šŸˆ Will new SEC football divisions be as balanced as the past 20 years?

Final 20-year tally of six-team divisions shows remarkable parity.

It's out with the old, in with the new in SEC football Gone are six-team divisions that played out fairly evenly over 20 years. They're replaced by seven-team divisions -- Texas A&M in the West and Missouri in the East -- that raise new questions about division strength as SEC schedules become more unbalanced.

No one can predict the competitiveness of the divisions moving forward. For that matter, it's not even clear how long these divisions will stay intact. Outgoing LSU Chancellor Michael Martin said in June some schools still want different East and West divisional alignments and thinks it will be revisited in a year or two.

When asked if divisions could be revisited, SEC Executive Associate Commissioner Mark Womack said, "I think we'll continue to monitor all aspects of the conference scheduling process as we go forward." The SEC is in the process of building schedules for about the next four or five years after 2012, Womack said.

Read More Here...
 
In looking over the divisions, I really wish they would move Bama and da Barn to the east, and slide Mizzou to the west. The only so-called rivalry we would lose is LSU. I think that is more of a rivalry to them, than us, simply based off our hire of Saban. We could keep UA/AU and UA/UT rivalry games. While I know everything is cyclical it would balance out the power of the divisions some what too. Then the divisions would make geographical sense as well. This reminds me of the old MLB divisions when Atlanta was in the west division. Crazy.
 
In looking over the divisions, I really wish they would move Bama and da Barn to the east, and slide Mizzou to the west. The only so-called rivalry we would lose is LSU. I think that is more of a rivalry to them, than us, simply based off our hire of Saban. We could keep UA/AU and UA/UT rivalry games. While I know everything is cyclical it would balance out the power of the divisions some what too. Then the divisions would make geographical sense as well. This reminds me of the old MLB divisions when Atlanta was in the west division. Crazy.

Having Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and UT in one division vs LSU in another? I can't seen that as balancing out power.
 
As sucky as the east has been the past year or so, it would even things out for the time being. :pinkbiggrin: I'm sure it would be murder in the future on the east, but divisions are jacked up and that drives me crazy. Maybe do a north/south thing, but I think that will make it difficult to do. I see the Bama/Barn thing as a better option than no divisions like what they did with basketball. Granted it is more difficult because there are not as many football games as b-ball, but I have heard the no division thing thrown out there for football as well.
 
Looking at the SEC East today, I would not be shocked to see Missouri play in Atlanta in December...

If Missouri can beat Georgia in their 2nd game at home they will be half way there IMO.

You won't find a bone in my body that will be hurt if Mizzou beats UGA. That's because...

I. Don't. Like. Georgia.

Athlon's notion their defensive line is on par with UF, UofSC, and UGA? Seriously? :lance:
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
0
Views
577
SEC Sports
S
S
Replies
0
Views
2K
SEC Sports
S
S
Replies
0
Views
1K
SEC Sports
S
Back
Top Bottom