Malzahn open to Auburn moving to East

#3
#3
If you go by geography, that would push Missouri to the West. I grew up watching UT/Auburn play every September. It was a good rivalry. Not so sure I want to send a team that I consider just a shade higher than Vandy and Kentucky over to the West and take on one of their giants. On the other hand, if we are on the rise, would be fun beating them, and we would have them and Bama both, just like the old days.

I live in Bama. Hate them both. Bama more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
ptcarter said:
If you go by geography, that would push Missouri to the West. I grew up watching UT/Auburn play every September. It was a good rivalry. Not so sure I want to send a team that I consider just a shade higher than Vandy and Kentucky over to the West and take on one of their giants. On the other hand, if we are on the rise, would be fun beating them, and we would have them and Bama both, just like the old days.

I live in Bama. Hate them both. Bama more.
Click to expand...

There's no guarantee we'd have both. While Alabama and Tennessee would both still want to play each other, Alabama and Auburn would also both still want to continue playing each other in their rivalry...and the scheduling format would only allow one of the two to continue.
 
#5
#5
One of Two things going on here. Either there's realignment talk or they are wanting to balance the divisions.

If it's realignment, we must be looking west. Maybe Oklahoma. Not sure who the other would be. Texas isn't coming to the SEC. We wouldn't put up with their wanting to run the Conference.

If it's balance, my guess is that could be the end of Bama-TN on a yearly basis. Bama, Auburn, UGA, and UT are the only reasons we still have a permanent crossover opponent. They'll make an exception for the Iron Bowl. All others probably gone.

Or it could just be some meaningless off season chatter. Yeah, probably that.
 
Last edited:
#6
#6
I'm for it.

Missouri is the most obvious team that would switch geographically. But honestly I wish football would just drop the East/West, let the teams keep whatever meaningful rival they have yearly, and then rotate. I believe it's been discussed on VN many times and there's been long posts on how to properly do it.

And like the article says, 9 SEC games would help problems that arise by switching teams around. But of course UK and a few others don't want that because scheduling for them is already hard enough.

And while I'm at it, I would be all for UK trading with someone in the ACC and joining them. We'd have real basketball teams to go against and a bit easier time in football. Three rivals already there anyway.
 
#7
#7
TSIO would most likely be a casualty of this move, to preserve the Iron Bowl and other in-state rivalry games. I'm sure Auburn is lobbying for it, but the East and West will start to rebalance this year, anyway. The East will be stronger, with possibly 2-3 ranked teams, and the West is likely to have 3 ranked teams as well. Not quite parity, but much closer than the past few years.
 
#8
#8
UTwild82 said:
One of Two things going on here. Either there's realignment talk or they are wanting to balance the divisions.

If it's realignment, we must be looking west. Maybe Oklahoma. Not sure who the other would be. Texas isn't coming to the SEC. We wouldn't put up with their wanting to run the Conference.

If it's balance, my guess is that could be the end of Bama-TN on a yearly basis. Bama, Auburn, UGA, and UT are the only reasons we still have a permanent crossover opponent. They'll make an exception for the Iron Bowl. All others probably gone.

Or it could just be some meaninglessness off season chatter. Yeah, probably that.
Click to expand...

It's almost certainly the last sentence. Among other things, the TV rights (at the tier the SEC Network would need for profit) for teams in the Big 12 conference are locked up by a grant until 2024-2025. (Not to mention OU's past interests have been towards a conference that can expand them into the west coast). It's also fairly unlikely the conference is just looking to realign without a real catalyst for doing such.

But were such to happen, the conference would probably still keep the permanent cross-divisional rivalries (aside from historic reasons, the SEC had always prided itself in using them as a means of balancing the "big 6" teams' schedules). The new pairings from this situation would most likely include Alabama-Auburn alongside the continued pairings of UF-LSU, Vandy-Ole Miss and Miss St - UK.

UGA/UT/USCe and Mizzou/Arkansas/A&M would be left to be sorted out...with UT likely looking at Arkansas or A&M as a new yearly opponent (UT-Arkansas because a shared border is about the strongest tie I can find between sorting out UT/UGA with Ark/A&M, so I have to think that one's more likely unless a stronger argument can be made for UGA-Arkansas...Missouri-South Carolina would probably be paired from the start based on program level plus the two already playing for a trophy helps a bit in sorting them).


This whole "Auburn volunteering to move to the East" came up before in 2011 when Missouri was first joining the conference; the general thought seemed to be that the main reason Auburn was willing to do such was more that it wanted to grow its school brand and recruiting presence in the very talent-rich state of Florida (along with some idea of such a move strengthening its recruiting presence in GA but that was subject to debate, somewhat).

That was pretty much one of the two main reasons Alabama opposed such a shift (at the time I think UT also opposed such - mainly to preserve its rivalry with Alabama).
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
LittleCat said:
I'm for it.

Missouri is the most obvious team that would switch geographically. But honestly I wish football would just drop the East/West, let the teams keep whatever meaningful rival they have yearly, and then rotate. I believe it's been discussed on VN many times and there's been long posts on how to properly do it.

And like the article says, 9 SEC games would help problems that arise by switching teams around. But of course UK and a few others don't want that because scheduling for them is already hard enough.

And while I'm at it, I would be all for UK trading with someone in the ACC and joining them. We'd have real basketball teams to go against and a bit easier time in football. Three rivals already there anyway.
Click to expand...

It was more than a few, honestly. The only ones that were really up for a 9-game conference schedule were Alabama's Nick Saban and Tennessee's AD.

Pretty much the athletic departments of Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn were all against it...with schools like Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy, and A&M being the most staunchly opposed to it (their main argument - especially from those coaches - seemed to center around the increased difficulty of becoming bowl eligible with a 9-game slate...which I guess makes sense from a coach's standpoint at schools like these, where an easier 4-game OOC schedule can help get them almost to bowl eligibility in a poor year and could make an average season appear much better).

(And far as the coaches have gone, the votes were pretty much 13-1 in favor of eight-game formats.)
 
#12
#12
LA Vol said:
TSIO would most likely be a casualty of this move, to preserve the Iron Bowl and other in-state rivalry games. I'm sure Auburn is lobbying for it, but the East and West will start to rebalance this year, anyway. The East will be stronger, with possibly 2-3 ranked teams, and the West is likely to have 3 ranked teams as well. Not quite parity, but much closer than the past few years.
Click to expand...

Auburn was lobbying for it for a while. This came up in 2011 as well.
 
#17
#17
Well this is interesting, we would gain Auburn and lose Alabama, cause there is no way the Iron Bowl is going anywhere. I dont like the thought of losing
Alabama, but I didn't like the idea of losing Auburn at one time either. If the league elects to do this, I would understand because it makes perfect sense.
Not everybody will be happy with the realignment, but what would really make me happy is to get the hell rid of A&M and Missouri and then leave everything
like god intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#18
#18
HoptownVol said:
Well this is interesting, we would gain Auburn and lose Alabama, cause there is no way the Iron Bowl is going anywhere. I dont like the thought of losing
Alabama, but I didn't like the idea of losing Auburn at one time either. If the league elects to do this, I would understand because it makes perfect sense.
Not everybody will be happy with the realignment, but what would really make me happy is to get the hell rid of A&M and Missouri and then leave everything
like god intended.
Click to expand...
but you're ok with Arkansas and S Carolina staying......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
HoptownVol said:
Well this is interesting, we would gain Auburn and lose Alabama, cause there is no way the Iron Bowl is going anywhere. I dont like the thought of losing
Alabama, but I didn't like the idea of losing Auburn at one time either. If the league elects to do this, I would understand because it makes perfect sense.
Not everybody will be happy with the realignment, but what would really make me happy is to get the hell rid of A&M and Missouri and then leave everything
like god intended.
Click to expand...

Missouri has no business being in the SEC anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#24
#24
The NCAA changed the rules for a CCG to allow one without divisions. So the Big12 could have one now and still play a 9 game round robin conference schedule.

The SEC could just do away with divisions and assign 3 or so permanent opponents and rotate the rest so teams could play each other more often. The best 2 teams play in the CCG. I might be in favor of something like this but I haven't seen a model for it yet.
 
#25
#25
ntxVOL said:
The NCAA changed the rules for a CCG to allow one without divisions. So the Big12 could have one now and still play a 9 game round robin conference schedule.

The SEC could just do away with divisions and assign 3 or so permanent opponents and rotate the rest so teams could play each other more often. The best 2 teams play in the CCG. I might be in favor of something like this but I haven't seen a model for it yet.
Click to expand...

I am all for this proposal.

The problem is that the recent rule change doesn't allow it. The new rule says that a conference can hold a championship game if it either splits into divisions (and they did away with the 12 team requirement) or if the conference plays a full round robin schedule and the top two teams meet in the title game.

The SEC can't do away with divisions AND keep the title game since full round robin in a 14 team conference is impossible.

Link
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top