Rumor is Mizzu coming to SEC.
- Thread starter TheBigDA
- Start date
If the plan is to get to 16 in a couple of years, just put Mizzou in the East temporarily. Or try to get the NCAA rule requiring divisions to have a championship game and just have one big conference with the top 2 teams playing in the title game each year. There's no good East-West split if we add 2 teams to the West. If you move Auburn to the East, you leave Bama in the opposite division of its 2 biggest rivals. If you move Bama and Auburn to the East and Vandy to the West, you've got a big imbalance of power between the 2 divisions.
right now the 3 best teams in the sec are in the west. the east ain't all that. but fla, tn uga should be back. it'll never balance perfectly.
Ole Miss is our permanent rival. 17 playing bama, auburn, lsu, and arkansas every year, this **** sucks. We'd play Vandy, SC, and Kentucky every year, schedule 4 cupcakes and make a bowl most of the time.
Another other option is to go back to 92-99 style rivalries and only rotate one team instead of two, and have 2 permanent division rivals (I believe ours were Kentcuky and Carolina which is why people bitched when we did well because Carolina sucked in the late 90s). They could make sure the division rivals are a little better suited. Of course if we add another conference game it makes it a lot easier, as we'd have 2 permanent division rivals and 2 rotartators(I made that word up).
Another other option is to go back to 92-99 style rivalries and only rotate one team instead of two, and have 2 permanent division rivals (I believe ours were Kentcuky and Carolina which is why people bitched when we did well because Carolina sucked in the late 90s). They could make sure the division rivals are a little better suited. Of course if we add another conference game it makes it a lot easier, as we'd have 2 permanent division rivals and 2 rotartators(I made that word up).
if we have16 teams, I think the pod thing would be awesome. 4 divisions with5 permanents,3 rotating for each team.I can't see anybody losing a rival game and with 3 rotating you get a good picture of the conference.
i think it's safe to say that vandy isn't really a factor in the ebb and flow of conference power. moving bama and auburn in exchange for vandy can't be written off like "oh well vandy will come around and bama/aub will fall on hard times and it'll all balance out".jacksonreb1 said:
i've mentioned the 4 subdivisions pod-like scheudling before<div>
</div><div>west: lsu, ark, a&m, mizzou</div><div>south: msu, om, bama, aub</div><div>east: uga, fla, f$u(?), vandy</div><div>north: tenn, ky, vt(?), usc</div><div>
</div><div>east and north can be adjusted depending on the additions.</div><div>
</div><div>you'd play everyone in your division once (3 games)</div><div>every 2 years your division would be matched with another divison (4 games) - say in this scenarios, west v. south and east v. north, 2 home and 2 away games, next year you flip the home and away games, then in years 3 and 4 the matchups change (west v. east, north v. south), and again in years 5 and 6 (south v. east, west v. north)</div><div>3 general 'floating' games to make sure all the inter divisional rivalries are played (aub v. uga, bama v. tenn, fla v. tenn, om v. lsu, etc - would ther be any others that would be necessary to preserve?) and otherwise rotated among the other sec members on a home and home basis</div><div>
</div><div>total of 9 conf games (that's coming with or without expansion, see pac 12 and big 10+2) and the longest you'd go between facing a conference opponent would be 4 years (less time than you can go between seeing a program now - the size issue and becoming disassociated with conference members is a common argument made against expansion, so i would think this should satisfy some of those arguments).</div>
</div><div>west: lsu, ark, a&m, mizzou</div><div>south: msu, om, bama, aub</div><div>east: uga, fla, f$u(?), vandy</div><div>north: tenn, ky, vt(?), usc</div><div>
</div><div>east and north can be adjusted depending on the additions.</div><div>
</div><div>you'd play everyone in your division once (3 games)</div><div>every 2 years your division would be matched with another divison (4 games) - say in this scenarios, west v. south and east v. north, 2 home and 2 away games, next year you flip the home and away games, then in years 3 and 4 the matchups change (west v. east, north v. south), and again in years 5 and 6 (south v. east, west v. north)</div><div>3 general 'floating' games to make sure all the inter divisional rivalries are played (aub v. uga, bama v. tenn, fla v. tenn, om v. lsu, etc - would ther be any others that would be necessary to preserve?) and otherwise rotated among the other sec members on a home and home basis</div><div>
</div><div>total of 9 conf games (that's coming with or without expansion, see pac 12 and big 10+2) and the longest you'd go between facing a conference opponent would be 4 years (less time than you can go between seeing a program now - the size issue and becoming disassociated with conference members is a common argument made against expansion, so i would think this should satisfy some of those arguments).</div>
I agree that the top teams change over the years but last year the best 5 teams in the SEC were in the West.It just seems like UT and Georgia are treading water and nowhere close to getting back on top. Florida remains to be seen but will likely be a top team soon. South Carolina always seems to be lagging just behind the top teams and still loses too many headscratchers.jacksonreb1 said:
It will be intesting to see if the West continues to dominate the East and if there is an uproar to change the format or the divisions like in basketball.