Need to swap Ole Miss & MSU. While Ole Miss & Bama are rivals, Ole Miss-Vandy goes back further. Similarly, Bama-MSU goes way back and is also a big rivalry.

This is a non-story story. Nothing will happen.

But if the SEC does invite Oklahoma and either Kansas or Oklahoma State, then the SEC will realign with both Alabama schools moving to the East and Missouri to the West. Just wait until 2025.

(06-02-2017 10:36 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 10:07 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  I don't normally chime in on SEC conversations, but this is worth a mention. UT/Bama is one of the great Southern football rivalries and it's not just an interchangeable game. This is one of those games that the league needs to find a way to protect.

I'm not hating on it. It's a great game. But so are games like UF/Auburn and UGA/Bama that we almost never get to see anymore because games like UT/Bama get special protection.

The rest of the league doesn't want these arranged rivalries and wants to play teams from the other division more often. To give you an example, South Carolina is going 17 years (2008 to 2025) between hosting LSU in Columbia. It's the same story at just about every other school. Unless you want to go to 9 or 10 games (I personally would) there has to be something done and Auburn to the East is as good an idea as I've seen.

The UT/Bama game is protected at this time just like the GA/Auburn game is protected. In the state of Alabama when someone says the 3rd Saturday in Oct everyone knows what they are talking about. Growing up an Auburn fan I would like to see Auburn in the East just due to the fact that I grew up seeing Auburn play Florida and Tennessee each year instead of only every blue moon.

Yes, but outside of Alabama and Tennessee no one really cares that much. The rivalry lost it's luster about 15-20 years ago, except only people from outside those two states realize it.

Sure it's often a big game, but is that one game worth barely ever getting Bama/UGA, SC/LSU, or Auburn/Florida?

This needs to happen. Having Missouri play in the East is one of the silliest decisions to ever come out of SEC football.

(06-02-2017 02:22 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  This needs to happen. Having Missouri play in the East is one of the silliest decisions to ever come out of SEC football.

I know it sounds odd, but other than Florida, the SEC East is effectively the SEC North. Missouri has Arkansas every year, so except for Ole Miss, Missouri is playing the northernmost seven schools in the SEC.

(06-02-2017 01:29 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  This is a non-story story. Nothing will happen.

But if the SEC does invite Oklahoma and either Kansas or Oklahoma State, then the SEC will realign with both Alabama schools moving to the East and Missouri to the West. Just wait until 2025.

Pretty much! Otherwise it is just getting a move to 9 conference games more air time.

(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.

Alabama and Auburn have both spoken in favor of a 9 game schedule. So keep the 6-1-1 schedule with AL-TN played every year. When Alabama and Auburn don't meet in conference they can play out of conference as they have no objection to a 9th "conference" game.

Or you could do like the Big 10 and have a 6-0-2 except for Alabama-Tennessee. So you get everyone 4 times in 14 years except for those two. Kentucky-Mississippi St. is not a big deal. LSU would be glad not to get Florida every year. Missouri and Arkansas as well as Georgia and Auburn would be in the same division. A&M-South Carolina is just because they have to have a cross division opponent. If Ole Miss and Vandy want to play every year, they can do it as a 9th "conference" game that doesn't count in the standings, just like Alabama-Auburn.

(06-02-2017 03:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  Or you could do like the Big 10 and have a 6-0-2 except for Alabama-Tennessee. So you get everyone 4 times in 14 years except for those two.

that's not how the Big Ten does it. the BigTen has a 6 year rotation where it plays 6 out of 7 cross-division opponents twice in 6 years. plus each school has one "parity schedule" cross-division partner that they play every year in the 6 year cycle. from 2016-2021, the parity partners that play every year are:

OSU-Neb
Mich-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MSU-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

At the end of the 6 year cycle, the parity partners are re-assigned based on the BigTen's secret formula, except for Indy and Purdue, who are the only permanent cross- division rivals.

(06-01-2017 09:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Alabama doesn't want to be in the east, and unlike Auburn, they get a lot of students from Mississippi & a good amount from Louisiana too if I'm not mistaken. Pat Dye, who's one of Auburn's legends has been very outspoken and has been pushing for it.

Auburn wants to move East...always has. Alabama and Tennessee don't want them moving East, as the 'most overrated and boringest rivalry in college football' isn't threatened.

But the Bamers and the Vols might not have it locked down so much.

Mizzou - would vote to send Auburn East
Arkansas - would vote to send Auburn East
Auburn - would vote to send Auburn East

Alabama and Tennessee are hell no's.

LSU, A&M, Mississippi, and Mississippi State - enjoy playing Auburn, but might enjoy a bit less of a struggle in SEC play. Its not like Alabama has been tripped up by Tennessee lately either.

Georgia in the East would probably vote to bring Auburn East. Sure, its more competition for the East division, but they already play each other every year anyway. They would need a new crossover rival, which might be a weaker team.

Florida, USCe, Kentucky, and Vandy - might be the ones holding it up. They might not want the competition from Auburn.

I still think the best solution is get rid of divisions and go to 9 games split between 4 permanent rival games and 5 rotating

Every important Big and small rivalry is protected and you get to play everyone in the league home and away at least once in a 4 year career as a student or player

No better alternative than that

(06-05-2017 02:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I still think the best solution is get rid of divisions and go to 9 games split between 4 permanent rival games and 5 rotating

Every important Big and small rivalry is protected and you get to play everyone in the league home and away at least once in a 4 year career as a student or player

No better alternative than that

This is why I was for the complete deregulation of divisional play. That would have allowed for unlimited flexibility in creating divisional schedules. Anything would be possible from 2, 3, or 4 division configurations or hybrid schedules like you suggest.

The conferences should be determining their schedules and the path to their own conference championships. As long as they don't exceed the maximum number of games--the NCAA should not be involved. Every conference is unique and each has its own needs. No need for a cookie cutter rule in this area. In an era of disappearing rivalries, conferences should have every tool available to keep them alive.

(06-05-2017 02:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I still think the best solution is get rid of divisions and go to 9 games split between 4 permanent rival games and 5 rotating

Every important Big and small rivalry is protected and you get to play everyone in the league home and away at least once in a 4 year career as a student or player

No better alternative than that

That's what the ACC has been trying to do. A similar approach was used by the twelve-team SEC before Georgia Tech and Tulane departed. Of course, it does lead to the possible rematch of a year end in-conference rivalry game like Alabama-Auburn, Ohio State-Michigan, or Carolina-Duke...

(06-01-2017 10:41 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  Yeah, agree. Just thought it would be funny. However, if Alabama was forced to ...

I can't find anything wrong with the grammar, but for the life of me, I can't work out what the bold faced text is supposed to mean. Somehow, it just doesn't make sense.

(06-05-2017 01:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 09:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Alabama doesn't want to be in the east, and unlike Auburn, they get a lot of students from Mississippi & a good amount from Louisiana too if I'm not mistaken. Pat Dye, who's one of Auburn's legends has been very outspoken and has been pushing for it.

Auburn wants to move East...always has. Alabama and Tennessee don't want them moving East, as the 'most overrated and boringest rivalry in college football' isn't threatened.

But the Bamers and the Vols might not have it locked down so much.

Mizzou - would vote to send Auburn East
Arkansas - would vote to send Auburn East
Auburn - would vote to send Auburn East

Alabama and Tennessee are hell no's.

LSU, A&M, Mississippi, and Mississippi State - enjoy playing Auburn, but might enjoy a bit less of a struggle in SEC play. Its not like Alabama has been tripped up by Tennessee lately either.

Georgia in the East would probably vote to bring Auburn East. Sure, its more competition for the East division, but they already play each other every year anyway. They would need a new crossover rival, which might be a weaker team.

Florida, USCe, Kentucky, and Vandy - might be the ones holding it up. They might not want the competition from Auburn.

SC and Florida will support if permanent opponents can be eliminated.

I believe Florida whined about having Missouri in the East because of the distance from Gainesville, so they would probably vote yes.