(10-18-2019 10:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I get that this is a topic that strikes close to home for an Auburn fan like JR but what the rest of us can’t figure out is why Alabama has so much social capital that they can over ride a move that Auburn, Missouri, LSU, and Florida all want?
Auburn and Missouri want to be opposite divisions and LSU and Florida would both like a schedule that does away with all of the pointless cross-division protected faux rivalries. Wrap this together into one scheduling reform and there ought to be enough internal will within the conference to make that happen?
Does Alabama have a bunch of dirty pictures of other SEC presidents and ADs hidden in a drawer somewhere that they are threatening to expose?
I agree with JR that it will work itself out, but Alabama does not have the social capital as advertised.
They are a powerful voice in the conference, sure, but they don't have the economic might to simply outvote the rest of the conference on important matters. There are numerous schools in the SEC with serious economic might...several of which have no interest in catering to Alabama.
The situation is political. If you're Alabama then you want to stay in the West and you also want to play Auburn and Tennessee every year. The current situation has allowed for that outcome. If there's another school out there that wants a different outcome then you have to ask what that outcome is and how they would obtain it.
Let's take Auburn for example, they want to play Florida annually. They might even prefer to be in the East as it is currently constituted. Here's the question, what do the powerful schools in the league want collectively? In other words, do the schools in the East also want Auburn to be in their division? If they do then what might they have to sacrifice for that to happen? The most important question is will a move by Auburn into the East be considered worthy of the sacrifice?
As the divisions are currently constituted, if Auburn moved to the East and Missouri moved to the West then there would still be, without question, one protected crossover game...Alabama and Auburn. No chance the SEC is giving up the Iron Bowl. How does that affect everyone else though?
I don't see the conference taking the position that only 2 schools will have a protected crossover. I know the Big Ten protects Indiana and Purdue, but quite frankly, how many schools in that conference are interested in playing either of those schools more frequently? Enough to fuss over it, that is? I doubt it's very many. The situation would be different in the SEC because a lot of schools would want to play Alabama and Auburn more frequently and allowing for a rotation that took those schools out of the picture far more often than others would be dead on arrival, I think.
So now we're left with the only other option...give everyone a protected rivalry. That doesn't accomplish much because LSU and Florida would likely still be paired. Both the conference and the networks will want games that match brands and/or programs of similar quality. Those are easier to market. If the question is strength of schedule and allegedly that is why LSU and Florida don't want to play each other every year then Florida would gain an annual game with Auburn, but they would have to trade Missouri for it. So not only are they beefing up their division schedule with Auburn, they are still playing LSU at the end of the day because there are few options.
For their part, LSU could theoretically drop Florida every year, but at best they would be matched up with another quality brand. It might be Georgia in this situation. If LSU is worried about strength of schedule then trading Georgia for Florida doesn't accomplish anything. At that, they would be losing an annual game with Auburn in exchange for Missouri. I don't see them going for any of that.
Let's say LSU and Florida stay matched up, but a few of the others were allowed to change. So now you've got to find a match-up for Georgia and Tennessee that they would rather play as opposed to their current circumstances. Tennessee wants to play Alabama every year so they're an immediate 'no' vote on any of this. Georgia would have to be paired with someone from the West, but they have no history with any of those schools except maybe Ole Miss. Georgia actually has a long history with Alabama, but the two schools stopped playing regularly in the 80s. Not long after that, the conference was divided and the two were in separate divisions. That is to say, Georgia might be good with playing Alabama annually, but that's not an option as the Iron Bowl is the sacred cow. Not to mention, they're already playing Auburn every year anyway so there's no reason for them to support this move.
Missouri would be happy with it for several reasons, but they are new to the conference and have little economic might. They are one vote and probably not in a position to influence the consensus.
Does anyone else benefit from this move? I can't see anyone else caring enough to shake anything up. I'm sure there are several schools that would like to trade their protected crossover, but you run into the same set of dynamics. Who gets what?
So let's look it from another angle. LSU and Florida don't seem to want to play annually anymore, but it's my understanding they would rather drop the protected crossovers altogether. Well, that's not going to happen because Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia will not go for it. I'm sure Florida would be ok with the protected crossover if they got to play Auburn every year, but that's not an option. Auburn and Georgia aren't about to give each other up. Not to mention, Georgia already plays Florida annually anyway so they gain absolutely nothing from dropping Auburn. Only Florida would gain in that scenario.
I don't doubt that promises were made to Auburn in 1992, however, I highly doubt the leaders at that time anticipated that expansion would occur when it occurred and that Texas A&M and Missouri would be the additions. Everyone quite likely had something different in mind.
I also don't doubt Alabama put up a fuss to maintain both Auburn and Tennessee on the schedule. Such a move is in their interest and I don't see a scenario where every school isn't advocating for what is in its best interest assuming it's feasible.
Additionally, at the time it was quite logical to pair LSU and Florida. After all, they had voluntarily played each annually for about 20 years prior to 1992. People forget that. They may not care about playing each other now, but the consensus does not agree with the alternatives.
Adding a 9th conference game would solve some of these issues, but most schools don't want that either. I know Saban has advocated for it although I'm not sure the UA administration is necessarily for it. My guess would be that they're fine with it otherwise Saban probably wouldn't feel the freedom to regularly and aggressively call for it. In other words, an example that Alabama does not have the social capital to get whatever they want.
The only other solution is expanding again or going division-less. My preference would be to go division-less whether we stay at 14 for an extended period of time or not.
When the last expansion occurred in 2012, the circumstances became a little murkier. To the point, it's entirely possible the powers that be thought we would be moving to 16 immediately. Instead, everything suddenly came to a halt. When it comes to politics, extra layers of murkiness tend to lead to the status quo rather than substantive change.
So we're in a holding pattern now because we don't know for certain who the next 2 additions are.
/
SEC football scheduling
