SEC Expansion

#103
#103
allsgood21 said:
You could do it using this format.

The Roommate Switch | An SEC football schedule format that solves ALL the issues.
Click to expand...

Again, I think that's overcomplicating things...and it's kind of similar to what the WAC did last decade that resulted in a fairly big exodus of teams to the Mountain West conference.

You go to a 9 game conference schedule (like the other major conferences) with a 6-1-2 format, and you'd preserve the cross-rivalries while making it that you could either 1) play every other opposite division SEC team either once in a 3 year period or (perhaps better) 2) play every opposite division SEC team in a 5 year period, having had home and homes with 4 of the 6 in that time.
 
#104
#104
That "Roommate" format is utter nonsense IMO. Not sure which is sadder, that I wasted 20 minutes of my life trying to figure it out or that someone wasted god knows how many hours concocting it. And for what? To preserve a few traditional rivalries? Please, if Mike Slive was that determined to save tradition, we'd still have annual games like UT-AU and AU-UF.

The reason for the push to save the cross division rivalries is parity. The traditionally strong programs are grouped together, and traditionally weaker programs are grouped together. Which helps the weaker programs. And that's fine but don't insult the fans with some insanely complex format that less than 1% of them will understand under the pretense of "tradition".

For a long time Tennessee rarely played Georgia, now they're strong rivals because they play every year. Traditions change over time. Create a simple system thats fair and balanced so that tradition can evolve naturally as it should. JMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#105
#105
Morpheus said:
That "Roommate" format is utter nonsense IMO. Not sure which is sadder, that I wasted 20 minutes of my life trying to figure it out or that someone wasted god knows how many hours concocting it. And for what? To preserve a few traditional rivalries? Please, if Mike Slive was that determined to save tradition, we'd still have annual games like UT-AU and AU-UF.

The reason for the push to save the cross division rivalries is parity. The traditionally strong programs are grouped together, and traditionally weaker programs are grouped together. Which helps the weaker programs. And that's fine but don't insult the fans with some insanely complex format that less than 1% of them will understand under the pretense of "tradition".

For a long time Tennessee rarely played Georgia, now they're strong rivals because they play every year. Traditions change over time. Create a simple system thats fair and balanced so that tradition can evolve naturally as it should. JMO.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "Pods" could be different and probably better selected if we went to a 9 game scheule. The main reason I like this format is because you have a home and home with every SEC team within a 4 year span. The scheduling isn't that hard. Even years you play these teams, odd years you play these teams. The conference schedule would be laid out for years to come and you wouldn't have to guess which opponent we play in the west every year (besides bama).

BUT, using the 6-1-1 or 6-1-2 format, the rivalries are protected and that's what I care about the most. The roommate switch just allows for both to happen.
 
#106
#106
allsgood21 said:
I agree that the "Pods" could be different and probably better selected if we went to a 9 game scheule. The main reason I like this format is because you have a home and home with every SEC team within a 4 year span. The scheduling isn't that hard. Even years you play these teams, odd years you play these teams. The conference schedule would be laid out for years to come and you wouldn't have to guess which opponent we play in the west every year (besides bama).

BUT, using the 6-1-1 or 6-1-2 format, the rivalries are protected and that's what I care about the most. The roommate switch just allows for both to happen.
Click to expand...

My main concern with that format, other than it's complexity, is that you don't play everyone in your division every year. How can you have a division champion when they don't all play each other? My understanding is that the NCAA mandates a round robin divisional format, and this format fails to do that.

Edit: After looking closer I see that they have the divisions changing every year, which is crazy IMO. IOW, in order to save tradition, we're going to have every team switch divisions every other year.

Also, the point of it all is supposedly to maintain the long-standing traditional rivalries, yet they don't even have UT-Vandy playing every year, even in the 9-game version. All the other in-state rivalries are kept intact. UT-Vandy has been played for over a century, but it's not a traditional rivalry? Why go to such lengths to maintain a cross-division rivalry with Bama, only to lose your in-state, in-division rivalry?
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
VOLnMiami said:
MTSU?!?! :eek:lol: Just to let you know, Any school the SEC wold go after would have to be able to generate INCOME for the league...MTSU would have a hard time selling out a high school stadium....Thanks for the laugh tho
Click to expand...

Those tailgates, though...

WIN OR LOSE, WE STILL BOOZE
 
#108
#108
Morpheus said:
My main concern with that format, other than it's complexity, is that you don't play everyone in your division every year. How can you have a division champion when they don't all play each other? My understanding is that the NCAA mandates a round robin divisional format, and this format fails to do that.

Edit: After looking closer I see that they have the divisions changing every year, which is crazy IMO. IOW, in order to save tradition, we're going to have every team switch divisions every other year.

Also, the point of it all is supposedly to maintain the long-standing traditional rivalries, yet they don't even have UT-Vandy playing every year, even in the 9-game version. All the other in-state rivalries are kept intact. UT-Vandy has been played for over a century, but it's not a traditional rivalry? Why go to such lengths to maintain a cross-division rivalry with Bama, only to lose your in-state, in-division rivalry?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I see that Florida, not Vandy, is the other permanent rival. Hmm... Well maybe if the pods were rearranged. The teams don't switch divisions. You play the teams in your "pod" every year and the larger pods rotate. Then you play one or two (depending on 8 or 9 games) permanent from another pod. Personally I don't think the idea is complicated but that's just my opinion.
 
#109
#109
allsgood21 said:
Oh yeah I see that Florida, not Vandy, is the other permanent rival. Hmm... Well maybe if the pods were rearranged. The teams don't switch divisions. You play the teams in your "pod" every year and the larger pods rotate. Then you play one or two (depending on 8 or 9 games) permanent from another pod. Personally I don't think the idea is complicated but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm saying is, with that format you don't really have set divisions in the traditional sense. UT is in the SEC South "Pod", and their division depends on the year. Even years they're in one division based on which other pod they're matched up with, odd years they're in a different division matched up with a different pod. So it's like they're rotating entire divisions.

The only way I could see this concept maybe working would be with the 9-game schedule, with 5 permanents and 8 rotating. But even then, Tennessee should be matched in the same Pod with Vandy, Georgia, and Florida. Then match them with Bama and Kentucky as non-pod permanents.

But like I've said before, once they reach 16 teams, 4 divisions makes a lot more sense, IMO.
 
#110
#110
My Ideal SEC of the future(Most probable IMO):

SEC East
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
Virginia Tech
Louisville

SEC West
Missouri
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
LSU
Arkansas
Texas A&M

In my setup Missouri would be switched to the SEC West and Louisville would take their spot.
 
#111
#111
Morpheus said:
SEC West: LSU - A&M - Arkansas - Mizzou
SEC South: Bama - Auburn - Ole Miss - MSU
SEC East: Florida - Georgia - Tennessee - Vandy
SEC North: South Carolina - North Carolina (or other) - Virginia Tech - Kentucky
Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Nice idea, I would be tempted to switch Florida with Kentucky though. Historically having Florida, UT, and GA together seems really loaded.

SEC West: LSU - A&M - Arkansas - Mizzou
SEC South: Bama - Auburn - Ole Miss - MSU
SEC North: Kentucky - Georgia - Tennessee - Vandy
SEC East: South Carolina - North Carolina - Virginia Tech -Florida
 
#112
#112
Slow day so I got to thinking about possible solutions to the SEC's scheduling issues with 14 members, as it looks like it may be a while before they look at further expansion. Try this idea out...

Instead of 2 divisions of 7 teams each, maybe 7 pods of paired arch-rivalries would solve the problems inherent in the current system. Something like:

Pod 1: Bama - Auburn (Permanent Pods 2 & 5)
Pod 2: UT - UGA (Permanent Pods 1 & 4)
Pod 3: UF - USC (Permanent Pods 4 & 6)
Pod 4: UK - Vandy (Permanent Pods 2 & 3)
Pod 5: Miss - MSU (Permanent Pods 1 & 7)
Pod 6: LSU - ATM (Permanent Pods 3 & 7)
Pod 7: Ark - Mizzu (Permanent Pods 5 & 6)

Here's how it would work:

1. Each Pod consists of 2 arch-rivals who play each other the final weekend of the season.
2. Each Pod is paired up with 2 other Pods based on geography & tradition, to form each teams permanent annual schedule. That's 5 games every year that both Pod members share, that never change.

So with the example above, UT & UGA would both play these 4 teams every year: Bama, Auburn, Vandy and Kentucky, in addition to their season finale against each other. This example would take care of the UT-Bama & UGA-Auburn rivalries, as well as keeping the UT-Vandy inter-state rivalry alive.

3. Each Pod is then paired up with the remaining 4 Pods to form the rotating part of the schedule. That is, the 4 remaining SEC games.

So with the above, UT would play UF, Ole Miss, LSU and Arkansas, while UGA would play USC, MSU, ATM and Mizzu. Then the following year they would rotate.

4. Each team is awarded 1 point for a rotating schedule win, 2 points for a permanent schedule win, and 3 points for a win against their own Pod arch-rival. The 2 teams with the most accumulated points play for the SECC.

So that's 9 SEC games, all traditional rivalries are kept intact, and everybody plays everybody semiannually.

Could it work?
 
#113
#113
Morpheus said:
Slow day so I got to thinking about possible solutions to the SEC's scheduling issues with 14 members, as it looks like it may be a while before they look at further expansion. Try this idea out...

Instead of 2 divisions of 7 teams each, maybe 7 pods of paired arch-rivalries would solve the problems inherent in the current system. Something like:

Pod 1: Bama - Auburn (Permanent Pods 2 & 5)
Pod 2: UT - UGA (Permanent Pods 1 & 4)
Pod 3: UF - USC (Permanent Pods 4 & 6)
Pod 4: UK - Vandy (Permanent Pods 2 & 3)
Pod 5: Miss - MSU (Permanent Pods 1 & 7)
Pod 6: LSU - ATM (Permanent Pods 3 & 7)
Pod 7: Ark - Mizzu (Permanent Pods 5 & 6)

Here's how it would work:

1. Each Pod consists of 2 arch-rivals who play each other the final weekend of the season.
2. Each Pod is paired up with 2 other Pods based on geography & tradition, to form each teams permanent annual schedule. That's 5 games every year that both Pod members share, that never change.

So with the example above, UT & UGA would both play these 4 teams every year: Bama, Auburn, Vandy and Kentucky, in addition to their season finale against each other. This example would take care of the UT-Bama & UGA-Auburn rivalries, as well as keeping the UT-Vandy inter-state rivalry alive.

3. Each Pod is then paired up with the remaining 4 Pods to form the rotating part of the schedule. That is, the 4 remaining SEC games.

So with the above, UT would play UF, Ole Miss, LSU and Arkansas, while UGA would play USC, MSU, ATM and Mizzu. Then the following year they would rotate.

4. Each team is awarded 1 point for a rotating schedule win, 2 points for a permanent schedule win, and 3 points for a win against their own Pod arch-rival. The 2 teams with the most accumulated points play for the SECC.

So that's 9 SEC games, all traditional rivalries are kept intact, and everybody plays everybody semiannually.

Could it work?
Click to expand...

Number 1 will not work. Not gonna get UF, USC, or UGA to give up their rivalry games at the end of the year. Also, if you're gonna go to a 9 game schedule why not just leave the divisions as they are?
 
#114
#114
Morpheus said:
Slow day so I got to thinking about possible solutions to the SEC's scheduling issues with 14 members, as it looks like it may be a while before they look at further expansion. Try this idea out...

Instead of 2 divisions of 7 teams each, maybe 7 pods of paired arch-rivalries would solve the problems inherent in the current system. Something like:

Pod 1: Bama - Auburn (Permanent Pods 2 & 5)
Pod 2: UT - UGA (Permanent Pods 1 & 4)
Pod 3: UF - USC (Permanent Pods 4 & 6)
Pod 4: UK - Vandy (Permanent Pods 2 & 3)
Pod 5: Miss - MSU (Permanent Pods 1 & 7)
Pod 6: LSU - ATM (Permanent Pods 3 & 7)
Pod 7: Ark - Mizzu (Permanent Pods 5 & 6)

Here's how it would work:

1. Each Pod consists of 2 arch-rivals who play each other the final weekend of the season.
2. Each Pod is paired up with 2 other Pods based on geography & tradition, to form each teams permanent annual schedule. That's 5 games every year that both Pod members share, that never change.

So with the example above, UT & UGA would both play these 4 teams every year: Bama, Auburn, Vandy and Kentucky, in addition to their season finale against each other. This example would take care of the UT-Bama & UGA-Auburn rivalries, as well as keeping the UT-Vandy inter-state rivalry alive.

3. Each Pod is then paired up with the remaining 4 Pods to form the rotating part of the schedule. That is, the 4 remaining SEC games.

So with the above, UT would play UF, Ole Miss, LSU and Arkansas, while UGA would play USC, MSU, ATM and Mizzu. Then the following year they would rotate.

4. Each team is awarded 1 point for a rotating schedule win, 2 points for a permanent schedule win, and 3 points for a win against their own Pod arch-rival. The 2 teams with the most accumulated points play for the SECC.

So that's 9 SEC games, all traditional rivalries are kept intact, and everybody plays everybody semiannually.

Could it work?
Click to expand...

I'll say you had a slow day but I actually don't think this is a bad idea. Only thing I don't like is the 3 points for pod arch-rival win. Either way good idea :good!:
 
#115
#115
ntxVOL said:
Number 1 will not work. Not gonna get UF, USC, or UGA to give up their rivalry games at the end of the year.
Click to expand...

3 votes out of 14 couldn't stop it, but I'm not so sure they wouldn't willingly accept it and move those games. This system might make them rethink "rivalry". Then again, as long as the big SEC season finale weekend was at least 2 weeks before the SECC game, they could continue those games if they wanted.

Also, if you're gonna go to a 9 game schedule why not just leave the divisions as they are?
Click to expand...

It doesn't feel like a conference when you go nearly a decade without playing one third of the conference teams.
 
#116
#116
Roustabout said:
NCState is a no brainer and was a better fit than either A&M or Mizzou geographically.
Great TV market. Makes no sense for the SOUTH eastern Conf. not to be in a preeminent southern state. And I wouldnt want those uppity NC fans.
Click to expand...

If the SEC goes to 16, I think NC State plus VA or VA Tech are the most likely adds. It would give the SEC the ideal geographical footprint including the DC/Northern VA media market. It would also be great for UT recruiting IMO.
 
#117
#117
Morpheus said:
It doesn't feel like a conference when you go nearly a decade without playing one third of the conference teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you just left the divisions as they are and went to a 9 game schedule wouldn't that solve the problem while maintaining the rivalries as they are now?

You could spread the home and away games such that you would play every team every 3 years.
 
#118
#118
gatorhater1509 said:
I'll say you had a slow day but I actually don't think this is a bad idea. Only thing I don't like is the 3 points for pod arch-rival win. Either way good idea :good!:
Click to expand...

Thanks. The point system could certainly be tweaked but my intent was to create a sense of higher importance, added weight to the rivalry games, which would make them even more intense. Could start the season with the rotating schedule first, then ramp up the intensity in the permanent schedule, and finish it off with a full weekend of 7 edge-of-your-seat, winner-takes-all, epic SEC battles to determine who plays for the championship. Gotta think it would be nearly impossible to make it to the SECC game if you lost your Pod game.

Anyway, its fun to dream on a slow day :hi:
 
#119
#119
Not a bad idea at all. I don't really care for the points system though. For example say LSU is undefeated and ranked #1 and Kentucky is 0-8, if UT beat both teams they would be awarded more points for beating UK than LSU.
 
#120
#120
ntxVOL said:
Yes, but if you just left the divisions as they are and went to a 9 game schedule wouldn't that solve the problem while maintaining the rivalries as they are now?

You could spread the home and away games such that you would play every team every 3 years.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that would work. 4 teams rotating into one game slot per year. I suppose they could play every 4th year but thats still a long time to wait for your return trip.
 
#121
#121
ATC_VOL said:
Not a bad idea at all. I don't really care for the points system though. For example say LSU is undefeated and ranked #1 and Kentucky is 0-8, if UT beat both teams they would be awarded more points for beating UK than LSU.
Click to expand...

Good point, how can we fix that?
 
#122
#122
Morpheus said:
Not sure how that would work. 4 teams rotating into one game slot per year. I suppose they could play every 4th year but thats still a long time to wait for your return trip.
Click to expand...

6 games vs division
1 game vs cross division rival
2 games left to rotate among other 6 teams.
--
9 games total

6 teams / 2 games = 3 year rotation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#123
#123
ntxVOL said:
6 games vs division
1 game vs cross division rival
2 games left to rotate among other 6 teams.
--
9 games total

6 teams / 2 games = 3 year rotation
Click to expand...

Ok I thought you were talking 2 permanent cross-division rivalries like we used to have, with one rotating.

I guess that would work, and probably what we ultimately will see. But it has significant flaws IMO. You have coaches upset at the imbalance in cross-division rivalries making the road tougher for some than others. That will always be a problem with that system.

The pod system would solve that problem, create a fair and balanced annual schedule for all teams, and it would promote those traditional rivalries even more. :clapping:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top