🏈 rollbamaroll: Nope. Wrong. RT @KevinScarbinsky: Time for the SEC to take away Alabama's annual guara

[TerryP]

Which is why rotating one off annually would not even be considered. What you have would have Bama playing UGA 6 times in 10 years and the rest of them only 4 times. And I don't think they are going to let Bama play 4 of the 6 at home and only 2 on the road in the fifth and sixth years.

However, you may have hit on a method whereby the permanent opponent would be played more often than the others. Your format would be perfect for the barn. Switch UGA and ut and you have Bama's. Switch UGA and UF and you have LSU's. Etc.

That's a damn good point here 252!

 

[rammerjammer]

I don't have a problems with doing away with the traditional cross-division rivalries, but the way Scab whines about it makes me want to throat punch him.

While Bama leads the series with UT by about 10 games....the series has been extremely streaky.
While UGA has been handing Auburn their ass for the past decade, That series is essentially tied.

I still think if they are going to change things up, they should look at re-doing the boundaries to North/South. I heard an option of doing away with divisions altogether and have the top 2 teams (in conference) meet in Atlanta.....I'm not sure how that would work out. Something to look at, but I think most folks like the divisions.

 

[TerryP]

I don't have a problems with doing away with the traditional cross-division rivalries, but the way Scab whines about it makes me want to throat punch him.

While Bama leads the series with UT by about 10 games....the series has been extremely streaky.
While UGA has been handing Auburn their ass for the past decade, That series is essentially tied.

I still think if they are going to change things up, they should look at re-doing the boundaries to North/South. I heard an option of doing away with divisions altogether and have the top 2 teams (in conference) meet in Atlanta.....I'm not sure how that would work out. Something to look at, but I think most folks like the divisions.

With not a lot of thought put in to that suggestion, it would seem that would bring in tie-breaker rules that would be six and seven steps deep, ya know?

In a 14 team conference it's not out of the realm of possibilities for two teams to be tied without facing each other, it boil down to something as arbitrary as points scored in a ball game. Do we want to have a tie breaker decided between two offensive systems where they may differ that much. Think about that a second. Last year we beat Auburn 49-0, what if the tie was with a team that won 50-0? But, the same team struggled to beat Arkansas and Mizzou, would that be fair?

Do we want a conference tie-breaker decided by virtue of polls? I've never cared for that option.

People continue to say other conferences and possessions of the media rights for each school have put stop to the conference jumping. I don't know.

Re-arranging schools within divisions? As much as some dislike Auburn, do they really feel that way strongly enough to make that a game we only see once every five or six years?

 

[252BAMA]

With not a lot of thought put in to that suggestion, it would seem that would bring in tie-breaker rules that would be six and seven steps deep, ya know?

In a 14 team conference it's not out of the realm of possibilities for two teams to be tied without facing each other, it boil down to something as arbitrary as points scored in a ball game. Do we want to have a tie breaker decided between two offensive systems where they may differ that much. Think about that a second. Last year we beat Auburn 49-0, what if the tie was with a team that won 50-0? But, the same team struggled to beat Arkansas and Mizzou, would that be fair?

Do we want a conference tie-breaker decided by virtue of polls? I've never cared for that option.

People continue to say other conferences and possessions of the media rights for each school have put stop to the conference jumping. I don't know.

Re-arranging schools within divisions? As much as some dislike Auburn, do they really feel that way strongly enough to make that a game we only see once every five or six years?

The rule requires divisions, and the SEC has a snowball's chance in hell of getting it changed. The rule was never intended for 1A and the NCAA had a meltdown when the SEC expanded and used the rule to have a CG. No way the rule is ever changed if the SEC is requesting the change.

 

[rammerjammer]

TP, I'm with you on the points thing and see where that would piss a lot of people off in a hurry. Sort of like the way the big 12 played out a few years back. I think Texas was the benefactor of that set up.....

If we were to go North and South I think it could be done and still keep Bama and the Barn in the same division, without any problem. I think the Aubs might would lose UGA and we would possibly lose UT, but we could pick up UF........Basically make the Tennessee line the border.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Miss St, Ole Miss, LSU, aTm
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mizzou, USCjr, UT, Vandy

Those divisions would make more logical sense, especially if we do away with cross division rivalries on a 9 game schedule.

Having said all that. I think we could maintain our cross division with UT and rotate the 2 others in the opposite division with a home/home rotation much like what has been done and that would allow you to play all the schools before you leave (unless you leave in 3 years).

Once we go to 16 team super conferences.....all bets are off. I think we will have to do the 9 game conference schedule and rotate 3 from the opposing division and rotate them on and off in a home/home series.

 

[TerryP]

The rule requires divisions, and the SEC has a snowball's chance in hell of getting it changed. The rule was never intended for 1A and the NCAA had a meltdown when the SEC expanded and used the rule to have a CG. No way the rule is ever changed if the SEC is requesting the change.

I know it requires 12 teams. Whether it's specific enough to also state it requires divisions? That may be true: I've not seen it.

 

[TerryP]

TP, I'm with you on the points thing and see where that would piss a lot of people off in a hurry. Sort of like the way the big 12 played out a few years back. I think Texas was the benefactor of that set up.....

If we were to go North and South I think it could be done and still keep Bama and the Barn in the same division, without any problem. I think the Aubs might would lose UGA and we would possibly lose UT, but we could pick up UF........Basically make the Tennessee line the border.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Miss St, Ole Miss, LSU, aTm
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mizzou, USCjr, UT, Vandy

Those divisions would make more logical sense, especially if we do away with cross division rivalries on a 9 game schedule.

Having said all that. I think we could maintain our cross division with UT and rotate the 2 others in the opposite division with a home/home rotation much like what has been done and that would allow you to play all the schools before you leave (unless you leave in 3 years).

Once we go to 16 team super conferences.....all bets are off. I think we will have to do the 9 game conference schedule and rotate 3 from the opposing division and rotate them on and off in a home/home series.

There's one aspect you haven't touched on here but do bring to mind. It's something a lot of fans don't take into consideration. They'll beat around the point, but not in the terms I suspect it'll be looked at within the SEC ranks.

The "haves" and "have not's."

That isn't my terminology. It is how the SEC schools' administrators referred to schools when the original divisional split was instituted in the early '90's. They purposefully took the "haves" and split them. (Haves= schools with a lot of demonstrated success from their athletic departments.) That's why we saw a three and three split with LSU, Bama, and Auburn falling in the West.

Sure, it's almost geographical if you take a few turns with your dividing line for Auburn and Vandy.

I had an LSU fan suggest moving Bama and Auburn to the east and moving Vandy and Mizzou to the west. He said, "here's a simple solution." Well, it's not.

Now, you'd be left with Bama, AU, UGA, UF, and UT all in the east and leaving LSU as the lone original member of the six in the west. I'm sure LSU fans would love that. I am equally sure UofSC fans would hate it.

It would make sense geographically, but the conference isn't divided that way.

Back to your thoughts on N and S. Yes, I'd agree with the notion. But, here again it's going to have to be split differently. In your case we're putting UF, LSU, Bama, and Auburn in the south versus two of those original six in the north.

(There's room for argument that UofSC and A&M might be part of the "haves" at this point. But, demonstrable proof isn't there yet.)

Keep in mind what the B1G has done in this story.

They were right to pick names for the divisions that weren't geographical when the split. The were stupidly wrong when they chose the names they did.

Now, going to the east and west it makes more sense. But, then we see they've put Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State in the same division. That leaves a murderous row of schools like Purdue, Iowa, Illinois, or Minnesota for a team like Wisconsin or Nebraska to navigate through to get to the championship game.

That's far from an equitable division in my eyes.

 

[rammerjammer]

Good points on the haves vs the have-nots, but this goes in cycles as well. I think the first 4 years of the SECCG it was Alabama and Florida. Basically through the 90's in the East it was Florida/UT then the other 4. A lot can be said for the west. Bama/LSU then AU/LSU. It goes in cycles and if you try to go off the basis of those that compete and those that don't.......I think we miss it somewhat. LSU has been "back" ever since Saban arrived there and that has been about 15 years that they have maintained. Before his arrival LSU was a suck hole. There again, cycles. I agree that Ole Miss, MSU, UK, Vandy have been proverbial bottom dwellers, and the last thing we need is a division of patsies that a power-house such as Bama or an LSU could stroll through.

I know there is a happy medium in there somewhere and it may be an issue to address in the future. I think it is just a matter of time before we see 4, 16 team super conferences. I saw an article last week talking about the stipend and possibility of separating the top 64 teams with "money" that can afford to pay the stipend. Keep the FBS with the 116 team or whatever it is now, but denote the top 64 as yet a division of the FBS and allow those top 4 conferences to pay the stipends......If that happens I wonder what will be the 4? SEC, B1G, PAC, and ACC?

 

[TerryP]

Good points on the haves vs the have-nots, but this goes in cycles as well. I think the first 4 years of the SECCG it was Alabama and Florida. Basically through the 90's in the East it was Florida/UT then the other 4. A lot can be said for the west. Bama/LSU then AU/LSU. It goes in cycles and if you try to go off the basis of those that compete and those that don't.......I think we miss it somewhat. LSU has been "back" ever since Saban arrived there and that has been about 15 years that they have maintained. Before his arrival LSU was a suck hole. There again, cycles. I agree that Ole Miss, MSU, UK, Vandy have been proverbial bottom dwellers, and the last thing we need is a division of patsies that a power-house such as Bama or an LSU could stroll through.

Even in the cycles, the teams have remained the same. It's that point, with 22 years to look back upon, that leads me to believe the SEC administrators will continue with the standards in place.

In terms of those six teams there is only one team that could make an argument they are one of the upper echelon: Arkansas. The 'Backs have been in the SECCG three times and could point to Auburn and say they've been four times, we're on the same level. That's true, but only partially considering Arkansas has lost the SECCG all three times and Auburn sits at 2-2.

It's indisputable that the top six have won the SECCG every time its been played. Given the point out of the 44 individual teams that have made it to ATL, 89% of the time it's been one of those six? It's hard to argue against keeping it the way it is in terms of how they are split.

If you consider the N and S split suggested earlier it gives that northern division 14 of the 44 appearances.

In a way it's about like the suggestion of moving Alabama and Auburn east, Vandy and Mizzou west like some LSU fans want. Now we'd be looking at a situation (based purely on results as they are on the field) with LSU in ATL how many times in a row?

I know there is a happy medium in there somewhere and it may be an issue to address in the future. I think it is just a matter of time before we see 4, 16 team super conferences. I saw an article last week talking about the stipend and possibility of separating the top 64 teams with "money" that can afford to pay the stipend. Keep the FBS with the 116 team or whatever it is now, but denote the top 64 as yet a division of the FBS and allow those top 4 conferences to pay the stipends......If that happens I wonder what will be the 4? SEC, B1G, PAC, and ACC?

Going back to the main subject of this thread originally, LSU's woes:

I realize they've had the toughest team in the east to deal with based on records. UT is in a down period now but even if they weren't UF has been to the SECCG twice as many times.

Is there a happy medium? I haven't seen one suggested that makes everyone happy.

The big four conferences? Geography says the ACC should stay. Success says the Big12 should be one. We could have a N, S, E, and W division with 64!

 

[252BAMA]

I know it requires 12 teams. Whether it's specific enough to also state it requires divisions? That may be true: I've not seen it.

I can't find the rule. But here is a reference to it prior to the Big 10 expansion.

"Delany says expansion is not on the radar for the Big Ten and said the league would have to have better reasons than just playing a conference title game. NCAA rules prohibit leagues from playing a title game unless they have at least 12 members, split into two divisions."

http://newsok.com/an-unlikely-champ-for-big-ten-expansion-paterno/article/3772547/?page=1

 

[TerryP]

I can't find the rule. But here is a reference to it prior to the Big 10 expansion.

"Delany says expansion is not on the radar for the Big Ten and said the league would have to have better reasons than just playing a conference title game. NCAA rules prohibit leagues from playing a title game unless they have at least 12 members, split into two divisions."

http://newsok.com/an-unlikely-champ-for-big-ten-expansion-paterno/article/3772547/?page=1

With more than ample reason, I look at anything Delaney says with skepticism.

However, I've got a lot of respect for the author of the article you linked. If he was wrong, Berry would have pointed it out.

 

[252BAMA]

With more than ample reason, I look at anything Delaney says with skepticism.

However, I've got a lot of respect for the author of the article you linked. If he was wrong, Berry would have pointed it out.

I am positive that it requires divisions because it stands to reason that if it didn't someone would be doing it without divisions.

With that said, I doubt if the NCAA had the foresight to require that it be the same divisions each year. Here is a solution that rotates divisions as well as opponents and accomplishes everything:

http://theroommateswitch.wordpress.com/

Edit: This confirms the division requirement as well. He says:

• Maintains 2 round-robin DIVISIONS for the SEC Championship Game under existing NCAA rules.

 

[planomateo]

First off, nice link for the scheduling stuff, I'm a visual person so it helps me conceptualize it.



I always assumed the rule was that a conference of 12 teams or more had to have a conference championship game...not that it had to be split into divisions of equal teams.

That being said, I found something that might address it, although I'm not sure how to read this, as it doesn't specifically mandate two divisions.

---

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/bylawSearch?bylawSearchSubmit=Get%20Selected%20Items&multiple=20695&division=1&adopted=0

17.9.5.2


(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

---

This can also be found in the NCAA Division 1 Manual on page 271

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D113.pdf

 

[252BAMA]

First off, nice link for the scheduling stuff, I'm a visual person so it helps me conceptualize it.



I always assumed the rule was that a conference of 12 teams or more had to have a conference championship game...not that it had to be split into divisions of equal teams.

That being said, I found something that might address it, although I'm not sure how to read this, as it doesn't specifically mandate two divisions.

---

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/bylawSearch?bylawSearchSubmit=Get%20Selected%20Items&multiple=20695&division=1&adopted=0

17.9.5.2


(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

---

This can also be found in the NCAA Division 1 Manual on page 271

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D113.pdf

Read again. I don't think it could be any more specific. "......divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;"

Not only does it specify two divisions, it requires round-robin play in each of those two divisions. Meaning, if you had a 26 team conference, in order to play a CG, you would have to have two 13 team divisions playing a 12 conference game round-robin schedule in each of those divisions.

The rule was meant to allow the CG to be played, not mandate it be played.

 

[planomateo]

Yeah, I saw that but wasn't sure how that could be interpreted. I didn't catch it as mandated...I guess I read it as 12 + two divisions, not necessarily if 12+, then you must have two divisions.

---

Bunch of chicken shits...I hate quoting Clay Travis.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Spurrier says the vote in favor of keeping an 8 game SEC schedule was 13-1.</p>&mdash; Clay Travis (@ClayTravisBGID) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClayTravisBGID/status/339824539137613825">May 29, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[252BAMA]

Nothing new. If Bama is for it then everyone else is against. Coach Bryant was going to sponsor GT's request to rejoin the SEC. I don't think he ever found anyone to second the motion.