU doesn't always have a Top 5-10 team and Tenn has been extremely mediocre until Heupel.

These things are fluid.

I'm fine with the Cupcake games being the OOC little sisters of the poor though and I for sure don't want to play MSU every other year in Starkvegas with Cow Bells clanging constantly.

They are the AU of Miss and one AU is enough.

Bama vs LSU is the much better yearly game as a fan.

 

[bamaga]

Grok- the top six teams Alabama has played the most in football are: Mississippi State 108 times, Tennessee 106 times, Auburn 89 times, Vanderbilt 87 times, LSU 86 times, and Ole Miss 72 times. These numbers come from their all-time series records.

as far as number of games played, Vandy, Auburn and LSU are all about the same

 

[Rocky Mtn Bob]

I will say I'm enjoying all these analyses.

We'll see....

 

[BamaFossil]

If the question is which teams are best described as "rivals", I go with Auburn, Tenn, and LSU. I don't get the folks who don't consider LSU a rival. I recall back in the 1950's listening to radio broadcasts of the game. A strong LSU team giving the "Ears" team their usual pounding and thinking "Someday Bama's turn will come!" It did. As _raider notes above, the SEC championship very often went through the Bama-LSU game. LSU is a rival. MSU - despite geographic proximity and frequency of games - is NOT a real rival.

"Course, in the interest of making an easier schedule, I'd be fine with playing MSU annually instead of LSU...

 

[BamaMoon]

It's probably already been said (cause I think there are two threads discussing the same topic), but:

- We shouldn't confuse "good games" with "rivals." It's true LSU has been a "good/great game in recent years (although we've pretty much dominated during the CNS tenure) but it was always about "CNS," the two teams' talent-laden roster (remember the 2019 year???), and the "Death Valley" reputation that as rarely been "death" to us!

-We shouldn't dismiss traditionally bad teams (think Vandy and MSU) as not being "rivals" either. I know it's anecdotal, but some of my best memories are the annual Bama/Vandy game. I've probably been to more Bama/Vandy games (both at BDS and Nashville) than any other SEC school. Why? Almost always a win....but also because they were a regular on the schedule for so many years! In terms of History, I found this gem: "Alabama and Vanderbilt played in football for the first time in 1894 and met in every season until 1944, a streak of 51 consecutive years, with the only interruption being during World War I." Furthermore, from 1953 to 2002, we played Vandy every year. This is not to say Vandy is more of a "rival" than MSU, but history has a strong case of us and Vandy being "rivals."

-And finally, a "rival" isn't necessarily a team you get excited about playing, solely speaking. If so, every other team in the SEC would consider Bama a "rival." It's the aspect of being the SEC's top school that most people (outside of the Bama Nation) don't consider when they marvel at how even bad teams can "get up" for Bama and play us closely and sometimes pull off the amazing upset!

 

[arthurdawg]

If the question is which teams are best described as "rivals", I go with Auburn, Tenn, and LSU. I don't get the folks who don't consider LSU a rival. I recall back in the 1950's listening to radio broadcasts of the game. A strong LSU team giving the "Ears" team their usual pounding and thinking "Someday Bama's turn will come!" It did. As _raider notes above, the SEC championship very often went through the Bama-LSU game. LSU is a rival. MSU - despite geographic proximity and frequency of games - is NOT a real rival.

"Course, in the interest of making an easier schedule, I'd be fine with playing MSU annually instead of LSU...

I'd honestly love to see us play that three game lineup every year like we have, but having to add Georgia and Texas and possibly teams like Okie and Florida when strong will be a murderer's row. Not making the playoffs for the sake of rivals games will ding us on recruiting over the years...

 

[C2Ag93]

Long time, no see Bama folks. Decided to make my way over and see what others were saying.

It's funny, but seems most schools are struggling with who the "third" should be. Looks like you guys are having the same debate. Won't happen, but I'd absolutely love if ours included you. But pretty sure the prognosticators are right, LSU, Texas and either Miss State or Arkansas for us.

Oddly, I see some on other SEC school boards pairing us with Missouri. That makes no sense, other than just to pair us since we entered the SEC together (but makes no sense in terms of "rivalry", geography, history, etc.).