SEC reallignment - Moving Season?

[theballguy]

Basically, this guy's article screamed ... let's mix things up to keep Bama from winning the SEC. Every point he made supported that. This idea will never see the light of day anyways. Moving on... about 5 minutes I won't ever get back.

 

[DocCrimson]

IF there really needs to be realignment, well, to use an internet cliche, "obvious answer is obvious." Swap Auburn for Mizzou and go to a 9 game schedule. For those who need more rationale than common sense...
1. Of the 14 schools, we are technically the 7th furthest west, not Vandy.
2. (The main answer) While the SECW is insanely strong right now, there is reason to believe that all schools in the SEC will "regress to the mean," meaning they will more likely move closer to their historical average than their most recent performance would imply. Given the histories of all 14 schools, having A&M, Ark, MO, Vandy, UM, MSU, and LSU in one league is OBSCENELY imbalanced within 5-10 years.
3. With a 9 game schedule, every relevant rivalry continues yearly. We keep UT and AU; FL keeps LSU; AU keeps us and UGA. Heck, USC can even keep Arky! ;-) Also, IIRC, Saban has said he prefers a 9 game slate, although I think he wants 6/1 permanent/2 rotating. As for me, I'd rather give up AU than UT, although I'm happy anytime we get to demolish something orange.

 

[rgw]

At 14 teams, 9-game conference schedules make the most sense in a vacuum. It won't happen when one conference doesn't even play a conference championship game and the ACC and Big Ten seem resolute on staying at 8 for the time being (probably for much the same reason as the SEC's logic). If the Big 12 adds a title game and stays at 9 games in the regular season, I imagine the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC will join the crowd because an extra game means more television contract value. The competitive detriment just doesn't match the value right now. Look how many times that extra conference game in the Pac-12 has dinged their contender.

 

[Mystical]

Have to have Alabama and Auburn together in any scenario. The most important and followed rivalries across all of college football that people want to see are:

1a Alabama vs Auburn
1b Ohio State vs Michgan
3 Florida vs Florida State although some of the luster has come off. It was a big game in my youth.

 

[TideEngineer08]

The East just needs to get its act together. Under no circumstance would I favor Alabama moving east. We have one historical rival there, Tennessee. On the west side we have Auburn, LSU, and Mississippi State with long standing series.

If the conference expands again, it needs to be on the eastern side anyway. Then Mizzou can swap to the west division where it belongs.

How soon some forget that Florida and Tennessee were the dominant forces in the 90s. The league was badly imbalanced the other way back then.

 

[KrAzY3]

Have to have Alabama and Auburn together in any scenario.

Nope

It does nothing meaningful for Alabama. It does everything for Auburn. Alabama was just fine without the game and would be just fine without the game. Look at the top rated Alabama games on any given year, they play in a lot of top rated games and it's a very rare occasion in which the Auburn game is the top one.

In addition, I don't know of a single commit ever, or a single Alabama fan who hinges their interest in Alabama on that game. It's more a distraction than anything else. It is the top Auburn game pretty much every year, but it's just an obstacle on the way to championships for Alabama. They don't need it.

I'm going to give you an example:
No. 3: LSU at Alabama
No. 8: Ole Miss at Alabama
No. 10: Wisconsin vs. Alabama

Those were the top rated college football games in 2015 though November 22 (right before the Auburn game). Alabama had 3 of the top games leading up to that point, and that actually represented the top 3 rated SEC games to. People are going to watch Alabama play, they don't necessarily extend that courtesy to Auburn, which is exactly why they cling to the Alabama game like it's their most precious possession, because it is. Alabama is the most important thing to Auburn.

 

[Mystical]

Nope

It does nothing meaningful for Alabama. It does everything for Auburn. Alabama was just fine without the game and would be just fine without the game. Look at the top rated Alabama games on any given year, they play in a lot of top rated games and it's a very rare occasion in which the Auburn game is the top one.

In addition, I don't know of a single commit ever, or a single Alabama fan who hinges their interest in Alabama on that game. It's more a distraction than anything else. It is the top Auburn game pretty much every year, but it's just an obstacle on the way to championships for Alabama. They don't need it.

I'm going to give you an example:
No. 3: LSU at Alabama
No. 8: Ole Miss at Alabama
No. 10: Wisconsin vs. Alabama

Those were the top rated college football games in 2015 though November 22 (right before the Auburn game). Alabama had 3 of the top games leading up to that point, and that actually represented the top 3 rated SEC games to. People are going to watch Alabama play, they don't necessarily extend that courtesy to Auburn, which is exactly why they cling to the Alabama game like it's their most precious possession, because it is. Alabama is the most important thing to Auburn.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. I know the prevailing thought on this board is the Tn. game is a bigger rivalry than the Auburn game. If you travel the State and the Nation as I do and talk to fans you would know which game they think is most important. If Alabama and Auburn enter that last game with a chance to get in the playoffs it shuts down the State. When I go places and I say I am from Alabama the first thing people say is which team was stamped on your birth certificate followed by I love the passion around that game. You stick around here long enough and you are bound to be influenced by some of our more outspoken members. I never truly hated Auburn till I started posting here, now I hate eagles, burnt orange and navy blue.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Well the Auburn game is generally a big game. But I think the point is, if the game discontinued would it hurt Alabama in any way? I think it's hard to dispute that it would not. Alabama wouldn't skip a beat. I would not say the same for Auburn. It would effect them all the way down to season ticket sales.

 

[pigsinspace]

Just draw names from a hat.

 

[KrAzY3]

If you travel the State and the Nation as I do and talk to fans you would know which game they think is most important.

This gets to the heart of the game in a lot of ways though. A: The game only matters when Auburn has a chance to beat Alabama, B: The game matters most because it has a chance to ruin Alabama's season. Neither of those things are good in any way for Alabama though! Consider this, in the not-too distance past, Alabama didn't even have a full stadium for the Auburn game and people were asking if the rivalry mattered. That was because Auburn sucked though. When Alabama was struggling, interest was higher, and why was that? Because Alabama cares about championships and Auburn cares about beating Alabama.

It is hard to see around the noise, but really think about the game. How many Alabama fans care about the game just because Auburn fans they know won't shut the hell up about it? It is Auburn's season, we all know that, so unless we want them to prattle on about it for at least one year we need Alabama to beat them. In addition, it's the last game of the regular season! Of course it is important because if Alabama loses they will inevitably lose a chance at a championship! This would be the case no matter who they played though! So what we in fact have is a game with vastly inflated importance, not because playing Auburn really matters that much, but because Auburn fans care so desperately about it, and of course no one wants to lose the last game of the regular season.

Think about it this way, what are the best memories you have over the past few years of big games and big plays? Cody's block against Tennessee? Yeldon's touchdown against LSU? If I think of the best memories, it's not Auburn games. Not even close, not even going back very far. Sure there are some, if you dig back deep enough, but the Auburn game is more about tripping Alabama up than anything else. We've been suckered into believing we need the game but we don't, and think about it, how many times did the game actually do Alabama any good? How many times did Alabama actually need it for something? They don't, Alabama simply doesn't need the game.

Well the Auburn game is generally a big game. But I think the point is, if the game discontinued would it hurt Alabama in any way? I think it's hard to dispute that it would not. Alabama wouldn't skip a beat. I would not say the same for Auburn. It would effect them all the way down to season ticket sales.

Exactly, Alabama could drop the game and replace it with anyone and be no worse off (except for perhaps the media howling). The benefits I think are obvious. Alabama already has the SEC Championship if they need to make a push in getting into a playoff, they already have plenty of big games. Without the distraction the Auburn game provides they could much more easily focus on their true goal, which is winning championships. Auburn dropping the game would mean that most their seasons and games would be utterly meaningless to their fans.

Playing Auburn if like fighting your little brother. You can not win. You beat him and so what? People will say you only won because you're bigger and stronger. But if you lose to him? You'll never hear the end of it. So what do you gain from fighting your little brother?

 

[crimsonaudio]

This post in the comments section of the article nails it for me - it's a knee-jerk reaction to the current SECW domination - but it won't last forever...

imbalance the league to the East. Rather than looking at recent history and overreacting, it would be better to look at all history. Looking at the all-time records, five of the six most successful programs in SEC history would all be in one division. That’s just as imbalanced as the current divisions have been for a few years, except the imbalance lasts a lot longer. I can’t find a national ranking of programs all-time (aside from wins and losses), but this ranking of 1993-2014 has ten current SEC teams in the top 40, and those teams are evenly split 5-5 between East and West. Basically, it comes down to the following question in my eyes: What’s more likely, that Ole Miss and Mississippi State will continue their recent levels of success, or that Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee will return to their former levels of success? I’d bet on the latter.

 

[Bama Reb]

Alabama could drop the game and replace it with anyone and be no worse off (except for perhaps the media howling). The benefits I think are obvious. Alabama already has the SEC Championship if they need to make a push in getting into a playoff, they already have plenty of big games. Without the distraction the Auburn game provides they could much more easily focus on their true goal, which is winning championships. Auburn dropping the game would mean that most their seasons and games would be utterly meaningless to their fans.

There is one more benefit to dropping the Auburn game. It would put Paul Finebaum out of a job.

 

[GrayTide]

I would be in favor of moving auburn to the east and Mizzou to the west. I also have no problem dropping traditional cross division rivals, this is after all the 21st century. 6 division games and 2 rotating cross division games.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Changing divisions because of current realities is ludicrous. Yeah, the SEC is 11-5 in SEC title games since the turn of the century but that's a misleading stat. SIX of those West wins belong to ONE COACH, meaning everyone else is 5-5, which I'd call rather balanced over that time.

And it comes and goes in cycles. Except for Vandy, who will probably never win an SEC divisional title much less the whole thing, every team has a possible shot, even Kentucky if they'll screw their heads on right and not be thinking about how the football team can benefit the b-ball team.

If you use the 15-year period of 1993-2008 (well, 16 games), the East went 11-5, but I don't recall any advocacy of swapping divisions in 2009. And sure, FIVE of those wins were Spurrier's, so the point is basically the same.

As far as Auburn, let's face it: most folks outside the state of Alabama could not even tell which state Auburn is actually within the borders and a lot of Alabama residents would just as soon refer to that area as West GA anyway. There are more people nationally who know Vandy is in Nashville than know WHERE exactly Auburn is.

You know what the nation knows about Auburn? Bo Jackson and they play Alabama. That's it. Some MIGHT know Cam Newton played there but only because of the scandal and because he's currently a big deal.

Most folks don't even know Barkley played b-ball there and he talks about it all the time.

If there's going to be a split it ought to be geographically for Mizzou to save money and putting Auburn in the East. Of course, everyone here needs to realize that will drastically INCREASE the odds they win a national title, too. Replacing LSU and ATM every year with Vandy and Kentucky (they already play UGA every year anyway)??? And then only having to play EITHER Alabama OR LSU annually and their no doubt cupcake choice of Miss State (in the Annual Hoe-Down Bowl)???

Auburn with a decent coach would win the East with much greater regularity than they can even compete in the West.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Somebody please put the barn in the east and hope they start feeling like the orphans we've always told them they are.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

I just don't fixate on teams playing each other across divisions. I think it works fine. I think the MLB worked fine when teams didn't play each other across division.

In fact, I think the biggest issue, the biggest problem is when teams play each other twice in a year. That's almost always bad for the conference. Heck, one reason Saban almost didn't get his first title was because they beat Georgia twice. That's the real issue to me, teams playing each other twice not teams that don't play each other at all. I'd be fine with two fairly autonomous 8 team divisions really.

Finally someone has mentioned the "not playing the other divisions" topic. If we go to 16 teams and only play two by keeping our eight conference schedule that would be my plan. Or play all seven on this side and only one on that side. That works for me.

 

[afadam07]

Leave er' alone....

It ain't broke, don't fix it. Bama just won a championship so it ain't broke.

 

[CrimSonami]

Somebody please put the barn in the east and hope they start feeling like the orphans we've always told them they are.

(chuckle)
They DO feel it. Always have. Always will. There are only a limited few realists among them who'll openly admit it.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Finally someone has mentioned the "not playing the other divisions" topic. If we go to 16 teams and only play two by keeping our eight conference schedule that would be my plan. Or play all seven on this side and only one on that side. That works for me.

Fine by me as well. But I would hope we would remain in the West.

 

[BAMARICH]

Personally, I would prefer to stay in the West, move Auburn to the East, and make UA-AU the annual cross-division rival. UT, in my opinion, is going to be a LONG time getting back to the day when they can compete with us on an annual basis and there's little reason for recruiting purposes to play in Knoxville as long as we play in Atlanta periodically. IMO, that makes the UT series a non-factor going forward.