Started By
Message
A case study for division realignment
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:04 am
Posted on 7/28/14 at 4:04 am
This thread is a spin-off of the "Why is Missouri in the SEC East?" thread. Someone in that thread ("IAmReality") wrote that, in the SEC:
My question: how exactly are the SEC's divisions "balanced for competition?" The SEC West actually looks a tad bit "top heavy" to me.
The SEC schools in order of national prominence for football:
#1 Alabama (SEC West)
#9 LSU (SEC West)
#10 Tennessee (SEC East)
#11 Georgia (SEC East)
#12 Florida (SEC East)
#13 Auburn (SEC West)
#20 Texas A&M (SEC West)
#23 Arkansas (SEC West)
#28 Ole Miss (SEC West)
#35 Missouri (SEC East)
#40 Vanderbilt (SEC East)
#43 Mississippi State (SEC West)
#47 Kentucky (SEC East)
#61 South Carolina (SEC East)
Average team rankings - SEC West teams: #19.6; SEC East teams: #30.9
It looks to me like the "Big Six" teams are pretty evenly distributed between the two divisions as a whole, but the best "Little Eight" teams are all in the SEC West, tilting the scale quite a bit in that direction. With that in mind, it's particularly impressive that Bama, LSU, and Auburn have 8 BCS national title games between them when you consider how brutal their division schedules were from top to bottom. Heck, Bama's 2011 team was #1 in the country but #2 in their own division.
In short, to make the above poster's comments a little more accurate, the league office would probably have to tweak a little on the parity there. 
(Source for rankings: LINK.)
quote:
Divisions are mostly geographic but also balanced for competition.
My question: how exactly are the SEC's divisions "balanced for competition?" The SEC West actually looks a tad bit "top heavy" to me.
The SEC schools in order of national prominence for football: #1 Alabama (SEC West)
#9 LSU (SEC West)
#10 Tennessee (SEC East)
#11 Georgia (SEC East)
#12 Florida (SEC East)
#13 Auburn (SEC West)
#20 Texas A&M (SEC West)
#23 Arkansas (SEC West)
#28 Ole Miss (SEC West)
#35 Missouri (SEC East)
#40 Vanderbilt (SEC East)
#43 Mississippi State (SEC West)
#47 Kentucky (SEC East)
#61 South Carolina (SEC East)
Average team rankings - SEC West teams: #19.6; SEC East teams: #30.9
It looks to me like the "Big Six" teams are pretty evenly distributed between the two divisions as a whole, but the best "Little Eight" teams are all in the SEC West, tilting the scale quite a bit in that direction. With that in mind, it's particularly impressive that Bama, LSU, and Auburn have 8 BCS national title games between them when you consider how brutal their division schedules were from top to bottom. Heck, Bama's 2011 team was #1 in the country but #2 in their own division.
In short, to make the above poster's comments a little more accurate, the league office would probably have to tweak a little on the parity there. (Source for rankings: LINK.)
10
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:16 am to TheDude321
I think your premise is faulty.
Looking at "all time history" is not a good idea. Sure teams can ebb and flow but I do not think anyone would consider tennessee to be the third stringest SEC program now or even moving forward.
I think a better measure would be looking at the last 20-25 years or so. ut is still one of the big six no doubt. But probably #6 to be honest.
Looking at "all time history" is not a good idea. Sure teams can ebb and flow but I do not think anyone would consider tennessee to be the third stringest SEC program now or even moving forward.
I think a better measure would be looking at the last 20-25 years or so. ut is still one of the big six no doubt. But probably #6 to be honest.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:22 am to TheDude321
"National Prominence", what a joke
Posted on 7/28/14 at 5:49 am to TheDude321
We need to get rid of divisions and do that 3-5 thing that was brought up not too long ago.
Just to reflect what Bama's would look like:
Play Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU ever year.
Play 5 of the rest one year, then rotate the next year.
In four years you've played everyone home and away, and this way we keep rivalries.
Just to reflect what Bama's would look like:
Play Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU ever year.
Play 5 of the rest one year, then rotate the next year.
In four years you've played everyone home and away, and this way we keep rivalries.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:47 am to AllBamaDoesIsWin
quote:
We need to get rid of divisions and do that 3-5 thing that was brought up not too long ago. Just to reflect what Bama's would look like: Play Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU ever year. Play 5 of the rest one year, then rotate the next year. In four years you've played everyone home and away, and this way we keep rivalries.
This.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:51 am to SECdragonmaster
It doesn't seem that long ago that the East was the tougher division, with Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia leading the way.
I think to try to realign, based on anything other than Geography, unless you are going to do it every 10 years, does not make sense.
The balance of the divisions has been an issue for almost every major conference that has divisions.
I think to try to realign, based on anything other than Geography, unless you are going to do it every 10 years, does not make sense.
The balance of the divisions has been an issue for almost every major conference that has divisions.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 6:53 am to RazorHawk
Pretty sure this was a big 6 thread.
Move along now
Move along now
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:05 am to TheDude321
Wish they would amend the requirement for divisions for CCGs and just let top 2 play for it.
You could stay at 8 or go to 9 , keep rivalries, and play all the other schools more.
USC and UT are good rivalries , but know need to play them all the time. DSOR AND WLOCP are really the only conf rivalries UGA cares about.
You could stay at 8 or go to 9 , keep rivalries, and play all the other schools more.
USC and UT are good rivalries , but know need to play them all the time. DSOR AND WLOCP are really the only conf rivalries UGA cares about.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 7:07 am
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:20 am to 3rddownonthe8
The ACC & Big 12 co-proposed legislation about this.
The ACC looks like it is considering doing away with divisions and the Big 12 looks like they want a championship game with just the 10 members.
I have said this before - Imagine this:
Permanent Opponents:
Alabama: Tenn ~ AU ~ MS St ~ LSU
Auburn: Bama ~ UGA ~ UF ~ MS St
Arkansas: LSU ~ Mizou ~ aTm ~ KY
Florida: UGA ~ AU ~ Tenn ~ SC
Georgia: UF ~ AU ~ SC ~ Vandy
Kentucky: Tenn ~ Vandy ~ Mizzou ~ Arky
Louisiana State: aTm ~ Arky ~ Ole Miss ~ Bama
Mississippi: LSU ~ MS St ~ Vandy ~ SC
Mississippi State: Ole Miss ~ Bama ~ AU ~ aTm
Missouri: Arky ~ KY ~ aTm ~ SC
South Carolina: UGA ~ UF ~ Ole Miss ~ Mizzou
Tennessee: UF ~ Bama ~ KY ~ Vandy
Texas A & M: LSU ~ Arky ~ Mizzou ~ MS St
Vanderbilt: Tenn ~ KY ~ Ole Miss ~ UGA
PLUS a 9 game schedule
every team rotates the other 9 teams with a home and home with one oddball
make EVERY team schedule TWO teams from the other major conferences (exception being give for the Notre Dames of the world)
that is 11 games - everybody gets to schedule ONE crappy cupcake
If you REALLY need another cupcake, set up a game with Maryland, Duke or Iowa State
You would see EVERY SEC team AT LEAST twice every four years
Top 2 teams play for the crown in Atlanta
Tell me this would not be badass....
The ACC looks like it is considering doing away with divisions and the Big 12 looks like they want a championship game with just the 10 members.
I have said this before - Imagine this:
Permanent Opponents:
Alabama: Tenn ~ AU ~ MS St ~ LSU
Auburn: Bama ~ UGA ~ UF ~ MS St
Arkansas: LSU ~ Mizou ~ aTm ~ KY
Florida: UGA ~ AU ~ Tenn ~ SC
Georgia: UF ~ AU ~ SC ~ Vandy
Kentucky: Tenn ~ Vandy ~ Mizzou ~ Arky
Louisiana State: aTm ~ Arky ~ Ole Miss ~ Bama
Mississippi: LSU ~ MS St ~ Vandy ~ SC
Mississippi State: Ole Miss ~ Bama ~ AU ~ aTm
Missouri: Arky ~ KY ~ aTm ~ SC
South Carolina: UGA ~ UF ~ Ole Miss ~ Mizzou
Tennessee: UF ~ Bama ~ KY ~ Vandy
Texas A & M: LSU ~ Arky ~ Mizzou ~ MS St
Vanderbilt: Tenn ~ KY ~ Ole Miss ~ UGA
PLUS a 9 game schedule
every team rotates the other 9 teams with a home and home with one oddball
make EVERY team schedule TWO teams from the other major conferences (exception being give for the Notre Dames of the world)
that is 11 games - everybody gets to schedule ONE crappy cupcake
If you REALLY need another cupcake, set up a game with Maryland, Duke or Iowa State
You would see EVERY SEC team AT LEAST twice every four years
Top 2 teams play for the crown in Atlanta
Tell me this would not be badass....
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:23 am to dcbl
You need divisions to have a conference championship game, according to NCAA rules.
Until that rule changes, do you really think they will ever do away with divisions? The SECCG is a cash cow for the conference.
Until that rule changes, do you really think they will ever do away with divisions? The SECCG is a cash cow for the conference.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:38 am to dcbl
Dcbl,
I like the concept but in your realignment, the gators are screwed.
Needs more balance.
I like the concept but in your realignment, the gators are screwed.
Needs more balance.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:50 am to RazorHawk
quote:
It doesn't seem that long ago that the East was the tougher division, with Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia leading the way.
I think to try to realign, based on anything other than Geography, unless you are going to do it every 10 years, does not make sense.
The balance of the divisions has been an issue for almost every major conference that has divisions.
This. Just last year, Tennessee and Florida were both very weak. From 1992 to 2002, Tennessee and Florida - get this - BOTH finished in the TOP 12 for 10 straight years. Both finished in the top 5 several times, and one year they finished in the top 3. It was an incredible run by those two teams, not that long ago, who both "pulled down" the relative strength of the SEC East last year.
Any attempt to balance a conference is virtually impossible, unless you try to do it every one or two years, and even then it won't foresee cinderella teams (and scheduling would be a nightmare.) It just can't be done. The best you can do is try to get all the teams to play as much of the conference as possible.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 7:59 am to skrayper
quote:
You need divisions to have a conference championship game, according to NCAA rules.
Until that rule changes, do you really think they will ever do away with divisions? The SECCG is a cash cow for the conference.
The ACC & Big 12 just proposed a rule change that would eliminate that requirement (earlier this year)
all the news has been about the power 5 getting more autonomy - this whole concept is not that far away from reality...
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:04 am to SECdragonmaster
quote:
Dcbl,
I like the concept but in your realignment, the gators are screwed.
Needs more balance.
no way for it to be perfect, the most important game to UF in the SEC is UGA
historically, their 2nd most important game is against AU & recently, their rivalry with UT has became a big deal
I guess you could drop it to 2 perms
As a UGA fan, I only care about UF & AU
BUT, the SC folks would likely list UGA in their top 2 (we may even be the most important game for them to keep)
Minimally, it would be 3 perm foes. I really think that there is a strong chance that this concept happens in the next 3 - 5 years
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:09 am to AllBamaDoesIsWin
I want that so bad.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:18 am to TheDude321
quote:
#20 Texas A&M (SEC West)
Texas A&M fans honestly believe they are on LSU's level but the facts show they are historically on Arkansas's level.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:27 am to TheDude321
Get rid of the divisions, go to a 9 game SEC schedule and rotate through all of the SEC teams. Screw the rivalries. I mean it't not like we will never play Auburn and Florida again; just not as often.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:31 am to TheDude321
quote:
how exactly are the SEC's divisions "balanced for competition?"
Who the hell said that? The divisions were optimized for travel in 1992. The new teams were simply put in divisions ad hoc when they were added.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:33 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Who the hell said that? The divisions were optimized for travel in 1992. The new teams were simply put in divisions ad hoc when they were added.
If that were the sole reason, then Vandy would be in the west, and Auburn would be in the east.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 8:34 am
Posted on 7/28/14 at 8:37 am to Bamatab
quote:
If that were the sole reason, then Vandy would be in the west, and Auburn would be in the east.
Yes well they also wanted to maintain certain rivalries and needed to include Auburn and Alabama in the same division. Hence the pcd matchups to account for the ones they couldn't save.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 8:38 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News