Started By
Message
The SEC needs to petition to disband divisions
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:39 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:39 am
It would take the NCAA revising a rule, but the SEC needs to make this a priority.
Here's my plan to keep the league at 14 teams but change up the scheduling format:
1. Move to a 9-game schedule
2. Make a rule that all SEC members must play at least 11 Power 5 + other approved opponents in a season.
Currently the SEC counts Notre Dame, BYU and Army as acceptable OOC opponents in addition to opponents from the other Power leagues. I'd expand this and add UCF, Boise State, Houston, and Cincinnati and rule that the exceptions will be reviewed every 5 years.
3. The scheduling format would be a 4+5 system
Each team would play 4 other conference opponents annually. This would protect most all the major rivalries. Additionally each team would play 5 games each season against rotating SEC opponents
4. The Top 2 teams in the standings would meet in Atlanta in the SEC Championship Game
This plan would protect all the major conference rivalries but it would also allow for all teams to play all other SEC teams more often. Here are some of the highlights of the plan:
*In every 4-year period, every team would play 4 SEC opponents every season, 2 SEC opponents three times, and 7 SEC opponents twice.
*Therefore during each 4-year period, every team would play every other league member a minimum of two times.... meaning every team would play in every league stadium at least one time every four years.
Here's my plan to keep the league at 14 teams but change up the scheduling format:
1. Move to a 9-game schedule
2. Make a rule that all SEC members must play at least 11 Power 5 + other approved opponents in a season.
Currently the SEC counts Notre Dame, BYU and Army as acceptable OOC opponents in addition to opponents from the other Power leagues. I'd expand this and add UCF, Boise State, Houston, and Cincinnati and rule that the exceptions will be reviewed every 5 years.
3. The scheduling format would be a 4+5 system
Each team would play 4 other conference opponents annually. This would protect most all the major rivalries. Additionally each team would play 5 games each season against rotating SEC opponents
4. The Top 2 teams in the standings would meet in Atlanta in the SEC Championship Game
This plan would protect all the major conference rivalries but it would also allow for all teams to play all other SEC teams more often. Here are some of the highlights of the plan:
*In every 4-year period, every team would play 4 SEC opponents every season, 2 SEC opponents three times, and 7 SEC opponents twice.
*Therefore during each 4-year period, every team would play every other league member a minimum of two times.... meaning every team would play in every league stadium at least one time every four years.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 10:40 am
19
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:44 am to BHMKyle
These threads are fatiguing
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:45 am to momentoftruth87
So is the current format of unbalanced divisions and playing some teams only once every 7 years.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 10:46 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:46 am to BHMKyle
quote:
It would take the NCAA revising a rule, but the SEC needs to make this a priority.
The principle behind the rule is round robin format to decide who goes to the championship. going to be hard to revise that with all the tie breakers needed as rankings are subjective.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 10:49 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:48 am to BHMKyle
The only thing that should change is to kick aTm and Mizzou back out.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:49 am to BHMKyle
I agree with getting rid of divisions, but an 8 game schedule, with 3 permanent opponents, works best in a 14 team league. Let's you play everyone home and away over a four year period, and works out in nice round numbers.
As to the rest, I don't see any need to require more than 1 P5 game. If it's really in everyone's best interest to do that, they will do it without a rule forcing them to.
As to the rest, I don't see any need to require more than 1 P5 game. If it's really in everyone's best interest to do that, they will do it without a rule forcing them to.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:54 am to NYCAuburn
I believe the rule is that in order to have a Conference Championship Game, conferences must either:
1. Ensure all teams in the league play each other once... this is how the Big 12 does it
2. Split the league into two equal divisions with each team inside a division playing everyone once
All that would need to happen is a rule change to allow for the new format. Surely a tie-breaker system would not be too difficult to figure out between head-to-head and then moving to record vs. common opponents, etc.
1. Ensure all teams in the league play each other once... this is how the Big 12 does it
2. Split the league into two equal divisions with each team inside a division playing everyone once
All that would need to happen is a rule change to allow for the new format. Surely a tie-breaker system would not be too difficult to figure out between head-to-head and then moving to record vs. common opponents, etc.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 10:54 am to BHMKyle
quote:
It would take the NCAA revising a rule,
Actually, I don't believe it would. The rule has already been revised to accommodate the Big 12, which has a conference championship game between the top two teams, but no divisions.
edit: didn't see the provision about playing round robin. But that was a revision from the original rule, so they have made revisions before.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 10:56 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:00 am to twk
quote:
As to the rest, I don't see any need to require more than 1 P5 game.
The issue is Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Kentucky all play an in-state rival every season from a different Power league. Moving to a 9-game SEC schedule means that these four teams are guaranteed 10 Power opponents every season, and if they ever want to have any form of variety in terms of big OOC opponents, it would mean playing 11 such opponents.
Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky want to keep their big in-state rivals. Those are all historic rivalries. But moving to a 9-game SEC schedule means we're locked in to only ever playing the same teams without any variety unless we choose to play 11 Power 5 opponents in a season which is a very big disadvantage since the other 10 SEC teams are playing an extra cupcake.
However half the league is advocating for a 9-game schedule and the national media is always trying to beat the SEC over the head with the fact that we only play 8 games. I believe a 9-game schedule is inevitable. THe benefit of it is that it would allow to play more SEC opponents more often. That's a good thing for sure.
But I think the only way to make it fair is to do away with all the cupcakes and allow just one such game per season for every team. Make every team play 11 decent opponents per year and then it makes it fair for everyone.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:02 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Actually, I don't believe it would. The rule has already been revised to accommodate the Big 12, which has a conference championship game between the top two teams, but no divisions.
...allowed only because of their 9-game conference schedule which ensures all teams play each other during the regular season.
If the Big 12 were to add two more teams, they'd either have to move to an 11-game conference schedule or it would be forced to split into divisions.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:06 am to BHMKyle
quote:
I believe the rule is that in order to have a Conference Championship Game, conferences must either:
1. Ensure all teams in the league play each other once... this is how the Big 12 does it
2. Split the league into two equal divisions with each team inside a division playing everyone once
Correct, playing in a round robin format.
quote:We already have three way ties in the current divisional format of playing everyone. Take that away and there are going to be some questionable tie breakers. Using rankings only brings in outside influence separate from actual conference results.
. Surely a tie-breaker system would not be too difficult to figure out between head-to-head and then moving to record vs. common opponents, etc.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:10 am to BHMKyle
quote:
So is the current format of unbalanced divisions and playing some teams only once every 7 years.
Prior to 1992, there were no divisions. From the 1972 season through the 1991 season (20 seasons), UT and Georgia played 6 times. From the 1956 season through the 1990 season (35 seasons), UT and Florida played 8 times.
I'm not saying that the schedules shouldn't be adjusted to play more frequently...I'm just saying infrequently facing conference opponents isn't something new.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 11:11 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:12 am to madmaxvol
quote:
I'm not saying that the schedules shouldn't be adjusted to play more frequently...I'm just saying infrequently facing conference opponents isn't something new.
Especially when you add more teams to the conference that have no history with certain other teams, it lessens the priority IMO
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:13 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Take that away and there are going to be some questionable tie breakers.
It really wouldn't be a big deal. This is essentially the same format the SEC already has in place for Baseball. Is it really all that hard now to rank the teams 1-14 come SEC Tournament time? Not sure why it can be done for baseball but not football.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:17 am to BHMKyle
Just switch Auburn and Mizzou and switch to a 9 game conference schedule.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:20 am to BHMKyle
quote:
It really wouldn't be a big deal.
I think you are underestimating, just look at the bitching that has happened at determining BCS and playoff teams. And thats after championships and the season. Second place would be the hardest spot to determine most of the time, as there are a lot of ties in that spot.
For example, who goes in 2017? Auburn because they beat they other two, but who goes to ATL to meet Auburn
quote:
This is essentially the same format the SEC already has in place for Baseball
There are a lot more games in baseball and other sports. When you have a limited inventory, it makes much harder
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:23 am to madmaxvol
quote:
I'm not saying that the schedules shouldn't be adjusted to play more frequently...I'm just saying infrequently facing conference opponents isn't something new.
No, its not new.
But in those days it was teams without a history infrequently playing each other.
Nowadays you have teams that used to have solid histories never getting play anymore during the regular season.
From 1933-1991, Georgia played Alabama 34 times during 58 seasons. While it wasn't a guaranteed annual game, the two teams played on average every 1.7 seasons. They were still a frequent rival for us.
But now we play that old rival who we share a long border with once every 7 years yet we play a team like Missouri every year. That makes no sense.
The same goes for Auburn who used to play both Florida and Tennessee annually. From 1956-1991, Auburn played Tennessee every single season. From 1945-2002, Auburn played Florida every single season.
Now those games are played just once every 7 years and they play inside each other's home stadium just once every 14 years.
This is a relatively new problem for the SEC which is what I think a lot of folks would like to solve. Those old, historic rivalries should be played more often.
This post was edited on 6/11/19 at 11:37 am
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:25 am to BowlJackson
quote:
Just switch Auburn and Mizzou and switch to a 9 game conference schedule.
So does Alabama-Auburn or Alabama-Tennessee come to an end? Can't have both rivalries continue to exist under that format unless you still keep just 1 rotating opponent each year..... which doesn't solve the problem of only playing some teams around once per decade.
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:26 am to BHMKyle
Neither. With 9 games you can have 2 permanent opponents. We used to have 2 before 2003. Dum dum
Posted on 6/11/19 at 11:34 am to BHMKyle
just enjoy your weak division.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News