(07-08-2013 02:30 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I could see East Carolina in an SEC that looked like this:

East: East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, W. Virginia

Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West: Arkansas, Kansas State, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma/OSU, Texas A&M

9 Conference Games: 5 divisional, 2 each from the other divisions rotated every year for 3 years to play everyone.

Conference Championships to include the 3 divisional champions and the remaining team with the best conference record.

JR,

Your 18 plan isn't that dissimilar to my 15 proposal. Especially the consideration given the 'Bama with the Central division. It's imperative that the Tide get their own division with opponents that will put up with them.

I hadn't thought about it Vandiver, but you are right. Almost two years ago He1nous and I were playing around with the positives of 18. That model provides for better regional groupings, travel savings, can still play everyone in three years, and permits for more rivalries. It also rewards three true divisional champions. Being the best of four still leaves something to be desired compared to a best of 6. And we felt that rewarding the strongest division with a potential wild card slot helped to keep things balanced year to year when the championship rounds begin. We also felt that an East and West semifinal site different from the championship site would enable more fans to participate in the postseason thereby energizing the whole conference rather than just the Atlanta area.

But when you presented 15 it did do essentially the same things. I like an end game number of 72 teams because it is the next wide investment cutoff point for schools spending on athletics. It doesn't seem wise to me to leave Cincinnati or Connecticut or others of their ilk out of the mix and as long as a conference can find profit in their addition then 72 seems more just to me as well.