And both were told in the final days leading up to signing day that Nick Saban would only take them on if they waited a full year to enroll at Alabama in 2013.

Now you can say the Crimson Tide lived up to the letter of the SEC’s new soft 25-man signing cap law.  It did.  But that won’t mask the stink of these two players’ situations.

Taylor signed with Kentucky and admitted that he felt he’d been wronged.  His high school coach — former NFL running back Stanley Pritchett who’s seen recruiting from every angle — wasn’t happy with Alabama’s actions.

Philon — after a painful to watch signing day press conference — inked with Arkansas.  He’s never even been on Arkansas’ campus.

Is Alabama alone in this kind of activity?  No.  It’s recruiting.  It’s a dirty business known for broken promises.  Commitments from players and schools are steel strong… right up until a better player or a better school comes along.

But Saban and Alabama certainly get more ink than most when it comes to their methods of roster management.  Talk of a signing cap was tied to UA.  Chatter about unwarranted medical hardships once swirled around Bama.  And now the buzz is focused on Saban for backpedaling from committed prospects like an All-America corner in an SEC title game.

Is it enough to create some bad vibes for the Alabama program?  Jeff Sentell of The Birmingham News suggests as much:

“If there’s such a thing as football karma, maybe Taylor uses this diss to spark Kentucky to an Alabama upset?  Maybe Philon does the same for Arkansas?  What if those losses kept Alabama from both the SEC and BCS title games?  That’s one way that troubled look on Philon’s face on signing day could come back to haunt Alabama’s bottom line.”

That’s not likely to happen.  Instead, Saban’s juggernaut Tide will continue to roll right along.  And top recruits will continue to commit to Alabama believing that what happened to Taylor and Philon could never happen to their superstar selves.

But Tide fans are going to have to learn to live with all this negative talk until Bama changes its ways.  That’s got to be maddeningly tiresome.  Whether UA fans will admit it or not.

The old saying goes: To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.  Well, there’s a price to pay for the eggs.  There’s a cost.

And the cost is headshakes and tsk-tsks from the rest of the sporting world everytime another teenager says he was left at the altar or kicked to the curb by Saban.  Nothing’s free.  Not even well-made omelettes.

(Story corrected… Justin Taylor — who we’ve referenced several times here — is the Alabama commit who wound up signing with Kentucky.  Jason Taylor was a future Hall of Fame defensive end for the Miami Dolphins.  And I am the guy who has to have extra proof-reading time for my morning posts.)

“The format will consist of each team playing all six in its division each year, plus its primary crossover partner each year and two rotating opponents from the opposite division.  This six-year cycle allows each team to play each divisional opponent and its primary crossover partner six times (three home and three away) while also playing each rotating crossover opponent two times (one home and one away).

If you read MrSEC.com with any regularity, you know that’s the exact format that we’ve pushed as the SEC’s best method of protecting traditional rivalries and moving forward into a new age.

We still believe that the league will go to such a plan at some point in the future so long as the bowl-eligibility standard isn’t raised to seven wins.

But the SEC’s coaches and athletic directors — for now — are scared to death of a nine-game plan.  They don’t want to give up the cash brought in by an extra home game every year (even though the new TV contracts more than make up for the loss of a home every other season).  They cry that a nine-game schedule would kill the league’s national title hopes (even though just the opposite happened when the league expanded to eight games and added a conference title game).

Barring a nine-game format, we recently pushed this divisionless format… assuming the SEC could convince the NCAA to drop its schedule requirements for a conference championship game.  But even if the SEC moved to an eight-game, non-divisional plan — the best fallback option out there — its coaches and ADs would still have to live with this disappointing fact:

They’re scared of doing what the ACC is planning to do.

Where’s the fearless leadership of Roy Kramer when you need it?  (And don’t think there weren’t shrieks of terror when he added a title game and shifted the league from six to seven to eight contests per year.)

Well, it seems that Vanderbilt’s James Franklin and MSU’s Dan Mullen have some growing up to do, too.  (There may be more across the SEC, but those are the three cases we’ve come across so far.)

In the cutthroat world of recruiting, coaches rise and fall on the commitments and de-commitments of teenage boys.  Naturally, when a coach loses a player, he’s going to be a) ticked and b) hurt.  But as adults representing major universities, they need to show a bit more maturity than the kids doing the flip-flopping.

Especially when coaches have no problem talking recruits into flipping and flopping to their programs.

On Wednesday, Miles questioned the heart and leadership capabilities of quarterback prospect and Notre Dame signee Gunner Kiel.  In contrast, he talked up the “style” of Jeremy Liggins, a Mississippi quarterback who inked a last-minute deal with the Tigers.

Liggins had been a top target of Mullen’s Mississippi State program.  So when he lost out on Liggins, he offered a scholarship to quarterback Nick Schuessler instead.  And here’s what he had to say about that move:

“It was actually funny.  During that whole weekend (leading up to signing day) we were sitting there with Nick, I kind of came to the conclusion Nick was the better quarterback.  Then it kind of became real heavy that he was the much better quarterback.”

Funny how that works.  You study two players for months and target one.  That one decides to go elsewhere and suddenly it’s obvious that he really wasn’t that good after all.  The other guy was “much better.”

How childish and small of Mullen to make a crack like that about a teenager who’s was trying to make the biggest decision of his young life.

But the immaturity and pettiness didn’t stop there.  In Nashville, James Franklin told a group of Vanderbilt backers that players who de-committed from his program were “not men of honor” and “not men of integrity,” according to Jeff Lockridge of The Tennessean via Twitter.

Hmmm.  Could that have been a shot at last minute flip-flopper Josh Dawson, who decided his skills as a defensive end would be better honed at his homestate school of Georgia?  (It should be noted, Dawson called Vandy’s coaches with the news on the night prior to signing day.  Even VU assistant Sean Spencer said “he was a man” about it.)

What’s ironic is that Franklin’s signing class includes a quarterback named Patton Robinette who walked out of orientation at North Carolina to drive to Nashville and join Franklin’s squad at the last possible instant.

I don’t recall Franklin closing his door to Robinette, do you?  I suppose a player isn’t a man of honor or integrity when he’s leaving you for someone else.  If he’s leaving someone else for you, well, that’s a sign of high character.

I get that coaches like players who sign with them and dislike many kids who sign elsewhere.  I understand that coaches need to spin “lesser” signees to the fanbase when they lose a higher-ranked prospect.  I also understand that coaches like to be applauded and there’s no easier way for a coach to gain applause than by acting angry and wronged in front of his fanbase.  Talk about rallying the troops.

But the fact remains, these coaches are dealing with teenagers.  Regardless of how they might feel post-signing day or what they might say behind the closed doors of the football complex, they need to show enough maturity to not insult and belittle young men who are being pulled in a thousand directions by grown men promising them everything from playing time, to jobs, to an education.

Miles questioned a teen’s heart and talent.  Mullen dissed a teen’s abilities.  Franklin questioned at least one teenager’s honor and integrity.

I wonder if there’s anyone at any of those coaches’ institutions who will question the scorned, schoolgirl behavior of their highest-paid employees?

You’re older than the players, guys.  You’re supposed to be more mature.  Act like it.

In just about every story that referenced the bizarre Landon Collins’ recruitment, the following NCAA rule was cited:

“During a two-year period before a prospective student-athlete’s anticipated enrollment and a two-year period after the student-athlete’s actual enrollment, an institution shall not employ an individual associated with the prospective student-athlete in any athletics department non-coaching staff position.”

Pretty clear.

Only it isn’t.

The rule cited — bylaw 11.4.2 applies to basketball only, not football.  Yep.  You read that right.  While a basketball coach can’t hire anyone associated with prospect, a football coach is apparently free to do so.  According to good ol’ 11.4.2.

If that makes sense to you, you’re either an NCAA wonk or an Alabama fan (who’d be arguing just the opposite if Gene Chizik were the coach in question and not Saban).

On the basis of 11.4.2, we got it wrong.  Mea culpa.  We don’t like getting facts wrong, and we have no problem admitting mistakes when they occur.  But rather than simply erasing the line from our original post as many other sites have done, we thought we’d give this issue a full post because more people — obviously — need to be aware of the rule… and the fact that what’s good for football coaches isn’t good for basketball coaches.

That specific bylaw went into effect in January of 2010 and it was designed to curtail the growing practice of hoops coaches hiring people as a means of luring in a recruit who is somehow connected to the folks being hired.

Would the NCAA view a girlfriend as one of those people who could not be hired?  Here’s what bylaw 17.6.1 states: “Any person who maintains (or directs others to maintain) contact with the prospective student-athlete, the prospective-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians, or coaches at any point during the prospective student-athlete’s participation in baksetball, and whose contract is directly or indirectly related to either the prospective student-athlete’s athletic skills and abilities or the prospective student-athlete’s recruitment by or enrollment in an NCAA institution.  This definition includes but is not limited to parents, legal guardians, handlers, personal trainers and coaches.”

So, yes, it does appear that hoops programs would be unable to provide employment for a players’ girlfriend.  It seems odd — odd enough that the loophole might eventually be closed — that what’s illegal in one NCAA sport is legal in another.  Basketball coaches might want to ask a question about why what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.

But we’re not finished.  To make things more confusing, check out bylaw 13.2.1:

“A representative of a Division I institution is not allowed to, directly or indirectly, make arrangements for or give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospect or a prospect’s relatives or friends.”

In such a case, “Benefits include, but are not limited to: Employment arrangement for a prospect’s relatives; Gift of clothing or equipment; Cash or like items; Any tangible items, including merchandise; Cosigning of loans; Providing loans to a prospect’s relatives or friends; Free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type; Free or reduced-cost housing; Use of an institution’s athletic equipment; Sponsorship of or Arrangement for an awards banquet or prospective athletes.”

Let’s get all this straight.  Basketball programs can’t give jobs to a recruit’s buddies, family and contacts.  Football programs can.  Unless you take bylaw 13.2.1 seriously.  In which case, it would appear that football programs might not be able to promise employment to family (and perhaps friends), either.

To get to the bottom of this, we have attempted to contact five SEC compliance directors to discuss these rules and to determine what limitations are put on a school regarding the employment opportunities it can offer a recruit’s family or friends.  Usually, we hear back quickly when we put in requests like this.  In this case — silence.

And what about a school straight-up promising to find a job for a recruit?  When Tide commitment Justin Taylor said earlier this month that he’d been told by Alabama coaches that they would help him find a job, that too set off a wave of national discussion on what’s legal and what isn’t.

Well, NCAA bylaw 13.2.3.3 states that “an institution may arrange for employment or employ any prospective student-athlete” so long as the employment doesn’t begin before the player finishes high school.  Therefore, schools can promise jobs and find jobs for players all day and all night.  Basketball and football players, we might add.

The only stipulations on employment are found in bylaw 15.2.6 which states:

1.  The student-athlete’s compensation does not include any renumeration for value or utility that the student-athlete may have for the employer because of the publicity, reputation, fame or personal following that he or she has obtained because of athletics ability;

2.  The student-athlete is compensated only for work actually performed; and

3.  The student-athlete is compensated at a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services.

Other than that, it’s fair game for programs to help find athletes jobs.  Thus, promising a recruit a job is A-OK as well.

In summary: Promising a job to a recruit is fine.  Promising a job to a recruit’s hangers-on is a no-no in basketball and a maybe in football (depending on the interpretation of bylaw 13.2.1).

Now, this most recent dust-up began when April Justin — Collins’ mother — told the website MomsTeam.com that Bama had promised her son’s girlfriend a job.  But Justin is now backing away from the website’s claims.

“There’s accusations saying (the girlfriend is) going to hand feed Landon to Saban and that basically my son is following her daughter, which is a lie,” Collins told The Birmingham News late yesterday.  “Since his junior year, when we first visited, we fell in love with the (Alabama) campus.  Furthermore, there was an accusation saying she has a job for an internship.  It’s not a job.  It’s an intern in his office.”

And that’s why we said in our initial piece that there may or may not be any meat on the bones of MomsTeam.com’s accusations.  (Unfortunately, a few Bama fans took even the mere mention of this story — which everyone else mentioned to — to be a an outright attempt to harm their beloved football program.  It wasn’t.  And where have you people been when this writer has repeatedly called Saban the best coach in the country?  Reading only what you want to read and seeing only what you want to see, it appears.)

But for future reference:

* We’ll continue to work hard to avoid factual errors — typos and word-flips are going to happen.  When we do make mistakes we’ll correct them (and in this case, do more than just remove a line or two of text from the original story).

* We will continue to not give a hoot in hell whether your favorite SEC team wins or loses.  It’s business for those of us here at MrSEC and if you think you spot some pro-this-team or anti-that-team bias, it’s only evidence of your own bias.  We don’t care.

* We’ll also be waiting to see if the NCAA closes this loophole in its ongoing attempt to update its rulebook.  After all, it sure seems like it would be much simpler to just have all the rules involving employment match up from sport to sport.

* How can the SEC protect the league’s oldest football rivalries and, in doing so, save what’s helped make the league so special — tradition?

* How can the SEC welcome in two new schools without completely destroying its current scheduling structure?

* Can the league accomplish its goals without eventually going to a nine-game conference slate?

The league’s coaches and athletic directors want no part of a nine-game schedule.  Despite the fact that the league kicked things into hyperdrive when it expanded its conference schedule from six to seven to eight contests in the early 90s, the current batch of administrators are scared to death of a move to nine games.  And regardless of the fact that it wasn’t that long ago that teams hosted as few as six home games per year in an 11-game season, most SEC power brokers claim they can’t afford to play fewer than seven home games per year in a 12-game environment.  (Too bad those multi-billion dollar TV contracts don’t cover the costs of a single home game lost every other year, huh?)

We at MrSEC.com still feel a nine-game slate with a 6-1-2 format would protect rivalries and allow cross-divisional teams to face one another on a regular basis.  But if the powers-that-be in college football move the bowl eligibility standard to seven wins, even we will throw in the towel on a nine-game slate.  No way it would happen.  SEC administrators in 2012 aren’t as daring, aren’t as brave, aren’t as visionary as those who made the league tougher and stronger twenty years ago.

If, then, an eight-game schedule is a must, the SEC must attempt to persuade the NCAA to abolish its current requirements for a conference championship game.  At the moment, a league must be divided into two divisions of at last six teams each with each team in a division playing every other team in its division.  Why the NCAA cares about such details is anyone’s guess, but for time being, that’s the rule that’s on the books.

Unfortunately, with an eight-game schedule and round-robin scheduling necessary, the SEC’s options are limited:

* Use a 6-1-1 format which would protect one permanent cross-divisional foe per team and set up a rotation in which one school would face the other six teams in the opposite division just twice every 12 years.  (Currently teams face non-divisional teams twice every five years.)

* Use a 6-2 format which would lessen the timespan between cross-divisional matchups… but would also end three of the SEC’s oldest annual rivalries: Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Ole Miss-Vanderbilt.  (Sidenote: Just because your school might not have an important cross-divisional foe, that doesn’t mean the three games mentioned above don’t have history worth saving.  Those games are darn important to the schools involved.)

SEC officials have made it clear that the league won’t be moving teams from division to division anytime soon.  So you can hold off on the “move Auburn and Alabama to the East” talk.  That’s not happening in the short-term.  It’s also highly unlikely that games like Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee would be scheduled as non-conference games.  (Frankly, that’s absurd.)

Which brings us back to the following point: The SEC must persuade the NCAA to dump its requirements for a championship game.  If that were to happen, the SEC could go to a divisionless format that would allow the league to protect the conference’s oldest rivalries and keep a good rotation going for non-permanent foes.

Without divisions, the SEC could simply pair the teams with the two best SEC records in its championship game.  Forget the problem of having the two best teams in one division.  Without divisions, the two top teams in the league would always reach Atlanta.

Last week, we showed you how an 18-game schedule without divisions could be used to protect the oldest basketball rivalries in the SEC.  It’s simple, it’s clean, and it works.  And you wouldn’t need Pythagoras to help explain it to the folks at home.  “In even numbered years each team’s tertiary rival would supplant its secondary rival, etc, etc.”  Such mumbo wouldn’t be needed.  Our plan would be as easy as 1-2-3.  You can find that 4-1-8 basketball plan here.

Well, just as we set out to protect the oldest basketball rivalries with that format, we’ve done likewise with football’s most important games below.  It’s a 6-2 plan (six permanent opponents, two rotating foes) without divisions.  Teams would face their non-permanent opponents twice every seven years.  Each team would have four home and four road games per season.  And of the 23 SEC rivalries that have been played at least 60 times, 20 would be protected (and two of those lost aren’t currently being played as annual games anyway).

The set-up below — like the basketball plan mentioned above — would also help to create “local” rivalries for the SEC’s newest members.  Now, by protecting each schools’ oldest rivalries, the schedule is set up in such a way that just about every school would have to play either an SEC newcomer or a team from far across the conference.  Grab a spreadsheet, protect the oldest rivalries, and you’ll see what we mean.  Scheduling is not as easy as most people think.

That said, we think the following 6-2 MrSEC.com Non-Divisional Plan would be both fair and rooted in tradition.  We list each school’s permanent opponents from left to right.  All games played more than 60 times are noted:

The only rivalries played 60+ times that would not be permanent matchups under this plan are: Georgia-Vanderbilt (73), Alabama-Georgia (65) and Ole Miss-Tennessee (64).  Only the Georgia-Vandy game is currently an annual tilt.

And now, here’s what a 6-2, non-divisional plan would do for each program:

Alabama — The Tide would play five of its oldest rivals each year.  Bama would also add newcomer Missouri as a regular foe.

Arkansas – The Razorbacks would protect their oldest rivalry (with Texas A&M) and draw neighboring LSU and Missouri on a yearly basis.  The Hogs would also add Georgia as a regular opponent… which is a tad closer than South Carolina.

Auburn — The Tigers would play their four oldest rivals yearly.  They would also add an annual game with South Carolina.

Florida – The Gators’ three oldest rivalries would be protected.  UF would also add Missouri to its schedule.

Georgia — The Bulldogs would protect their two oldest rivalries plus two other games that have been played 60+ times.  UGA would also add Arkansas as a regular opponent.

Kentucky — The Wildcats would protect four of their oldest rivalry games.  UK would also add border state Missouri.  (UK is one of only three schools whose permanent rivals under this plan would match those in the 2012 divisional plan.)

LSU — Three of the Tigers’ oldest rivalries would be saved and Texas A&M would be added to the mix as well.  (Like Kentucky, LSU’s permanent schedule would remain the same under this format.)

Miss. State — The Bulldogs are a part of four of the SEC’s oldest rivalry games and all four would be protected.  MSU would also add newcomer Texas A&M to its mix.  (State is the third school — along with UK and LSU — that would face the same permanent opponents under our plan.)

Missouri — The Tigers would be given annual games against old Big 12 rival Texas A&M and border state schools Kentucky and Arkansas.  The Tigers would also play Ole Miss on a yearly basis as that is a short distance from Southeast Missouri.  In addition, MU would face Florida from across the league on an annual basis.

Ole Miss — Three of the Rebels’ oldest rivalries would be protected and UM would add both Missouri and Texas A&M to its yearly slate.

S. Carolina – The Gamecocks would protect their oldest rivalry (with Georgia) and continue to face all of their current division foes.  Auburn would be added to USC’s schedule as a replacement for Arkansas.

Tennessee – The Volunteers would have three of their most-played games saved.  They would lose Florida — which is basically a 20-year-old rivalry — but add newcomer Texas A&M as an annual foe.

Texas A&M –  The Aggies would protect their oldest rivalry (with Arkansas) and they would gain games LSU and old Big 12 combatant Missouri.  A&M would also add Tennessee to its schedule (which might give the Aggies a new orange-and-white “UT” to hate).

Vanderbilt – The Commodores would have four of their oldest rivalry games protected.  After a lengthy layoff, Alabama would return to VU’s schedule as an yearly foe, too.

Is this plan perfect?  No.  But it’s probably as close as one can come to protecting the SEC’s most historically significant rivalries while also maintaining competitive balance and manageable travel.

If the SEC wants to make an eight-game schedule work, the 6-2 MrSEC.com Non-Divisional Plan is almost a must.  Which means Mike Slive and his league leaders must work to convince the NCAA to drop its totally unnecessary scheduling requirements for conference championship games.

Any other plan would nix too much tradition… and tradition is something the SEC should fight at all costs to defend as it ushers in a new 14-school future.

So how does the homcourt advantage in basketball compare to the homefield advantage in SEC football?  This past season — excluding the neutral site game between Florida and Georgia played in Jacksonville — the home team won 28 of 47 football games.  That 28-19 record equals a 59.5 winning percentage.

In basketball, the home team wins more than seven out of every 10 games played.  in football, the home team wins a hair less than six out of 10.

Why?

Road teams in both sports have their routines shaken up.  And road teams in both sports might tire from travel.

But we believe there are two factors that play a big role in making hoops tougher than football on visitors:


1.  Shooting backgrounds and rims — Shooters have different sight lines and get different bounces off stiffer/softer rims than they are used to in their own arenas.

2.  The crowd is right on top of the action — Both players and officials can feed off of the energy in a building.  It’s human nature to want to feel support.  For players, their effort levels almost always go up at home.  Officials are human, too.  Start noticing how much more demonstrative many refs become when they call a block or a charge against a visitor while smack in the middle of a home team run. 


In football, a stadium is a stadium.  A different “passing backdrop” won’t influence a quarterback, a receiver or a defensive back.

Also, the fans are further away from the action.  The crowd is bigger and louder, but there’s a lot more space between the guy in Section X and the player (or the official) way down on the field of play.

Whatever the reason, there’s no debating the facts.  It’s a lot harder to win an SEC road game in basketball than it is in football.  And it’s not easy in football.

These are some of the topics being kicked around by the SEC’s transition committee regarding the league’s basketball schedules for 2013-14 and beyond.  The chair of the committee — former MSU AD Larry Templeton — and others around the league have already confirmed that next year’s transitional slate will feature 18 games without divisions.  But what about the long-range plan?

In our view, an 18-game slate is the best model for the league moving forward as well.

Below, you’ll see an example of what we call the 4-1-8 plan for SEC scheduling.  This layout would give each SEC school four permanent home/away rivals (meaning two games per season against each), one rotating home/away rival (meaning that eventually, everyone would have a season featuring two games against top draw Kentucky, for example), and one game against each of the remaining eight league teams.

There would be no divisions.  Each team would play nine home games and nine road games.  If structured correctly, most of the oldest basketball rivalries in the league would be protected and the newest members of the SEC would be given more games against nearby schools in order to develop rivalries.

Keep in mind, nothing is fair.  Unless all 13 teams play each other twice, someone will always think that his school is getting it rougher than another school.  Also, success is cyclical.  Twenty-five years ago, who would have projected that Florida would become a two-time national champ in basketball?  Ten years ago, who would’ve predicted Tennessee’s fast rise and subsequent fall?  Complaining about a schedule being too easy or too difficult makes little sense long-term.  Give it time and things change, just as the power has shifted from the SEC East to the SEC West and back over time.

With all that in mind, we created a schedule to show you exactly how a 4-1-8 rotation might look.  We’ve attempted first and foremost to protect the league’s most-played rivalries.  In fact, each current league member has been given its two oldest rivals as permanent home/away foes each season.  In some cases, we were able to protect three or even four of a school’s oldest rivalries.

We knew that Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Missouri — having less history in the league — would be difficult to schedule for, but in the end we think all four schools would be happy with the set-up we’ve designed.

So let’s get into it…

It’s our belief that the following year-in, year-out, home/away rivalries for each school should be protected (or in some cases created) as Permanent Foes.  The number beside each foe is the number of times two current members of the SEC had played against one another entering this season:

Now here’s what such an unbalanced plan would do for each program:

Alabama — protects four of five most-played rivalries

Arkansas — protects two most-played rivalries and provides two games each year against bordering Missouri and old SWC rival Texas A&M

Auburn — protects three of four most-played rivalries

Florida — protects three of five most-played rivalries

Georgia — protects three most-played rivalries

Kentucky — protects two most-played rivalries and provides two games each year against bordering Missouri

LSU — protects two most-played rivalries and provides two games each year against Arkansas and Texas A&M

Miss. State — protects three most-played rivalries

Missouri — provides two games each year against bordering Arkansas and bordering Kentucky, plus two against Big 12 rival Texas A&M, and two per year against MSU (a five-hour drive from Southeast Missouri)

Ole Miss — protects three most-played rivalries

S. Carolina — protects four of five most-played rivalries

Tennessee — protects four of five most-played rivalries

Texas A&M — provides two games each year against Big 12 rival Missouri, old SWC rival Arkansas, and LSU.

Vanderbilt — protects two most-played rivalries

Now, let’s say for 2013-14, the following schools are Rotational Foes for home/away games:

Alabama — LSU

Auburn — Miss. State

Arkansas — Tennessee

Florida — Kentucky

Georgia — Vanderbilt

Missouri — Ole Miss

S. Carolina — Texas A&M

Using the 4-1-8 MrSEC.com Plan for 2013-14, the home/away league rivals would be as follows (with the other eight SEC teams to be faced once at home or on the road):

Alabama:  Miss State, Ole Miss, Auburn, Tennessee and LSU + 8 others

Arkansas:  Ole Miss, LSU, Texas A&M, Missouri and Tennessee + 8 others

Auburn:  Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas A&M and Miss. State + 8 others

Florida:  Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and Kentucky + 8 others

Georgia:  Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, South Carolina and Vanderbilt + 8 others

Kentucky:  Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Missouri and Florida + 8 others

LSU:  Ole Miss, Miss. State, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Alabama + 8 others

Miss. State:  Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Missouri and Auburn + 8 others

Missouri:  Texas A&M, Kentucky, Arkansas, Miss. State and Ole Miss + 8 others

Ole Miss:  Miss. State, LSU, Alabama, Arkansas and Missouri + 8 others

S. Carolina:  Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and Texas A&M + 8 others

Tennessee:  Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas + 8 others

Texas A&M:  Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Auburn and South Carolina + 8 others

Vanderbilt:  Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia + 8 others

Now that’s a lot of typing and despite our double-checks and triple-checks, there might be a typo or two in there.  If so, we hope you’ll chalk it up to a mistype rather than to a conspiracy against your favorite school.

A 4-1-8 format like this or close to this would enable the league to move forward while also preserving its history.  And while a “balanced” schedule is a myth, the one we’ve put forth above would be about as close as one could get to a fair schedule based on league history.

McMurphy states that “conference commissioners, athletic directors and bowl officials” are looking at instituting the change when the new BCS cycle begins in 2014.

“The 7-5 discussion is percolating” one bowl official told the website.  “I don’t know of many athletic directors or conference commissioners who think a 6-6 team has earned a bowl berth.”

Probably not.  But it’s hard to imagine many bowl officials who would want to see their bowls (and their jobs) vanish.  It’s hard to imagine athletic directors who would want to give up the opportunity — even at 6-6 — to schmooze their boosters with a bowl trip.  And it’s equally hard to imagine conference commissioners who would want to cut down on the amount of revenue and exposure the bowls provide for their leagues.

Currently there are many, many bowls that hold no interest for traveling fans or television viewers.  Whacking a few and getting back to the 25-30 range for bowls would be viewed as a positive step by most fans.  (This writer as well, on the surface.)  But after arguing for decades about “the sanctity of the bowl system,” wouldn’t it be an about-face for college football’s powers-that-be to suddenly tell team after team and student-athlete after student-athlete that there’s no reward for them?  Not sure that lives up to the oft-repeated line: “The bowls are for the kids.”

From an SEC standpoint, moving to a seven-win eligibility standard would have a number of impacts:

1.  Though coaches and athletic directors do not want a nine-game league schedule, we have stated repeatedly that eventually a nine-game slate would be viewed as a necessity if the SEC wants to maintain its close-knit, rivalry-rich feel.

But if seven becomes the new magic number, forget the nine-game league schedule.  Forever.  If coaches are squawking now that a tough SEC slate might knock them out of bowls, imagine how much they would yelp — and rightfully so — if six-win teams could no longer earn bids.

2.  If the requirement moves to seven wins, expect to see more cupcakes, do-nothings and pipsqueaks rolling into your favorite team’s stadium.  For example, look at this year’s Mississippi State squad.  The Bulldogs finished just 2-6 in the SEC but won their four non-conference games to achieve the six wins necessary for bowl eligibility.  Their non-conference games included: Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin.  That’s the type of schedule many more SEC schools would begin playing.

Vanderbilt was also 2-6 in the SEC last season, but the Commodores achieved bowl eligibility with a non-con docket that included Elon, UConn, Army and Wake Forest.  Would Vandy schedule BCS-level UConn and Wake Forest in the future if the bowl cut-off were seven instead of six?  Would Auburn schedule Clemson?

The guess here is no, and there’s evidence to back up that guess.  Tennessee was scared that it wouldn’t reach bowl eligibility in Derek Dooley’s second year so the Vols bought out a road game to North Carolina and replaced the Tar Heels with a home date featuring Buffalo.  UT’s 2011 non-conference slate consisted of the aforementioned Bulls, Cincinnati, MTSU and Montana.  Not reaching bowl eligibility anyway, the Vols might want to buy out a team like Cincinnati, too, in the future… just to make that non-conference schedule even easier.

Here’s another nugget — while several schools would have the ability to schedule four non-con games against non-BCS foes, schools like Florida, Georgia and South Carolina have built-in rivalry games with BCS-level competition every year (Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson, respectively).  If everyone else takes an easier path, UF, UGA and USC will be at a bit of a disadvantage.

3.  Guess which leagues have sent the most 6-6 teams to bowl games over the past few years.  Yep, the BCS leagues.  The SEC and Big Ten have each sent nine six-win teams to bowls since 2006.  The ACC has sent eight.  The Big 12 has sent seven.

If the standard for bowl eligibility is raised, it will cost the big conferences the most.  That’s less bowl revenue, less bowl practice (15 sessions for each team going bowling), and less bowl bids for league schools to tout to prospects and recruits.

In terms of bowl revenue, there’s no question schools going to smaller-end bowls lose money on the actual trip.  They have to buy tickets that go unsold.  They have to pay for the school band and the official travel party.  It’s expensive.  But those official travel parties include big boosters who are expected to pony up more cash in the future if they feel the program is achieving something.  So while straight revenue from the bowls might not amount to much, there’s a reason the boosters are wined and dined in cities from Shreveport to Boise.  There’s big picture revenue that can come as a result of bowl trips.

In the end, it will be interesting to see how much traction the move to seven-win eligibility gains… and who is actually for it.  If it’s the BCS leagues who are in favor of it, they will be cutting down on their own schools’ opportunities and they will be limiting the “rewards” for a large number of student-athletes who they’ve always claimed to hold in high regard.

And if this idea does become a reality it will have a hefty impact on your very own SEC from in-conference schedules to non-conference schedules, from recruiting pitches to practice sessions, and from revenue to exposure.

Need to keep an eye on this one, folks.

Seth Emerson of The Macon Telegraph learned two things from Georgia athletic director Greg McGarity last night:

1.  A 19-game in-conference slate is “a serious possibility,” in Emerson’s words.  Such a plan would allow the league to continue to use a divisional schedule without the actual return of divisions.  A team in the SEC East in football, for example, would play its six division mates at both home and on the road in basketball.  That same team would then play the seven teams from the West division once per season.  (Unfairness Alert: Seven SEC teams would play nine homes games a year while the other seven would play just eight.)

2.  Even with a division-style schedule, the league “is still unlikely to go back to using divisions,” again, those are Emerson’s words.  McGarity said that the two-division standings hurt the “perception” of the league at NCAA tourney selection time.  (“Perception,” being McGarity’s word.)

The Big 12 has reopened the whole expansion can of worms.

Two “high-ranking sources” from the Big 12 have told The Houston Chronicle that further expansion is “very possible.”  West Virginia and TCU have already been tabbed to replace Missouri and Texas A&M, of course, though the Mountaineers can’t gain entry until they escape the Big East.

A new move would take the Big 12 — eventually — to 12 or even 16 teams.  Or 11?  “The Big Ten made 11 work for a number of years,” said one Big 12 source.  (Thirteen is also on the table because the Big 12 does not have a conference championship game and the scheduling requirements that go with it.  A 13-team model wouldn’t be as tough on that league as it would have been on the SEC.)

Louisville — which almost snuck in past WVU for the league’s last bid this past fall — would be the most likely 13th member.  From there, BYU and Notre Dame would probably generate the most chatter, whether those schools are realistic options or not.

“I don’t want to send the message, ‘Oh, they’re getting ready to expand,’ Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione said… sending the message that his league’s getting ready to expand.  “But you’d be naive to think there’s not instability still in our business.”

Part of the instability could go away when the BCS commissioners decide on a new format for the end-of-season system.  Leagues like the Big East and non-BCS schools like Boise State, UCF and San Diego State have been racing to form an alliance all in the hopes of getting a slice of BCS reaches.  The league wants to maintain its automatic qualifier status.  The schools want an easier shot into the BCS.

But if the new model does away with automatic qualifier status altogether, schools wouldn’t necessarily need to be in a particular conference to get a BCS invite.  And one has to wonder if the Big East would move forward as a coast-to-coast national league if it’s not a necessity.

If the BCS commissioners create a model that’s easier to reach, leagues and teams should — should — become a bit more stable.  And that would mean that further Big 12 expansion by one or even two teams isn’t likely to create nationwide ripples.

We still firmly believe the SEC is set at 14 schools and won’t eye 16 unless the landscape around it changes in a major way.  Louisville and BYU to the Big 12 is not sweeping change.

So while the Big 12′s blows off smoke like a volcano about to erupt, we don’t believe the college football landscape will be blasted apart this time around.

But never say never.