Plus, it would be nice for the series to terminate with a long winning streak intact.
SEC reallignment - Moving Season?
- Thread starter CrimSonami
- Start date
With all conferences headed to 16, why not add OU and OSU, move Mizzou to the West, and send Bama and Barners to the East? Nice geographical grouping in both divisions. Play 9 conference games with seven and two from other division rotating evenly amongst other division members. Great conference becomes greater.
It would hurt college football in general and the SEC. Because all this is cyclical, in time it would hurt Alabama, too.
Last edited:
Way too many young fans do not understand that football is cyclical. It has always been cyclical, but with scholarship limitations it has spread the wealth talent wise. Since the SEC expanded in 1992 two dominant programs with four dominant HCs is what has seen the balance of power swing from East to West. It will swing back at some point. I agree that auburn should be switched with Mizzou and become our annual cross division rival.
How? We all know Auburn benefits greatly from the game, due to their second tier status within the state. One can name quite a few recruits who specifically chose Auburn when for what ever reason Alabama wasn't a viable option. Furthermore, it is the biggest game most years for Auburn fans. But the inverse isn't really true. Alabama doesn't get players because they couldn't go to Auburn, and if Auburn is the biggest game for Alabama that usually means something went wrong.
We are not merely speculating that Alabama doesn't need Auburn though, we have proof of this fact. Alabama rose to prominence (no pun intended) without the Auburn series at all! The Wade and Thomas era occurred without the Auburn game. One can question if Alabama even becomes what it becomes with little brother tugging at us constantly. What about Auburn though? Well, after decades of not doing a whole lot (no national titles, no SEC titles) they finally got things back on track after resumption of the Alabama game.
This point has to be made clear. Alabama won 8 conference titles and 5 national titles without the Auburn game! Auburn? They won 0 national titles and 4 conference titles without the Alabama game. Alabama also went to 9 bowl games while Auburn went to 1. That doesn't paint the full picture though, as Auburn went 1919-1957 with only one conference title! There's little doubt that this game invigorated Auburn football, but I ask again what good does it do for Alabama? Auburn football basically went dormant without the game, which is no doubt why Alabama was forced to resume it. Also, not only does the SEC not need the game, they don't need Auburn at all...
Last edited:
As an outsider who has become more and more an Alabama fan every year for a while now I can say that the Auburn game is painful to watch in our house. It is actually harder for me to watch than the OSU/UM game. Why? Because my wife's family simply can't stomach the possibility of a loss to Auburn. Even when Alabama is clearly better than Auburn (like last year), the game is hard to watch. Too much on the line for Alabama - and Auburn always seems to be playing with house money (even if they lose, they win).
I don't say this to suggest that the rivalry be stopped - not my business. But I don't know how you guys live in that environment year round.
Let me supplement Krazy's observation here with another point: Auburn whined and whined to get the Iron Bowl moved to Jerking Hare and THEN........forced our fans to buy an ENTIRE SEASON'S worth of tickets just to be able to attend the Iron Bowl.
I mean, what does that tell you?
Every team in the SEC needs us more than we need them. Vandy is willing to take 29 beatings at our hands for the joy of that one year they beat a 5-6 Tide team. Ole Miss practically thinks they've died and gone to heaven the last two years. Miss State fans - who are the more realistic group in MS - cherish their beating us four times in five years (and we have obliterated them in that series) and sold about four million "I was there" bumper stickers for the 1980 game that ended our 28-game winning streak despite the fact there were only about 40,000 seats or so.
However, one note - our own fans amuse me, too.
"Move Auburn to the East, the game has gotten unhealthy and we don't need it anyway."
Gus talks about moving.
"Oh they're just a bunch of cowards."
Sometimes CFB is so much like pro wrassling it scares me.
I mean, what does that tell you?
Every team in the SEC needs us more than we need them. Vandy is willing to take 29 beatings at our hands for the joy of that one year they beat a 5-6 Tide team. Ole Miss practically thinks they've died and gone to heaven the last two years. Miss State fans - who are the more realistic group in MS - cherish their beating us four times in five years (and we have obliterated them in that series) and sold about four million "I was there" bumper stickers for the 1980 game that ended our 28-game winning streak despite the fact there were only about 40,000 seats or so.
However, one note - our own fans amuse me, too.
"Move Auburn to the East, the game has gotten unhealthy and we don't need it anyway."
Gus talks about moving.
"Oh they're just a bunch of cowards."
Sometimes CFB is so much like pro wrassling it scares me.
If college football can sustain itself after losing Oklahoma vs. Nebraska, and Texas vs. Texas A&M, it will do just fine without the Iron Bowl. Nothing about the cyclical nature of football has anything to do with whether or not losing the Iron Bowl would hurt Alabama. Others have elaborated on it, but Alabama got along just fine without the Iron Bowl for over 40 years.
Mostly because only OU and OSU profits from it. If we expand westward it would be more likely more Texas schools instead of Oklahoma. The other Texas markets are far more lucrative than the OKC market. It's more likely we expand east than west.
It is nice geographically, but not by any other measure. We would lose LSU and Mississippi State, two of Alabama's most played series. Mississippi State is our most played game, in fact. Seems like this year will be our 100th game against one another.
Other than the SEC championship match ups, we don't have much of a history with Florida. We have a nice history with Georgia, but I'd rank it lower than Tennessee, MSU, Auburn, and LSU. Maybe even Ole Miss. We have virtually no history with South Carolina. Very little with Kentucky. We did play Vanderbilt almost every year until the SEC did away with the second protected crossover game between the divisions, back in the late 90s?
One other point is we'd lose the annual game with Texas A&M, and I am liking that series.
I'm not sure I'm really a fan of adding Oklahoma. I am NOT a fan of adding Oklahoma State. I wasn't a fan of adding Missouri either. Frankly, I wish we could kick out Missouri and add someone from the eastern US, like a Virginia Tech.
A compromise on playing the Barn each year that would help it not be so vile is to play the game earlier in the year.
For either team, a win is a quality win but a loss isn't as debilitating (with time later in the season to recover) and the fans have time to move on real quickly with a game the next week.
I like our rivalry with UT and hope it stays, but I wouldn't cry if it ended.
I could live without AU every year too, but I think the IB is a plus for college football in general.
For either team, a win is a quality win but a loss isn't as debilitating (with time later in the season to recover) and the fans have time to move on real quickly with a game the next week.
I like our rivalry with UT and hope it stays, but I wouldn't cry if it ended.
I could live without AU every year too, but I think the IB is a plus for college football in general.
We tried to get VT but they wouldn't do it. I was bummed at first, but other than for football they offer very little. Mizzou was more of a market grab, but Mizzou looked to like a decent football and a better than average baseball and basketball addition. The market is highly profitable, so the quality on the field can be ignored. I think the only addition that would make total sense is a NC school.
Yeah, but I'm coming at this from a perspective of hating this whole market share thing. I know that's what drives it, so it is the reality and I'm just wishful thinking.
You're correct though, a North Carolina school would make more sense. Frankly, I like NC State there. Yes, UNC is the bell cow in that state, I know. But to me they wouldn't fit in as well as NC State.
I know where you are coming from, but Mizzou looked better at first than they do presently. Entering they had a decent football team, a good baseball team, and a seemingly great basketball team. They were kinda like Arkansas. The football team was the one that was predicted to be the one to suffer the biggest drop, but ironically they had the most relevance. Mizzou winning the Big 12 title in basketball the year prior to joining gives me the biggest pause at suggesting Oklahoma will be a multisport contender if they make the switch. I think Baylor, TCU, and Texas (which UT will never) would be similar to OU but better profit.
East expansion in the Carolinas makes more sense.
It`s kind of hard to put into words,B1G. I guess it`s just something you have to be born into. To be honest, sometimes it gets pretty damn ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
I absolutely feel the same way. The Auburn game is torture until we take a knee. But that's what makes it great.
I really don't get the attitude that the Auburn game doesn't matter, when the fear of losing it is so keen and the number of rival threads on something stupid they've said or done outnumber the rest of the SEC combined.
I also don't understand the logic that Alabama doesn't need Auburn when you can say the very same thing about every SEC game on our schedule. That, to me, is a byproduct of an Alabama that is currently dominating college football. Auburn is not UAB.
Part of being a truly great Alabama team is taking care of business in late November. Move them to the East, fine. But we have to play them. It's part of being Alabama.
I really don't get the attitude that the Auburn game doesn't matter, when the fear of losing it is so keen and the number of rival threads on something stupid they've said or done outnumber the rest of the SEC combined.
I also don't understand the logic that Alabama doesn't need Auburn when you can say the very same thing about every SEC game on our schedule. That, to me, is a byproduct of an Alabama that is currently dominating college football. Auburn is not UAB.
Part of being a truly great Alabama team is taking care of business in late November. Move them to the East, fine. But we have to play them. It's part of being Alabama.
Then what was Alabama when they didn't play them? Other than the premier football program in all of the south?
That's the thing, Alabama needs to play someone (it just doesn't have to be Auburn), but Auburn needs Alabama and they'll do all they can to emphasize the importance of that game because they need it to be relevant. Without it they became completely irrelevant on the national stage, so why should Alabama keep doing them a favor? That's the real question, what has Auburn done to deserve Alabama propping them up?
Last edited:
We really like to say that Auburn exists to beat us and we exists to win SECs and NCs. Auburn is a means to the end for us. There are more times when beating Auburn has propelled us to the SEC and NC game than kept us out, with 2013 being the last I remember.
We may want to win for different reasons, but both schools fear to lose for the same reason...365 days of misery.
We may want to win for different reasons, but both schools fear to lose for the same reason...365 days of misery.
None of the 4 times that CNS won the national championship has auburn been a substantial reason we went to the national title other than its the 11th or 12th victory. 2011 is possibly the only exception, but those were weird circumstances. On the other hand them beating us has been a big reason they have gone
Going back to the premise of the OP, the only way I could ever see us going to the east in the SEC is if we expanded to 16 teams and we brought in a couple of power teams like Texas and OU. I know it's not likely, but I'm just playing along. Texas could use the SEC in more ways than they can ever imagine and it probably wouldn't hurt them much from a financial situation because they SEC would just add more and more to it's equal payouts with the additions of two college football blue bloods.
Here's what it could look like:
EAST
BAMA
AUBURN
GEORGIA
TENN.
FLORIDA
VANDY
USCE
KY
WEST:
OLE MISS
MSU
LSU
TEXAS
OU
TEXAS A&M
ARKANSAS
MIZZU
Here's what it could look like:
EAST
BAMA
AUBURN
GEORGIA
TENN.
FLORIDA
VANDY
USCE
KY
WEST:
OLE MISS
MSU
LSU
TEXAS
OU
TEXAS A&M
ARKANSAS
MIZZU
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-