re: if 16 are teams are inevitable

quote:

---

I also think some effort should be made to separate UK and Vandy as they're traditionally 2 of the bottom programs....Pods should be balanced at the top and the bottom (so that 2 teams from the same pod can't basically be dismissed as easy wins most years).

---

I agree, but you have to realize that the POD games are only 3 out of 9 games. So it doesn't mean the North will have an easy schedule.

Each pod has 2 teams that would be stronger and 2 that are weaker (traditionally speaking).

You play 2 teams from each pod every year, one strong and one weak. The strength of each team will vary from year to year so it will never be perfect.

ie. Fla in 2011 was not a tough game, but we were in 2012.

quote:

---

SECNORTH
Kentucky
Tennessee
Arkansas
Missouri

---

Post all the nonsense you want to, but you ain't seperating TN, KY and Vandy. Add VT and you have the SEC North division. I think it will become a very competitive division, if not, then at least my team Vandy will have an easier path toward success.

Put Bama, LSU, Florida and Georgia in the same division so the rest of us can enjoy the beatdown.

quote:

---

quote:


The only problem is I don't know how to work out permanent cross divisional rivalry game as we need both Auburn/UGA and UGA/UF.





In essence that's the problem the permanent cross games ...

---

Throw in the fact that Mizzou and Arky will probably demand to play every year to try and foster a true conference rivalry that neither team currently have, as will LSU & aTm. And if UNC comes, then you can add UNC & USCe to that mix as well. Throw in the desire that I'm sure Arky (Mizzou also probably) will want to play aTm yearly for recruiting reasons, and aTm & VT (if VT comes) will want to play for the cadet aspect that can be fostered into a rivalry.

The meetings on how to divide up a 16 team SEC will probably be be a blood bath, with everyone having different agendas. For that reason, I think in the end they will go for the easiest path since there will be so much bickering. It will either be divided up into 2 divisions (which means the western teams won't play all of the eastern teams but every 6 years or so at best). Or it will be divided up into pods based on geography, and they will try and even out the rivalry concerns with permanent cross pod games (which will also allow every team to play all of the other teams at least every 3 years). I think that competitive balance will be the last in line of the considerations when it gets down to it (especially since with annual rematching of divisions with the different pod, even if one team has an easier schedule one year, the next year won't be the same, and the fact that they can compensate for lack of competitive balance by the permanent cross pod rivals they assign each team).

LSU
MSU
Ole Miss
aTm

Bama
AU
Vandy
UT

Arky
Mizzou
Uk
VaTech

Georgia
UF
SC
NC

I thought of something like that and it would be really cool IMO

UK
VT
UNC
UT

SC
UGA
UF
VU

Bama
Auburn
LSU
State

aTm
Ole Miss
Arkansas
Mizzou

Keeps things geographically tidy. I agree it's a tad unbalanced at the current time. The balance of power is always changing.

quote:

---

as a LSU guy, losing Ole Miss and Mississippi State are a big deal...

---

Since when has LSU/MSU been a rivalry? Would playing MSU every 3 years instead of yearly really be that big of a deal for LSU fans? Would the same be said for MSU fans? I honestly never knew that the LSU/MSU yearly game was a big deal.

quote:

---

Since when has LSU/MSU been a rivalry? Would playing MSU every 3 years instead of yearly really be that big of a deal for LSU fans? Would the same be said for MSU fans? I honestly never knew that the LSU/MSU yearly game was a big deal.

---

It's not, but if MSU and LSU decide we want to play each other, how is that different than AU/UA and UA/Tenn?