8
.jpg)
Started By
Message
The SEC Football Championship title going forward.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:40 pm
So, any word on what will be considered a conference championship title starting in 2027?
In the old days, teams that ended up with the same conference record were designated as SEC Co-Champions.
In the old days, teams that ended up with the same conference record were designated as SEC Co-Champions.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:41 pm to Chip82
There will be a tie breaker to determine who the winner is.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:44 pm to Night Vision
quote:
There will be a tie breaker to determine who the winner is.
Considering there's a very real possibility that the two teams never play (and could therefor both be undefeated), they should just announce co-champions.
I get the need for a tie-breaker to determine who represents the SEC in the playoffs, but it seems absurd to punish one when two teams who go 9-0 in conference because one of them played a slightly worse SEC slate of teams.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:49 pm to Chip82
The CFP Committee will tell you who the champion is and you will like it.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:50 pm to Chip82
quote:
In the old days, teams that ended up with the same conference record were designated as SEC Co-Champions.
They still had a criteria to determine who went to the Sugar Bowl though.
There was a 3-way tie in 1989 and BAMA went to the Sugar Bowl.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:53 pm to Night Vision
quote:
There will be a tie breaker to determine who the winner is.
So you are saying that potentially two undefeated teams that don't play each other could possibly end up at the mercy of the SEC scheduling office?
So lets say LSU and Georgia were to not play, like this regular season, and both ended up undefeated, one of them would be anointed as champions by virtue of a schedule that was determined by Birmingham?
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:55 pm to Chip82
From what they said on the radio today there will be no co-champions.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:57 pm to Chip82
On the bright side, it will make the regular season have some meaning since those will be the games that decide it and the actual game itself isn't an extra obstacle.
So you can get the bonus of being the conference champion without the drag of the extra game.
So you can get the bonus of being the conference champion without the drag of the extra game.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 1:59 pm to Chip82
quote:
So lets say LSU and Georgia were to not play, like this regular season, and both ended up undefeated, one of them would be anointed as champions by virtue of a schedule that was determined by Birmingham?
And what does that schedule even mean?
If LSU plays South Carolina and Alabama wins...
And Georgia plays South Carolina and Auburn and wins...
Then the win over Auburn could theoretically be the game that lowers Georgia's SoS to crown LSU as SEC champion.
If that doesn't make sense - think of it this way: if LSU and Georgia beat all of their opponents but never play each other, then their victories against their schedule could compound losses that weaken their strength of schedule.
Say, for example, Auburn were to be a good team but loses to Georgia and drop to 9-3. South Carolina is also a good team and finishes 10-2. South Carolina boosts LSU and Georgia's strength of schedule but Auburn lowers Georgia's. Alabama finishes 10-2 with a loss to LSU and boosts LSU's strength of schedule.
And throw in the wrinkle that Alabama's 2nd loss was to Auburn.
So Georgia is punished for beating Auburn because it made Auburn's record worse, dropping them in the SEC rankings, and thus lowering Georgia's strength of schedule.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:01 pm to Chip82
quote:
So lets say LSU and Georgia were to not play, like this regular season, and both ended up undefeated, one of them would be anointed as champions by virtue of a schedule that was determined by Birmingham?
Unless I heard wrong there are a lot of metrics to help decide the tie-breaker such as point margin by common opponents.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:06 pm to Chip82
Regardless who they say wins it, cup printers are going to make bank. You know all teams tied for top record are going to print them champion cups and banners to hang in practice facilities.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:07 pm to skrayper
quote:
Considering there's a very real possibility that the two teams never play (and could therefor both be undefeated), they should just announce co-champions.
I'd imagine they return to that. Under divisional play, technically, ties in the division still awarded co-divisional championships (See Ole Miss Banner). The tie breaker just selected the CCG contestants.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:07 pm to Night Vision
quote:
There was a 3-way tie in 1989 and BAMA went to the Sugar Bowl.
Alabama got the Sugar Bowl berth because they had gone the longest of the 3 tied teams without playing in the Sugar Bowl. Ala had not played in SB since 1980. UTn played in the SB in 1986. Auburn played in the SB in 1984, 1988, and 1989.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:09 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
I'd imagine they return to that. Under divisional play, technically, ties in the division still awarded co-divisional championships (See Ole Miss Banner). The tie breaker just selected the CCG contestants.
I do as well and I think that's what they should do. If it isn't clear and obvious, and isn't a head to head tiebreaker, there shouldn't be more used. Grant co-champions since there will be no game.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:09 pm to AU6X
Sure thing little feller.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:11 pm to IM_4_LSU
quote:
such as point margin by common opponents.
So if somebody beats a team missing its starting QB at home by more than another team that beat that same team on the road at full strength, tough shite. If an absolute monsoon game winds up 17-0 win by a championship contender, while another team beats that team 28-10 in perfect conditions, same deal. It's all going to be a shitshow.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:14 pm to Night Vision
quote:
They still had a criteria to determine who went to the Sugar Bowl though. There was a 3-way tie in 1989 and BAMA went to the Sugar Bowl.
And before that the goofy tie breaker was "last appearance". Whichever team had not been to Sugar Bowl the longest got the tiebreaker, Nothing to do with records at all
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:33 pm to Crimson K
quote:
It's all going to be a shitshow.
With the amount of teams in the Conference and 9 Conference games there will never be a perfect way to determine a Champion w/out a Championship Game which is going to absolutely make it a shite show.
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:35 pm to Chip82
It's gonna be fun when you have years like 1989. There was a three-way split for the conference championship:
Alabama (6-1) lost to Auburn
Tennessee (6-1) lost to Alabama
Auburn (6-1) lost to Tennessee
Alabama (6-1) lost to Auburn
Tennessee (6-1) lost to Alabama
Auburn (6-1) lost to Tennessee
Posted on 11/9/26 at 2:37 pm to Chip82
Pretty sure we will go back to having years where there are co-champions
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News