Yes or No and Why and How in your opinion:

I would say no because in the past the East division was the strongest.

If you did anything it would be to try and get Mizzou into the west.

If anything I would suggest switching Missouri & Auburn but that to may create some problems. Ole Miss for Missouri?

I'll take a stab at a rearrangement.

West: Alabama, Tennessee, A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, SC, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Rivals (?)
Alabama/Auburn
LSU/Florida
Tenn/Georgia
A&M/Ole Miss (or Ark)
Arkansas/Miss St (or A&M)
Missouri/SC
Vanderbilt/UK

Things tend to go in cycles, but as of the end of the 2015 season 4 of the bottom 5 SEC teams in all-time winning percentage were in the SEC East.

That to me seems to point that a competitive re-balance might be beneficial. From a pure geographic perspective flipping Auburn (furthest east of the west schools) with Missouri would make sense.

I think the only rebalancing worth doing at this point would be to go divisionless.

We could go ahead and take the top 4 squads and have conference semi-finals. No way any qualified team gets left out of that scenario and we get to preserve any rivalry of significant importance at the same time.

Divisionless with a semi final would be interesting...probably the best way to guarantee the highest quality conference title game.

No. We just need add a ninth conference game. That way we can rotate through the conference quicker. It either that or expand.

The SEC joined with the B1G to prevent a division less format.

(11-11-2016 06:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The SEC joined with the B1G to prevent a division less format.

Yep, and that's why if there is expansion it will probably involve no more than two schools. I think we simply keep two division of 8 and move to a 9th conference game.

(11-11-2016 08:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes or No and Why and How in your opinion:

I would give you the perfect SEC breakdown, but I believe in the Prime Directive, so you'll have to work this out for your self.

(11-11-2016 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes or No and Why and How in your opinion:

I would give you the perfect SEC breakdown, but I believe in the Prime Directive, so you'll have to work this out for your self.

Screw the Prime Directive! I'm Romulan!

(11-11-2016 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes or No and Why and How in your opinion:

I would give you the perfect SEC breakdown, but I believe in the Prime Directive, so you'll have to work this out for your self.

Screw the Prime Directive! I'm Romulan!

I had you pegged as a Klingon, JR.

(11-12-2016 08:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 09:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2016 08:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes or No and Why and How in your opinion:

I would give you the perfect SEC breakdown, but I believe in the Prime Directive, so you'll have to work this out for your self.

Screw the Prime Directive! I'm Romulan!

I had you pegged as a Klingon, JR.

And I had you pegged as a Ferengi! But I would imagine you see yourself as Vulcan. Well...., at least neither of us are part of the Collective.

Short answer - No

Long answer - As presently constructed, each division has three historical powers (Alabama, auburn, and LSU vs UF, UGA, and UT) two mid level/moderately successful schools (tamu and Arkansas vs Missouri and SC) and two weaker schools with less resources (you know the rest)

Now, we can argue that SC and Missouri as well as UK and Vandy are historically weaker than their counterparts but I think that unless we are willing to scrap permanent opponents (in which case an auburn/Missouri swap works perfectly) then the current setup works just fine

(11-12-2016 11:33 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Short answer - No

Long answer - As presently constructed, each division has three historical powers (Alabama, auburn, and LSU vs UF, UGA, and UT) two mid level/moderately successful schools (tamu and Arkansas vs Missouri and SC) and two weaker schools with less resources (you know the rest)

Now, we can argue that SC and Missouri as well as UK and Vandy are historically weaker than their counterparts but I think that unless we are willing to scrap permanent opponents (in which case an auburn/Missouri swap works perfectly) then the current setup works just fine

I like the Missouri / Auburn swap. Then we could schedule our rivals as OOC games. That would work just fine!

No, no rebalancing without expansion. With expansion I am in favor of divisionless and nine games, but barring that a 3-2-2-2 (with the last two either being another "pod/division" or permanent rivals), scheduling with semis (at 16) or 5-2-2 (at 18). Division strength is cyclical and based in large part on coaching. Even as a TN fan, I'll admit that McElwain is doing very well at FL and only needs one big win to get the recognition he deserves. As a TN fan I despise Muschamp, but think he will be okay at South Carolina (or else have a short leash). Kirby Smart will probably be better after this first year. On the other side Saban will have to retire eventually. Not sure what direction LSU will go, Mullen even after a down year could get a job somewhere else. Long post short: Coaching changes can change dynamics quick, so no need to reformat.

(11-12-2016 03:40 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  No, no rebalancing without expansion. With expansion I am in favor of divisionless and nine games, but barring that a 3-2-2-2 (with the last two either being another "pod/division" or permanent rivals), scheduling with semis (at 16) or 5-2-2 (at 18). Division strength is cyclical and based in large part on coaching. Even as a TN fan, I'll admit that McElwain is doing very well at FL and only needs one big win to get the recognition he deserves. As a TN fan I despise Muschamp, but think he will be okay at South Carolina (or else have a short leash). Kirby Smart will probably be better after this first year. On the other side Saban will have to retire eventually. Not sure what direction LSU will go, Mullen even after a down year could get a job somewhere else. Long post short: Coaching changes can change dynamics quick, so no need to reformat.

I just don't think having three yearly SEC rivalry games will suffice for most teams. I was thinking a dual compromise between large conferences and all the other ones could be reached. Imagine this compromise:
1. Large conferences get:
A. Semi-conference final games
B. Division rule removed, greater schedule flexibility
C. 14th data point

2. Smaller conferences/independents get:
A. only one school per conference in 4-team playoffs
B. Any conference champ that does not have a 14th point has the right to schedule a game against any opponent ranked in the top 8 by the selection committee if they so choose in order to get a 14th data point and to improve chances of getting into the four team playoffs. Also, any team selected in this game gets a shot at a playoff spot regardless of rule 2A

I set up rule 2B to give G5 and lower P5 Conference champions a chance to improve their strength of schedule at the end of the season. Note that don't give independents that chance as they would have the week off prior to this game.

Here's a 16 team SEC without divisions, but with 5 yearly rivalries
Ala::Aub, Tenn, Ole, MSU, LSU
Ark::A&M, LSU, Ole, Mizz, OU
Aub::Ala, Ole, LSU, FL, UGa
FL::UGA, Tenn, Aub, SC, OU
UGa::Aub, FL, SC, TN, WVU
Ole::MSU, Aub, Ala, Ark, A&M
Mizz::Ark, A&M, OU, UK, Vandy
MSU::LSU, Ala, Ole, Vandy, SC
UK::Vandy, Tenn, Mizz, SC, WVU
LSU::Ala, Aub, MSU, Ark, A&M
A&M::OU, LSU, Ark, Mizz, Ole
SC::UGa, FL, WVU, UK, MSU
Tenn::Ala, UGa, FL, UK, V
Vandy::Tenn, UK, Mizz, MSU, WVU
OU::Mizz, A&M, Ark, WVU, FL
WVU::UK, SC, V, OU, UGa

No rebalancing without expansion. If the SEC sticks with 14, go divisionless