(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)YNot Wrote:  What about Missouri and Vanderbilt to the WEST and Auburn and Alabama to the EAST?

The keeps Auburn-Alabama, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia, Florida-Tennessee as annual games within the division.

This.

Alabama-Mississippi State
Auburn-Texas A&M
Georgia-Ole Miss
South Carolina-Missouri
Florida-LSU
Tennessee-Arkansas
Kentucky-Vanderbilt

(06-01-2017 10:36 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)YNot Wrote:  What about Missouri and Vanderbilt to the WEST and Auburn and Alabama to the EAST?

The keeps Auburn-Alabama, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia, Florida-Tennessee as annual games within the division.

Is Vanderbilt-Tennessee an annual necessity?

Take away the annual cross-division locks and you have a scenario where everyone plays each other at least once in 3 or 4 years. (go to 9-game schedule and its once in 2 or 3 years). Perhaps stack the cross-division schedules so that LSU gets one of Florida, Alabama, or Georgia each season and Mississippi St. and Alabama play more often.

It would be good to have some parity on each side of the East and West divide.

That would make the East significantly stronger historically than the new West. UA/AU/UGA/UF/UT all one one side of the isle...

That's why full CCG deregulation is the better alternative.

I also note that Missouri won the EAST a couple of times over Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee and LSU, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss isn't a bad division by any means. You could also move the CCG to Houston, New Orleans or Nashville occasionally.

If you are saying that Missouri will rise to the level of a program like UA/AU/UT/UF/UGA within the next 20-30 years you may be on to something. However, I think both you and I know that's unlikely. Your comment is predicated on that and even if we took it as true, or a certainty, you still wouldn't have anything even resembling a balance of power between East and West.

(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:29 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  Would be funny if Auburn ran to the East division and Alabama chose to keep Tennessee as their annual rival as opposed to Auburn.

In no way, shape, or form is that possible.

Yeah, agree. Just thought it would be funny. However, if Alabama was forced to get rid of the iron bowl or the TSIO which one would it be?

(06-01-2017 10:41 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:29 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  Would be funny if Auburn ran to the East division and Alabama chose to keep Tennessee as their annual rival as opposed to Auburn.

In no way, shape, or form is that possible.

Yeah, agree. Just thought it would be funny. However, if Alabama was forced to get rid of the iron bowl or the TSIO which one would it be?

From a purely hypothetical standpoint, if there was a choice it would probably split along generational lines with older folks choosing Tennessee over Auburn and the younger folks choosing Auburn.

For people my age there isn't a time in memory where UA/UT was competitive. However, for my parents and grandparents the UT game has held more importance.

(06-01-2017 10:37 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)YNot Wrote:  What about Missouri and Vanderbilt to the WEST and Auburn and Alabama to the EAST?

The keeps Auburn-Alabama, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia, Florida-Tennessee as annual games within the division.

This.

Alabama-Mississippi State
Auburn-Texas A&M
Georgia-Ole Miss
South Carolina-Missouri
Florida-LSU
Tennessee-Arkansas
Kentucky-Vanderbilt

Alabama/Mississippi State
Auburn/LSU
Florida/Texas A&M
Georgia/Ole Miss
Kentucky/Missouri
South Carolina/Arkansas
Tennessee/Vanderbilt

(06-01-2017 10:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:36 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:30 AM)YNot Wrote:  What about Missouri and Vanderbilt to the WEST and Auburn and Alabama to the EAST?

The keeps Auburn-Alabama, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia, Florida-Tennessee as annual games within the division.

Is Vanderbilt-Tennessee an annual necessity?

Take away the annual cross-division locks and you have a scenario where everyone plays each other at least once in 3 or 4 years. (go to 9-game schedule and its once in 2 or 3 years). Perhaps stack the cross-division schedules so that LSU gets one of Florida, Alabama, or Georgia each season and Mississippi St. and Alabama play more often.

It would be good to have some parity on each side of the East and West divide.

That would make the East significantly stronger historically than the new West. UA/AU/UGA/UF/UT all one one side of the isle...

That's why full CCG deregulation is the better alternative.

I also note that Missouri won the EAST a couple of times over Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee and LSU, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss isn't a bad division by any means. You could also move the CCG to Houston, New Orleans or Nashville occasionally.

If you are saying that Missouri will rise to the level of a program like UA/AU/UT/UF/UGA within the next 20-30 years you may be on to something. However, I think both you and I know that's unlikely. Your comment is predicated on that and even if we took it as true, or a certainty, you still wouldn't have anything even resembling a balance of power between East and West.

You are right. It would take Oklahoma or Texas to even have a shot at helping to balance the divisions.

LSU-Texas A&M-Oklahoma, with Arkansas, Missouri, and Ole Miss would at least get the other side of the scale off the ground (Bama-Florida-Georgia-Tennessee-Auburn).

(06-01-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:18 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...t-to-west/

Jay Jacobs pushing for Auburn move to the SEC East. Missouri would make the most sense to move to the SEC West (which would also get them playing Texas A&M regularly again).

It's a sensible move, but fraught with internecine politics, and when has common sense ever trumped politics, LOL?

It's a talking point to prepare SEC fans for an eventual 9th conference game.

(06-01-2017 09:28 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

Arkansas
Kansas
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas A&M

All fixed.

Makes good sense to me.

(06-01-2017 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:18 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...t-to-west/

Jay Jacobs pushing for Auburn move to the SEC East. Missouri would make the most sense to move to the SEC West (which would also get them playing Texas A&M regularly again).

It's a sensible move, but fraught with internecine politics, and when has common sense ever trumped politics, LOL?

Yep. Adding a nineth conference game resolves some of those issues by being at 14 teams.

It's a talking point to prepare SEC fans for an eventual 9th conference game.

Vandy and Mizzou to the west and Alabama and Auburn to the east; it makes the most sense to me.

I don't see the need for every school to have a permanent cross-division opponent. Just follow the Big 10's lead and play the games that matter:

Vandy-Tennessee
LSU-Florida (optional)
Ole Miss/Miss St.-Alabama (optional)

The ACC has a couple meaningless cross-division games itself. Virginia vs. Louisville and VaTech vs. BC should be done away with. If Pitt vs. Syracuse was too, then all those schools could meet more often.

(06-01-2017 10:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why even bother with divisions? At 14, they can do either 3 permanent rivals and the other 10 rotate 5 every other year OR 5 permanent rivals and the other 8 rotate 4 every other year OR 7 permanent rivals and other 6 rotate 3 every other year. I bet most would prefer the first option as it opens up for 4 OOC games. At 16 or 18, I would prefer a 10-game conference schedule.

The could do that if they had voted with the ACC last year, but they decided to follow the B1G like sheep so they deserve whatever heartache this brings.

(06-01-2017 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:20 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  There are some important issues that could prevent this.

Bama needs to play both Tenn and Auburn every season.

The SEC only plays an 8 game conference schedule.

That means both Bama and Auburn would have to move together to the SEC east. Best Teams that could move west geographicly would be Mizzou and Kentucky. But that could create some imbalanced divisions.

This!

As much as others may not want to admit it this is important financially for the conference.

The UT/Bama game isn't very big anymore and plenty of rivalry games have been lost before. Auburn for example had to give up most of it's rivalries when the divisions were formed. I don't think the SEC would suffer at all financially if Alabama had to play Georgia or Florida instead

Do you mean competitive? It remains absolutely huge.

It's big to Alabama and Tennessee fans, but not to anyone else. I don't think it gets any buzz nationally or even regionally anymore.

(06-01-2017 01:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Vandy and Mizzou to the west and Alabama and Auburn to the east; it makes the most sense to me.

I don't see the need for every school to have a permanent cross-division opponent. Just follow the Big 10's lead and play the games that matter:

Vandy-Tennessee
LSU-Florida (optional)
Ole Miss/Miss St.-Alabama (optional)

The ACC has a couple meaningless cross-division games itself. Virginia vs. Louisville and VaTech vs. BC should be done away with. If Pitt vs. Syracuse was too, then all those schools could meet more often.

I don't think you'll get anyone to agree to having UGA, Tenn, UF, Alabama, and Auburn in the same division. ADs and Presidents will never go for that.

(06-01-2017 01:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  Vandy and Mizzou to the west and Alabama and Auburn to the east

That's the worst trade since Herschel Walker.

(06-01-2017 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:36 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why even bother with divisions? At 14, they can do either 3 permanent rivals and the other 10 rotate 5 every other year OR 5 permanent rivals and the other 8 rotate 4 every other year OR 7 permanent rivals and other 6 rotate 3 every other year. I bet most would prefer the first option as it opens up for 4 OOC games. At 16 or 18, I would prefer a 10-game conference schedule.

The could do that if they had voted with the ACC last year, but they decided to follow the B1G like sheep so they deserve whatever heartache this brings.

Kaplony, the whole issue of conference design should fall under autonomy. The reason it didn't last year was because as long as we are in a P5 there is too much paranoia that the other conference is gaming the system to exploit an advantage whether that is grouping conference schedules to maximize the number of schools that might contend for that CFP slot, or boosting a school's RPI to build a resume.

As soon as we move to a P4 with a champs only CFP this whole issue regarding structure becomes moot. As long as each conference just gets one slot which goes to their champion the whole focus will shift and what one conference does or doesn't do with regard to structure becomes a non issue because no advantage is gained regardless of the structure.

The question is could the SEC raid tv markets from their 3 competitors and create an even more of a mega conference?

SEC would like an Ohio market: Cincinnati
SEC would like a North Carolina market: East Carolina if they can't get the schools from the ACC.
SEC would like a Virginia market: Old Dominion?
Then you could actually bridge to West Virginia.
Cincinnati, Old Dominion, West Virginia and East Carolina with a possible as Kentucky as group.
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Auburn as the southeast.
Ole Miss., Miss. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and LSU as another group of 5.
Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas as the fifth group.
Big 12 would be turned into the Texas Longhorn's Conference, and anybody joins that P5 are more slaves and happy to be part of a P5. Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, BYU, Air Force, Colorado State, Boise State, New Mexico, San Diego State, Northern Illinois, Arkansas State, Missouri State, North Dakota State, UNR all will be kissing the feet of the Longhorns so that they have an access to the Championship title.

I think the question is going to be do the networks want to go P4? If they don't, they'll move heaven and earth to keep Big 12 going. They already did to some degree several years ago with them.

(06-01-2017 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the question is going to be do the networks want to go P4? If they don't, they'll move heaven and earth to keep Big 12 going. They already did to some degree several years ago with them.

Stever several years ago was a product lock down when things got out of control. I don't think the networks are going to continue to overpay for a product that only has 2 national football brands, 1 regional football brand, and 1 national basketball brand. In a streaming world those brands are all worth much more if placed in conferences with more brands. The rest fall into three categories: small privates with limited reach, 2nd state schools in small population states, West Virginia which is the regional brand but does play competitively in all sports, and Texas Tech which is an entry into a market of 26 million and which if paired with T.C.U. for a presence in DFW could be of interest to the PAC.

Kansas is worth more in the Big 10 or ACC even though the SEC has need of a basketball brand because their games against other brands are maximized in either of those. But, geography favors the Big 10. Oklahoma and Texas are worth more in either the SEC or Big 10. I think each one will get one. West Virginia if it gets into a P5 will likely accompany one of those two to the SEC. If it is Texas that heads to the SEC and Tech can find no interest from the PAC then WVU is out and Tech is in. Since ESPN has paid dearly to hold onto the Horns I don't see them heading to the Big 10 and I think their fans would prefer Arky & Aggie to going it alone in the ACC, especially as long as OU remains an OOC for the RRR.

But since we have the GOR to wait upon none of this is germane until 2021-2. But I think we're headed to a P4. The failure of the Big 12 to expand seems to cement that eventual outcome.

(06-01-2017 01:05 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:20 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  There are some important issues that could prevent this.

Bama needs to play both Tenn and Auburn every season.

The SEC only plays an 8 game conference schedule.

That means both Bama and Auburn would have to move together to the SEC east. Best Teams that could move west geographicly would be Mizzou and Kentucky. But that could create some imbalanced divisions.

This!

As much as others may not want to admit it this is important financially for the conference.

The UT/Bama game isn't very big anymore and plenty of rivalry games have been lost before. Auburn for example had to give up most of it's rivalries when the divisions were formed. I don't think the SEC would suffer at all financially if Alabama had to play Georgia or Florida instead

Do you mean competitive? It remains absolutely huge.

It's big to Alabama and Tennessee fans, but not to anyone else. I don't think it gets any buzz nationally or even regionally anymore.

Not true...

Just last year it was the biggest game in terms of viewers nationwide the week it took place.

That's not "nobody."

EAST
E. Carolina
South Carolina
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Georgia
Florida
Auburn

WEST
Missouri
Arkansas
Alabama
Mississippi State
Ole Miss
LSU
Texas A&M
Oklahoma