Started By
Message
re: Should the SEC eliminate divisions?
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:46 pm to PJinAtl
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:46 pm to PJinAtl
quote:Couldn't they just say they are redoing the divisions every year? Seems like a sneaky but easy enough solution.
You do realize that the Big XII rules wouldn't apply to the SEC, right? Currently the NCAA rules state that for a conference to have a football championship game, one of two conditions must be met... 1) The conference is divided into two divisions. The members of each division play each other, with the champions of each division meeting in the conference championship game. 2) The teams in the conference play a round robin schedule so that all teams play each other. The two teams with the best conference records then meet in the championship game. The Big XII satisfies condition 2, because with 10 teams, and a 9 game conference schedule, all Big XII teams play all of the other Big XII teams. Every other conference, including the SEC, satisfies condition #1. In order to eliminate divisions and move to the Big XII model, the SEC would have to play a round robin format where every team plays every other team in the regular season. With 14 teams, that would take 13 games in a season to play a round robin schedule.
2
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:47 pm to tween the hedges
quote:Like any other tie--you apply the tie breakers. Obviously, the tie break rules would be revamped a little bit without divisions. In that secnario, Auburn is the 1 seed, with head to head wins over both UGA and Bama. To break the tie with UGA and Bama, you'd probably resort to records of opponents or one of the other deep down the list tie breakers.
How would last year have worked?
10-2 (7-1) AU beat 11-1 (7-1) UGA and Bama.
Who plays in the title?
This post was edited on 12/7/18 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:47 pm to BigB123
Hell, they changed the rules for the b12, why wouldn’t they for the SEC?
Posted on 12/7/18 at 1:49 pm to PJinAtl
quote:
You do realize that the Big XII rules wouldn't apply to the SEC, right?
The "Big XII rules" didn't exist until the Big XII lobbied for a change. I've no doubt the SEC could get the rules changed if they wanted to. The Big Ten may very well push such a change, and division imbalance has been a huge problem for them.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:40 pm to Pvt Hudson
quote:
Hell, they changed the rules for the b12, why wouldn’t they for the SEC?
They made the exception for the B12 because they have a round robin schedule. Can't do that with 14 teams.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:41 pm to twk
The SEC shouldn't.
The ACC and Big 10 should though.
The ACC and Big 10 should though.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 3:41 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
The pod system thing seems to be by far the best overall solution.
It makes more sense to just add one more conference game like most other P5 conferences. We can go back to 1 cross divisional "rival" and 2 rotating opponents.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 6:01 pm to LMfan
They should do it completely randomly. You know, like drawing names from a hat, or throwing flags for targeting.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 6:02 pm to twk
I'm all about it.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 6:05 pm to UTprideofTX
Alabama fans are always the only ones harping on a 9 schedule. Why? There is like zero positives to do this
Posted on 12/7/18 at 6:51 pm to PikeBishop
That should be addressed to SummerOfGeorge.
Posted on 12/7/18 at 7:01 pm to Landmass
The drawback for Ga., Ky., SC, & Fl. Is that they would need to schedule their ACC in-state rivalry to be a HOME game when they have 4 HOME conf. games.
Ga. H in even years
Ky. H in odd years
SC H in odd years
Fl. H in odd years
Ga. H in even years
Ky. H in odd years
SC H in odd years
Fl. H in odd years
Posted on 12/11/18 at 5:05 pm to Landmass
quote:
It makes more sense to just add one more conference game like most other P5 conferences. We can go back to 1 cross divisional "rival" and 2 rotating opponents.
9 games hurts your chances to make the playoff, and limits scheduling flexibility. For the schools that play 2 P5 opponents non-conference, that's just going to leave them one "buy" game. Maybe that's a good thing, but the conference never likes leaving money on the table.
I do, however, think eliminating divisions would be better than a pod system, because pods still leave the possibility of imbalanced divisions, where an undefeated division champ is playing a division champ that has 2 or more losses, while a team in the other division with a better record sits at home.
Here's how I would set up the 3 permanent opponents for each school (tweaked slightly from the matchups for basketball):
Bama: Auburn, State, UT
Arkansas: Mizzou, A&M, LSU
Auburn: Bama UF, UGA
Florida: Auburn, UGA, USC
UGA: USC, UF, Auburn
Kentucky: Mizzou, UT, Vandy
LSU: A&M, Ole Miss, Arkansas
Ole Miss: State, LSU, Vandy
Miss. State: Ole Miss, Bama, USC
Missouri: Arkansas, A&M, UK
South Carolina: UGA, UF, MSU
Tenn: Vandy, UK, Bama
A&M: LSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
Vandy: UK, UT, Ole Miss
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:39 pm to Pvt Hudson
They had a true round-robin schedule & no divisions, so I'm still lost as to why a rematch game was necessary.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:44 pm to twk
Yeah. Bama wouldn't get to dodge UGA and play the bottom teams of the East constantly.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:47 pm to twk
Go to 16 teams with 4x4 pods, pair them up, & winners of paired pods go to the SECCG.
year 1: Pods AB winner vrs. Pods CD winner
year 2: Pods AC winner vrs. Pods BD winner
year 3: Pods AD winner vrs. Pods BC winner
BTW, you're using an old list (seen it several times on-line).
FWIW, UGA NEVER considers SC a rival/must play team.
year 1: Pods AB winner vrs. Pods CD winner
year 2: Pods AC winner vrs. Pods BD winner
year 3: Pods AD winner vrs. Pods BC winner
BTW, you're using an old list (seen it several times on-line).
FWIW, UGA NEVER considers SC a rival/must play team.
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:50 pm to LouisvilleKat
quote:
Would end up with less bowl teams and less overall money for the SEC IMO
Good!!!
6-6 teams shouldn't be bowl eligible.
A bowl game should never cause a team to have a losing record, therefore only 7-5 or better teams should even be considered.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 9:05 pm to Rabern57
They play them the same # of times you do.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 9:12 pm to southernboisb
quote:
UGA NEVER considers SC a rival/must play team.
If you have 3 permanent opponents, you're going to have some matchups like that. Who besides Auburn and Florida would constitute a "must play" opponent for Georgia? Tennessee? They didn't play UGA regularly until 1992--Kentucky and Vanderbilt have played UGA more regularly. You can't fulfill everyone's preference, and pairing UGA with USC is probably more about providing suitable matchups for USC, since they are on the eastern edge of the conference and lack the long history of playing other schools that the charter members have.
The real point of eliminating divisions is that you would play everyone in the league, home and away, in a four year cycle. Currently, it takes 12 years to do that. The other bonus is that you eliminate the possibility of a championship game mismatch, between an undefeated champion of one division and a much weaker champion of the other division (we have that possibility in the current setup, as evidenced by two Missouri appearances in the title game, and would still have it in a pod system).
This post was edited on 12/11/18 at 9:23 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News