| FTBL Should SEC football go back to divisions?

[sean]

Now I've never been accused of being smart, but I think they should. I also think they should go to a 10-game conference schedule...7 games within your division, 2 cross-divisional games with permanent opponents, and 1 rotating cross-divisional opponent.

Move Auburn to the eastern division, and keep Texas and Oklahoma in the western division. That would give each division 8 schools.

For example: Alabama would have to play Arkansas, LSU, Miss St, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas, and aTm. Their 2 permanent cross-divisional opponents would be Auburn and Tennessee, leaving a rotating opponent picked from the remaining teams in the eastern division. And then play them on a home/home basis. That would leave 2 OOC games for each team for a total of 12 regular-season games.

Some may argue that it would take away money from smaller schools who count on that money from big schools (when a team like Kent State or North Texas plays Alabama or LSU or Georgia). Those smaller schools get paid up to (most times more) $1million to come play (and usually get beat). That's how they get the money to support their programs as they usually don't have the donors that a school like Alabama or Texas does.

Unfortunately, no systems is perfect. But I think this system would be the best for THIS conference.

 

[rammerjammer]

I saw a tweet this past week where someone said a "major" network was offering money to back a system where you had 7-10 team conferences. Similar to the way it used to be, but geographically sensible. The SEC would go back to pre 92 with the 10 main teams in the SEC.

The old SWC was back in the fold as well. I think that would be cool. You play everyone in your conference, still play teams from the other 70 in the major conferences, and then allow for a patsy or two to come in and make money.

I would love for it to go back to that. I think it would be a good meld between old/new with the 12 team play off.

 

[TerryP]

I saw a tweet this past week where someone said a "major" network was offering money to back a system where you had 7-10 team conferences. Similar to the way it used to be, but geographically sensible. The SEC would go back to pre 92 with the 10 main teams in the SEC.

The old SWC was back in the fold as well. I think that would be cool. You play everyone in your conference, still play teams from the other 70 in the major conferences, and then allow for a patsy or two to come in and make money.

I would love for it to go back to that. I think it would be a good meld between old/new with the 12 team play off.

Doug, we have no freakin' clue what will happen next year, or the year after. There isn't a sliver of a bone in my body that likes this. But, I can only sit back and watch. (And bitch, if I so choose.)

 

[24and7]

Yes… maybe four divisions from each direction..

 

[alabama mike]

I am going to have to give this some thought before I give an opinion. I know why think before speaking.

 

[sean]

I am going to have to give this some thought before I give an opinion. I know why think before speaking.

Yeah...I have that problem. I just can't seem to get a fix for it, though.

 

[MunchyOs]

Nahh. We don't need to go back to divisions. I always missed the pre 1992 era before there were divisions. I just got sick of hearing about how tough the west was. It really wasn't

 

[TerryP]

Nahh. We don't need to go back to divisions. I always missed the pre 1992 era before there were divisions. I just got sick of hearing about how tough the west was. It really wasn't

Compare division winners, and CCG winners, versus three teams that are tied for the SEC regular season title. It's the latter I don't like.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I saw a tweet this past week where someone said a "major" network was offering money to back a system where you had 7-10 team conferences. Similar to the way it used to be, but geographically sensible. The SEC would go back to pre 92 with the 10 main teams in the SEC.

The old SWC was back in the fold as well. I think that would be cool. You play everyone in your conference, still play teams from the other 70 in the major conferences, and then allow for a patsy or two to come in and make money.

I would love for it to go back to that. I think it would be a good meld between old/new with the 12 team play off.

| FTBL - A group of investors and ex-Disney executives have met with 30 athletic directors to pitch a new 70-school football league

rolltidebama.com

 

[Secondand26]

Everyone says if you win your league that you will get a bye.
I don't agree - playing the extra game for the league championship removes the "bye" in my opinion. You just play a week or so earlier.

 

[24and7]

If the SEC expands it will have to go to 4 Divisions and a Final four SEC champ game..otherwise not much will really get settled in a 20 - 24 team conference.. because you will have to have out of conference games too..
(expansions, and rumors of expansions)

 

[OldPlayer]

Everyone says if you win your league that you will get a bye.
I don't agree - playing the extra game for the league championship removes the "bye" in my opinion. You just play a week or so earlier.

If you win the conference championship game, you don’t play the next week. Hence, you have a bye. Eight other teams in the playoff are playing a game.

 

[Secondand26]

If you win the conference championship game, you don’t play the next week. Hence, you have a bye. Eight other teams in the playoff are playing a game.

But you are still playing the same number of games. Have the same chance of having injuries, etc… it’s not like they are playing back to back weeks in these playoffs

 

[OldPlayer]

But you are still playing the same number of games. Have the same chance of having injuries, etc… it’s not like they are playing back to back weeks in these playoffs

If a 5-12 ranked, non conference championship game participant team makes it to the finals, yes, they play the same number of games as a conference championship winner. But by winning a conference championship, a team gets the benefit of a bye to heal and plan. That 5-12 ranked, non conference championship game participant must play in back-to-back weeks to make it to the finals. In other words, the loser of the conference championship game could still make the playoff and play back-to-back weeks throughout the entire postseason. They would play one more game than everybody else.

 

[Secondand26]

If a 5-12 ranked, non conference championship game participant team makes it to the finals, yes, they play the same number of games as a conference championship winner. But by winning a conference championship, a team gets the benefit of a bye to heal and plan. That 5-12 ranked, non conference championship game participant must play in back-to-back weeks to make it to the finals. In other words, the loser of the conference championship game could still make the playoff and play back-to-back weeks throughout the entire postseason. They would play one more game than everybody else.

True. So not qualifying for your conference championship (and getting in playoffs) is better than making the conference championship & losing

* I still say that having a conference championship game is disadvantage - kinda like the 1st one was - lose to UF & there is no natty in 1992