Commissioner Greg Sankey says SEC is 'leaning heavily' on moving away from 2-division model
The SEC is heavily leaning on moving away from a 2-division model.
www.saturdaydownsouth.com
16 teams
No Divisions?
Sankey Favors Abandoning Two-Division SEC
- Thread starter Finna_Go_HAM
- Start date
16 teams
No Divisions?
Why are y’all scared? I’m excited about getting to play other teams on a regular basis. We’ve feasted on a down SEC East, but those days are over. Time Stoops gets with the times or leaves!
This is no different than what we do in basketball.
This is no different than what we do in basketball.
Didn't read the linked article but, wondering how the SEC Championship game would be determined? Just #1 and #2 playing in Atlanta? That might not sit too well if the top two finishers are from the western side of the conference in the near future.
There won't be divisions so yeah, top 2 in standings.
If alabama and lsu have the best 2 records oh well, will be a great sec title game.
As a fan I want to be able to see different teams etc. will be interesting to see if they do this like basketball where some of the ‘who you play twice’ is based on creating interesting tv match ups and that lends itself to better teams getting games against better teams to improve the tv packaging. That could still put us with a manageable schedule if that’s the case. At the end of the day we gotta compete whatever it is even if they decide to just take care of the powers.
Am I off here but wouldn't ending divisions hive the SEC the opportunity to game the bowl system - or at least try. They would have scheduling freedom to try to increase overall win totals. You wouldn't want UK buried in some brutal schedule. Lighten it up with similar level teams. It could adjust easily each year.
Just a thought. (Probably a bad one)
Just a thought. (Probably a bad one)
No divisions. 16 teams.
9-game schedule.
3 permanent opponents (rivalry games). Every team plays every other team, home & away, in a 4-year stretch.
Two highest-ranked teams play in SECCG.
A lot to like, imo.
9-game schedule.
3 permanent opponents (rivalry games). Every team plays every other team, home & away, in a 4-year stretch.
Two highest-ranked teams play in SECCG.
A lot to like, imo.
Yeah and the same as scheduling for a 4 division system which I liked to get more rotating opponents. You just don’t actually have a division that determines anything.
I like that. For the three UK permanent opponents, I would like Vanderbilt, Missouri, and South Carolina. But we will only get one and get stuck with two of Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.
It's going to be the 3+6 model which I'm good with. Everyone will play everyone home and away every 4 yrs.
Tennessee Vanderbilt and South Carolina are who I want for our permanent football games.
Tennessee Vanderbilt and South Carolina are who I want for our permanent football games.
Going to be tough to do but that’s life and it changes. Feels like UT has to be a permanent. Other than that it’s all up for grabs for us. If they try to keep ‘rivalry’ games going the positive is we really only have ut as any kind of rivalry feel with a current good team and due to proximity.
Bamas would likely be auburn, ut and lsu
That's the system I would prefer. We just need to make sure our permanent opponents are Vandy, Missouri and South Carolina. 😁
Sankey is a liberal progressive Yankee moron.
I think they have to try to make the schedules somewhat comparable. I think UGA likely ends up with UF, AU and Crackolina, of course those are just guesses. I suppose Texas get OU, ATM and Arky who was a big rival in the old SWC.
I don't mind this concept, except the two teams playing for the championship won't be decided on the field but determined by people in an office in Birmingham. While they may not be Bama fans, they don't want their houses burned either if Bama isn't chosen as one of the top 2 teams. Get the SEC office out of Alabama, move to Charlotte
Last edited:
There is no way to assure equity in scheduling with this system. It will likely assure that the money schools get the advantages. I'm sure they've been in Sankey's ear or wallet already. This may end any chances of other schools unseating the historically top 4-5 football schools.
Maybe but does it really matter since the conference makeup will change every two years anyway?
There was never any chance of that.
And the bigger name schools are going to get tougher 3 permanent rivals so your argument doesn't really make sense.
I could always be wrong, but I suspect the rankings used in determining which two SEC teams play in the SECCG would most likely be the CFB Poll, in which case the SEC office would have minimal input.
As for permanent opponents, I'm only certain that UF would have UGA. I would love to have Auburn, as well. Auburn was our 2nd-longest rivalry. Then USC or UK or Tennessee would be fine.
Nice thing about this format is it allows annual games that would be impossible with divisional play, even 4 divisions. For instance, Alabama can maintain Auburn and Tennessee, UGA can keep UF & Auburn, etc.
wonder what the 16 universities prefer his is not the only vote.Commissioner Greg Sankey says SEC is 'leaning heavily' on moving away from 2-division model
The SEC is heavily leaning on moving away from a 2-division model.www.saturdaydownsouth.com
16 teams
No Divisions?
Disagree with picking (although we’ll have no real say in the matter) three weak teams to be in our pod. Then add thee cupcakes in the non-conference schedule. I know it gives us the best chance for wins but who really wants to see these crap teams each year? I understand we’ll see good teams in the other six games but I just don’t feeling like we have to schedule our way to a winning season. Let’s step it up!
Actually, the current system gives us inequities in scheduling AND the negative of some teams not facing each other for a decade or more. This is unfair to teams and fans.
With the 9-game SEC scheduling, there would be 3 permanent opponents, rivalry games played every year. I want to play our rivals every year, whether they are good or having a down cycle.
The other 6 games could be home & away in years 1 and 2, then switch to the other 6 teams (home & away) in years 3 and 4. OR, play the first 6 (non-permanent) teams in years 1 and 3, then the other 6 in years 2 and 4. Either way, you play everybody twice within 4 years, including a home and away game.
And if your 6 non-permanent opponents seem to tilt towards the stronger teams in a given year, then by necessity, the schedule will bless you with "weaker" teams in the next year or two.
Yep. It will get worse, too.
Just who is a "rival" changes over time if you play teams on a regular basis. If you only play them every 3 years or so, the potential "rivalry" is diluted. The way it is now, jusy who your rival was 10 years ago, may not be your rival 5 years from now, nor today.
Doesn't matter what I want, but I want to play the best teams in our conference but with balance in the SOS. IF I trusted the SEC to do that, (provide balance), I'd be more excited about the changes, but the scheduling is done before anyone knows where that balance needs to be.
If we had
- 4 divisions and rotated through the other divisions, we would at least have common opponents by which to judge the final order in the standings.
- no divisions and do 3-4 pods, tournament like scheduling, where the pods are redrawn and seeded each year, (like champions league or world cup soccer), I'd be in favor of that.
- 2 divisions and rotate 2 of 9 opponents from the other division is next in terms of preference for me.
There's a reason why conferences weren't this big for a century. I think it sets college football back 70 years in terms of parity and sportsmanship. Combine that with "NIL" (which is just "pay-to-play" in disguise) and I'm less and less inclined to watch as much as I have in years past.
Doesn't matter long term, of course. It's just a game/business.
I think there has to be some equity in the scheduling, as much as I dislike AU, I don't think they would be too excited with UF, UGA and Bama as their 3 opponents. Losing to UGA and Bama gets AU coaches fired pretty quick.
They will still stick us with the shitty teams. I’d love to play the good teams every year. Hate playing the same teams every year. It’s boring.
To compare SEC basketball to SEC football is ludacris . SEC basketball is improving but its not even comparable to what SEC is to college football .
I’d pass on trying to save rivalry games, because there aren’t that many good ones, and I’d want to set the schedule up to where everyone plays one another every 2 years.
Makes for more interesting match ups.
Makes for more interesting match ups.
That has been the case for awhile, but right now it's the opposite, East has 2 weakest and 2 strongest teams.
That will be fine till we get a year with Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama and Georgia all on the schedule.
Said that in an earlier post -- agree with you... a huge money maker (because everyone care about that, apparently), and how else are you gonna determine who plays in the BCS?
(Unless the SEC becomes the BCS!)
Similar threads
