Started By
Message
Are Divisions pointless in Football now?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:49 pm
They were created (I'm assuming) to cut down on transportation time and cost back in the day. Today, each SEC program has more money than they know what do with, and transportation is most definitely not an issue. Each team would only have at most 6 away games per year, moniteraly, that's a drop in the bucket.
Let each team have their annual rivalries, then put the rest of the teams on a cycle. I think it would put the top 2 teams in the SEC in the conference championship game almost every year, which should be the goal.
State hasn't played Florida since 2010, without divisions, you would play each team at least every other year. It would make the schedules more fun and the conference more fluid.
What's the need for divisions?
Let each team have their annual rivalries, then put the rest of the teams on a cycle. I think it would put the top 2 teams in the SEC in the conference championship game almost every year, which should be the goal.
State hasn't played Florida since 2010, without divisions, you would play each team at least every other year. It would make the schedules more fun and the conference more fluid.
What's the need for divisions?
15
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:50 pm to holdmydak
In the SEC they are.
SEC West and then the rest.
SEC West and then the rest.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:51 pm to holdmydak
No they most certainly are not pointless.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:51 pm to Commander Data
Well what's the point?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:52 pm to holdmydak
Yes
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:56 pm to holdmydak
quote:
Let each team have their annual rivalries, then put the rest of the teams on a cycle
How would you apply this idea to schools like Auburn, who has Bama and Georgia, like Ole Miss, who has LSU and State, or like Tennessee, who has Bama and Florida, when schools like aTm and Arkansas either don't have poison-your-trees level rivalries or hate Texas more than they'd ever let themselves hate the SEC?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 1:58 pm to holdmydak
i'm not up to date on my maths... but i think for it to be pointless the divisor would have to be zero.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:03 pm to TOFTR
quote:
How would you apply this idea to schools like Auburn, who has Bama and Georgia, like Ole Miss, who has LSU and State, or like Tennessee, who has Bama and Florida, when schools like aTm and Arkansas either don't have poison-your-trees level rivalries or hate Texas more than they'd ever let themselves hate the SEC?
the schools with no rivalries get the nasty left overs
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:05 pm to holdmydak
I'd be interested to see how the conference would perform with no divisions and top 2 go to Atlanta.
Sure the West would dominate right now, but I'd be interested to see how things shake out in the long run.
Sure the West would dominate right now, but I'd be interested to see how things shake out in the long run.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:09 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
the schools with no rivalries get the nasty left overs
What schools would rather play the likes of Bama, Florida, LSU, or Georgia over the likes of Vandy, Kentucky, Mizzou, or State? Auburn's already trying to get into the East to avoid the West's murderer's row as it is
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:12 pm to holdmydak
Yes. They're no longer required for having a conference title game.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:14 pm to NFLSU
quote:
SEC West and then the rest.
quote:
LSU Fan
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:15 pm to holdmydak
They weren't pointless so long as the NCAA required divisions in order to stage a conference title game. Now that that rule is gone, they do seem pretty pointless. Perhaps they could be justified to protect regional rivalries & keep travel costs down; but in the SEC at least, it seems that divisional play has cost the conference some of its best annual rivalries, while the imbalance between the 2 divisions has frequently resulted in title-game duds.
Really, there's not much downside to abolishing divisions & having the 1st- & 2nd-place teams play for the conference title. We'd be more likely to get a competitive game in the title match, while diminishing the chances of a nightmare scenario in which the conference is denied a spot in the College Football Playoff when a legitimate title contender is upset by a lesser team.
Really, there's not much downside to abolishing divisions & having the 1st- & 2nd-place teams play for the conference title. We'd be more likely to get a competitive game in the title match, while diminishing the chances of a nightmare scenario in which the conference is denied a spot in the College Football Playoff when a legitimate title contender is upset by a lesser team.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:23 pm to Korin
quote:
Yes. They're no longer required for having a conference title game.
When did this change? I thought it was still a requirement. TIL.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:26 pm to holdmydak
quote:
They were created (I'm assuming) to cut down on transportation time and cost back in the day
They were created so Title games could happen(round robin ability with larger conferences).
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:27 pm to TallulahtheTiger
quote:
They weren't pointless so long as the NCAA required divisions in order to stage a conference title game. Now that that rule is gone, they do seem pretty pointless.
Rule is not gone, there is only an exception for smaller conferences.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:33 pm to yatesdog38
I really don't see the purpose of divisions in any sport for that matter.
I don't think you need divisions for football.
If #1 and #2 are from the west or east than they should play for sec title in championship game.
I don't think you need divisions for football.
If #1 and #2 are from the west or east than they should play for sec title in championship game.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:37 pm to nicholastiger
It also goes into the idea that every week of conference play is a playoff game. If it's purely 1 v 2, you'd likely see a lot of Western rematches if the schedule makes geography a factor
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:39 pm to holdmydak
Sure why not. Especially after we add Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Clemson, and Penn State to the SEC.
Yes I understand that's an odd number of adds, but we are about to lose one.
Yes I understand that's an odd number of adds, but we are about to lose one.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 2:41 pm to NFLSU
quote:that's a funny way of spelling Alabama.
In the SEC they are.
SEC West and then the rest.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News