Conference realignment

[Hump4Hoops]

Been reading a lot (esecially on TD lately) and it seems people are really getting big on the idea of picking up 2 west teams and switching a lot of crap around. LSU's chancellor or president or someone seems convinced after the meetings that there will no longer be permanent cross division opponents.

Now, that means that:
A. at least 1 west team will move east
B. The SEC will try really hard to keep rivalries of the teams it gives a **** about.

Also, this is a chance to do a bit of division re-balance (since the west looks much stronger atm, but honestly I think its temporary, UT and UF will be strong fast)

One theory I'm seeing a lot is after picking up aTm and Mizzou, we'll shift AU and UA to the east, and move Vandy to the west. Now, I don't think they will EVER allow 3 of MSU/UM/Vandy/UK in the same division, (Also, that's 5 of the "big 6 all in the same division) but there are several other factors that make sense.

Iron Bowl preserved (instead of if being broken if only AU moves east)
Bama/UT preserved
AU/UGA preserved

Also: West gets much easier for us, and UM STILL has to play/lose to Vandy.

 

[maroondawg]

What if they decide to give every school one, two or three permanent opponents and rotate the rest of the schools and completely doing away with the divisions.

If the schedule calls for 8 or 9 conference games then you would rotate anywhere from 5 to 8 teams a year.



Disclaimer: I have not thought about this at all other than while I was typing it. I am aware that it may not work.

 

[PBRME]

maroondawg[/b]]What if they decide to give every school one, two or three permanent opponents and rotate the rest of the schools and completely doing away with the divisions.

If the schedule calls for 8 or 9 conference games then you would rotate anywhere from 5 to 8 teams a year.



Disclaimer: I have not thought about this at all other than while I was typing it. I am aware that it may not work.

In this scenario, which likely won't happen, I vote for VU, KY, and OM as our permanent opponents.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

Under your non-divisional format, you would actually have the best two teams in the conference in the championship game. In a lot of years, that's not the case.

 

[AssEndDawg]

doesn't require any specific division format.

 

[Incognegro]

but it would be a pain in the *** to setup which is why I don't think it would happen.<div>
</div><div>Just thinking about it, there are 2 possibilities to set this up.</div><div>
</div><div>Make 4 schools permanent rivals of 1 other, which kind of makes 4 mini divisions so to speak.</div><div>
</div><div>Problems:</div><div>[list type=decimal][*]Every school may have teams that they'd rather play yearly that others won't agree with[*]If schools were able to decide among themselves, geography could be completely out of whack, if not and the SEC decided geography to be the most important factor, these mini divisions could be uneven as far as athletic prowess.[/list]<div>The second idea is if the SEC allow schools to say what teams we want to play, and they try to sort through the matchups as best as possible.</div></div><div>
</div><div>Examples: MSU decides that they want to have 3 easier opponents in the conference and sign off on Ole Miss, Vandy and UK. Ole Miss Decides that they want to play LSU, MSU and Vandy....etc, etc...</div><div>
</div><div>I don't think I need to go into too much details why this isn't something the SEC would want to set up. It could work....but there's just so many problems structurally.</div><div>
</div><div>As one poster did say though... having a conference that sorta spirals through the teams would probably have a higher percentage of putting the best teams in the conference championship, which is really why doing this should at the least be considered. However, I don't think it will.</div>

 

[sleepy dawg]

Not having divisions doesn't change that a team will only play 8 of the 13 teams (assuming 14 teams).

2 teams could end up with very different schedules. A team could easily have a worse conference record than another team, but be a better team...

In other words, what I'm trying to say is divisions or no divisions, you are still going to have the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference championship game some years.

Under your non-divisional format, you would actually have the best two
teams in the conference in the championship game. In a lot of years,
that's not the case.

 

[patdog]

The SEC used to have a rotation where everyone had 5 permanent opponents and rotated through the remaining 4 teams. In a 13-team league you could easily let everyone have 4 permanent opponents and rotate 4 of the remaining 8 teams each year. Most of the permanent oppoenent would be very obvious and every school would probably get at least 3 of their top 4 choices for permanent opponents.</p>

 

[Incognegro]

it wouldn't bee too much trouble if it was just for 13 teams.<div>
</div><div>either way, I might be making a big deal out of this and it may be easier to set up than what I'm giving it credit.</div>

 

[Dawgzilla]

The rule says if a conference has 12 or more teams, they can split into divisions and have the division winners play a championship game. It is an exception to the limit on 12 games per season.

But, I imagine the rule could be changed if it needed to be.

 

[Nugdawg]

a 9 game conference schedule? If so, and this is just me talking, but if I were Stricklin/Keenum, I would right Byrne's one mistake and use the 9 game schedule as a reason to terminate the USM contract. I know this will bring some varying opinions, but I'm of the opinion that it does us absolutely no good to play them as we have sellouts regardless of who we play and have nothing to gain on the field. As it stands, USM is irrelevant and it needs to stay that way.

 

[nsvltndog]

I've heardKeenum was the one behind agreeing to the USM deal. I suspect there were some politics in play.I'm pretty sure that wasn't Greg Byrne's idea.

My biggest concern about USM is that I think we open the season with them. We will undoubtedly have a handful of players suspended for the game for various transgressions that have taken place in the Spring and Summer. I seriously doubt anyone will be missing from their squad and it will be the biggest game of the year for them.

Having a reason to remove it from the schedule would not bother me one bit.