re: Why has the dissolution of SEC divisions not been publicly discussed at a serious level?

Go back to 12 teams and schedule as we did pre-2003.

The best way to improve the schedules is:

- 5 permanent opponents
- 4 non-permanent opponents
- At least 1 Non-Conference Power 5 team

If 9 game conference schedule is not possible then I agree with the similar proposal of:

- 3 permanent opponents
- 5 non-permanent opponents
- At least TWO Non-Conference Power 5 opponents.

I just prefer the first proposal because I think there are more than 3 teams in the conference that I would like to play every year. I would imagine most teams have more than 3 schools they like to play annually... Regardless, 2 things should be clear:

1) There is no reason why an SEC team should have 3 garbage games on the schedule
2) There is no reason why a 4yr athlete shouldn't have the opportunity to play every other team on the road and at home.

quote:

---

I'd much prefer using the computers

---

No thanks.

I can promise you the most abstract scenerio you can think of will evolve and you'll have pissed off AD's,coaches and presidents banging the drum for change.

I don't think a 2/6 option would ever happen because then it becomes more difficult to determine which team repeats 2 years in a row... This is why I think a 3/5 or 5/4 options are the only possibilities.

Without divisions, you would have to play 13 SEC games a year to ensure a Round Robin; otherwise, as previously stated, you run the chance of two teams with identical records that haven't played each other.

Imagine Team A goes 9-0 in conference.
Team B and Team C go 8-1, but neither played each other. Heck, for this, we'll just say they both lost to Team A.

How on earth do you determine who plays in the CG?

Because if your solution is "No Championship Game", then what happens if you have two 9-0 teams? Who wins the SEC?

Split championships were fine back when the real prize was the Sugar Bowl; the national title was entirely independent of that. Now? Plus you think the SEC is going to ditch the cash cow that is the Championship Game?

In your scenario, you're talking about playing a 13-game conference schedule. Then the CG, plus 2 play off games, and that's 16 games to run the table (1 more than currently). No OOC games at all.

quote:

---

Without divisions, you would have to play 13 SEC games a year to ensure a Round Robin; otherwise, as previously stated, you run the chance of two teams with identical records that haven't played each other.

Imagine Team A goes 9-0 in conference.
Team B and Team C go 8-1, but neither played each other. Heck, for this, we'll just say they both lost to Team A.

How on earth do you determine who plays in the CG?

---

The odds of that are insanely slim to non given this :

So in this season you'd have

Alabama @ Auburn
Alabama @ Georgia
Auburn @ LSU
Texas A&M @ Auburn
Georgia @ Florida
Georgia @ Auburn
LSU @ Texas A&M
Florida @ Texas A&M

- Alabama plays Auburn, Georgia, LSU
- Auburn plays Georgia, Alabama, Texas A&M, LSU
- Florida plays Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M
- Georgia plays Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Texas A&M
- LSU plays Texas A&M, Alabama, Florida, Auburn
- Texas A&M plays LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Florida

If two teams go 7-1 and don't play eachother then you'd just work your way down the tiebreaker line.

And, as someone said above, a lot of teams would probably secretly be just fine going 11-1 with their only loss to the (presumably) #1 team, because they'd be in very good shape to make a playoff.

You know where I stand on this issue...

Roommate Switch

Forgoing their specific team alignments, but the concept is sufficient to get 3 permanents (or 5 if moving to 9 game schedule) and rotate the rest to 1) better balance the SEC schedules 2) give teams the opportunity to have actual meaningful game history with every team in the league and 3) it gives STUDENT ATHLETES the opportunity to play home and away with every team in the league over a 4 year span (if they travel/play that long with the team). Because it *does* offer a true round robin for the divisions (that just change on even/odd years) it forgoes the issues/concerns around tie breakers as well.

It is definitively the best proposed solution to fixing the disaster that is SEC scheduling post expansion.

You can argue with team pairings, but it avoids issues with NCAA rules changing, it maintains round robins in divisions, it gives us a fricking chance to actually visit road stadiums more than once a decade or so...

To answer your original question, frankly, I just don't think there has been enough pressure to do anything different.

I love the 8 game SEC version of it, because it still leaves all teams open to scheduling unique OOC games... if we had to move to 9 games, so be it... I just don't think it's necessary or beneficial to the league to do so...

This scheduling approach is actually innovative and frankly if you coupled it with a requirement that the SEC teams schedule 2 P5 OOC opponents (with waivers/exceptions process in years where it just isn't possible for certain teams), you would shut up any discussion/narrative criticizing SEC scheduling... OOC strength would be fine, intra-conference scheduling would be superior to every other league... and we don't sacrifice TV inventory by moving to 9 conference games.

You really think ADs and the SEC office want to put the work in required to make all these changes. I don't.

quote:

---

A little TOO good amirite?

---

Yeah... Unless there is some serious pressure from tv pundits, talking heads, and national perception, I just think the league is satisfied to operate the way we are... Until there is some kind of actual penalty held against us for our current scheduling approach, it seems like they treat it as white noise.

If it were me, I'd look at the next round of negotiations with ESPN/CBS/etc on TV contracts as an opportunity to possibly shake things up dramatically with the scheduling and use that as a bargaining chip/leverage for more cash...