Started By
Message
re: Why has the dissolution of SEC divisions not been publicly discussed at a serious level?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:57 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:57 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
either computer rankings (like the Big XII did) or record vs Top 7 in the league or something along those lines.
No thanks to ALL of those.And don't want anything decided by some corrupt vote of AD's deciding who's in and who isn't.
We went down that road in the 60's,70's and 80's along with corrupt bowl officials. And we all know which HC virtually called all the post season shots for SEC back then.
1
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:58 am to SummerOfGeorge
If no divisions, no conference championship.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:58 am to RD Dawg
quote:
No thanks to ALL of those.And don't want anything decided by some corrupt vote of AD's deciding who's in and who isn't.
I don't either - I'd much prefer using the computers.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 8:58 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I think they'd clearly have to go hand in hand.
I don't think that's clear at all. The East teams with OOC rival will absolutely fight that, and the bottom 1/3 (or even 1/2) of the league is not going to want another conference game.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:00 am to lowhound
quote:
If no divisions, no conference championship.
Well, that's the most logical outcome, but I think a lot of people would lose it over that.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:01 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I don't think that's clear at all. The East teams with OOC rival will absolutely fight that, and the bottom 1/3 (or even 1/2) of the league is not going to want another conference game.
Woah now, I didn't say it would clear in terms of everyone would agree with it. I meant it was clear the proposal would probably need a 9th game to work. I don't think 8 games would spread the schedule around enough. If you still at 8 games, probably need to stick within this system.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:02 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Woah now, I didn't say it would clear in terms of everyone would agree with it. I meant it was clear the proposal would probably need a 9th game to work.
Getting back to your original OP, I think that's a big reason why it hasn't been discussed seriously. 9 games is a bad option for a big chunk of the league.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:03 am to SummerOfGeorge
Personally, I think the people bitching about the current setup should just shut up. I think that would solve everything. There's no perfect way to do this, but the way we do it now is fine. And stop clamoring for a bigger playoff.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:03 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
Getting back to your original OP, I think that's a big reason why it hasn't been discussed seriously. 9 games is a bad option for a big chunk of the league.
That is definitely a counter argument that makes sense.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:08 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
But not everyone agrees with that, especially not with 14 teams in 2019.
There's never going to be an easy fix with a bloated 14 team conference. The best way to handle it is to go to a nine game conference schedule with one permanent cross divisional opponent and two rotating cross divisional opponents each year. The SEC can also craft a schedule where each team has to be play at least one of the historically top cross divisional programs (Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee in SEC East and Bama, LSU, and Auburn in SEC West) every year. That way a school like Ole Miss will never have a cross divisional schedule with say Vandy, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:08 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
not everyone agrees with that
Is that really the bar you’re setting? Have you forgotten LSU is still in this league?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:11 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:muh 2 teams may have identical records
I honestly just haven't seen a counter argument to it and I imagine there has to be one I just haven't heard.
I seriously don't understand why anyone would oppose this
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:12 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
lewis and herschel : The way it is has flat worked....that's why?
quote:
SOG : But not everyone agrees with that, especially not with 14 teams in 2019.
quote:
WildTC : Is that really the bar you’re setting? Have you forgotten LSU is still in this league?
LSU thinks that the current setup has worked? What are you saying here exactly?
This post was edited on 10/1/19 at 9:15 am
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:13 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Because you either have to play a round robin of entire conference or have divisions that do so in order to hold a conference championship game under current NCAA rules.
They changed the rule for the Big XII. They would do it for the SEC if we asked. The rule is not an impediment.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:15 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
LSU thinks that the current setup has worked?
Do you honestly think there’s a system that they would think worked?
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:15 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Do you honestly think there’s a system that they would think worked?
This seems like one they'd find more to their fancy
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:16 am to SummerOfGeorge
I'm against a 9 game conference schedule, but would welcome a requirement to play TWO P5 teams every year
GA Tech is dogshit this year, UT they are normally at least de ent (top 25 program historically, better than at least half the SEC)
UGA has been scheduling de ent 2nd OOC games lately
9 SEC games likely means we never get great home and home series moving forward
GA Tech is dogshit this year, UT they are normally at least de ent (top 25 program historically, better than at least half the SEC)
UGA has been scheduling de ent 2nd OOC games lately
9 SEC games likely means we never get great home and home series moving forward
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:17 am to dcbl
I'd be curious to see somebody war game the pods with only a 8 game schedule. I don't think I've seen it before.
Might have to bump down the permanent opponents for everyone to 2, but considering you'd play everyone else within 2-3 years that might not be that big a deal.
Might have to bump down the permanent opponents for everyone to 2, but considering you'd play everyone else within 2-3 years that might not be that big a deal.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:18 am to NYCAuburn
quote:Don't you know? Bitching is what college football is all about.
Can you imagine the tie breakers or bitching if there wasnt round robin play to decide the CG participants?
First tie breaker is always head to head. If the teams didn't play, then you'd use the same type of tie breakers that are in place now for 3 way ties, something like record against teams in order of finish (start with their record against the first place team, and work your way down until you get one that breaks the tie).
The only way there would be a real problem is if you have 3 undefeated teams, and if you are setting up the schedule right, that would probably never happen. If it did, you do a 3 way coin flip, and the team that "loses" would probably be envied by the other two as they would have a clearer path to the playoff.
Posted on 10/1/19 at 9:18 am to SummerOfGeorge
I think it makes sense to do so if the conference refuses to go to a 9 games schedule.
You can have each team matchup every year against 3 or 4 permanent "rivals" and the rotation of the other 5 or 4 teams, respective of what , will make it so everyone plays each other in a 4 year span, and if my math works twice every 7.
Take the top 2 to play in Atlanta.
This will then allow each team to schedule 2 P5 noncon games which is going to be the push by the conference.
You can have each team matchup every year against 3 or 4 permanent "rivals" and the rotation of the other 5 or 4 teams, respective of what , will make it so everyone plays each other in a 4 year span, and if my math works twice every 7.
Take the top 2 to play in Atlanta.
This will then allow each team to schedule 2 P5 noncon games which is going to be the push by the conference.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News