Will the SEC do the smart thing and pair them with Arkansas (and give aTm to USCe)? Or will they do the dumb thing and give Mizzou and aTm the yearly game?
</p>
</p>
Now that Mizzou is in... who will be their Western permanent opponent?
- Thread starter missouridawg
- Start date
Arkansas is already picking up one rival with A&M. I don't think Arkansas has a rivalry with Mizzou, though that could help establish one.
It makes more sense than pairing aTm with USCe to me being that they're former Big 12 members (even though they weren't in the same division).
Mizzou won't haveany natural rivals in the SEC East. I'm not that familiar with the situation betweenTexas A&M and Missouri's in the current Big 12, but Iwould imagine that calling ita rivalry would be about like saying MSU and Georgia are big football rivals. The Hogs could use a new border war rivalry and Mizzou is going toneed one for their fan base after giving up most of their natural rivals. South Carolina - Texas A&M isn't likelyto develop into a rivalry, but its certainly no different than South Carolina - Arkansas.
into North/South divisions (it's really the only thing that makes sense given the rules the SEC is supposedly going to operate under).
<span style="font-weight: bold;">South:</span>
A&M
LSU
MSU
Ole Miss
Bama
Auburn
Florida
<span style="font-weight: bold;">North:</span>
Mizzou
UArk
UT
Vandy
USC
Georgia
Kentucky
In this scenario A&M and UArk are permanent.
Meets all the requirements,. No major rivalries broken up (LSU/UArk never took off). No chance of one state holding both sides of the SECCG.
Dunno if they will do it, it's a big change, but it seems to be the only thing that makes a ton of sense.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">South:</span>
A&M
LSU
MSU
Ole Miss
Bama
Auburn
Florida
<span style="font-weight: bold;">North:</span>
Mizzou
UArk
UT
Vandy
USC
Georgia
Kentucky
In this scenario A&M and UArk are permanent.
Meets all the requirements,. No major rivalries broken up (LSU/UArk never took off). No chance of one state holding both sides of the SECCG.
Dunno if they will do it, it's a big change, but it seems to be the only thing that makes a ton of sense.
Missouri has a natural 'border' rivarly with Arkansas. We hate each other. It would develop into a pretty good rivarly over time.
aTm and Arkansas both have a historic SWC rivarly, which will stay in tact by both being in the West.
If we pair up Mizzou/Ark, it creates a rivarly that will last and keep one that's working (aTm-Ark). If we put Mizzou with aTm, it puts Mizzou in a situation in which they have no big game to look forward too, like everyone else in SEC has.
aTm and Arkansas both have a historic SWC rivarly, which will stay in tact by both being in the West.
If we pair up Mizzou/Ark, it creates a rivarly that will last and keep one that's working (aTm-Ark). If we put Mizzou with aTm, it puts Mizzou in a situation in which they have no big game to look forward too, like everyone else in SEC has.
The current West division would be giving up Arkansas and replacing them with A&M and Florida.
So for football, it would be losing a yearly solid national team and replacing them with a couple of yearly solid national teams that are typically as good or better.
For basketball(I know, all other sports can't possibly be considered), it takes a terrible program and replaces it with a couple of very good to excellent programs.
I know South Carolina is good right now, but that's hardly tradition. UT is crap right now and could get back to dominant, but is that a good bet in the future?
Just seems like if divisions are going to be set, and they are going to be based only on one sport(it is the entire reason why all these dumb *** changes are being made around the country), then the divisions should be split as evenly as possible based on history and projections.
So for football, it would be losing a yearly solid national team and replacing them with a couple of yearly solid national teams that are typically as good or better.
For basketball(I know, all other sports can't possibly be considered), it takes a terrible program and replaces it with a couple of very good to excellent programs.
I know South Carolina is good right now, but that's hardly tradition. UT is crap right now and could get back to dominant, but is that a good bet in the future?
Just seems like if divisions are going to be set, and they are going to be based only on one sport(it is the entire reason why all these dumb *** changes are being made around the country), then the divisions should be split as evenly as possible based on history and projections.
It'll break up one of the major rivalries between either Auburn/Georgia or Georgia/Florida, which is one of the bigger reasons (I think) that Mizzou is supposedly going to the East in the first place.
You don't want to base divisions based on history. You may think you can predict how certain teams will perform based on their history, but really you can never tell. We aren't too far removed from when people were talking about the West being anembarrassmentwith how well the East was doing in football. Sure, there are teams that have an advantage over others because of money and location, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.