Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

Pat Dye wants to move Auburn to the SEC East and Missouri to the West....

2»

Comments

  • bobbypiperbobbypiper Posts: 146 ✭✭✭ Junior

    I think having Auburn would help the east. As it stands the east is looked at as a second tier league. Granted recent play hasn't helped. But let's just say Kirby turns UGA around, with the play of the rest of the east the polls would hurt.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dawgnms said:

    @JayDog said:

    @dawgnms said:
    I say expand by 2 more teams then talk about moving teams around and play a 9 game SEC schedule. Even with the 14 we have now should be playing 9 games in conference.

    I have always thought this is a good way to go. However, to play devil's advocate, if we did that and other conferences loaded up with cupcakes--we would kill each other off and might lose poll recognition. Might even hurt our chances to get two teams in the top four.

    We should change the MNC to a real championship. Teams play majority of games in the conference (maintaining a few out of conference rivalries) and then conference champions play each other in a tournament. No need to worry about rankings then--just seeding.

    8-12 team playoff using 1st and 2nd tier Bowl Games as the play in games to the NC. Could even expand it to 16 teams go back to a 10 game schedule (9 conference and 1 Major or Mid Major, make that a requirement to get in the playoff) use the bowls as play in and rotate the NC game as it is now between the top tier bowls. But Disney would never go for cutting back on the regular season so it is moot. The best we can ever hope for is 6 or maybe even a 8 team playoff with an extra game or 2 added because that means more $$$$$$ for.............Disney and the Conferences......

    I favor the 16 team format. It allows the major conferences to place a team in the tournament. Anything less--anything that allows a committee to decide who is in--and we will be playing for the Mythical National Championship. I don't see why ESPN/Disney would not want such a format. Every regular season game would truly matter. No more wasted games playing teams who are physically outclassed. If we played every team in our division once it still allows for classic rivalries and out of conference games. I believe there would be just as much money involved-if they could learn the formula for hyping the games.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @moos said:

    @levander said:

    And it would be cool to get to play a different cross-division rival from the West instead of Auburn. UGA is a big name team. I bet we'd get a good team. I just looked and Missouri's cross division rival is Arkansas! I'd love to play Arkansas every year. Lot of history and pride behind that team.

    Maybe states that are physically located closer to Missouri would get more excited about playing them?

    How much money would it save on transportation costs for road games? Would it mean the difference between leasing a plane and being able to bus the team for many games?

    IMO, the cross division rival thing is overblown. The only reason we have one is because Auburn was our rival waaayy before the 1990 expansion that broke the SEC into divisions. Tennessee and Vanderbilt were both places in the East to preserve thier rivalry. The main problem with moving only Auburn to the East, as has been pointed out, is that the Iron Bowl becomes a cross division game.

    Adding more teams and moving both Alabama AND Auburn to the East would solve that as Alabama also has a rivalry with Tennessee that would be preserved in that scenario.

    Imo, moving both of the Alabama teams to the East would require bringing a traditional power, or two, into the West to keep any sort of balance. OK and OK State fit that bill. Texas and a team-to-be-named-later would also work.

    Imo, the Big 12 doesn't exist inside of 10 years.

    Cross division rivalries seem to make the networks money--so they are favored in coverage.

    I love the idea of moving Alabama and Auburn to the East. So we move Mizzou to the West. That means we'd need to move another team there as well. I'm thinking Mississippi because they are the stronger team. However, as you say, competitive balance is still a concern. That would require two teams be added to the conference--one to the West and East.

    To the West--agreed--Texas would be a great addition. We'd have Texas and Texas A&M in the same division. If not Texas, then Oklahoma.

    To the East -- Who do we add there? Another Florida school? Georgia Southern?

  • moosmoos Posts: 1,910 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited May 2017

    @JayDog said:

    Cross division rivalries seem to make the networks money--so they are favored in coverage.

    I love the idea of moving Alabama and Auburn to the East. So we move Mizzou to the West. That means we'd need to move another team there as well. I'm thinking Mississippi because they are the stronger team. However, as you say, competitive balance is still a concern. That would require two teams be added to the conference--one to the West and East.

    To the West--agreed--Texas would be a great addition. We'd have Texas and Texas A&M in the same division. If not Texas, then Oklahoma.

    To the East -- Who do we add there? Another Florida school? Georgia Southern?

    The ultimate coup as far as big names to the SEC would be getting both Texas and Oklahoma.

    Cord cutting and streaming is changing the value proposition the TV deals that ESPN originally struck, and some have said it's the main reason behind the recent cuts there. So as these deals come up for renewal, the schools and conferences may opt to get their revenue elsewhere.

    If/when the big 12 does collapse, I think it would be for that reason. Thus it also stands to reason that there'd be some major realignment across the board over a couple of years. The power 5 might drop all the way to the power 3. This would mean that some schools in the Eastern time zone would be open to leaving their current conferences and coming to the SEC East. Of course, the SEC would be selective based on the value add. They're not going to dilute themselves by splitting​ a similar size bucket of money across more schools.

    Long story short, it might not be a cupcake school.

    This would also mean that some weak power 5 schools would fall down to G5 or become independent.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @moos -- interesting take. I had not considered how adding teams might dilute revenues. However, that I do think that would be temporary as the new format solidifies. I know ESPN's and the University presidents fear changing the landscape, but it is changing anyway.

  • dbrown7494dbrown7494 Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I personally don't like the whole let's get 16 teams. Honestly 8 is enough. Until someone can find me a 16 seed that is actually really good and can compete with a 1 seed. I think 8 is just enough and typically the top 8 are very competitive and close in ranking only separated by a few things. I would be worried about not having competitive games. I think playing bowl games should be eliminated and it be home field advantage for playoff. Could you imagine a Sanford stadium having to host a Ohio st., Texas, or a USC on a Saturday in Athens. This would give great match ups. Also makes the regular season matter more. I would allow 1-4 to host and hired seed after that. I would do tickets like pro teams with season ticket holder get first dibs and then open to public. Not this split the stadium in half junk. I would also say let's have playoff games every weekend in December. Not this take 2 weeks. Do the 2 week thing for national championship game.

    Now conference wise I would have the Big 12 dissolve. So we only have 4 power conferences. I would add Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Move Auburn and Bama to the East. Also probably swap Missouri and Mississippi st. ( MSU is similar to Auburn in closeness to the East. Probably move a 9 game conference schedule and 3 non conference which 1 would have to be a power 4 team. (Tech) The 9 game would be across the board in college football, along with the one power 4 team. The other 2 games can be whoever. Which I would hope would be "cupcakes" games because they need the big schools money to keep their programs a float. (It would be for the good of college football.)This would preserve many rivilary games. Even would allow Texas to play either Texas Tech, TCU, or Baylor. They could even rotate them if they want to. Also this would renew Texas vs Texas A&m which needs to happen for the good of college football. Then this would allow Oklahoma to play oka st.
    Now I do believe for the guys outside of the top 8 should be in bowl games. They could even play these games during the week we could easily move these to the week after Christmas and the week before the champion game.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dbrown7494 said:
    I personally don't like the whole let's get 16 teams. Honestly 8 is enough. Until someone can find me a 16 seed that is actually really good and can compete with a 1 seed. I think 8 is just enough and typically the top 8 are very competitive and close in ranking only separated by a few things. I would be worried about not having competitive games. I think playing bowl games should be eliminated and it be home field advantage for playoff. Could you imagine a Sanford stadium having to host a Ohio st., Texas, or a USC on a Saturday in Athens. This would give great match ups.

    App State can beat Alabama on any given day. The saving grace of a 16 team playoff is the winners are conference champions. The potential for great match ups would abound.

    The weakness of 8 team playoff is it still involves rankings and would shut out a lot of FBS conferences. So it would still yield a mythical "national" champion.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dbrown7494 said:
    Now conference wise I would have the Big 12 dissolve. So we only have 4 power conferences. I would add Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Move Auburn and Bama to the East. Also probably swap Missouri and Mississippi st. ( MSU is similar to Auburn in closeness to the East. Probably move a 9 game conference schedule and 3 non conference which 1 would have to be a power 4 team. (Tech) The 9 game would be across the board in college football, along with the one power 4 team. The other 2 games can be whoever. Which I would hope would be "cupcakes" games because they need the big schools money to keep their programs a float. (It would be for the good of college football.)This would preserve many rivilary games. Even would allow Texas to play either Texas Tech, TCU, or Baylor. They could even rotate them if they want to. Also this would renew Texas vs Texas A&m which needs to happen for the good of college football. Then this would allow Oklahoma to play oka st.

    I like the conference realignment you propose. While it is noble (I think) to want to help the FCS schools (by beating the crap out of them), I'm not sure continuing that is best. I lean toward having one such game to begin the season as a tune up with the other being a classic rivalry.

  • dbrown7494dbrown7494 Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JayDog when I said 2 "cupcakes" this was also meaning teams like Georgia Southern (never will be a cupcake), FIU, FAU, and schools like that play in non power five. The FBS schools also do fall in this category. Plus in the SEC how I would have it aligned you would want 2 easier teams just so you can relax a couple weeks out of the year.

    Also I still think 16 is too many. You want the best in college football 16 is like letting anyone in. At the end of most years the 16 seed has four loses. Which to me means they have been beaten by the best in their conference in most cases.
    The "Cinderella team" still can get in with 8 teams but I prefer having the best in college football going at it. Typically the top 8 are the best and will be competitive with each other. If you take out rankings then the regular season wouldn't matter. You got to have rankings. 8 also allows a case for a Georgia vs Bama when both are ranked in top 4 someone not to get screwed in a conference championship game if they lose with 8. A lot of those conference don't deserve to be in a playoff due to strength on conference. Their chance comes with being a 8 or 7 seed if you want them in their.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dbrown7494 what I think ruins college football is the rankings. Often they are unfair. They don't always get it right. Competition head to head is the only way to name a true champion. Maybe there could be divisions of teams currently called FBS--like high schools. Though I don't see what criteria they would use.

  • dbrown7494dbrown7494 Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think you got to have rankings but redo the rankings. Where 85% of the value is strength of schedule and head to head. Which strength of schedule slides every week based off the teams on your schedule perform. Which makes teams winning matter through the whole year. With another 15% going to performance in game like blowing them out or closeness of game.

  • Silver_BritchesSilver_Britches Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited May 2017

    No! Leave everything as is. And good grief, PLEASE do not add anymore teams to the conference! I still can't get over the fact that we added Missouri and Texas A&M, two non-southeastern schools. If you MUST add other teams, get them from the southeast, for crying out loud. But yeah, I like things how they are. Leave it as is. :)

  • levanderlevander Posts: 4,481 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited May 2017

    Expanded playoffs is a dumb idea. What makes college football different is the pride and rivalries. Focusing on championships takes away from those.

    One of the greatest games I ever saw was Arkansas defeating LSU one year that LSU already had a spot on the SEC championship game sewn up. If they had had the current playoff system, much less a ridiculous 16 team playoff system, the smart thing for LSU to do would have been not to even play their starters. Just let the benchwarmers play.

    If you want a strict championship system, watch pro football.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 5,569 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    What I think is dumb is playing any kind of championships--especially a MNC--based on rankings of the news media. The current system is broken and has been broken by big TV money. Many of the sports at the college level play tournaments. College football should be no different. It is silly sentimentality to hold on to a broken system. With a playoff, many old rivalries would be maintained. If we really want to hold on to the status quo, then we should drop any pretense of a national championship and just play for pride. That's not going to happen either.

Sign In or Register to comment.