Between them they occupy 4 channels. ESPN could do the following:

Charlotte Studio:

North:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, West Virginia, Virginia

East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Dallas Studio:

South:
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

West:
Baylor, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

You play 10 conference games. 9 divisional and 1 permanent rival.

The North Winner plays the East winner for one of the final 4 slots.

The West winner plays the South winner for one of the final 4 slots.

ESPN controls it all. But they sell a game of the week to N.B.C., CBS keeps it's SEC contract with access to the home games of the current SEC schools, and ABC keeps their relationship rights with ESPN. Now all three major networks are selling our product. ESPN lessens overhead in total but picks up primary rights to the Big 12. The current 4 channels of the SECN (3) & LHN (1) each represent a division during the year. The total market area is earned, the national appeal goes way up for the average sports fan. The leverage is tremendous. The AAU factor and research sharing initiatives are vastly improved. All sports are at championship levels, or competing for them. The resultant income brings stability to the region. Most major rivalries are self contained. Plus it's enough to dissolve the Big 12 without leaving anyone to dissent and Wake is accounted for and Cincinnati brings in Ohio.

Why not just simply keep all the divisions as is - except with two Big 12 divisions, and get a nice-looking scenario with six divisions. The only change would be two Big 12 divisions...and a new name for this Super-Power Conference.

Then, add Notre Dame, Army, and BYU as independents and the AAC to the media deal and involve them in some 'other' cross-division matchups.

10 games: 6 divisional games, 1 cross-rival, and 2 games from Atlantic-Coastal, South-East, and Big-West cross-division matchups, and 1 other cross-division matchup (the "OOC" matchups, also involving Notre Dame, BYU, and Army).
* The BIG and WEST divisions would play 4 divisional games and 4 BIG-West cross-division games, and 1-2 other cross-division matchups (although some may have 1 cross-rival, like Texas-Texas A&M).

The Atlantic-Coastal, South-East, and Big-West division winners play each other for a bid in the new 8-team playoff. The B1G and PAC also get auto bids into the playoff. This leaves 3 'at large' wild card spots, as determined by the Selection Committee.

CHARLOTTE STUDIO/CHANNEL-

COASTAL: Georgia Tech, Duke, Miami, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ATLANTIC: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, BC, Syracuse, N.C. State, Wake Forest
EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri
* May also broadcast Notre Dame, Army, and AAC

DALLAS STUDIO-

SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
WEST: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
BIG: TCU, Iowa State, West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State
* May also broadcast AAC and BYU

MEDIA DEAL

-Game of the Week to CBS with first pick from South/East divisions.
-Game of the Week to NBC with first pick from Notre Dame or the other divisions.
-ABC/ESPN rights to all other games. Keep two Super-Conference channels. There will be plenty of inventory for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the re-branded SECN (Charlotte) and LHN (Dallas) channels.

(11-16-2015 08:09 PM)YNot Wrote:  Why not just simply keep all the divisions as is - except with two Big 12 divisions, and get a nice-looking scenario with six divisions. The only change would be two Big 12 divisions...and a new name for this Super-Power Conference.

Then, add Notre Dame, Army, and BYU as independents and the AAC to the media deal and involve them in some 'other' cross-division matchups.

10 games: 6 divisional games, 1 cross-rival, and 2 games from Atlantic-Coastal, South-East, and Big-West cross-division matchups, and 1 other cross-division matchup (the "OOC" matchups, also involving Notre Dame, BYU, and Army).
* The BIG and WEST divisions would play 4 divisional games and 4 BIG-West cross-division games, and 1-2 other cross-division matchups (although some may have 1 cross-rival, like Texas-Texas A&M).

The Atlantic-Coastal, South-East, and Big-West division winners play each other for a bid in the new 8-team playoff. The B1G and PAC also get auto bids into the playoff. This leaves 3 'at large' wild card spots, as determined by the Selection Committee.

CHARLOTTE STUDIO/CHANNEL-

COASTAL: Georgia Tech, Duke, Miami, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
ATLANTIC: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, BC, Syracuse, N.C. State, Wake Forest
EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri
* May also broadcast Notre Dame, Army, and AAC

DALLAS STUDIO-

SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
WEST: Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
BIG: TCU, Iowa State, West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State
* May also broadcast AAC and BYU

MEDIA DEAL

-Game of the Week to CBS with first pick from South/East divisions.
-Game of the Week to NBC with first pick from Notre Dame or the other divisions.
-ABC/ESPN rights to all other games. Keep two Super-Conference channels. There will be plenty of inventory for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the re-branded SECN (Charlotte) and LHN (Dallas) channels.

Why not? For the following reasons.
1. We don't need to cut the AAC in on anything as they don't pay their own way.

2. Army doesn't want to be in the P5 nor do either of the other two service academies and for a variety of sound reasons that they've already agreed upon.

3. The divisions that were listed grouped either all, or all but 1 of the main rivals of the other schools and kept things even more compact regionally (Miami excepted).

4. I considered B.Y.U. instead of Cincinnati but you were too much on an island.

5. The lacrosse basketball first schools are in the North and the ACC football first schools are in the East with their in state rivals.

6. Until 1992 Auburn had Georgia, Florida, and until 1978 Georgia Tech on their schedule every year and had in Tech's case since 1892 and Georgia since 1894. And we've played Clemson about 60 times over the years. It was our recruiting from our natural area that suffered when we were moved to the SEC West which is what Alabama forced upon us so they could keep playing Tennessee every year.

So some familiarity with regional history and issues would be advisable when making recommendations for alignment in the Southeast. Plus Texas keeps everybody they like except WVU. Cincinnati gives us a slither of a new market in Big 10 country. And Notre Dame just might go for playing in that weaker North division.

Longtime rivals in the South division: L.S.U./Ole Miss, Alabama/Tennessee, Ole Miss/Vanderbilt, Alabama/Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn get everyone they want and each other as a permanent rival. Kentucky/Tennessee is also not negotiable.

May I propose a slightly different 40? One that takes a minimum of Big 12 schools to break the GOR...8.

14 SEC schools...8 Big 12 schools...14 ACC schools + Notre Dame...add best brands available in new markets: BYU, Cincinnati, UConn


West: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, BYU

South: LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa State, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

Coastal: Miami, Clemson, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech

North: Notre Dame, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College

----------------------

Play 7 division games...

Then here's a nice little wrinkle. Allow the other 5 games to be scheduled between the ADs rather than a set alignment. The caveat, of course, is that these 5 games must be scheduled with other league members. This will leave plenty of opportunity to schedule as many rivalries as schools are willing to agree to.

The division games will be the only ones that count towards the league playoff. The league playoff will involve 6 teams...5 division winners and an at-large.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why not? For the following reasons.
1. We don't need to cut the AAC in on anything as they don't pay their own way.

OK, take 'em out. I added the AAC and BYU to the mix because ESPN already owns their rights. I wasn't suggesting that they pay their own way - simply keep the deal in place, but utilize the ESPN channels and studios to fulfill those smaller contracts.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  2. Army doesn't want to be in the P5 nor do either of the other two service academies and for a variety of sound reasons that they've already agreed upon.

Similar issue here. My thought was that ESPN could simply make a grab for Army's media rights - along with BYU...and Notre Dame. With Army, BYU, and especially Notre Dame, ESPN would control the most valuable independent assets.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The divisions that were listed grouped either all, or all but 1 of the main rivals of the other schools and kept things even more compact regionally (Miami excepted).

I simply question whether it would be easier to take existing SEC and ACC divisions versus intertwining the two. Will North teams give up connection to Florida games? Will NC State be happy without UNC, Duke, and Virginia schools?

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  4. I considered B.Y.U. instead of Cincinnati but you were too much on an island.

I agree. But, ESPN controls their media rights, so not too hard to involve BYU in the Dallas Studio in some 'cross-division games.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  5. The lacrosse basketball first schools are in the North and the ACC football first schools are in the East with their in state rivals.

This makes a ton of sense.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  6. Until 1992 Auburn had Georgia, Florida, and until 1978 Georgia Tech on their schedule every year and had in Tech's case since 1892 and Georgia since 1894. And we've played Clemson about 60 times over the years. It was our recruiting from our natural area that suffered when we were moved to the SEC West which is what Alabama forced upon us so they could keep playing Tennessee every year.

So some familiarity with regional history and issues would be advisable when making recommendations for alignment in the Southeast. Plus Texas keeps everybody they like except WVU. Cincinnati gives us a slither of a new market in Big 10 country. And Notre Dame just might go for playing in that weaker North division.

Longtime rivals in the South division: L.S.U./Ole Miss, Alabama/Tennessee, Ole Miss/Vanderbilt, Alabama/Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn get everyone they want and each other as a permanent rival. Kentucky/Tennessee is also not negotiable.

I can appreciate this history and assume that Auburn-Alabama would be the annual rivalry. But doesn't the last 25 years of more recent history have Auburn closely aligned with LSU and Mississippi schools? Or would the Georgia and Florida schools smooth things over?

(11-17-2015 02:21 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Why not? For the following reasons.
1. We don't need to cut the AAC in on anything as they don't pay their own way.

OK, take 'em out. I added the AAC and BYU to the mix because ESPN already owns their rights. I wasn't suggesting that they pay their own way - simply keep the deal in place, but utilize the ESPN channels and studios to fulfill those smaller contracts.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  2. Army doesn't want to be in the P5 nor do either of the other two service academies and for a variety of sound reasons that they've already agreed upon.

Similar issue here. My thought was that ESPN could simply make a grab for Army's media rights - along with BYU...and Notre Dame. With Army, BYU, and especially Notre Dame, ESPN would control the most valuable independent assets.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The divisions that were listed grouped either all, or all but 1 of the main rivals of the other schools and kept things even more compact regionally (Miami excepted).

I simply question whether it would be easier to take existing SEC and ACC divisions versus intertwining the two. Will North teams give up connection to Florida games? Will NC State be happy without UNC, Duke, and Virginia schools?

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  4. I considered B.Y.U. instead of Cincinnati but you were too much on an island.

I agree. But, ESPN controls their media rights, so not too hard to involve BYU in the Dallas Studio in some 'cross-division games.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  5. The lacrosse basketball first schools are in the North and the ACC football first schools are in the East with their in state rivals.

This makes a ton of sense.

(11-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  6. Until 1992 Auburn had Georgia, Florida, and until 1978 Georgia Tech on their schedule every year and had in Tech's case since 1892 and Georgia since 1894. And we've played Clemson about 60 times over the years. It was our recruiting from our natural area that suffered when we were moved to the SEC West which is what Alabama forced upon us so they could keep playing Tennessee every year.

So some familiarity with regional history and issues would be advisable when making recommendations for alignment in the Southeast. Plus Texas keeps everybody they like except WVU. Cincinnati gives us a slither of a new market in Big 10 country. And Notre Dame just might go for playing in that weaker North division.

Longtime rivals in the South division: L.S.U./Ole Miss, Alabama/Tennessee, Ole Miss/Vanderbilt, Alabama/Mississippi State, Alabama and Auburn get everyone they want and each other as a permanent rival. Kentucky/Tennessee is also not negotiable.

I can appreciate this history and assume that Auburn-Alabama would be the annual rivalry. But doesn't the last 25 years of more recent history have Auburn closely aligned with LSU and Mississippi schools? Or would the Georgia and Florida schools smooth things over?

You miss the point of geography. Auburn is right on the Georgia line and a little over an hour North of the Florida border, and two hours from Tennessee and South Carolina by interstate. We don't recruit the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas! We recruit Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Alabama has known this for 100 years! They cut us off from our natural recruiting areas and put us in theirs. There's your damned rub and none of us are getting over it. All of us want to be in the East. We want to play Florida, Georgia, and would love to play Georgia Tech again. We don't care about any of the West divisions schools except for Alabama, and the only one that has grown on us is L.S.U., but they haven't outstripped our desire for playing Georgia, Florida, or for playing Georgia Tech or Clemson.

We have more of a natural rivalry with Florida State than we do some of the schools of the Western division.

So if we are going to grow the conference the first demand of Auburn will be to move back to the East. Alabama will try to block because they have the advantage right now by forcing us to recruit where we play, West.

That's why I said you have no idea how or why the SEC schedules as it does and who has benefited from it and who has been hurt by it. People outside of the region don't understand who the rivals really are either. It should have dawned on you that if we have played two schools since 1892 & 1984 respectively that we must want to keep playing them. Until 1992 Auburn played Tennessee the third game of every season and Florida, Georgia, and Alabama on back to back to back weekends every year.

Now as to your idea of limiting the number of taken Big 12 schools to include B.Y.U., Cincy, and Connecticut it has merit, but it doesn't keep your Cougars (who would culturally fit into the Southeast better than anywhere else) from remaining an outlier geographically. But from a competitive standpoint you would be the strongest of the three listed. Texas would probably have to agree, as you would be in their division. So the question would be do they want B.Y.U. or do they want a couple of Texas privates?

BTW: Auburn has played Clemson 49 times. They have played L.S.U. 50 times, but every year since 1992. In other words in 1992 Auburn had played Clemson about 19 times more than L.S.U..

(11-17-2015 05:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to your idea of limiting the number of taken Big 12 schools to include B.Y.U., Cincy, and Connecticut it has merit, but it doesn't keep your Cougars (who would culturally fit into the Southeast better than anywhere else) from remaining an outlier geographically. But from a competitive standpoint you would be the strongest of the three listed. Texas would probably have to agree, as you would be in their division. So the question would be do they want B.Y.U. or do they want a couple of Texas privates?

That was my idea and it's based purely on maximizing markets. TCU and Baylor are highly redundant. I have no idea if UT would agree to it, but if they leave for the SEC or ACC or B1G then they are going to have to leave them behind anyway so I'm not really convinced they are so attached to schools like that outside of a perfect world.

(11-17-2015 05:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You miss the point of geography. Auburn is right on the Georgia line and a little over an hour North of the Florida border, and two hours from Tennessee and South Carolina by interstate. We don't recruit the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas! We recruit Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Alabama has known this for 100 years! They cut us off from our natural recruiting areas and put us in theirs. There's your damned rub and none of us are getting over it. All of us want to be in the East. We want to play Florida, Georgia, and would love to play Georgia Tech again. We don't care about any of the West divisions schools except for Alabama, and the only one that has grown on us is L.S.U., but they haven't outstripped our desire for playing Georgia, Florida, or for playing Georgia Tech or Clemson.

We have more of a natural rivalry with Florida State than we do some of the schools of the Western division.

So if we are going to grow the conference the first demand of Auburn will be to move back to the East. Alabama will try to block because they have the advantage right now by forcing us to recruit where we play, West.

That's why I said you have no idea how or why the SEC schedules as it does and who has benefited from it and who has been hurt by it. People outside of the region don't understand who the rivals really are either. It should have dawned on you that if we have played two schools since 1892 & 1984 respectively that we must want to keep playing them. Until 1992 Auburn played Tennessee the third game of every season and Florida, Georgia, and Alabama on back to back to back weekends every year.

Now as to your idea of limiting the number of taken Big 12 schools to include B.Y.U., Cincy, and Connecticut it has merit, but it doesn't keep your Cougars (who would culturally fit into the Southeast better than anywhere else) from remaining an outlier geographically. But from a competitive standpoint you would be the strongest of the three listed. Texas would probably have to agree, as you would be in their division. So the question would be do they want B.Y.U. or do they want a couple of Texas privates?

BTW: Auburn has played Clemson 49 times. They have played L.S.U. 50 times, but every year since 1992. In other words in 1992 Auburn had played Clemson about 19 times more than L.S.U..

I'm probably going to regret commenting on this, but here goes.

JR, you're making Bama seem like some kind of heartless dictator. While I won't deny UA has significant influence in the inner workings of the conference, I highly doubt any school has enough power to overrule the wishes of AU, UGA, UF, and UT. Have you considered that from UT and UF's perspective, an annual tilt with AU didn't mean as much?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that AU doesn't want to be in the West and would rather be playing some of the East teams, but...

1. Clemson and GT are not SEC schools. Nothing stopping Auburn from scheduling those schools out of conference on a regular basis. Especially not Bama, who would have no influence over those decisions whatsoever. Bama used to play GT every year as well until they left the conference. A reference to GT still remains in our fight song as a matter of fact. They were a major rival in the old days, but times change.

2. Auburn stills play UGA every year. To my knowledge, AU is just as much in favor of the current alignment as anyone due to the fact they can play UGA as a permanent cross division rival.

3. To my knowledge, the divisional alignment set forth in 92 was more about balance than anything. Bama, AU, and LSU were the Western most powers while UGA, UF, and UT were the Eastern most powers. It would have been overkill to go with a 4/2 alignment rather than 3/3.

4. Bama used to play UGA nearly every year until the 80s rolled around. We've hardly played them since. Once again, a mention to UGA remains in our fight song. It was a big rivalry in the old days, but things change. Despite that, we recruit GA heavily. We also recruit FL heavily despite the fact we've never played UF all that much. Recruiting isn't so much about where you play as the connections you establish. We don't get a lot of players from LA or MS and hardly any from TX...never have. We also get a smattering from TN. We pick up a few players here and there, sure, but most of ours come from in-state, FL, and more recently GA. I dare say we've got as many players on our roster from MD as we do MS.

5. Auburn was also playing Florida every year until the mew scheduling arrangement in the early 2000s. I don't know for certain why things were changed up, but I highly doubt it was because Bama flexed muscle. I mean, we got Vandy in that deal so what motivation did we have to give that up?

6. I'd be fine with moving to the East in the event we get 2 more schools from the West. I'd just like to be able to play LSU and MSU on a regular basis and that would be established if we went to a 9 game slate.

I think it's all much ado about nothing.

(11-18-2015 07:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 05:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You miss the point of geography. Auburn is right on the Georgia line and a little over an hour North of the Florida border, and two hours from Tennessee and South Carolina by interstate. We don't recruit the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas! We recruit Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Alabama has known this for 100 years! They cut us off from our natural recruiting areas and put us in theirs. There's your damned rub and none of us are getting over it. All of us want to be in the East. We want to play Florida, Georgia, and would love to play Georgia Tech again. We don't care about any of the West divisions schools except for Alabama, and the only one that has grown on us is L.S.U., but they haven't outstripped our desire for playing Georgia, Florida, or for playing Georgia Tech or Clemson.

We have more of a natural rivalry with Florida State than we do some of the schools of the Western division.

So if we are going to grow the conference the first demand of Auburn will be to move back to the East. Alabama will try to block because they have the advantage right now by forcing us to recruit where we play, West.

That's why I said you have no idea how or why the SEC schedules as it does and who has benefited from it and who has been hurt by it. People outside of the region don't understand who the rivals really are either. It should have dawned on you that if we have played two schools since 1892 & 1984 respectively that we must want to keep playing them. Until 1992 Auburn played Tennessee the third game of every season and Florida, Georgia, and Alabama on back to back to back weekends every year.

Now as to your idea of limiting the number of taken Big 12 schools to include B.Y.U., Cincy, and Connecticut it has merit, but it doesn't keep your Cougars (who would culturally fit into the Southeast better than anywhere else) from remaining an outlier geographically. But from a competitive standpoint you would be the strongest of the three listed. Texas would probably have to agree, as you would be in their division. So the question would be do they want B.Y.U. or do they want a couple of Texas privates?

BTW: Auburn has played Clemson 49 times. They have played L.S.U. 50 times, but every year since 1992. In other words in 1992 Auburn had played Clemson about 19 times more than L.S.U..

I'm probably going to regret commenting on this, but here goes.

JR, you're making Bama seem like some kind of heartless dictator. While I won't deny UA has significant influence in the inner workings of the conference, I highly doubt any school has enough power to overrule the wishes of AU, UGA, UF, and UT. Have you considered that from UT and UF's perspective, an annual tilt with AU didn't mean as much?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that AU doesn't want to be in the West and would rather be playing some of the East teams, but...

1. Clemson and GT are not SEC schools. Nothing stopping Auburn from scheduling those schools out of conference on a regular basis. Especially not Bama, who would have no influence over those decisions whatsoever. Bama used to play GT every year as well until they left the conference. A reference to GT still remains in our fight song as a matter of fact. They were a major rival in the old days, but times change.

2. Auburn stills play UGA every year. To my knowledge, AU is just as much in favor of the current alignment as anyone due to the fact they can play UGA as a permanent cross division rival.

3. To my knowledge, the divisional alignment set forth in 92 was more about balance than anything. Bama, AU, and LSU were the Western most powers while UGA, UF, and UT were the Eastern most powers. It would have been overkill to go with a 4/2 alignment rather than 3/3.

4. Bama used to play UGA nearly every year until the 80s rolled around. We've hardly played them since. Once again, a mention to UGA remains in our fight song. It was a big rivalry in the old days, but things change. Despite that, we recruit GA heavily. We also recruit FL heavily despite the fact we've never played UF all that much. Recruiting isn't so much about where you play as the connections you establish. We don't get a lot of players from LA or MS and hardly any from TX...never have. We also get a smattering from TN. We pick up a few players here and there, sure, but most of ours come from in-state, FL, and more recently GA. I dare say we've got as many players on our roster from MD as we do MS.

5. Auburn was also playing Florida every year until the mew scheduling arrangement in the early 2000s. I don't know for certain why things were changed up, but I highly doubt it was because Bama flexed muscle. I mean, we got Vandy in that deal so what motivation did we have to give that up?

6. I'd be fine with moving to the East in the event we get 2 more schools from the West. I'd just like to be able to play LSU and MSU on a regular basis and that would be established if we went to a 9 game slate.

I think it's all much ado about nothing.

There were serious reservations in the athletic and president's offices at Auburn when we were shifted to the West to accommodate Alabama's game with Tennessee. We did it for the good of the conference and with the promise from the commissioner (then Kramer) that we could move east with future additions. As you can see that promise was meaningless.

I don't know how old you are, but Auburn played annual games with Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi State prior to the expansion to 12. We decidedly recruited Georgia (almost 1/3rd of our recruits), Eastern Tennessee, and Jacksonville Florida over to Panama City. We didn't recruit much in Mississippi.

Believe what you will but it was Bama who pitched a fit over the situation and got their way. UGA was incensed by the movement but was happy to have a more limited field with which to contend provided Auburn was a part of it. Florida was an easy trip for both fan bases but obviously much less of a heated rival than Georgia.

The Georgia Tech series was stopped when they joined the ACC. They needed the scheduling flexibility and things were still frosty with the SEC and Auburn had become more dominant in the series following Pepper Rodgers stint at Tech.

As to Florida and Auburn ending the Gators were forced to pair with L.S.U.. It was when we quit having two crossover rivals and moved to just one. Auburn wasn't giving up Georgia.

I totally agree that the best thing that could happen would be to add two in the West and move Missouri to the West in exchange for Auburn and Alabama to the East. It even makes a ton of geographical sense.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Oklahoma, O.S.U., Missouri

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

(11-18-2015 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
There were serious reservations in the athletic and president's offices at Auburn when we were shifted to the West to accommodate Alabama's game with Tennessee. We did it for the good of the conference and with the promise from the commissioner (then Kramer) that we could move east with future additions. As you can see that promise was meaningless.

I don't know how old you are, but Auburn played annual games with Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi State prior to the expansion to 12. We decidedly recruited Georgia (almost 1/3rd of our recruits), Eastern Tennessee, and Jacksonville Florida over to Panama City. We didn't recruit much in Mississippi.

Believe what you will but it was Bama who pitched a fit over the situation and got their way. UGA was incensed by the movement but was happy to have a more limited field with which to contend provided Auburn was a part of it. Florida was an easy trip for both fan bases but obviously much less of a heated rival than Georgia.

The Georgia Tech series was stopped when they joined the ACC. They needed the scheduling flexibility and things were still frosty with the SEC and Auburn had become more dominant in the series following Pepper Rodgers stint at Tech.

As to Florida and Auburn ending the Gators were forced to pair with L.S.U.. It was when we quit having two crossover rivals and moved to just one. Auburn wasn't giving up Georgia.

I totally agree that the best thing that could happen would be to add two in the West and move Missouri to the West in exchange for Auburn and Alabama to the East. It even makes a ton of geographical sense.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Texas A&M, Oklahoma, O.S.U., Missouri

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

If the SEC went to sixteen with that group and deregulation passed, let's assume an eight game conference schedule where 4 games are against permanent opponents and the other four are cycled by the league. Who do you think each team would want for their four permanent rivals?

(11-18-2015 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., Missouri, Oklahoma, O.S.U., Missouri

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

I think that would be a great alignment. With 9 games, wouldn't be hard to rotate the schedule within a 4 year period.

(11-18-2015 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 07:18 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-17-2015 05:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You miss the point of geography. Auburn is right on the Georgia line and a little over an hour North of the Florida border, and two hours from Tennessee and South Carolina by interstate. We don't recruit the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas! We recruit Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. Alabama has known this for 100 years! They cut us off from our natural recruiting areas and put us in theirs. There's your damned rub and none of us are getting over it. All of us want to be in the East. We want to play Florida, Georgia, and would love to play Georgia Tech again. We don't care about any of the West divisions schools except for Alabama, and the only one that has grown on us is L.S.U., but they haven't outstripped our desire for playing Georgia, Florida, or for playing Georgia Tech or Clemson.

We have more of a natural rivalry with Florida State than we do some of the schools of the Western division.

So if we are going to grow the conference the first demand of Auburn will be to move back to the East. Alabama will try to block because they have the advantage right now by forcing us to recruit where we play, West.

That's why I said you have no idea how or why the SEC schedules as it does and who has benefited from it and who has been hurt by it. People outside of the region don't understand who the rivals really are either. It should have dawned on you that if we have played two schools since 1892 & 1984 respectively that we must want to keep playing them. Until 1992 Auburn played Tennessee the third game of every season and Florida, Georgia, and Alabama on back to back to back weekends every year.

Now as to your idea of limiting the number of taken Big 12 schools to include B.Y.U., Cincy, and Connecticut it has merit, but it doesn't keep your Cougars (who would culturally fit into the Southeast better than anywhere else) from remaining an outlier geographically. But from a competitive standpoint you would be the strongest of the three listed. Texas would probably have to agree, as you would be in their division. So the question would be do they want B.Y.U. or do they want a couple of Texas privates?

BTW: Auburn has played Clemson 49 times. They have played L.S.U. 50 times, but every year since 1992. In other words in 1992 Auburn had played Clemson about 19 times more than L.S.U..

I'm probably going to regret commenting on this, but here goes.

JR, you're making Bama seem like some kind of heartless dictator. While I won't deny UA has significant influence in the inner workings of the conference, I highly doubt any school has enough power to overrule the wishes of AU, UGA, UF, and UT. Have you considered that from UT and UF's perspective, an annual tilt with AU didn't mean as much?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that AU doesn't want to be in the West and would rather be playing some of the East teams, but...

1. Clemson and GT are not SEC schools. Nothing stopping Auburn from scheduling those schools out of conference on a regular basis. Especially not Bama, who would have no influence over those decisions whatsoever. Bama used to play GT every year as well until they left the conference. A reference to GT still remains in our fight song as a matter of fact. They were a major rival in the old days, but times change.

2. Auburn stills play UGA every year. To my knowledge, AU is just as much in favor of the current alignment as anyone due to the fact they can play UGA as a permanent cross division rival.

3. To my knowledge, the divisional alignment set forth in 92 was more about balance than anything. Bama, AU, and LSU were the Western most powers while UGA, UF, and UT were the Eastern most powers. It would have been overkill to go with a 4/2 alignment rather than 3/3.

4. Bama used to play UGA nearly every year until the 80s rolled around. We've hardly played them since. Once again, a mention to UGA remains in our fight song. It was a big rivalry in the old days, but things change. Despite that, we recruit GA heavily. We also recruit FL heavily despite the fact we've never played UF all that much. Recruiting isn't so much about where you play as the connections you establish. We don't get a lot of players from LA or MS and hardly any from TX...never have. We also get a smattering from TN. We pick up a few players here and there, sure, but most of ours come from in-state, FL, and more recently GA. I dare say we've got as many players on our roster from MD as we do MS.

5. Auburn was also playing Florida every year until the mew scheduling arrangement in the early 2000s. I don't know for certain why things were changed up, but I highly doubt it was because Bama flexed muscle. I mean, we got Vandy in that deal so what motivation did we have to give that up?

6. I'd be fine with moving to the East in the event we get 2 more schools from the West. I'd just like to be able to play LSU and MSU on a regular basis and that would be established if we went to a 9 game slate.

I think it's all much ado about nothing.

There were serious reservations in the athletic and president's offices at Auburn when we were shifted to the West to accommodate Alabama's game with Tennessee. We did it for the good of the conference and with the promise from the commissioner (then Kramer) that we could move east with future additions. As you can see that promise was meaningless.

I don't know how old you are, but Auburn played annual games with Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi State prior to the expansion to 12. We decidedly recruited Georgia (almost 1/3rd of our recruits), Eastern Tennessee, and Jacksonville Florida over to Panama City. We didn't recruit much in Mississippi.

Believe what you will but it was Bama who pitched a fit over the situation and got their way. UGA was incensed by the movement but was happy to have a more limited field with which to contend provided Auburn was a part of it. Florida was an easy trip for both fan bases but obviously much less of a heated rival than Georgia.

The Georgia Tech series was stopped when they joined the ACC. They needed the scheduling flexibility and things were still frosty with the SEC and Auburn had become more dominant in the series following Pepper Rodgers stint at Tech.

As to Florida and Auburn ending the Gators were forced to pair with L.S.U.. It was when we quit having two crossover rivals and moved to just one. Auburn wasn't giving up Georgia.

I totally agree that the best thing that could happen would be to add two in the West and move Missouri to the West in exchange for Auburn and Alabama to the East. It even makes a ton of geographical sense.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss St., A&M, Oklahoma, O.S.U., Missouri

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

I've always felt the real issue was that both Auburn and UTK could have gone either way with the divisional split. Regardless, while the current lineup might be amenable to Auburn moving east, I think there would be strong opposition the 'Bama moving.