SEC Realignment And Schedule Options – Part Three
October 21st, 2011 02:18 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Tags: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
When the SEC finally welcomes in a 14th member — and like everyone else we fully expect that 14th school to be Missouri — the league will face the incredibly important chore of realigning its divisions. The breakdown of that alignment will impact schedules, fan travel, competitive balance, and more than two dozen rivalries that have been played 60 or more times each.
Needless to say, the SEC had better get it right.
The league’s goal will no doubt be to protect as many traditional rivalries as possible. Also, you can count on the fact that the SEC will want to move as few teams as possible from their current divisional homes. The less change the better. Finally, competitive balance outweighed geography when the league broke into divisions in 1992. Geography might not be a big issue this time around, either.
Below, we’ll look at a number of different realignment options. We’ll see which plans protect the most often-played rivalries. We’ll examine the aforementioned idea of competitive balance. And we’ll discuss several other issues that will all be impacted by the league’s divisional alignment.
For reference, when we discuss competitive balance, we’ll talk about the SEC’s eight winningest programs by all-time winning percentage: Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Texas A&M and Arkansas.
For a breakdown of scheduling formats (5-1-2, 6-1-1, and 6-1-2) please read Part One of this series.
Also, here’s the list of SEC rivalries that have been played 60 or more times (and with Texas A&M joining the league next year, we include Texas A&M-Arkansas on our list of 23) which we covered in Part Two of this series:
Auburn-Georgia 114… Mississippi State-Ole Miss 107… Kentucky-Tennessee 106
Tennessee-Vanderbilt 105… LSU-Mississippi State 104… LSU-Ole Miss 98
Alabama-Mississippi State 95… Alabama-Tennessee 93… Florida-Georgia 88
Ole Miss-Vanderbilt 85… Auburn-Mississippi State 84… Kentucky-Vanderbilt 83
Auburn-Florida 82… Alabama-Vanderbilt 82… Alabama-Auburn 75
Alabama-LSU 74… Georgia-Vanderbilt 72… Arkansas-Texas A&M 67
Alabama-Georgia 65… Ole Miss-Tennessee 64… Georgia-Kentucky 64
Georgia-South Carolina 63… and Florida-Kentucky 61
To date, two plans have generated the most talk in league circles. Obviously we’ll discuss those plans, but for the sake of argument, we’ll also discuss two other plans that have been pushed by fans on messageboards and blogs. Let’s begin with the plan that’s caused the most discussion…
Realignment Option 1 — Auburn to the SEC East
| SEC West | SEC East |
| Alabama | Auburn |
| Arkansas | Florida |
| LSU | Georgia |
| Miss. State | Kentucky |
| Missouri | S. Carolina |
| Ole Miss | Tennessee |
| Texas A&M | Vanderbilt |
If the SEC uses an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format, these old rivalries will not be played: Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Mississippi State, Alabama-Vanderbilt (not played now), Alabama-Georgia (not played now), and Ole Miss-Tennessee (not played now).
Old rivalries reborn with an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format: Auburn-Florida (not played now)
Current permanent cross-divisional rivals affected: Alabama-Tennessee would be lost as Alabama-Auburn would become permanent cross-divisional foes. Auburn-Georgia would become a divisional rivalry, so Georgia would join Tennessee in looking for a new cross-divisional foe. One would likely play Missouri each year and the other Texas A&M. The one landing Texas A&M would get a boost in recruiting the state of Texas.
Competitive balance: The league’s eight all-time winningest programs would be divided evenly.
Why do this: Auburn president Jay Gogue has already said his school would be fine with a move to the East. Not only do the Tigers and Georgia play the oldest rivalry in the SEC each year, Auburn has also played Florida (82) and Tennessee (51) more often that it has played LSU (45) and Ole Miss (35). Auburn — which is technically east of Nashville — wound up in the West in 1992 (and Vanderbilt in the East) in an effort to create competitive balance in the league. SEC presidents wanted to divide the six all-time winningest clubs evenly — Alabama, Auburn, and LSU in the West… Florida, Georgia and Tennessee in the East. Moving Auburn east would allow Missouri to stay in the West where it belongs (at least in terms of geography). The Tigers would be able to start a rivalry with neighboring Arkansas and continue their Big 12 relationship with Texas A&M. Gary Pinkel rebuilt Mizzou football by recruiting the Lone Star State. Though Missouri officials are supposedly fine with either the East or the West, their coaches would likely prefer the West for the sake of Texas recruiting.
Why not do this: Moving Auburn to the East would end one of — if not the — signature rivalry in the SEC. Historically speaking, Alabama-Tennessee is a matchup of the league’s two most successful programs. Breaking them up would be akin to splitting Oklahoma-Nebraska (which the Big 12 did), North Carolina-Duke, or Notre Dame-Southern Cal. There’s a lot of history there. Also, Alabama reportedly isn’t keen on the idea of Auburn putting down recruiting roots in Georgia and Florida (though with AU’s proximity to both states, it’s doubtful they would get much of a boost over their current solid efforts).
One caveat: If the SEC were to go to a nine-game schedule and use a 6-2-1 format (6 divisional foes, 2 permanent cross-divisional rivals, and 1 rotating cross-divisional foe each year) Alabama could protect its games with both Auburn and Tennessee. However, as we discussed in Part One of this series, we believe the SEC will eventually move away from any format featuring just one rotating opponent. Such plans leave too many years between games with cross-divisional opponents. Also, while Alabama has two cross-divisional rivalries worthy of protection, many schools don’t have a natural second rival to add. Heck, some schools (Kentucky, Mississippi State, Arkansas and South Carolina) really don’t have one cross-divisional rival worth playing each year. Would the league add another layer of permanent opponents and create a slower rotation of cross-divisional foes just to protect the Crimson Tide-Volunteer rivalry? Not if there are better options.
Verdict: This one is a real possibility and depending on who you talk to, Auburn is actually campaigning for this to happen. We initially believed this would be the simplest solution. Auburn has more history with teams in the East than with teams in the West. But that Alabama-Tennessee rivalry has been mentioned by ADs and presidents across the league as one to save. They’ll likely do what it takes to save it if they can do so without creating a mess for other schools. We’ve come to believe that this scenario — Auburn to the SEC East — is actually the #2 option at this point, not the #1 option, because there’s another slightly less messy option.
Realignment Option 2 — Missouri to the SEC East
| SEC West | SEC East |
| Alabama | Florida |
| Arkansas | Georgia |
| Auburn | Kentucky |
| LSU | Missouri |
| Miss. State | S. Carolina |
| Ole Miss | Tennessee |
| Texas A&M | Vanderbilt |
If the SEC uses an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format, these old rivalries will not be played: Auburn-Florida (not played now), Alabama-Vanderbilt (not played now), Alabama-Georgia (not played now), and Ole Miss-Tennessee (not played now)
Old rivalries reborn with an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format: None
Current permanent cross-divisional rivals affected: If Missouri lands in the East, the Tigers will be given either Arkansas or Texas A&M as a permanent, protected rival. Arkansas makes sense because the two states border one another and both could use another rival. But Texas A&M would allow Missouri to continue to hold on to its recruiting base in Texas. A Mizzou-A&M pairing would also allow the yearly Arkansas-South Carolina game to continue, which would mean no current cross-divisional rivalries would be affected under this plan.
Competitive balance: Five of the league’s all-time winningest programs would be in the SEC West while only three would reside in the SEC East.
Why do this: Putting Missouri in the East Division would create the least amount of negative fallout for the league’s current members. Not one of the SEC’s 23 oldest rivalries would be lost (the four that would not be played are the same four that aren’t played now). And while Missouri clearly sits to the west on a map, the distances from Columbia to the schools of the East aren’t that much greater than the distances from Columbia to the schools of the West. (Distance from MU campus to SEC rivals: Arkansas 312 miles, Vanderbilt 431, Kentucky 457, Ole Miss 477, Mississippi State 575, Tennessee 609, Alabama 618, Georgia 736, LSU 772, Texas A&M 779, South Carolina 870, Florida 1,008.) In addition, reports from the Show-Me State claim that Mizzou officials don’t have a preference regarding their placement. At first blush, this one doesn’t seem to make sense. But the more one studies this plan, the more obvious it becomes that moving Missouri to the East is the simplest solution to the SEC’s realignment problem.
Why not do this: Because it doesn’t look right on a map. Also, because it would prevent Missouri from playing either Arkansas — a border state that also needs a rival — or Texas A&M — a key to MU recruiting — every year. Competitive balance would be thrown off a bit, but only because the league’s all-time seventh- and eighth-winningest programs (Texas A&M and Arkansas) would reside in the West. So even on the competitive balance front, you’re still looking at a 3-3 split among the traditional “big six” of the SEC.
Verdict: Color us convinced. The driving distances are key. While it would seem the Tigers would be much farther away from East Division schools than West Division schools, that’s just not the case. Only South Carolina and Florida would be a greater distance from Columbia than Missouri’s old Big 8 and Big 12 North rival Colorado (747 miles). And when you look at the impact this move would have on the SEC’s oldest rivalries — which is to say none — it’s even more of an obvious choice. This appears to be the path of least resistance.
Realignment Option 3 — Mississippi State to the SEC East
| SEC West | SEC East |
| Alabama | Florida |
| Arkansas | Georgia |
| Auburn | Kentucky |
| LSU | Miss. State |
| Missouri | S. Carolina |
| Ole Miss | Tennessee |
| Texas A&M | Vanderbilt |
If the SEC uses an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format, these old rivalries will not be played: Auburn-Florida (not played now), Alabama-Vanderbilt (not played now), Alabama-Georgia (not played now), Ole Miss-Tennessee (not played now), LSU-Mississippi State, Alabama-Mississippi State, Auburn-Mississippi State, and Ole Miss-Vanderbilt.
Old rivalries reborn with an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format: None.
Current permanent cross-divisional rivals affected: If MSU were to move to the SEC East, their cross-divisional rivalry with Kentucky would be killed in order for MSU to play Ole Miss in the Egg Bowl, the SEC’s second-oldest rivalry. For Ole Miss to clear room for MSU as its permanent cross-divisional foe, the Rebels would have to give up their rivalry with Vanderbilt, the 10th-oldest rivalry in the SEC. That would leave Kentucky and Vanderbilt to pick up Missouri (probably Kentucky) and Texas A&M as their annual cross-divisional rivals.
Competitive balance: Five of the league’s all-time winningest programs would be in the SEC West while only three would reside in the SEC East. More importantly the three least successful programs in SEC history would all be in one division.
Why do this: Because to Tennessee and Alabama fans posting on messageboards, the rivalries of Mississippi, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt apparently don’t mean a whole lot. We’ve seen this idea floated more than once and we’ve even had it emailed to us a time or two. But it’s not going to happen. Even if it would insure that the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry would survive.
Why not do this: Mississippi State is actually a participant in four of the SEC’s 11 most-played rivalry games. And while the Egg Bowl (107 meetings) might be saved, the Bulldogs’ games with LSU (104), Alabama (95) and Auburn (84) would be lost. In the process the Vandy-Ole Miss rivalry (85) would be killed as well. That’s four long-standing rivalries down the drain. Plus, the three teams at the bottom of the SEC’s all-time standings — MSU, Kentucky and Vandy — would all be placed in the East Division.
Verdict: No way, no how. The SEC’s presidents won’t even consider this.
Realignment Option 4 — Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East, Vanderbilt to the SEC West
| SEC West | SEC East |
| Arkansas | Alabama |
| LSU | Auburn |
| Miss. State | Florida |
| Missouri | Georgia |
| Ole Miss | Kentucky |
| Texas A&M | S. Carolina |
| Vanderbilt | Tennessee |
If the SEC uses an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format, these old rivalries will not be played: Auburn-Florida (not played now), Alabama-Vanderbilt (not played now), Alabama-Georgia (not played now), Ole Miss-Tennessee (not played now), Auburn-Mississippi State, Kentucky-Vanderbilt, Alabama-LSU, and Georgia-Vanderbilt.
Old rivalries reborn with an 8-game schedule, 6-1-1 format: Auburn-Florida (not played now), Alabama-Georgia (not played now)
Current permanent cross-divisional rivals affected: This would require more moves than a Rubik’s Cube. In order to protect as many old SEC rivalries as possible, one scenario for cross-divisional rivalries might look like this — Alabama-Mississippi State, Tennessee-Vanderbilt, Florida-LSU (continue playing), Arkansas-South Carolina (continue playing), and then Auburn, Georgia and Kentucky from the East would pair up in some fashion with Missouri, Ole Miss and Texas A&M from the West. Incredibly messy.
Competitive balance: Five of the league’s all-time winningest programs would be in the SEC East while only three would reside in the SEC West.
Why do this: Once again, the goal seems to be saving the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry at all costs. Other than that, two old rivalries would be restored as divisional games (Auburn-Florida and Alabama-Georgia). But…
Why not do this: There would be four other old rivalries lost. Such a plan would also require way too many shifts and changes to gain approval from the league’s presidents. The more changes required, the more possibilities for hold-ups and hang-ups.
Verdict: The Southeastern Conference will most likely want to move as few teams as possible. But this plan would require three programs to shift divisions. Rivalries would be lost. And five of the six winningest programs in league history would all be placed in the East Division. Sorry to those who dreamed this one up, but there’s not a chance this comes to pass.
We’ll not even bother with discussing radical format changes — like the creation of North and South Divisions. It may look good on paper, but the SEC won’t want to completely shake up the good thing it’s currently got going. The goal is to add Texas A&M and Missouri with as little fuss and muss as possible. Moving Auburn to the SEC East would require only one current school to shift and only one traditional rivalry would be killed (Auburn-Mississippi State). Placing Missouri in the East Division wouldn’t require any current SEC school to move. And not a single classic rivalry would be lost.
For that reason, it’s our bet that Missouri will find itself in the SEC East if/when it finally comes aboard. As we discussed in Part One of this series, we also expect the SEC to eventually go to a nine-game conference schedule featuring a 6-1-2 format in order for non-divisional foes to face one another more often.
Therefore, the simplest long-term solution — if/when Missouri becomes the SEC’s 14th school — would look like this:
| SEC West | SEC East |
| Alabama | Florida |
| Arkansas | Georgia |
| Auburn | Kentucky |
| LSU | Missouri |
| Miss. State | S. Carolina |
| Ole Miss | Tennessee |
| Texas A&M | Vanderbilt |
With a nine-game league schedule and a 6-1-2 format, the annual breakdown of opponents for each team would look like this (abbreviations: Div = Annual Division Rival, Perm C-Div = Permanent Cross-Divisional Rival, Rot C-Div = Rotating Cross-Divisional Rival):
| Div | Div | Div | Div | Div | Div | Perm C-Div | Rot C-Div | Rot C-Div | |
| SEC WEST | |||||||||
| Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | LSU | MSU | Ole Miss | Texas A&M | Tennessee | UF, UGA, UK | MU, SC, VU |
| Arkansas | Alabama | Auburn | LSU | MSU | Ole Miss | Texas A&M | S. Carolina | UF, UGA, UK | MU, UT, VU |
| Auburn | Alabama | Arkansas | LSU | MSU | Ole Miss | Texas A&M | Georgia | UF, UK, MU | SC, UT, VU |
| LSU | Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | MSU | Ole Miss | Texas A&M | Florida | UGA, UK, MU | SC, UT, VU |
| Miss. State | Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | LSU | Ole Miss | Texas A&M | Kentucky | UF, UGA, MU | SC, UT, VU |
| Ole Miss | Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | LSU | MSU | Texas A&M | Vanderbilt | UF, UGA, UK | MU, SC, UT |
| Texas A&M | Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | LSU | MSU | Ole Miss | Missouri | UF, UGA, UK | SC, UT, VU |
| SEC EAST | |||||||||
| Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | Missouri | S. Carolina | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | LSU | ALA, ARK, AUB | MSU, UM, A&M |
| Georgia | Florida | Kentucky | Missouri | S. Carolina | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | Auburn | ALA, ARK, LSU | MSU, UM, A&M |
| Kentucky | Florida | Georgia | Missouri | S. Carolina | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | MSU | ALA, ARK, AUB | LSU, UM, A&M |
| Missouri | Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | S. Carolina | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | Texas A&M | ALA, ARK, AUB | LSU, MSU, UM |
| S. Carolina | Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | Missouri | Tennessee | Vanderbilt | Arkansas | ALA, AUB, LSU | MSU, UM, A&M |
| Tennessee | Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | Missouri | S. Carolina | Vanderbilt | Alabama | ARK, AUB, LSU | MSU, UM, A&M |
| Vanderbilt | Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | Missouri | S. Carolina | Tennessee | Ole Miss | ALA, ARK, AUB | LSU, MSU, A&M |
(Sidenote — You’ll notice that we assigned Texas A&M and Missouri as permanent cross-divisional rivals. That’s a coin flip. Judging from the comments on this site as well as from emails from Missouri fans, Arkansas makes sense to some because of proximity while A&M makes sense to others because of recruiting. It would likely be up to Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina and A&M to decide who pairs up with one another. We think Tiger football coach Gary Pinkel would request A&M.
Also, seeing as how we had to re-type a good chunk of this after midnight, here’s hoping you’ll take it easy on us when you find a typo or miscue.)
I'm betting on Option 2 with a shuffling of permanent opponents: LSU/USC, A&M/Florida, Ark/Mizzou
I don't mean to slam anyone's plan here. I realize a lot of effort was put into this. But Missouri goes to the East it just seems silly to me if Arkansas isn't made Missouri's cross conference rival when Fayetteville is easily the closest city to UM. I think most Arkansas fans would prefer to see a Missouri rivalry. I guess I can't speak for the Missouri fans but would hope some would speak on this. Texas A&M is given as Missouri's rival because they're both from the Big 12. But isn't that match up as short lived as the Arkansas-South Carolina match up that nobody seems to have a problem breaking up? Wouldn't an Arkansas-Missouri match up make more sense? Missouri fans who would you prefer as a rival, Arkansas or Texas A&M?
I think we MU fans would rather play Arkansas, all things considered. They're closer, and it feels to me like we know them better than we do A&M. B12 South/North have almost been like 2 separate conferences. I used to confuse A&M and OSU, actually. Which of them is TT light, and which of them is Baylor Plus? Not applicable anymore, now they're both solid, but a couple years ago, that's where those programs were. At least from the point of view of someone in the B12 north.
Yeah, I think we Aggie fans can go either way on Mizzou as our permanent rival in this scenario as well, despite our former Big 12 "ties"–like Bill, I feel a huge disconnect between the Big 12 north and south teams–as an Aggie, Missouri, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State were always pretty interchangeable to me…nothing against any of those schools, and certainly no bad feelings, but it just never felt like we knew them that well…of course, I was at A&M in the first few years of the Big 12, so maybe more recent students feel differently.
Mizzou fans definitely prefer an Arkansas rivalry, it seems like it would have a ton of potential. The only concern is completely losing Texas recruiting, but we are going to have to build new recruiting ties in the Southeast anyway so I don't see one game every other year in Texas magically saving our Texas state recruiting.
mith242…
I'm a little surprised that with all the information provided the big takeaway is who we paired Missouri with as a permanent non-conference foe. Arkansas is close, A&M helps in recruiting. The responses I've gotten on this site and in the email box have been about 50/50.
Could go either way. But that wasn't really intended to be the gist of the piece.
Thanks for reading,
John
Sounds like you've pretty much convinced everyone that option 2 is it–so then the only question is how the cross divisional permanent rivalries will be set up
. Thanks again for all your hard work on this! It is so interesting, and I can't wait to see how things come out…
John, I think there has to be a way to keep ATM and Mizzou in the West. The article and most posts seem to be weighted heavily toward "what's best for the old SEC." Some rivalries will change or be diminished a bit, it's inevitable. But I don't think you can just stick a western outpost team (Mizzou) in the east because it's easiest. If that happens you can almost be assured 5 years from now (if not sooner) they'll be jumping at the eventual invite from the Big 10 when this all goes to 4, 16 school conferences. It just makes the most sense and if the SEC is serious about bringing in these schools, all schools must be given equal consideration in Conference realignment.
I think that's an indication that Missouri's fanbase is OK with being in the SEC East. You're not hearing a lot of Missouri static about not playing Auburn/Alabama/LSU/Miss/MSU, or wailing about the long trip to Gainesville.
Since the big stumbling block will be possibly losing Missouri-Kansas, I think the future holds Arkansas-Missouri, in the Pea Ridge Classic.
I was travelling the last 2 days and just came back to this after a few days off the web. The more I thought about this subject, the more I thought everyone is best served by Missouri in the SEC east with protected annual v. Tex A&M. Mizzou actually increases their exposure with this format and everyone else keeps their status quo. Iowa and Missouri haven't had anything running between them for decades despite less than 200 miles apart, and the world continues to turn. Unless Arkansas has some beef here for a new assigned rival, when it seems A&M is already that guy (which would now be divisional), then I don't see any hold ups here at this juncture in realignment.
Surprised not to see you mention the impact on the Iron Bowl of Auburn moving to the East. Sure, the game would be played. But when? With AL and Auburn in different divisions they'd have the potential to play in the SEC Championship game. And given recent history it wouldn't just be a theoretical possibility. Even this year Auburn would have a pretty good shot of winning the East. So if the Iron Bowl is played the last game of the regular season you'd have a decent chance every year of Alabama – Auburn back to back games.
Auburn has long wanted to move the Iron Bowl up in the season. Alabama has resisted. Auburn wants to move east in order to move the Iron Bowl to September. That would stink.
BamaWahoo…
We could have gone off in a lot of directions like this, but the post would've been even longer. Rematches are always a possibility and I don't see that as a bad thing. I wouldn't move the Iron Bowl, either… just as I wouldn't move the Ohio State-Michigan game in the Big Ten.
Historically speaking, Alabama and Tennessee are the winningest teams in SEC history. They're in different divisions. They've both been to multiple championship games. But they've never been in the same year.
If Auburn moves East — and as is stated in the piece, that's no longer what we think WILL happen — the Iron Bowl shouldn't be moved on the off-chance that occasionally Alabama and Auburn would play a rematch. That wouldn't happen often enough to warrant such a big change.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
John, I think your calculations of the rivalries may be distorted by the current divisional play format. The league's traditional rivalries began to skew in 1992 with the start of divisional play, and that greatly accelerated with the switch from 5-2-1 to 5-1-2. For example, below is Florida's total games played versus the other 13 presumptive members of the SEC prior to 1992 (with the total record in parentheses):
Georgia 69(88)
Auburn 68(82)
Mississippi State 46(54)
Kentucky 42(62)
LSU 38(57)
Vanderbilt 25(44)
Alabama 24(36)
Tennessee 21(40)
Mississippi 17(23)
South Carolina 12(31)
Texas A&M 2(2)
Arkansas 1(9)
Missouri 1(1)
J.D….
Personally I don't see divisional play as having distorted our numbers. If teams have played for the past 19 years straight, I think that factors into whether or not a rivalry has been created.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
I know it may seem as odd as Mizzou being in the East, but how about this? Place Mizzou in the West where it belongs due to matchups with A&M and Arkansas. Move Auburn and alabama to the East. Then move Florida to the West to balance out the divisions. Make GA-FL, Auburn-Miss St, Ala-LSU, Mizzou-Kentucky, and Tenn-A&M perm cross rivals.
Michael…
You might have missed it in the above piece, but we made it clear that the SEC is not likely to make any moves that require multiple teams to move. The goal is to add Missouri and A&M as seamlessly as possible. Moving Alabama, Auburn and Florida is the same as moving Alabama, Auburn and Vanderbilt.
Also, I don't think the SEC — in an effort to give Missouri two "natural" rivals will try to force Florida to switch divisions.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
John,
I totally got that piece and I realize that multiple teams moving is not ideal and very unlikely to happen. I actually wasnt looking at this from the Mizzou natural rivalry perspective. I was simply looking at the longest rivalries and how to preserve the most and even bring back a few others. Nice piece on the subject, by the way.
Thanks,
Michael
I will also add that I am totally bias as a Vol fan in doing whatever it takes to preserve the "Third Saturday in October". So, my slant on allignment isnt completely untainted.
[...] SEC Realignment And Schedule Options The league’s goal will no doubt be to protect as many traditional rivalries as possible [...]
Mizzou to the East makes the most sense as it keeps all the current rivalries and maintains competitive balance. On a map it looks weird, but it is almost an optical illusion, as the distance between Columbia, MO and campuses in the East is virtually the same as campuses in the West. Maintain this setup until two teams are added to get to sixteen and then go to four-team pods.
Moving Auburn to the East would either mean that Alabama and Auburn could play back to back games in the Iron Bowl and SEC Championship game (a real possibility given recent history) or moving the Iron Bowl earlier in the season (which would rob it of its luster I believe). Auburn has advocated for this for some time. Their proposed move to the East is intended to move the Iron Bowl as much as it is to increase any recruiting or rekindle any UF rivalry.
Alabama and Tennessee need to play ball . Go nine games and move Auburn to the east which it naturally wants . Tennessee will recover quickly with its restored Auburn rivalry . This whole have Missouri in the east thing really bothers me . Missouri is just a huge chunk of land and its all west of the Mississippi . Its just better for the long term . These are after all universities . Get the geography right .
Tennessee, Texas A&M and Mizzou to the west. Auburn and Mississippi State to the east.
East: FLORIDA,GEORGIA, AUBURN, SC, VANDY,KENTUCKY,MSU
West: ALA, ARK, LSU, MISSISSIPPI,A&M, MIZZOU,TENN
Forget about the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry. It will be a decade before the Vols find their way out of the wilderness. In the meantime, it's just a sad game for everyone who plays TN, whichever division they happen to be in. (And, yes, thank you Mike Hamilton for hiring that ace-in-the-hole Lane Kiffin. Uh, did I say ace-in-the ….? I meant, hole in the…., well you egt it)
Just put Auburn in the weaker East. No one cares. It will work in their favor until it doesn't, if you know what I mean and I think you all do).
I would be really disappointed to not see Mizzou and Arkansas playing yearly. Of all the plans laid out, only one really makes sense and that's Auburn to the east and ATM and Mizzou enter in the west. Another that was not discussed would be to bring ATM, Mizzou and UK to the west and send Bama and Auburn to the east. I don't see a scenario that Mizzou would be come knowing they would be playing in the east and having their permanent games be USC, Florida, UGA, TN, Vandy and UK. That just makes no sense to me.
Solved. Each team plays the corresponding number in the other division as an annual rivalry.
Northwest
1. Arkansas
2. Missouri
3. Tennessee
4. LSU
5. Texas A&M
6. Kentucky
7. Ole Miss
South
1. South Carolina
2. Georgia
3. Alabama
4. Florida
5. Auburn
6. Vanderbilt
7. Mississippi State
This is actually pretty good.
MIZ_SEC…
Under this plan several of the SEC's oldest rivalries would die: Tennessee-Vanderbilt, LSU-Mississippi State, LSU-Alabama, Kentucky-Vanderbilt, Georgia-Kentucky, Florida-Kentucky.
Why kill those off when Missouri could simply go to the East, keep all of those rivalries alive, prevent mass shuffling of divisions, and keep some semblance of geography in the divisional set-up?
We've tried to explain that the SEC will aim for the simplest solution to avoid hang-ups. Anyone posting totally rebuilt divisions either A) didn't read our piece in the first place or B) thinks the SEC wants to start from scratch when it's actually had remarkable success with the current East-West structure.
I thank you folks for reading the site, though,
John
Why does the divisions have to be East and West?
bob…
As we explained in the piece, the SEC — from everyone we've spoken to — wants to add Missouri and Texas A&M as smoothly as possible. Totally tossing out the current divisions and starting from scratch with North/South, Northeast/Southwest, Atlantic/Gulf or any other format isn't very likely at all.
Thanks for reading,
John
ROTATION OF AUBURN AND MISSOURI!
At 8 games, Missouri in the east works best. But at 9 games, an 8 year rotation alternating Missouri and Auburn in the east works better. With this rotation, you can keep all the current major rivalries, restore a few old ones, and keep Missouri playing both TAMU and Arkansas.
The games can be competitively balanced and the recruiting advantages can be fairly balanced as well. It sounds complicated, but it really isn't. And it gives Auburn most of what it wants and makes sense for Missouri. I propose putting Missouri in the east now, but looking seriously at my proposal if the SEC goes to 9 games. The SEC will eventually go to 9 games. Do you really want your team to play a few teams only twice every 12 years, even if a 9 game schedule might occasionally cost the SEC one minor bowl?
Obviously it has not been confirmed but I've read (and if it's on the internet it must be true!) that a condition of adding Texas A&M/expanding the SEC that both LSU and Florida agreed to was that they would NO LONGER be each other's permanent opponent. Can anyone confirm this? If so then one of the tenants of John's excellent analysis (that being trying to keep current rivalries in place) may not be such a relavent factor (at least pertaining to LSU/Florida).
I can understand LSU and Florida both wanting to end their game; each has a more difficult path to their Division's championship with their annual match-up against each other than any other permanent opponent pair IMO.
Even if Alabama and Tennessee vote no, you only need nine schools on board so unless there’s some other compelling reason than protecting their rivalry, it’s hard to see the justification in moving Mizzou to the East. Like you alluded to, Auburn’s roster is already regularly littered with players from Georgia so I can’t really see the eastern teams balking for recruiting reasons. If you want to give Missouri the best start you can for long-term success, let them develop the natural rivalry with Arkansas and let them keep their Texas pipeline by playing TAMU every year.
Well MrSEC, since you were typing well after midnight, I won't slam all the obvious errors in your post. I'm sure once you re-read it, you can clean it up.
You are probably right about Mizzou to the East. Given the lack of creativity, lack of vision, general conservative nature of the leadership within the SEC, and quite frankly the missing kahunas of Mike Slive, the only reasonable solution is to put the Tigers in the East.
The only reason this doesn't work is competitive balance.
Now, let me propose one move you didn't mention. It will affect a couple of cross-divisional rivals, but it protects most all the long-lived rivalries played today.
Texas A&M to the East.
Breakdown would be as follows,
SEC West SEC East
Alabama Tennessee
Arkansas Texas A&M
Auburn Georgia
LSU Florida
Miss. State S. Carolina
Missouri Kentucky
Ole Miss Vanderbilt
The above also gives you the cross divisional pairing with A&M pairing with Arkansas. USC would give up Arky and Kentucky would switch to Mizzou, leaving USC- Miss St as a newly created cross-divisional game.
This would be a bit more disruptive, but it provides competitive balance. A&M get's to keep/restore an old SWC rivalry with Arky. The downside is the travel distance. For football fans, I'm betting that's not that big of an issue. Most every SEC school travels well for football. Since Basketball dropped divisions, it's not an issue. If the non-revenue sports drop divisions, it's a non issue.
The biggest downside to my proposal is recruiting Texas. Arky would get a leg up on the rest of the West and I'm not so sure Georgia, Tennessee & Kentucky would benefit as much as say LSU, & the Mississippi schools would with A&M in the West.