New SEC format..what do you think?

#1
Ericvol2096

Ericvol2096

Quiz'N'Vol
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
17,283
Likes
24,707
#1
sec16.png

This looks pretty cool...I think it involves getting rid of the divisions and just taking the two top teams each year. This could work.
 
#3
#3
I'd think UT/Vandy would be more likely to be preserved than UT/UK simply because it's an in-state rivalry. Still, I don't care for the idea of 9 conference games. Half of the conference being at a competitive disadvantage every season due to having to play am extra road game is a horrible idea IMO.
 
#5
#5
miggy4vols said:
I kinda like it. Where did you find this at?
Click to expand...

IT was on Rivals Mainboard being discussed.

I think if you did go to 16 teams this would be a great format.

and I agree it would be interesting to see if we got Vandy or UK.

I wouldn't care as long as we kept one for an annual win!

Also, there is no avoiding 9 league games...I think we go to 9 league games even if we just go to 14 teams. The days of playing big time OOC games are going to be over though which is unfortunate.
 
#6
#6
Ericvol2096 said:
IT was on Rivals Mainboard being discussed.

I think if you did go to 16 teams this would be a great format.

and I agree it would be interesting to see if we got Vandy or UK.

I wouldn't care as long as we kept one for an annual win!

Also, there is no avoiding 9 league games...I think we go to 9 league games even if we just go to 14 teams. The days of playing big time OOC games are going to be over though which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Sure there is, you simply don't expand to such an unwieldy number of teams. I guess we've gotten to the point where a little extra money in everyone's pocket is more improtant than fair play though. I would honestly rather see them go to 10 conference games just to keep things balanced, but I'd be shocked if that happened.
 
#7
#7
Would this work as well in a scenario that doesn't include FSU and Clemson, neither of whom will actually wind up in the SEC?

Further, there are a couple of historic rivalries that get lost in this set-up. I don't see how Tennessee and Vandy are going to stop playing every year. Same goes for Alabama and LSU. I also fail to see how Vandy-USCe makes "geographical or historical sense." They have no history with each other, and Vandy is geographically closer to 4 schools they don't play yearly in this set-up than they are to USCe.
 
#8
#8
bleedorange0037 said:
Sure there is, you simply don't expand to such an unwieldy number of teams. I guess we've gotten to the point where a little extra money in everyone's pocket is more improtant than fair play though. I would honestly rather see them go to 10 conference games just to keep things balanced, but I'd be shocked if that happened.
Click to expand...

Again, it has been proven through actual play that a 9 game conference schedule is not an issue.

Would you like to say anything else, or use the same old, tired "money in everyone's pocket" line?
 
#9
#9
bamawriter said:
Would this work as well in a scenario that doesn't include FSU and Clemson, neither of whom will actually wind up in the SEC?

Further, there are a couple of historic rivalries that get lost in this set-up. I don't see how Tennessee and Vandy are going to stop playing every year. Same goes for Alabama and LSU. I also fail to see how Vandy-USCe makes "geographical or historical sense." They have no history with each other, and Vandy is geographically closer to 4 schools they don't play yearly in this set-up than they are to USCe.
Click to expand...

The one game I would switch for TN would be giving them Vandy and losing Kentucky.

That would then give South Carolina Kentucky instead of Vandy. Makes more sense IMO.

Obviously you lose some rivalries...but there is NO WAY you expand by 4 teams and don't lose some. You would still play LSU twice every 4 years. TN would lose Georgia and Kentucky/Vandy but I could live with that as long as we keep Bama and Florida.
 
#10
#10
rockytop9808 said:
Again, it has been proven through actual play that a 9 game conference schedule is not an issue.

Would you like to say anything else, or use the same old, tired "money in everyone's pocket" line?
Click to expand...

How has it been proven? The simple fact that some other conferences play 9? Something being done in the past doesn't automatically make it right or fair. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that I'm not in favor of every year half the conference being put at a competitive disadvantage for the simple sake of making a little extra money. Like I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't bother me if they even jumped to 10 conference games, at least that way there would still be equity in everyone's schedules.
 
#12
#12
Or four divisions of four annually (3 games)

Everyone maintains a rivalry in each of the other 3 divisions (3 games)

Then alternate games with the other three teams in each division (3 games)

9 game conference schedule with a plaaaayoff! :) The only issue would be certain schools only playing twice, then having four years off.
 
#13
#13
bleedorange0037 said:
I'd think UT/Vandy would be more likely to be preserved than UT/UK simply because it's an in-state rivalry. Still, I don't care for the idea of 9 conference games. Half of the conference being at a competitive disadvantage every season due to having to play am extra road game is a horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...

I think we're more likely to have Kentucky and Vandy preserved than having Florida preserved. It's hard to take away another school's biggest rivalry. And I'm okay with that, actually.
 
#14
#14
bleedorange0037 said:
I'd think UT/Vandy would be more likely to be preserved than UT/UK simply because it's an in-state rivalry. Still, I don't care for the idea of 9 conference games. Half of the conference being at a competitive disadvantage every season due to having to play am extra road game is a horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...

Bingo. That's why this plan will NEVER happen. If anyone thinks for one second that Alabama for instance, would be okay playing five road games, while Auburn or LSU is playing four...it's just never gonna happen. I think a 4 division conference is far more likely. Still not sure how they'd work that one out either, but the bottom line is that at least some small amount of tradition is going to have to be sacrificed if they are this bound and determined to chase dollars.
 
#15
#15
bleedorange0037 said:
How has it been proven? The simple fact that some other conferences play 9? Something being done in the past doesn't automatically make it right or fair. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that I'm not in favor of every year half the conference being put at a competitive disadvantage for the simple sake of making a little extra money. Like I mentioned earlier, it wouldn't bother me if they even jumped to 10 conference games, at least that way there would still be equity in everyone's schedules.
Click to expand...

Did the 9 game schedule cause any problems for any of the teams involved? Did they complain? The Big Ten is moving to a 9 game schedule in 2017, and no one at the universities are making a huge issue out of it.

It's ridiculous to make a problem out of something most schools likely would not take issue with.

Besides, as I've said, "fairness" is preserved because every team alternates the schedule from year to year.
 
#17
#17
rockytop9808 said:
Did the 9 game schedule cause any problems for any of the teams involved? Did they complain? The Big Ten is moving to a 9 game schedule in 2017, and no one at the universities are making a huge issue out of it.

It's ridiculous to make a problem out of something most schools likely would not take issue with.

Besides, as I've said, "fairness" is preserved because every team alternates the schedule from year to year.
Click to expand...

If it's such a masterfully crafted, fair and balanced plan, why wait til 2017? I seriously doubt they ever implement it anyway. Fairness is not taking away a home game, and adding it back the next year. Fairness, is giving everyone the same benefits and opportunities across the board. It won't work in the SEC.
 
#18
#18
AJeray4TN said:
If it's such a masterfully crafted, fair and balanced plan, why wait til 2017? I seriously doubt they ever implement it anyway. Fairness is not taking away a home game, and adding it back the next year. Fairness, is giving everyone the same benefits and opportunities across the board. It won't work in the SEC.
Click to expand...

If they want to push to 14 or 16 teams, it will have to.
 
#19
#19
#20
#20
rockytop9808 said:
Did the 9 game schedule cause any problems for any of the teams involved? Did they complain? The Big Ten is moving to a 9 game schedule in 2017, and no one at the universities are making a huge issue out of it.

It's ridiculous to make a problem out of something most schools likely would not take issue with.

Besides, as I've said, "fairness" is preserved because every team alternates the schedule from year to year.
Click to expand...

It might be fair over the long run, but I'm certain that if UT was making a run for the championship in a year where we had 5 away and 4 home, there'd be a lot of complaining going on. Especially if several of the away games were against the really tough teams that year.
 
#21
#21
AJeray4TN said:
If it's such a masterfully crafted, fair and balanced plan, why wait til 2017? I seriously doubt they ever implement it anyway. Fairness is not taking away a home game, and adding it back the next year. Fairness, is giving everyone the same benefits and opportunities across the board. It won't work in the SEC.
Click to expand...

The Big 12 and Pac-12 are already doing it and we haven't heard a lot of complaints.

And I'm told by some older folks that the SEC used to have a 7 game conference schedule.
 
#22
#22
I say expand it to 16 and have 4 divisons. You can have 3 division games, 3 from non division schools and then a mini playoff to the conference winners while letting the non winners have other play in games to even it out at 8.

Clemson & FSU = no way. It would be a dream to grab TAMU and Oklahoma and add two other schools in the east.
 
#23
#23
AJeray4TN said:
There are no absolutes in college sports. Why "will it have to?" Why not two 8 team divisions, where you play all seven of your division games, and one rivalry game from the other?...why not no divisions and 8 randomly selected games every year?...This idea that it HAS TO BE nine games is silly.

SEC, ACC not going to nine conference games any time soon - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com
Click to expand...

Randomly selected games is probably about the dumbest suggestion I've heard, as is playing only one team from the other division.
 
#24
#24
rockytop9808 said:
Randomly selected games is probably about the dumbest suggestion I've heard, as is playing only one team from the other division.
Click to expand...

Good Lord you seem dense. Not that I should have to address it, but I was making a point. You still haven't answered the question. Why can it ONLY be a nine game schedule? You made an absolute statement, I'm asking for your rationale.
 
#25
#25
AJeray4TN said:
Good Lord you seem dense. Not that I should have to address it, but I was making a point. You still haven't answered the question. Why can it ONLY be a nine game schedule? You made an absolute statement, I'm asking for your rationale.
Click to expand...

Because you really think teams are going to sink to only two out of conference games, should there be a 10 game conference schedule? You think they'll settle for playing one out of division team yearly, or playing other division teams only two to four times per decade?

With either 14 or 16 teams, playing opposite-divisional opponents so rarely will not happen. 9 games is a way to add one more chance to play those other divisional opponents. The only people who are dense are those inventing issues for the sake of whining and *****ing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top