Andy Staples ponders SEC division relaignment

[Duke Humphrey]

Swap Auburn for Mizzou OR Auburn/Alabama for Mizzou/Vandy.... Interesting thoughts

https://www.si.com/college-football...visions-realignment?xid=socialflow_twitter_si

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Strongly support swapping the Alabama schools for Mizzou and Vandy. No need for permanent opponents once that is done.

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

Missouri & Vandy to the West and Bama & Auburn to the East solves all the issues

It does not disrupt any historical rivalries. Vandy/Tennessee can be permanent opponents.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

I agree. The current setup is ridiculous with only playing non-divisional teams that is not a team's perm opponent once every 10-ish years.... All to protect UT/Bama and Aub/UGA. The only "rivalry" you would lose would be LSU-Bama.

 

[57stratdawg]

I'm fine with any of these. There is a lot of momentum to move at least one of these.

 

[patdog]

Problem is Auburn in the only school that wants to realign divisions. It will never happen. What the SEC needs to do is get rid of divisions, still unlikely but much more likely than auburn to the east. That way you could get your top 2 teams in the title game every year & avoid the risk of #3 or 4 upsetting #1 and leaving the SEC out of the playoffs.

 

[Fighting Irish.sixpack]

Redo the Divisions with I 20 as the Dividing Line

nm

 

[vhdawg]

Be a whole lot easier to just scrap divisions entirely.

Give every team three permanent opponents to preserve the rivalries that really matter, and then you play the other ten teams twice every four years (on an 8-game schedule). And you make the SEC Championship #1 vs #2 rather than Alabama vs. whichever 9-3 team managed to finish on top of the East.

 

[AusTexDawg]

Be a whole lot easier to just scrap divisions entirely...And you make the SEC Championship #1 vs #2 rather than Alabama vs. whichever 9-3 team managed to finish on top of the East.

If I were a casual fan this approach makes perfect sense; however, it would be much easier for MSU to get to Atlanta as the top team in a weak division (whenever the cycle of division strength rolls back towards the east, or after moving the "Bama and Auburn to the east) than it would be for MSU to be #2 in the whole 14-team conference.

 

[Philly Dawg]

Auburn is looking for an easier slate but history tells us that can change.

 

[philduckworth]

Be a whole lot easier to just scrap divisions entirely.

Give every team three permanent opponents to preserve the rivalries that really matter, and then you play the other ten teams twice every four years (on an 8-game schedule). And you make the SEC Championship #1 vs #2 rather than Alabama vs. whichever 9-3 team managed to finish on top of the East.

Agree with this except I would say 2 permanent opponents instead of 3. Ours would be Ole Miss and I would pray for UK.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

If I were a casual fan this approach makes perfect sense; however, it would be much easier for MSU to get to Atlanta as the top team in a weak division (whenever the cycle of division strength rolls back towards the east, or after moving the "Bama and Auburn to the east) than it would be for MSU to be #2 in the whole 14-team conference.

Would it? We would have made the SEC Championship Game most likely in 2014 under this system, assuming Missouri plays several West teams and doesn't get to go 7-1 on a soft schedule. We might have missed Alabama and gone 7-1 or better ourselves

 

[patdog]

I'd go with 4 permanent opponents instead of 2 or 3. But that's a pretty minor detail. Any of those would be a big improvement over the current format.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Just go to a 13 game schedule and adopt Nate Silver's Swiss-style tournament approach. Turn rivalry games into early season fixtures (Egg Bowl and Iron Bowl on Labor Day weekend) and after the fourth SEC game you have no idea who you'll play next. At the end of the season the SEC champion is based purely on record. If records are tied, you go to tiebreakers.

 

[GloryDawg]

I agree. The current setup is ridiculous with only playing non-divisional teams that is not a team's perm opponent once every 10-ish years.... All to protect UT/Bama and Aub/UGA. The only "rivalry" you would lose would be LSU-Bama.

Is the UT/Bama still a rivalry? It's been 10 seasons since the last time Tenn won and the out look doesn't seem any better any time soon.

 

[Negative Waves]

I wish they would redo the divisions every 2 years....

After two years, the teams would be ranked 1-14 by SEC record from the previous two seasons. The top two teams would be in separate divisions. The #3 and #4 team would be put into separate divisions determined by a blind draw, then #4 and #5, and so on. This would create more balanced divisions and more chances to play other teams that are not currently permanent opponents.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

UT/Bama is the only reason we have this ridiculous format

Is the UT/Bama still a rivalry? It's been 10 seasons since the last time Tenn won and the out look doesn't seem any better any time soon.

UGA/AU to a lesser extent too, but primarily Bama/UT... LSU wants to burn the conference down over having to play UF every year.

 

[DAWG61]

No way this will happen, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy and Alabama would all vote against it. The East teams have no interest in making their side much more difficult.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I'd go with 4 permanent opponents instead of 2 or 3. But that's a pretty minor detail. Any of those would be a big improvement over the current format.

You go with 3 because the math works the best with a 14 team conference. There are 13 other teams. You declare 3 of them permanent opponents and that leaves you with 10 other teams you divide between 2 years.

The only problem is that you'll have to break many of the rivalries for this to work well.

 

[Shamoan]

a nashville trip every other year would be awesome...and a more likely w would be welcomed

 

[tbaydog]

College Football is going the way Mississippi Football 30 years ago. Eliminate the Conferences, Big 8, Little Dixie, etc. Regionals are coming.

 

[patdog]

From a scheduling standpoint, it's just a matter of whether you want a 9-year rotation where you rotate 2 teams per year or a 4-year rotation where you rotate 2 games some years and 3 in others. It is no big deal. The real reason you don't want only 3 permanent opponents is because you simply won't be able to preserve all the rivalry games schools want to keep. For example, if you ask our athletic dept, they're going to say we want Mississippi, Alabama and LSU. But Bama's going to say, we're playing Auburn, Tennessee and LSU and it's not negotiable. And LSU's going to want Mississippi and Alabama, and they're going to get A&M whether they want them or not. So we'd lose 1 of those games for sure and good chance we'd lose both.

 

[TaleofTwoDogs]

Swap Auburn for Mizzou OR Auburn/Alabama for Mizzou/Vandy.... Interesting thoughts

https://www.si.com/college-football...visions-realignment?xid=socialflow_twitter_si

Shocked the article didn't bring up the possibility of kicking the poor Mississippi schools out of the conference. **

 

[Hoover Dawg]

That sounds terrible. Not surprising it's a Nate Silver idea.

 

[tatedog]

Leave things the way they are makeup wise of divisions. Only count divisional games in standings. Drop one of the cross division games. You play each of the 6 teams in your division and one cross division game which will not count in the divisional standings. At season's end the dropped game is made up by a semifinal championship game played on campus 1W vs 2E and 1E vs 2W. Two winners play in SEC title game. Everyone is happy and Bama and Tennessee get to keep playing their stupid rivalry game that nobody else gives a damn about.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

How did MIssouri get in the SEC? Were all the AD's drunk?

 

[pmdawg]

For example, if you ask our athletic dept, they're going to say we want Mississippi, Alabama and LSU. But Bama's going to say, we're playing Auburn, Tennessee and LSU and it's not negotiable. And LSU's going to want Mississippi and Alabama, and they're going to get A&M whether they want them or not. So we'd lose 1 of those games for sure and good chance we'd lose both.

I highly doubt our athletic department would willingly volunteer to play Bama and LSU every season. I would assume we get Ole miss, Kentucky, and probably Auburn. But these are all hypothetical scenarios that won't happen in the near future. I could see the SEC changing after a sub-par east team upsets a Bama or whoever else from the west in the SEC championship and knocking them out of the playoffs