I don't like Auburn, and I hate to see great football rivalries end. Therefore I don't think Auburn should be allowed to move to the east. It would mean either the end of Bama-Tennessee or Bama-AU.
auburn To The East?
- Thread starter PitMaster
- Start date
The rest of the conference will live with the extra cash it brings. UA-UT, UA-AU, AU-UF, and AU-UT are worth more than their feelings to the people who matter in this equation.
Like rgw below said, that will never be fixed. That's a small problem that the SEC could care less about.
Exactly! This is all about money, and this would benefit the SEC overall no matter how much we care about it.
You are smoking something if you think the SEC lets the barn move to the East and then sticks with one cross division rival and lets us pick UT instead of the barn and lets the Iron Bowl end. It IS NOT happening. It doesn't matter what we want. Might as well get used to it.
But for all my cold financial logic, this is college administrators we're talking about...they could screw up free beer.
Alabama wanted a 9 game schedule, who won that argument?
Alabama and Florida do have the most pull, but that doesn't mean they get to say who they don't want to play. And speaking of Florida, do you really think them and Tennessee are going to be okay with Auburn coming to their side of the conference just to replace Mizzou? No, they are going to want Bama too because it is good for business since you get all of those marquee games instead of relying on a crap shot in the SECCG.
So much of what has been in this thread as a whole reminds me of the provincialism too many Alabama fans possess albeit ignorantly. Too many Tide fans actually think that OTHER college fans think the exact same way we do and then can't understand why what so many here think is "obvious" never comes to pass.
We are vastly outnumbered across the spectrum of college football. Sure, we have a lot of loyal fans but take all the other programs combined and we're miniscule. Part of what prevented a playoff for so many years - despite it's obvious assets as a solution to the championship problem - was all the competing interests. CBS, the SEC, and the city of Atlanta have a particular financial interest in the SEC title game actually meaning something. Each of the bowl games has a particular interest. The networks have an interest. Each school has an interest as does each conference (look at how desperately the B1G cleaves to the 1940s and the Rose Bowl match-up).
When I read summaries that basically say:
"well, if Auburn wants to move out of Alabama's shadow"
"there's nothing in the game for us"
"Auburn's skeered of Alabama"
"Auburn is hoping to win a national title without having to beat Alabama"
pretty much every single assessment there is written from: a) assumptions that every other school's fans think the exact same way we do (which is absolutely not true - does anyone here seriously think Miss St fans plan their thoughts on the notion of winning a national title?); b) a repeated failure to understand that while money is involved on a large scale this is still AMATEUR athletics.
It's not that I don't agree with most of the thoughts so much as they're disconnected from some of the multiple realities surrounding the entire thing.
For those who weren't alive for the game switch to Auburn after years in Birmingham - a switch I lived through as did many here - that was not motivated nearly as much by the whole "we wanna be Alabama" mentality as it was by a more basic desire for money. While they used the old "we'll show those Crimson rednecks" to rally their own support base Neanderthals (which all programs have including us), the most basic need by the university is to be able to stay open, which requires the little green stuff. So after rallying the support they needed, they pulled a power play that revealed that was the whole root of it: they required anyone buying tickets to the Iron Bowl AT Auburn to purchase tickets for the entire season. I don't know if it's still that way, I'm guessing things have changed, but back in 1988 they pulled this one off and put Alabama fans in the unenviable position of having to buy an entire season's worth of tickets just to get to go to the Iron Bowl. This, of course, guaranteed every game to be a sellout at the time, even when they were playing the like of Cal State Fullerton or the Citadel.
Who cares how many empty seats just so long as they have the money? And what better idea than to get your arch rival to have to support your school financially?
This is why the Iron Bowl really did, in essence, die when it left Birmingham. The almost 50-50 ticket split created noise during the entire game no matter who was doing what.
This last btw gave birth to the ridiculous theory that Alabama hired Eric Ramsey to make the pay for play allegations in 1991. You see, that was all a plan hatched by the city of Birmingham's politicians to get even with Auburn for the loss of revenue to the city because of the Iron Bowl every year. Now, how these geniuses got Auburn's coaches to make illegal offers of money that were tape recorded or how they got Lowder's bank to give Ramsey a loan......were never explained. But I digress.
You make a good point a lot of folks will miss.
Kentucky, Miss St, Ole Miss and Arky don't want a 9-game schedule for sure.
Why not? Well, that eliminates one of their cupcakes. Simple math for the lower tier programs:
Four wins vs cupcakes plus a 2-6 record in conference play makes us 6-6 and a bowl game. Take that away and we're 5-7. Of course, we now have 5-7 teams actually going to these useless and overscheduled exhibitions.
Just like Alabama, just like Auburn - they vote their financial interest. Since most of these games are in the South, it's easy travel. The bowl games with tie-ins like this, too. Seven wins gets you the Liberty Bowl in Memphis, a city two hours from Little Rock, within easy driving distance of almost all fans of the MS schools and six hours from KY campus and they rarely go.
Shreveport is close enough, too.
Your point is made: "We're Alabama, we've got clout."
But this isn't the UN, where our vote counts more than someone else's on major things, either.
Did Alabama really want a 9 game schedule? I heard Nick Saban say something about that, but I didn't hear anyone else say that. Did the AD say that and I missed it? And I'm being serious here because that's pertinent. Sometimes Nick Saban just kind of thinks out loud (from what I gather he mainly wants to play the other SEC teams more often vs. actually making the schedule more difficult).
Having said that, there's simply no way a deal like this would happen just because Alabama and Auburn wanted it. I said, and I've tried to say this a few times that deals have to be struck. My point, and I've said this all along is that I don't see CBS or the SEC head office themselves being the obstructions, not if the teams want this. Now, I can present a scenario that appeases most parties, for instance no Tennessee is not going to want to give up the Alabama game, so they get to keep it. Florida might actually appreciate playing Auburn annually, it gives them another marquee game as you put it. LSU complains about their schedule, so they won't whine about moving the Alabama game or losing Auburn. Etc... not saying this all would happen, just explaining that deals like this have been made in the past and they could be made again if there's enough momentum.
I suppose you've seen me discuss college football expansion before, but I've spent my fair share of time looking at ratings, attendance, maps, TV deals, population numbers, historical performance data, etc... of course I have my own agenda and perspective but that doesn't make me ignorance of the big picture. Remember I was on this very forum saying they SEC could and should add Missouri and Texas A&M well before it came to pass. I'm not prescient but I'm also not completely ignorant of the big picture either. The truth is I just haven't bothered you guys with all the moving parts yet because that didn't seem that important. But fine, here goes...
First Auburn needs to want the move right? But, they also need to be willing to give up the Alabama game. That's their concession to get what they want and to get Alabama and Tennessee on board. Missouri? This would need to be a money move for them. They might lose some competitiveness but in return they would gain more regionally relevant games, they'd probably get more Texas A&M/LSU/Alabama fans in their stadium than they ever got Georgia and Florida fans, this could be one of the biggest obstacles actually though. If I was selling this to Missouri the key selling point would be that they just don't gain anything from playing two programs so far away (Florida and Georgia) and they'd stand to gain more from playing major programs closer to them (attendance and recruiting).
Now in theory you have 4 teams on board. You have to pacify more right? Well, I mentioned swapping around rivalry games, and this is where the differing objectives come into play. For instance, you could soften the blow to South Carolina (and Missouri) by letting them pick up Missouri as their rival. They are two fairly well matched foes so that could work. I mentioned this before but I'd try to sell Texas A&M and Georgia on a rivalry game. You'd have two of the biggest SEC states, and two of the most fertile recruiting territories matching up against each other. More ambitious programs that want to take a step forward, this could be something to help them do that. This also would go a long way towards making up for monetary losses from the Iron Bowl as well (CBS would like that many households tuning in). LSU doesn't like their overly competitive schedule, so they'd be happy with dropping Auburn, and getting the concession of moving the Alabama game date to a point that CBS/the SEC wants shouldn't be too hard.
So, if we're counting that's now 8 SEC programs. We're reaching critical mass. Arkansas would be indifferent because they'd become Auburn's cross division rival, so their schedule wouldn't change at all. Not worth sticking their neck out to resist, so now we're at 9. Florida could be convinced that another big game (Auburn) on their schedule was good for them. Remember, the SEC East is easier, but it also produces more low interest games as well. Some could be convinced that it in their better interest to spice things up a little more (the SEC East has become one of the lower rated major conference divisions, so one could argue they need Auburn for SoS). Now, that's 10. Who is left? Kentucky, Miss. St., Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt. Well, the Mississippi schools would not complain about the softer schedule. And Vanderbilt and Kentucky simply wouldn't stick their necks out that far to preserve a slightly easier schedule.
Now, I am not saying this will happen! But, I said, all along that this is plausible. You just have to get enough of the schools interested in making this happen. Now, could Alabama and Tennessee block this? Absolutely, and they should if it comes down to losing their game. Could Vanderbilt and Kentucky? I don't think so, and they wouldn't because it wouldn't be worth it to annoy the rest of the conference. Anyway, what I laid out isn't the only possible scenario, or necessarily a perfect one. It's just an example of how you'd get people in line for the move, while making some concessions to appease CBS. Anyway, in the end you have a solid argument for a geographically sound move that helps better balance the divisions.
Last edited:
I think Saban said he favors a nine game schedule but he was answering a question about the issue. I don't think he was campaigning to have it changed and it isn't something he has any power over as it would be the AD's choice if it came to a vote. I don't spend much time in the inner offices in Tuscaloosa, but I get the impression he handles the football team but pretty much lets the AD do his job without butting in.
I guess I'll be the oddball and say I would not want to lose the barn as an annual opponent. I like the game and enjoy beating them. An annual game against Missouri really doesn't excite me.
I guess I'll be the oddball and say I would not want to lose the barn as an annual opponent. I like the game and enjoy beating them. An annual game against Missouri really doesn't excite me.
I don't think Saban oversteps his bounds with the AD but I can't imagine any AD not asking their football coach how he feels about football related issues.
Managers who go make big decisions about a subordinate's job without any advisement from that subordinate usually lose that employee to someone else...
Managers who go make big decisions about a subordinate's job without any advisement from that subordinate usually lose that employee to someone else...
Assuming none of this is going to happen; I would prefer USCe vs Arkansas and TAMU vs Mizzou as cross divisional rivals. USCe and Arkansas were cross divisional rivals from the time they joined the SEC until the latest expansion. All others remain the same and LSU and auburn need to shut the hell up.
To be crystal clear, I wasn't referring to you. Even on the few issues with which we disagree, I'd never consider you uninformed.
Look, do ANY of us REALLY want to play Mercer? Of course not. The stands will be half empty, especially if it's cold like the cupcake last November, we will take ridicule for doing it, and God forbid that we lose one or have it closer than it should be, our reputation takes a bit of a hit. The game will be on ESPNU or whatever.
Problem is, Mercer needs that game to keep their school open since they walk off with a nice big check to pay teachers. This year they're playing both Alabama and Auburn and walking away with couple of million dollar checks.
"Alabama shouldn't be playing Mercer, they could be playing Ohio State."
True - but there's more to it than just that. The point isn't wrong it's just that it doesn't take all the realities into account. So to be clear, I'm not specifically referring to you krazy, but too much of that mentality shows itself here too often (like the tired old "the four-team playoff is designed to keep two SEC out of it" nonsense).
Oh, I agree completely. I'm sure Byrne would discuss the matter with Saban if it came to a vote. But Byrne would need to look at the big picture as to whether it would benefit the athletic department as a whole in the long run.
What I meant was I don't think Saban would make a big stink if Byrne didn't vote for the nine games.
I think the SEC kind of botched things a bit when they expanded in terms of sorting that out. A: The stuff we're talking about now with Auburn, probably could have and should have been sorted out there. The divisions were already unbalanced, A&M in the west and Missouri in the east just exacerbated that. B: I assumed that Missouri and A&M would get a rivalry game. It made sense given their placement. I do remember there was talk of just adding A&M if needs be. They might have just done what ever had the least resistance or something. I never really saw an explanation for that swap.
I'll try to remember that, heh. I wasn't irritated though, I just used that as pretense to make another really long post.
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-