Well, if we're going to blow up the football world anyway...
by vineyarddawg on May 20, 2010 10:44 PM EDT
Email
Print
By now, everyone with even a passing interest in college football has heard the rumblings about the Big 10+1 deciding to pull the pin on the grenade that will blow up college football forever. (HT: Pat Forde) If the Big 10+1 were to grow to become the Big 10+4 or 10+6, it would set changes in motion that most certainly would not be able to be described as ripples, but rather tsunamis.
There aren't enough bits and bytes on the intertubes to thoroughly explore all of the expansion permutations and how they might shake out in the wake of radical conference realignment (but not the kind Kyle or others have been advocating). Instead, I'm choosing to only examine the best expansion scenario for the SEC, should the world change tomorrow. How should the SEC keep up with the Joneses Delaneys?
I suggest using a solution that, to my knowledge, has not even been considered yet. (Or, at least, recently.)
Right now, in May 2010, conferences all aspire to be 12 teams, for the sole reason that 12 is the minimum magic number set by the NCAA to hold a championship game. And championship games, as we all know, bring in the lucrative additional TV money and increased attendance that everyone in the world is seeking.
Well, most conferences' championship games do, at any rate.
If the Big (Number) decides that a Big (Larger_Number) is desirable, however, the mold has been broken... the template destroyed. I recommend that no matter how much the other conferences in the world expand, the SEC should only expand into a 15-team, three-divison league. I think the SEC will only expand if Texas is part of the deal, however, and you ain't gettin' Texas without Texas A&M. So, the only real question with regards to the teams included in expansion would be who the 15th SEC team would be. I drew up a scenario with Oklahoma being the 15th team, but I don't think the Sooners would come without their in-state brethren, so I added Clemson as the 15th team, instead.
Therefore, I give you my your new 15-team, 3-division SEC:
SEC East:
- Clemson
- Florida
- Georgia
- Kentucky
- South Carolina
SEC Central:
- Auburn
- Alabama
- Mississippi
- Tennessee
- Vanderbilt
SEC West:
- Arkansas
- LSU
- Mississippi State
- Texas
- Texas A&M
Each team will play the other 4 teams in its division, and will have 1 permanent and 1 rotating opponent from each other division. Voila, you have an 8-game conference schedule, and you play every conference team at least twice every 8 years. I've also preserved as many traditional rivalries as possible... but I'll get to that in a moment.
The most natural first question is, of course, "How will the SEC Championship Game participants be determined if there are 3 division champions?" My answer is simple... the two division champions ranked highest in the BCS standings would play for the SEC Championship.
Is that method inequitable, somewhat arbitrary, and sometimes unfair? You betcha. The fair's in October. If you want fair, go play rec-league soccer in Cobb County. In the world of college athletics in 2010, it's all about the money, and economics says that the two division champions most likely to play for the national championship should play for the SEC Championship.
Now, to more minutiae regarding the preservation of traditional rivalries. In the above scenario, I have set up the following permanent divisional opponents:
Clemson --> Tennessee --> Texas
Florida --> Mississippi --> LSU
Georgia --> Auburn --> Texas A&M
Kentucky --> Alabama --> Mississippi St.
South Carolina --> Vanderbilt --> Arkansas
Alabama --> Kentucky --> LSU
Auburn --> Georgia --> Arkansas
Mississippi --> Florida --> Mississippi St.
Tennessee --> Clemson --> Texas
Vanderbilt --> South Carolina --> Texas A&M
Arkansas --> South Carolina --> Auburn
LSU --> Florida --> Alabama
Mississippi St. --> Kentucky --> Mississippi
Texas --> Clemson --> Tennessee
Texas A&M --> Georgia --> Vanderbilt
This alignment has the benefit of putting Tennessee in a division with more of their traditional rivals, in addition to preserving every other longstanding rivalry that survived the 1992 SEC partitioning. Also, you know that if LSU goes undefeated in the SEC in any year, they'll have by god earned a shot at the national championship. (It's their own fault, though, really, for having major rivalries against Alabama and Florida.)
Any thoughts about this idea? I would love to visit Kyle Field in College Station every other year, and we'd all have good fun with the coincidental name, too.
Go Dawgs!
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No he didn't
They’re in the same division, so they play each other every year
by marktheshark on May 21, 2010 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions
mea culpa
I’ll blame the fever I’ve been dealing with for a few days.
Otherwise, by the way, I like the idea of smaller divsions if we go beyond 12. I think the selection of CCG participants could be fine-tuned just a little. There would be times when you could rank the three division champions according to conference record and fall back to BCS rankings only in the event of a tie (like now). The BCS rankings likely would come into play more often than now, but I still would rather have conference game results exhausted first. What you might often find is that the division champ that doesn’t participate in the championship game is the one that gets an at-large BCS bid.
It's OK.
I did the same thing with the Georgia-Florida game at first glance. It took me a second to calm down once I was sure that game was still there.
Overall, I like, this idea. It’s better than a two division format for either a 14 or 16 team conference. And it’s MUCH better than a 4 division format for a 16 team conference. I agree with NCT that the participants in the championship game could be fine-tuned. At first I thought of a 4 team playoff, but I’m anti-playoff, and the 4th team that didn’t win it’s division doesn’t deserve a shot at the conference crown. Then I thought of a play-in game for the 2nd and 3rd division champs, but that’s too much like a playoff too (even if it is the closest thing to not being a playoff, anything resembling one is a bad thing in my opinion). So I have to side with NCT on how the 2 participants should be decided. We definitely wouldn’t hurt for getting that 2nd team into the BCS.
by marktheshark on May 21, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Not sure, where, that, extra, comma, came, from.
That was unnecessary. Similar to unnecessary “quotations.” Those quotations were “unnecessary.”
by marktheshark on May 21, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
This alignment has the benefit of putting Tennessee in a division with more of their traditional rivals
was Tennessee historically a rival of Ole Miss or Auburn? No one considers Vandy a “rival”. I know it’s not as historically played as Georgia/Florida but losing Tennessee/Florida and Tennessee/Georgia would be a bad idea imo. Those two rivalries have been pretty big ones over the last 20 years in the conference.
Why is Vanderbilt not a rival?
Did we call Clemson “not a rival” in the years we dominated them before the 1970’s and 1980’s? Did we call Tech “not a rival” during… well, every decade since the 1950’s? Just because Tennessee crushes Vandy almost every year now doesn’t mean they aren’t rivals.
Kyle has pointed out in the past, as well, that more of Tennessee’s natural historical ties are to opponents that are in today’s SEC West. (Page down to the bottom of the article.)
by vineyarddawg on May 21, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Why not Vandy?
In my mind, a rivalry has some hatred involved, and at least sometime during the rivalry both sides need to have a dominant phase. Does anyone really hate Vandy? Consider it a “go-to game” or rivalry type atmosphere? Think about the hatred in a UT/Bama game, UT/Ga, or UT/UF, now compare that with anyone facing Vanderbilt.
As for all time stuff, checking their media guide, you’ve got .Alabama (91 times, since 1901), Auburn (50 times since 1900), Florida (38 times since 1916, and tied at 19-19), Georgia (38 times since 1899), Georgia tech (43 times, since 1902 and last played in 87), Ole Miss (62 times since 1902), Vandy (102 times since 1898, but the record is 70-27-5), UT-Chattanooga (41 times between 1899 and 1969), South Carolina (27 times since 1903), Miss St (44 times since 1907), and North Carolina (31 times from 1893 to 1961) as their most played games.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tenn/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/fb-recordbook.pdf
Interesting that in spite of the frequency of the last 20 years (which I still say should count for something, if not more, in a historical discussion), that UT has played the two Mississippi and Alabama schools more than UF or Georgia. It also looks like GT and NC were more customary rivals in the deep past as well.
Georgia-Tennessee and Florida-Tennessee are purely recent rivalries.
We disagree over whether recent history ought to count for more than previous history, but, clearly, the Vols became meaningful rivals of the Bulldogs and the Gators after, and as a result of, conference expansion.
What conference expansion giveth, further conference expansion taketh away. I don’t mind playing Tennessee every year, but it wouldn’t bother me if we didn’t. Playing Auburn, Clemson, and Florida every year would matter to me much, much more.
Go 'Dawgs!
I do find recent history more relevant than "ancient"
while I agree with you on how they got here, and I understand your stance on the issue, as a younger fan (just shy of 30) maybe that is the disconnect.
But in my opinion recent history matters. Notre Dame won boucoup titles in the 30s, 40s, 50s. How much does that matter in present day status? Suwanee was a part of our history too, but and I wish I could remember what movie I’m quoting/paraphrasing, but it is also true that times can, and do change. In recent years, those matchups have grown and our now among the more heated nationally and within the conference, does that not count for something? Say a man was an alcoholic for 20 years, but cleaned up and has been sober for 5, which matters more in a discussion about now and tomorrow?
The past is important, and should be remembered, but as said above, times change, and things move on. We are rivals now, much more so than Clemson. That’s just a fact, and would be supported by a vast majority of Dawgs.
I acknowledge the validity of most of that . . .
. . . but I don’t have anything like the level of contempt for Tennessee that I have for our older, more established rivals. I want to beat the Volunteers, but it’s just business; it’s nothing the least bit personal. I don’t know many Georgia fans who dislike the Volunteers even remotely as much as they dislike the Gators, the Yellow Jackets, or either set of Tiger rivals.
There’s also something to be said for the significance of the games. While some of our games against Tennessee wound up having meaningful consequences (the season opener in 1980, the “hobnailed boot” game in 2001), the Georgia-Tennessee series never has approached the national significance of Georgia-Clemson in the 1980s.
It’s one thing to point to Florida-Tennessee as a young yet major rivalry; clashes between the Gators and the Volunteers have decided the East in many, perhaps most (I haven’t gone back and done the math), of the years since the league expanded in 1992. Georgia-Tennessee has never been on that level.
I expect that, if you asked a large number of Bulldog fans which was a more important rival, Clemson or Tennessee, the large majority of fans 35 years old or younger would say Tennessee and the large majority of fans over the age of 35 would say Clemson. The older crowd would be able to cite numerous instances of classic contests with national championship consequences; the younger crowd would be able to say, “Well, we’ve played ’em every year that I can remember.”
I don’t have a problem with continuing to play Tennessee, and I take the game very seriously when the ‘Dawgs square off with the Vols, but that rivalry doesn’t compare to our rivalry with Clemson. After all, Derek Dooley isn’t suggesting we play our spring games against one another.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on May 22, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
Personal viewpoints are overwhelming the total picture...
Georgia/Clemson had national significance for 3 years. I’m near 30 years old, was born in 1980, Clemson has never mattered since I’ve been old enough to pay attention. They have rarely been a big time team, and those times they were considered that level, they’d disappoint.
Georgia/Tennessee on the other hand, if you had formative years in the 90s you learned to hate them immensely after a decade of repeated losses, often frustrating losses—from we should have won if Edwards doesn’t break his ankle, to getting beat repeatedly by our own in Lewis, Coleman, Grant, etc., Manning having his breakout game, and it seemed like every year Tennessee would have a star emerge from our game. There was a reason we (I say we because I was enrolled at the time) rushed the field after finally beating UT from a decade of frustration, and it’s not “we’ve played ’em every year I can remember”. How many times have we ever rushed the field following a Clemson win?
And now we can add a pair of home town boys on the coaching staff of Tennessee in Derek Dooley and Chuck Smith. You are remembering the “good old days” of people your age and their youth, when that rivalry was big time. Well, no offense to you or your generation, but those are “old days”. In recent years, this rivalry has been a lot bigger with a lot more occuring than you are giving it credit for. The intensity has been raised, and a lot of times our seasons turn on that game. A Tennessee loss cost us a chance at a title in 2007, losses to us helped spur the end of Fulmer, losses to them were major factors in the end of Willie Martinez, Edwards’ injury could have saved Goff’s job if it doesn’t happen. Outside of once or twice it may not have “national championship consequences”, but the game has been more impactful to both programs that I believe you are giving it credit.
and I don't mean to call 40-50+ years ago "ancient",....
I just couldn’t think of another word to distinguish it from more recent events.
Honestly...
…if you’re going to do it this way, there’s no real reason to have divisions at all. There’s no real benefit to be taken from splitting the league into three divisions, so what’s the point? You might as well just say these 15 teams comprise the SEC, and the top two ranked teams at the end of the regular season will play for the SECCG.
I think it’s a novel idea, but I simply think that having three division champions and one not having a spot in the game would start way too much trouble.
The best answer I can think of...
… is that it makes scheduling easier. It’s easier to pick a standard of “everyone in your division, plus 1 permanent and 1 rotating team from the other divisions,” than to try to fight with every single school about which (and how many) of their rivals should be maintained as a permanent opponent, and how many should be rotating opponents. You could just say every team will be assigned 4 permanent opponents and 4 rotating opponents or 6 permanent and 2 rotating, but it just makes it easier to have a standard. (At least, it made it easier for me. And I suspect it would be more politically palatable than trying to bargain with each school to figure out who gets – or rather, avoids – Alabama and/or Florida on their permanent opponent list.)
by vineyarddawg on May 21, 2010 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Switch your Ole Miss and State placements.
The Rebs have a little brother thing with LSU, while the Bulldogs have a little brother thing with ‘Bama. Also, we have some “new money” rivalry thing going on with Arkansas on account of Hootin’ Dale.
Red Cup Rebellion - Changing the culture of Ole Miss Athletics
Destroying your traditions since [YEAR REDACTED].
by Ivory Tower on May 21, 2010 6:14 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Good point.
Ole Miss-LSU is an underrated rivalry, both historically (Billy Cannon’s punt return, and the subsequent bowl rematch) and recently (Rebel upsets of Tiger teams coming off of big wins; the fourth-down trip in 2003).
Go 'Dawgs!
I agree.
I had forgotten about Ole Miss-LSU, and the division decision between Ole Miss and Miss St. was pretty much arbitrary. So, consider UM and MSU switched. :-)
Plus, I just can’t argue with the Rebel Alliance.
by vineyarddawg on May 21, 2010 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Also..
Miss St is the closest SEC campus to Alabama (about 80 miles apart).
by yellowhammer on May 21, 2010 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Any plan that involves us playing Clemson
on a yearly basis is one I can get behind. And in your proposed SEC East, South Carolina becomes the new Vandy. Sweet!
"If we score, we may win. If they never score, we'll never lose."
-Erk Russell
Actually, I think Kentucky would become the new Vanderbilt.
That means South Carolina would be downgraded to Kentucky, and Clemson would become the new South Carolina.
Unfortunately, I think that also means that Georgia gets downgraded to Tennessee. Florida is still Florida, though.
I hate Florida.
by vineyarddawg on May 22, 2010 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting idea ...
but why not petition the NCA to allow a two round conference tournament?
Allow the three division champions and the highest ranked #2 to play in the first round. This would likely require all conference teams to reduce thier scheudles to 11 games, but the conference may be able to negotiate a deal with other leagues with enough teams to qualify for a two round tournament to pair the remaining teams in games the final week of the regualar season.
The Big 10 comes to mind.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
The major flaw with that option...
… besides that fact that one has to muck with the regular season (again), is that it is possible to crown a champion that has not previously won its division. That, and the whole playoff thing in general, are changes with which I do not agree.
I mean, it might be distateful to some, but conference expansion is a blatant money-grab anyway, so why not simply have the two champions most likely to play in the BCS Championship Game square off for the SEC Championship. The odd man out would still be able to print and sell t-shirts and hats that say “SEC East/Central/West Division Champions” on them. They just wouldn’t be guaranteed a spot in the SEC Championship Game.
It’s not that different from the BCS today, in fact. No conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the BCS Championship Game, but they do get to enjoy the pride that comes with being a conference champion and going to a non-championship BCS bowl.
by vineyarddawg on May 25, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
On the playoffs we can agree to disagree :)
I can agree that going to a BCS bowl is an awesome experience (judging by the 2009 Sugar Bowl … “Sweet Home Alabama” will always remind me of Bourbon Street after the game.)
When your team finishes undefeated the non-championship option leaves a slightly bad after taste to an otherwise exquisite experience.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
