Neyland Stadium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarius

That too, but mainly your school’s rivalry with a powderpuff is what’s holding the conference scheduling back. There is no need for that game to keep things the way they are scheduling wise. It makes no sense.

---

How does it “hold back” the SEC. if you don’t mind me asking? it’s still generating good money & viewership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

How does it “hold back” the SEC. if you don’t mind me asking? it’s still generating good money & viewership.

---

It is keeping kids that play the game on the field from getting to experience playing every team in the conference while they are at a school. It is also completely unfair for State and OM and Bama to play their constant east teams and LSU and Auburn to be required to play Georgia and Florida every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarius

It is keeping kids that play the game on the field from getting to experience playing every team in the conference while they are at a school. It is also completely unfair for State and OM and Bama to play their constant east teams and LSU and Auburn to be required to play Georgia and Florida every year.

---

Ahhh. You wanna do away with permanent cross division games & just rotate all the teams. That would be more equitable. I sure would have liked that the years UT was kicking the shit outta Bammer.

I don’t think the SEC would be willing to give up the money that UT/UA & AU/UGA generates, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

As an ole school Bammer, I follow UT pretty well... Back in the day they got into a "capacity war" with the Big House in Ann Arbor...

As I understand it, they didn't so much "add seats", they just decreased seat size.

The TSIO (Bammer/UT game) is still the biggest day of the year, to me... regardless of their suckitude....

---

Pretty smart in one sense to increase seating by not spending a dime (UT has a good business school). But the backend of that decision leads to a low tier stadium experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

How does it “hold back” the SEC. if you don’t mind me asking? it’s still generating good money & viewership.

---

Conference realignment. Swap Auburn and Mizzou. Auburn to SECE makes sense and they keep the UGA game however Auburn would become the permanent rivalry with Bama and they would have to give up the out of date UT rivalry.

For your second part, SEC football is going to generate money no matter who plays who. If you want more competition and fairness in the SEC then realignment should be done. If you want just more of same blue bloods every year then don't realign. Easy to see why some schools want to swap and some don't. Just like basketball divisions a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

Conference realignment. Swap Auburn and Mizzou. Auburn to SECE makes sense and they keep the UGA game however Auburn would become the permanent rivalry with Bama and they would have to give up the out of date UT rivalry.

For your second part, SEC football is going to generate money no matter who plays who. If you want more competition and fairness in the SEC then realignment should be done. If you want just more of same blue bloods every year then don't realign. Easy to see why some schools want to swap and some don't. Just like basketball divisions a few years ago.

---

You may have convinced me....I like the idea of swapping UT for Mizzou and the chance to play Vandy, KY, and SC more often...

Yeah, I wish auburn would move to the East and make Bama their permanent. Doesn't disrupt UGA vs Auburn and keeps the iron bowl in tact. The UT vs Bama game is old news. No one outside of T-town or Knoxville cares anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

You may have convinced me....I like the idea of swapping UT for Mizzou and the chance to play Vandy, KY, and SC more often...

---

Modern SEC, I think UT and Mizzou is a wash for Bama. The others, you play the same % of time so no change. I see little change for Bama. Now for majority of the SECW it gets a little better replacing Auburn with Mizzou. Auburn has down years but they have some up years where they compete for SECW. I don't see Mizzou doing that. They will compete for bottom in SECW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

You may have convinced me....I like the idea of swapping UT for Mizzou and the chance to play Vandy, KY, and SC more often...

---

Tennessee has not had a better program than Missouri or South Carolina in a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarius

Tennessee has not had a better program than Missouri or South Carolina in a decade.

---

Can’t disagree. However, if you don’t believe UT has a higher ceiling, I’d have to disagree.

It’s really irrelevant, little would change in the short term, save a slight ratings drop.