Should the SEC eliminate divisions?

OK, we all like to make fun of the Big XII, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

The Big XII's need for a conference championship game got the NCAA to change the rules to allow for a championship game even if you don't have divisions. While I will admit to originally thinking that sounded like a silly thing, the facts on the ground are causing me to think otherwise.

Right now, the SEC is in a good place with some semblance of balance between the divisions, but there have been times in the past where one division champion has been vastly inferior to the other, making the championship game little more than a speed bump for the other division champ. If you don't have divisions, you never have this problem.

The other positive that I see is that it could solve some scheduling problems. I haven't worked through all the variables, but it seems to me that, if the SEC eliminated divisions, each team could have 3 permanent opponents that they play every year, and then use the other five conference games to play the remaining 10 teams every other year. Just taking my Aggies as an example, if we had annual games with LSU, Arkanasas, and just for the sake of argument and geography, Missouri (not who I would prefer, but how I think it would play out), and gave up annual games with Alabama, Auburn, and the Mississippi schools, but got to play those schools every other year, along with the Eastern divisions schools, I'd take that tradeoff in a heartbeat.

Alabama could play Auburn, UT, and perhaps State (they are the two closest schools geographically in the league). Auburn could still play Bama and UGA, but add an annual game with Florida or UT. LSU could play A&M, Arkansas, and Ole Miss...etc.