"You do know that Auburn has played LSU and Ole Miss more since the first expansion than all the years prior going back to before conference play?" True in the case of Ole Miss, not LSU. Like mentioned earlier, with the growth of the conference and collegiate football as a whole losing the permanent opponent component of the scheduling seems inevitable. I have no problems with that. I briefly mentioned even if UT wasn't schedule as a permanent opponent there's no reason they couldn't be scheduled every year. We'd have to step back a few decades, but there are seasons in the past where Alabama played UT and UT wasn't a part of the conference schedule that year. I see no reason why it couldn't happen again. Traditional games: I'd guess the closest thing to compare with LSU would be Ole Miss if we try to draw an analogy between the Bama vs UT game. I say that based on the number of games played. If I recall correctly, LSU has played Ole Miss three or four times more than Bama has faced UT. I suspect if there was as much at stake playing Ole Miss as there has been against UT over the years you'd view traditional rivalries differently. Make no mistake about this. I would MUCH rather have had UGA on our schedule this year than Mizzou. Any given chance to beat UGA ranks very high in my desire for games scheduled! On a bit of a separate note, but related... It's my understanding they worked on preliminary options for adding two more teams when the group worked on the 2012/2013 schedules. Hopefully it'll run smoother for all concerned next time around. But, logic dictates, some will still be upset about how it falls together.