+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: SEC Divisions (/thread-633248.html)
Pages: 1 2
SEC Divisions - MarshallHerdFanz - 05-15-2013 07:48 AM
They need to chang it to North/South
North:
Mizzou/Ark
Miss./MissSt.
Vandy/Tenn/UK
South:
TXA&M/LSU
Bama/Auburn
Ga./UF/SC
Makes the rivarlies much better.
RE: SEC Divisions - vandiver49 - 05-15-2013 08:14 AM
Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
RE: SEC Divisions - CitrusUCF - 05-15-2013 08:30 AM
(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
While I don't disagree with your overall point, I'd remind you that when the B12 started, the B12 North was the overpowered division and the South was its weak sister. Same thing a few years ago when the SEC East was unstoppable and the West was nothing (except maybe LSU)...now the West is as strong if not stronger, even before A&M was added. Now, we could wonder if the B12 North's increasing weakness isn't due to being cut off from Texas, but we at least know that this stuff is cyclical and the change in competitive dynamics would help some programs be more competitive than they have been before.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 08:32 AM
(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
RE: SEC Divisions - ClairtonPanther - 05-15-2013 08:33 AM
I think slight changes like Auburn or Bama to the east is possible but good lord, that south is a beast.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 09:00 AM
(05-15-2013 08:33 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: I think slight changes like Auburn or Bama to the east is possible but good lord, that south is a beast.
Yeah. I'm not a fan of naming divisions (Legends and Leaders) but if that divisional alignment went into existence they should be named (Lions & Lambs).
RE: SEC Divisions - bitcruncher - 05-15-2013 09:14 AM
It wasn't that long ago that all the power in the SEC was in the east. So I'd avoid names that label the teams by the current strength. It could change again in the not too distant future, making the names you choose look silly...
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 09:38 AM
(05-15-2013 09:14 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: It wasn't that long ago that all the power in the SEC was in the east. So I'd avoid names that label the teams by the current strength. It could change again in the not too distant future, making the names you choose look silly...
The suggestion had been made to realign the divisions with North / South geographical boundaries. That put A&M, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, and South Carolina in the South. It placed both Mississippi's, Vandy, Mizzou, and Kentucky in the North.
I was referencing the inequity of that kind of division not advocating actual names.
RE: SEC Divisions - bigblueblindness - 05-15-2013 09:50 AM
(05-15-2013 07:48 AM)MarshallHerdFanz Wrote: They need to chang it to North/South
North:
Mizzou/Ark
Miss./MissSt.
Vandy/Tenn/UK
South:
TXA&M/LSU
Bama/Auburn
Ga./UF/SC
Makes the rivarlies much better.
To be more balanced, how about splitting the MS, and AL schools? This also puts most of the important rivals together. I think TAMU/LSU will soon trump LSU/Ark, especially with Ark/Mizzou making a lot of sense as new rivals.
North:
Mizzou
Ark
UK
UT
Vandy
Bama
Ole Miss
South:
TAMU
LSU
Miss. State
Auburn
GA
FL
SC
RE: SEC Divisions - Monarchist13 - 05-15-2013 10:06 AM
(05-15-2013 09:50 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:
To be more balanced, how about splitting the MS, and AL schools? This also puts most of the important rivals together. I think TAMU/LSU will soon trump LSU/Ark, especially with Ark/Mizzou making a lot of sense as new rivals.
North:
Mizzou
Ark
UK
UT
Vandy
Bama
Ole Miss
South:
TAMU
LSU
Miss. State
Auburn
GA
FL
SC
I agree with the bolded. As for a divisional reconfiguration, I'm not sure there is much to improve. Currently, the East gets Florida and Georgia and the West gets Texas and Louisiana. That's pretty fair recruiting-wise. Further, do the rivalries really need to be strengthened? How many conferences' rivalries could stack up to the SECs?
RE: SEC Divisions - bigblueblindness - 05-15-2013 10:26 AM
(05-15-2013 10:06 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:(05-15-2013 09:50 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:
To be more balanced, how about splitting the MS, and AL schools? This also puts most of the important rivals together. I think TAMU/LSU will soon trump LSU/Ark, especially with Ark/Mizzou making a lot of sense as new rivals.
North:
Mizzou
Ark
UK
UT
Vandy
Bama
Ole Miss
South:
TAMU
LSU
Miss. State
Auburn
GA
FL
SC
I agree with the bolded. As for a divisional reconfiguration, I'm not sure there is much to improve. Currently, the East gets Florida and Georgia and the West gets Texas and Louisiana. That's pretty fair recruiting-wise. Further, do the rivalries really need to be strengthened? How many conferences' rivalries could stack up to the SECs?
Yeah, I agree that moving Auburn to the East and Missouri or Vandy to the West makes a lot of sense.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 11:33 AM
(05-15-2013 07:48 AM)MarshallHerdFanz Wrote: They need to chang it to North/South
North:
Mizzou/Ark
Miss./MissSt.
Vandy/Tenn/UK
South:
TXA&M/LSU
Bama/Auburn
Ga./UF/SC
Makes the rivarlies much better.
I think you may be right eventually about grouping teams regionally, but until the SEC has 16 and can break down into groups of 4 with a 9 game conference schedule which would enable each team to maintain one rival from each of the other three groupings, play all three teams in their region each year, and rotate one from each of the other three divisions so that all 16 could be played every year that we are going to get any kind of divisional rearrangement as much as we may need it.
If we stay at 14 and do split into two divisions of 7 based on North / South alignment then look for a couple of the stronger teams from the South to be moved North and a couple of the weaker ones in the North moved South for more balance. Some of the suggestions below take your idea and do a pretty good job of bringing that balance. Keep bringing the ideas and keep coming to the SEC board to talk.
RE: SEC Divisions - vandiver49 - 05-15-2013 02:14 PM
(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
RE: SEC Divisions - bigblueblindness - 05-15-2013 02:32 PM
(05-15-2013 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
An Auburn fan can certainly speak up, but AU-Florida and AU-UT were also pretty big for some time. In the west, I can't think of any team that considers Auburn as a bigger rival compared to Bama. In the east, I think both UGA and UF would consider Auburn a more historic rival than Bama. The only negative consequence of that switch is losing the UT-Bama crossover, but if UT picked Auburn back up every year, I don't think they can complain too much. Strength of schedule aside, UT has had the best of both worlds for quite a while now in terms of continuing to play all of their most important rivals.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 03:25 PM
(05-15-2013 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
Thanks. It depends. Which complaints do you have in mind? Alabama/Tennessee is the one that comes to mind for me. I really think it all boils down to whether we have 9 conference games or not, or whether sixteen is in our near future or distant future. If we go to sixteen it's easily solved. If we stay at 14 and we can expect expansion in the near future we can muddle through what we have now until a new alignment is required. But, if we stay at 14 for a decade or more some changes are going to have to be made and they may not be geographical in nature.
The fairest thing to do is to drop set divisions all together and reseed the first 7 conference games of the schedule every year based on the previous year's finish. Two games could be set aside for rivals for a total of 9 games. If your rival is in your draw for the year then a random opponent is matched to your schedule with total strength of schedule considered. You could make it simple and let all those that finished in an even position make up your division for next year and the same with those who finished on the odd number. Or you could go for a more sophisticated seeding. Either way most schools could be pacified with two permanent rivals. The issue then becomes rotation of variants. How often could you be guaranteed to play the whole conference? Nobody would know. It could be every couple of years, or 10 depending upon the finish. And you wouldn't be locked into home and home just 5 home 4 away and 4 home 5 away.
RE: SEC Divisions - vandiver49 - 05-15-2013 03:32 PM
(05-15-2013 02:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:(05-15-2013 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
An Auburn fan can certainly speak up, but AU-Florida and AU-UT were also pretty big for some time. In the west, I can't think of any team that considers Auburn as a bigger rival compared to Bama. In the east, I think both UGA and UF would consider Auburn a more historic rival than Bama. The only negative consequence of that switch is losing the UT-Bama crossover, but if UT picked Auburn back up every year, I don't think they can complain too much. Strength of schedule aside, UT has had the best of both worlds for quite a while now in terms of continuing to play all of their most important rivals.
JR has explained how important AU/East is to the Plains Tigers to me, so I get why the shift would be favored. Also, while I'm not that old, most of UTK older rivals resided in what is currently the SEC West. The frequency with which the Vols played Bama, AU, and Ole Miss outnumbered the games against UGA and UF.
After already losing the date for the '3rd Saturday in October', the loss of the game itself would be heartbreaking to Vol fans, especially those in northern AL. I really can't assess who 'Bama would value playing more, UT or AU, but I'm sure they'd pick AU just to avoid pressure from the state gov't.
As I've learned in conference realignment, some rivalries are made to be broken.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 03:49 PM
(05-15-2013 03:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 02:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:(05-15-2013 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote: Negative. That type of set-up is what nearly killed the B12. Your north division would have little access to TX, FL and GA, which produce most of the SEC talent.
Also, the general imbalance of top tier programs would make your idea a non-starter in Birmingham.
Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
An Auburn fan can certainly speak up, but AU-Florida and AU-UT were also pretty big for some time. In the west, I can't think of any team that considers Auburn as a bigger rival compared to Bama. In the east, I think both UGA and UF would consider Auburn a more historic rival than Bama. The only negative consequence of that switch is losing the UT-Bama crossover, but if UT picked Auburn back up every year, I don't think they can complain too much. Strength of schedule aside, UT has had the best of both worlds for quite a while now in terms of continuing to play all of their most important rivals.
JR has explained how important AU/East is to the Plains Tigers to me, so I get why the shift would be favored. Also, while I'm not that old, most of UTK older rivals resided in what is currently the SEC West. The frequency with which the Vols played Bama, AU, and Ole Miss outnumbered the games against UGA and UF.
After already losing the date for the '3rd Saturday in October', the loss of the game itself would be heartbreaking to Vol fans, especially those in northern AL. I really can't assess who 'Bama would value playing more, UT or AU, but I'm sure they'd pick AU just to avoid pressure from the state gov't.
As I've learned in conference realignment, some rivalries are made to be broken.
I think that won't have to come to pass. I imagine that Bama will keep both UT and Auburn. I know some folks think I am nuts for realignment. Actually, I'm not. I saw the economic ramifications for it before I considered its affect upon the teams. Then I realized what would happen to rivalries and traditions if we couldn't get off of 14. Truly 16, 18 or 20 is better than 14. At 16 there are no rivalry problems and teams may be grouped more geographically. Both are huge benefits. When we took two from the West it was with the intention of adding two from the East. I'm very happy with both of our additions but truly scheduling would have worked better with West Virginia and Texas A&M, or Missouri and Virginia Tech. We are unbalanced right now from East to West, and unfortunately would be with a North / South alignment as well. We either get creative with scheduling, or we need to add two more and re-balance.
RE: SEC Divisions - MarshallHerdFanz - 05-15-2013 05:45 PM
I agree with making it regionally with the 16 teams. Just want Mizzou and A&M in the same division.
RE: SEC Divisions - JRsec - 05-15-2013 06:03 PM
(05-15-2013 05:45 PM)MarshallHerdFanz Wrote: I agree with making it regionally with the 16 teams. Just want Mizzou and A&M in the same division.
I feel almost certain that will be the case if and when we move to 16. I think the setup will be for 9 conference games and will include 3 divisional games, 1 permanent rival from each of the other 3 divisions, and 1 rotating team per division per year for 9. That will cover just about everything. I think there is a vast majority of SEC fans that want a Western Division of Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri and Texas A&M. The only thing I could see changing that projection is if the SEC picked up their next two teams from the Big 12. Then I think one of those would slide into L.S.U.'s position in the grouping and that would be your 4. Since I believe that the SEC would likely take West Virginia should the Big 12 all move then that extra team could be anyone from O.S.U., K.S.U., Baylor, or if we are luckier Oklahoma or even Texas. But I strongly suspect that if there is ever a mass migration of Big 12 teams that OU and Texas will use their clout to move with friends. That's why if it happens I think it will be one of the first three.
RE: SEC Divisions - USAFMEDIC - 05-15-2013 11:45 PM
(05-15-2013 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:Alabama will play both Auburn and Tennessee. That is at the top of the Tide agenda. That was the Alabama position when they were voting on Missouri. No Auburn to the East, and Alabama plays them both, every year. No one will bow up to Alabama on this issue...(05-15-2013 03:32 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 02:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:(05-15-2013 02:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:(05-15-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote: Do you think new divisions are needed and if so how would you divide them out? I'm biased but personally I would move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West.
I'm content with the current alignment but I understand the frustrations of many of the other teams. At the end of the day, AU/East - Mizzou/West is going the happen. My question though how does losing one cross division permanent rivalry game (AU/UGA) and replacing it with the Iron Bowl solve any of the complaints that other schools have?
BTW JRSec, congrats on your promotion to Mod.
An Auburn fan can certainly speak up, but AU-Florida and AU-UT were also pretty big for some time. In the west, I can't think of any team that considers Auburn as a bigger rival compared to Bama. In the east, I think both UGA and UF would consider Auburn a more historic rival than Bama. The only negative consequence of that switch is losing the UT-Bama crossover, but if UT picked Auburn back up every year, I don't think they can complain too much. Strength of schedule aside, UT has had the best of both worlds for quite a while now in terms of continuing to play all of their most important rivals.
JR has explained how important AU/East is to the Plains Tigers to me, so I get why the shift would be favored. Also, while I'm not that old, most of UTK older rivals resided in what is currently the SEC West. The frequency with which the Vols played Bama, AU, and Ole Miss outnumbered the games against UGA and UF.
After already losing the date for the '3rd Saturday in October', the loss of the game itself would be heartbreaking to Vol fans, especially those in northern AL. I really can't assess who 'Bama would value playing more, UT or AU, but I'm sure they'd pick AU just to avoid pressure from the state gov't.
As I've learned in conference realignment, some rivalries are made to be broken.
I think that won't have to come to pass. I imagine that Bama will keep both UT and Auburn. I know some folks think I am nuts for realignment. Actually, I'm not. I saw the economic ramifications for it before I considered its affect upon the teams. Then I realized what would happen to rivalries and traditions if we couldn't get off of 14. Truly 16, 18 or 20 is better than 14. At 16 there are no rivalry problems and teams may be grouped more geographically. Both are huge benefits. When we took two from the West it was with the intention of adding two from the East. I'm very happy with both of our additions but truly scheduling would have worked better with West Virginia and Texas A&M, or Missouri and Virginia Tech. We are unbalanced right now from East to West, and unfortunately would be with a North / South alignment as well. We either get creative with scheduling, or we need to add two more and re-balance.