🏈 ESPN: The SEC should fight to get rid of divisions

[Bamabww]

• Edward Aschoff, College Football

Last week, we tackled the subject of a college football world without divisions. A Big 12 takeover, if you will.

And while I think the Big 12 proved in 2014 that it isn't exactly the model conference the rest of college football should imitate, the league does have a point when it comes to divisions: Get. Rid. Of. Them.

With deregulation such a hot topic in college football, I think it's time for the SEC to seriously consider getting on board and pushing to rid the sport of divisions all together. It's 2015, the sports world is evolving, and there's no reason to even have divisions anymore in college football.

While the SEC took a revolutionary step forward in creating divisions and a conference championship in 1992, it's time to take another step along the evolutionary ladder and blow up the division idea. You can even keep your conference championship game -- until the College Football Playoff ultimately expands.

Doing away with divisions in the SEC shouldn't impact coaches Les Miles and Nick Saban facing off against each other. Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images

With all due respect to my esteemed colleague Alex Scarborough, I think he's wrong when it comes to the SEC stepping aside from the thought of ditching divisions. He brings up some valid points about the road to the playoff being tougher for the conference without divisions and the fact that rebuilding jobs in the SEC would be made that much tougher, especially for current SEC Eastern Division teams, but I just combat that with the fact it's Division I football.

This ain't intramurals.

Yes, if you took away divisions, the SEC could see itself taking a tougher, muddier road to the College Football Playoff, but in reality the SEC is already incredibly tough to get through. The league had 12 bowl teams last year and is still coming down from those seven straight national titles. I get how tough this league is year in and year out, but we really are cheapening the experience for these kids by not providing them more variety in their opponents.

Alabama coach Nick Saban has been a big proponent of having players being able to play every team in the SEC during their four-year stay on campus. I completely agree, and if you take away divisions, you can have that.

So I'm just going to lay out this plan that popped into my head. It came with minutes of thinking and a little pen and pad action, so you know it's foolproof.

Here goes:

If you take away divisions, you can keep traditional rivalries and bring back some oldies. Remember Auburn-Florida? How about Ole Miss-Tennessee? Hello, Auburn-Tennessee! Hey, it was fun having South Carolina and Arkansas play every year, let's bring that back, too!

You could get all those games back without jeopardizing Alabama-Auburn, Florida-Georgia or Ole Miss-Mississippi State. So if you have eight conference games (which, come on, can the conference just go on ahead and move to nine league games?), you have four permanent opponents. Florida could play Auburn, Georgia, LSU and Tennessee every year, then have four rotating opponents each year. No more waiting nearly 10 years to play Arkansas!

Georgia can have Auburn, Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee. Alabama can have Auburn, LSU, Tennessee and, oh I don't know, how about Ole Miss? There are endless possibilities with this. And for anyone who says a team could get bombarded with a disproportionate schedule every year, I present you the current state of the SEC West.

Now, fans would get even better matchups more consistently. And players love the tougher games. They aren't scared.

Alabama-Georgia, LSU-South Carolina, Auburn-Missouri! I mean, this is just too good to be true (hence why it's my vision). If you have nine conference games, then the league could discuss whether to have four or five permanent opponents; whatever!

Basically, take the top two conference records and throw them in Atlanta. You have your normal tiebreakers and finish things off with CFP rankings if it gets to that point.

I must admit, the league has gotten it right in Atlanta for the most part over the past decade. Since the 2002 season, the SEC has only had five instances when the East opponent would have been left out of Atlanta because of conference record or BCS standings. But this way, you have no room for error.

Without divisions, you get better matchups, you keep traditional rivalries, you're guaranteed to get the two best teams in Atlanta every year, and it makes the SEC that much stronger/tougher in the eyes of the college football playoff committee. Seems logical."

 

[TerryP]

Hey, it was fun having South Carolina and Arkansas play every year, let's bring that back, too!

Geez, I can't recall watching UofSC play Arkansas. Yes, I know they did! But calling that fun? For whom? Where?

BTW, the one thing I haven't seen laid out with ideas like this is how you handle tie-breakers. I can easily see having one undefeated team, two teams with one loss (to the same opponent) and it coming down to something like total points scored against...

It's the off-season—a time replete with people suggesting changes but no suggestions in the nuts and bolts of those changes.

 

[sean]

Geez, I can't recall watching UofSC play Arkansas. Yes, I know they did! But calling that fun? For whom? Where?

BTW, the one thing I haven't seen laid out with ideas like this is how you handle tie-breakers. I can easily see having one undefeated team, two teams with one loss (to the same opponent) and it coming down to something like total points scored against...

It's the off-season—a time replete with people suggesting changes but no suggestions in the nuts and bolts of those changes.

that's the good part of being a sports reporter (or just about any other reporter, for that matter). you get to come up with issues and problems but don't have to worry about solving them.

they have no accountability for anything they say. they just spit out crap in hopes that people will call into their show or post on their twitter/facebook page just so they can say, "hey, look how many followers i have, i must be doing/saying something credible".

it's all about ego and money to most of them.

 

[psychojoe]

To borrow from Mark Cuban on Shark Tank, the writer is solving a problem that does not exist.

 

[rick4bama]

@psychojoe he may get paid by the word too,and this is what he came up with. You know no one want this to happen, Bama would just get more SEC.:bigaldance:

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

I suppose this will be a great article to archive that can be pulled out when divisions become a problem. But for now, this is just in the category of random thoughts.

 

[rammerjammer]

Being anal retentive and wanting structure........I really wish they would put teams in geographically correct locations. Mizzou in the east chaps my fanny.

I think they should re-draw lines and it would be easier to do a north/south division.

 

[TerryP]

I think they should re-draw lines and it would be easier to do a north/south division.

With two permanent opponents, I could easily live with this. Travel for A&M would seem to be an issue.

 

[psychojoe]

Putting Vandy in would put us in the Southern, but from a travel perspective no worse than what it is now.

 

[TerryP]

Putting Vandy in would put us in the Southern, but from a travel perspective no worse than what it is now.

Welp, that goes to show how much time is spent considering Vandy as one of our conference members. I didn't even realize they weren't included in that map. :shock:

 

[mrchase]

Lady Vols..... Lol

 

[rammerjammer]

Soooooo, with Vandy added, you throw Georgia in the south and that will even both sides out. Then you only really have to worry about one cross division rivalry. Ours would be da'Barn and Ole Siss would be MSU.

I think that us and da'Barn are the only two teams that have a true old fashion rivalry with an (as it is now) cross division opponent. Bama/UT and AU/UGA. Those would be remedied with the north-south divisions.

 

[TerryP]

@rammerjammer I'd hate to lose LSU off the schedule which is why I'd like to see two permanents in my scenario.

 

[rammerjammer]

Yeah, I totally missed that. Makes sense, and still very doable with 2 cross division opponents. We need to get Sankey to make this an initiative once he takes over for Slive.

 

[bama alum]

Soooooo, with Vandy added, you throw Georgia in the south and that will even both sides out. Then you only really have to worry about one cross division rivalry. Ours would be da'Barn and Ole Siss would be MSU.

I think that us and da'Barn are the only two teams that have a true old fashion rivalry with an (as it is now) cross division opponent. Bama/UT and AU/UGA. Those would be remedied with the north-south divisions.

I don't give a rat's ass about either school, but if this debate came up, a lot of UThug and UF fans would whine about their lost game. UTurd can't play both Bama and UF in this scenario. I do think this scenario is a much fairer shake for Mizzou who has never belonged in the East.

 

[musso]

BTW, the one thing I haven't seen laid out with ideas like this is how you handle tie-breakers. I can easily see having one undefeated team, two teams with one loss (to the same opponent) and it coming down to something like total points scored against...

I've been arguing the same for a while, especially since the playoff became inevitable. I go further though: let's eliminate conference championship games. But that's a proposal that never goes over well on here. But let's face it, the divisions were intended to facilitate conference title games.

But to Terry's question, was it really so bad back in the day when conference titles were occasionally shared? Could not the computers, polls, and/or committee decide the team(s) most deserving of play-off invitations?

I just don't see how the elimination of divisions makes anything more complicated. However I do see how it eliminates arbitrary barriers to desirable rivalries.