Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

simgamer, I understand where you are coming from, but we are not going back to the way it was. Your argument is falling on deaf ears; there's too much money to be made in the new system. Furthermore, you're preaching to the choir. I'm fully against "superconferences." It's just the hand that we've been dealt. If you don't change your tune, you're going to have to find another sport to watch.

[Redacted01]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

this has snowballed over the years into what we have now, where conferences want to expand. Look at what is happening to the BigXII. Their teams have been running for the hills. And the worst thing about it is now other conferences have some of their teams. So it's like these conferences that take BigXII teams in loses its former identify. The Pac 12? Does that sound right? all these conferences are no longer competing with the BigXII. Because now it's the Big10, tomorrow it could be the Big9 or the Big6. Maybe then they can change it's name to the Big6 since another conference isn't named it. In the past few years, it was always about who is the best conference. I always though that argument was pointless any way as it should be about teams before conferences. Now it's obvious who are the best conferences based on who is leaving who for who. The BigXII used to have 12 teams. That was why it was re-named the BigXII after it added teams from the Big 8.

You do know that before it was the Big 12, there was a Big 8, which was the Big Seven before that, and the Big Six before that. And The Big Ten used to be the Western Conference. The Pac-12 was the Pac-10, which was the Pac-8 before that and the AAWU before that and the PCC before that... things change. You've just got to accept it.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

^Perfect Zero, I'm not the one changing the tune of college football. The schools and committees that control college football are making these discussions. We are just fans. Anyone who remembers the good ol' days knows this to be true. This is what we are getting. We are just regular fans reacting to it. Many times, baffled. The decisions to change college football have occurred year by year and still continue to this very day. The fans aren't changing the game. The rules and decisions to expand are. All we can do is fans is try to remind fans of this. I remember when the game was great. You do too. What is going to become of the BigXII? Don't you find it ironic that you say "there's too much money to be made in the new system" as the reason why we should accept whatever this new system entails. It's the "hand that we've been dealt"? Why are we being dealt bad hands? College football is going to make money because people like football. Many people will watch no matter what becomes of it. It's in everyone's interest not to lose the things that make the game great. Because then it's not about the game anymore. The game can make money and still be great. And if the game felt right, like it used to, then we could actually enjoy the game instead of having to discuss which teams are going to move to which conference next week.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Me either. I don't get the point of any of this expansion. The old conferences were fine. There was tradition. You know who was in what conference. Now it's like musical chairs.

Yeah I'm not a fan of it either. I don't like the idea of having "super conferences."

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

You do know that before it was the Big 12, there was a Big 8, which was the Big Seven before that, and the Big Six before that. And The Big Ten used to be the Western Conference. The Pac-12 was the Pac-10, which was the Pac-8 before that and the AAWU before that and the PCC before that... things change. You've just got to accept it.

I accepted what it was. But it was different than how it is now. Back then, changes happened logically, and rarely, and you felt good about them when it happened. now they just happen randomly and many times it's not as good as it was before. things can change, but in college football, the amount of change in recent years has been astronomical. all those things you suggested happened many decades ago, and stayed basically the same for a long time. until recently.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I accepted what it was. But it was different than how it is now. Back then, changes happened logically, and rarely, and you felt good about them when it happened. now they just happen randomly and many times it's not as good as it was before. things can change, but in college football, the amount of change in recent years has been astronomical. all those things you suggested happened many decades ago, and stayed basically the same for a long time. until recently.

So then can we ask you why you don't think a team should have the ability to make more money? Is it not logical for the Aggies to move to the SEC where they won't be pidgeon-held by Texas? Is it not logical to move somewhere where there is more prestige and money to be had? Even geographically it makes sense because College Station is on the eastern part of Texas. It's not random; things like this happen because there is a purpose.

[KSUowls]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

4 divisions for the SEC would not be any better than two 8 team divisions. With such a system you either don't add scheduling variety or you don't have a true representative for the conference championship game. A few of the problems:
1. In the proposed format (Atlantic, Western, Central, Northern) then there are certain rivalries that don't appear to be protected (Georgia-Auburn and Tennessee-Alabama come to mind). Maybe this can be worked around through protected rivalries so I'll list the next one.
2. Assume there is a 2 game playoff system. That would work great for crowning #1 and #2, but it would mean at least 12 teams would have at least 1 less game on their schedule every year because they didn't make the playoff and it's too late to schedule something for those weeks.
3. If you just take the best team from from the Western/Atlantic and the Norther/Central then there are 3 scenarios...
a.) Say a team from the Western and Central divisions had the best conference records. If you use a rotating schedule of 3 games against your division and then that Western team and/or that Central team may never have played the teams from the Atlantic/Northern divisions that they were competing against for their spot.
b.) You could solve the above problem by having the Western-Atlantic player each other every year and such, but that is no different than having two 8 team divisions.
c.) You could rotate the pairings for conference champion representative so that every year for instance the division that the West is paired up with that they are competing for to play in the conference championship game changes. This once again destroys historic rivalries though.


I'm ok with a 14 team SEC. 6 division divisional conference games, 1 protected rivalry and another rotating out of division conference game (or 2 if you want to go to a 9 conference game schedule like the pac10 had). 16 teams just creates all kinds of logistical problems though, and I don't like the idea of the teams mentioned (specifically Mizzou). If the SEC ever did go to 16 teams I would want it to be a true super conference and add it teams like Oklahoma, Miami, FSU...just completely re-do the conference.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

So then can we ask you why you don't think a team should have the ability to make more money? Is it not logical for the Aggies to move to the SEC where they won't be pidgeon-held by Texas? Is it not logical to move somewhere where there is more prestige and money to be had? Even geographically it makes sense because College Station is on the eastern part of Texas. It's not random; things like this happen because there is a purpose.

For what purpose is Colorado now in the Pac-10 or Pac-12? Is Colorado anywhere near the pacific coast? What logistical sense does that make? What rivalries do Colorado have with Pac-10 teams? How about the rivalries they had in the BigXII? They are going to make money no matter what they do because people love college football. Because advertisers will pay more money to take breaks during the game to show commercials. What purpose is there to chalk everything up whether it makes "more money"? So anything that happens we should just chalk it up to "it makes more money", therefore it's good? These things do have a purpose, but they also create problems, lose tradition and the solutions decided on to accommodate these things really affect the way the game is played. there are things that could have been done to make the sport more fair and more exciting, but instead they continue to change the things that we love about the game and don't solve the things that would actually make it better.

[Kefka]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Hate it. I hate all this super conference BS. I hate it I hate it I hate.

[Bamafan3723]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Hate it. I hate all this super conference BS. I hate it I hate it I hate.

Wait, so you aren't in favor of this?

[lonewolf371]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

^Perfect Zero, I'm not the one changing the tune of college football. The schools and committees that control college football are making these discussions. We are just fans. Anyone who remembers the good ol' days knows this to be true. This is what we are getting. We are just regular fans reacting to it. Many times, baffled. The decisions to change college football have occurred year by year and still continue to this very day. The fans aren't changing the game. The rules and decisions to expand are. All we can do is fans is try to remind fans of this. I remember when the game was great. You do too. What is going to become of the BigXII? Don't you find it ironic that you say "there's too much money to be made in the new system" as the reason why we should accept whatever this new system entails. It's the "hand that we've been dealt"? Why are we being dealt bad hands? College football is going to make money because people like football. Many people will watch no matter what becomes of it. It's in everyone's interest not to lose the things that make the game great. Because then it's not about the game anymore. The game can make money and still be great. And if the game felt right, like it used to, then we could actually enjoy the game instead of having to discuss which teams are going to move to which conference next week.

Yeah, but they'll make more money this way and that's why you're seeing conference realignment.

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

4 divisions for the SEC would not be any better than two 8 team divisions. With such a system you either don't add scheduling variety or you don't have a true representative for the conference championship game. A few of the problems:

No, you do add variety because you don't have the same eight to nine teams year in and year out. You also have a "true" representative because in the rotating division idea, each team has roughly the same amount of games to play against the same teams.

1. In the proposed format (Atlantic, Western, Central, Northern) then there are certain rivalries that don't appear to be protected (Georgia-Auburn and Tennessee-Alabama come to mind). Maybe this can be worked around through protected rivalries so I'll list the next one.

No, you don't have protected rivalries, but that's going to happen in a sixteen team conference. I would assume that all the teams that vote in the SEC would know this. If you want to expand, you are going to have to get rid of some of the rivalries. Over time, there will be new rivalries that will pop up. It happens when you over-expand. In addition to that, the Aggies are going to give up great rivals in Oklahoma, Baylor, and Texas Tech. In time, their new rivals will be Louisiana State and Missouri to go along with Arkansas. How do you think the Razorbacks built their new SEC rivalries?

2. Assume there is a 2 game playoff system. That would work great for crowning #1 and #2, but it would mean at least 12 teams would have at least 1 less game on their schedule every year because they didn't make the playoff and it's too late to schedule something for those weeks.

I just said there would be two teams, and there would be no SEC Playoffs. The divisions that are matched up for the year send one team to the Championship because they have roughly the same schedule.

3. If you just take the best team from from the Western/Atlantic and the Norther/Central then there are 3 scenarios...
a.) Say a team from the Western and Central divisions had the best conference records. If you use a rotating schedule of 3 games against your division and then that Western team and/or that Central team may never have played the teams from the Atlantic/Northern divisions that they were competing against for their spot.

I don't think you understand how this works. In a season, you play your division plus a rotating division. So if the Western is taking on the Atlantic, the best team out of that pairing goes on. The playoff is in the regular season if the records are tied.

b.) You could solve the above problem by having the Western-Atlantic player each other every year and such, but that is no different than having two 8 team divisions.

You solve it by rotating the divisions. Hence the name.

c.) You could rotate the pairings for conference champion representative so that every year for instance the division that the West is paired up with that they are competing for to play in the conference championship game changes. This once again destroys historic rivalries though.

In a conference this large, do you think the rivalries matter anymore? I thought we established that this is all about the money. If these teams wanted the rivalries, they would have never accepted the Aggies.

I'm ok with a 14 team SEC. 6 division divisional conference games, 1 protected rivalry and another rotating out of division conference game (or 2 if you want to go to a 9 conference game schedule like the pac10 had). 16 teams just creates all kinds of logistical problems though, and I don't like the idea of the teams mentioned (specifically Mizzou). If the SEC ever did go to 16 teams I would want it to be a true super conference and add it teams like Oklahoma, Miami, FSU...just completely re-do the conference.

If you "just completely re-do the conference," you have to agree that there will no longer be those traditional rivalries. You have to have give and take. My proposal makes sense because you have the tradition along with the variety. Otherwise, it's just two conferences with the name of one.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

Take the Pac-12 and their new divisions. North and South. Okay, sounds simple enough, right? They have Stanford and Cal in the North, and Utah and Colorado in the South.

Take a look at the latitude lines on a U.S. map. The University of Colorado and the University of Utah are near the 40 N latitude line. Stanford and Cal are in between 37-38 N latitude, lower than 40 N.

Stanford and Cal are further south than the University of Colorado or the University of Utah. Yet they are in the North Division and Colorado and Utah are in the South.

It's like someone made a rule once that you had to have 12 teams to have a conference championship game, and these conferences will do whatever it takes to get a conference championship game, to make more money. Even if it dilutes the regular season, isn't factually accurate (like the Pac-12 divisions), and unbalances the schedule. It's like getting a conference championship game is the only thing that matters, even if you have to pound a square block into a round hole. There were plenty of times you knew who the winner of the Pac10 was and it didn't need a conference championship game. Everyone played each other and they separated themselves throughout the season. And going into the last week, you knew the winner of your conference wouldn't be decided by voting.

And one more thing. you know the reason why all this rush to expand happened is because there were new standards related to the BCS and voting created by conferences that started to have conference championship games like the BigXII or SEC. Most of the time, unless you were a media darling, it would come down to a 12-1 team from the BigXII or the SEC who played the extra game in the conference championship that got to pay in the national championship over a team from a major conference that didn't have a conference championship game who was 11-1. The solution to this problem? Make super conferences where everyone has a championship game. Oh but what happened, now the BigXII doesn't have a championship game so how will they compete anymore? A conference championship game may not even pit the two best teams in the conference. What if three teams are 7-1 in one division and the team from the other division is 5-3? How is that a real championship game anyway?

[KSUowls]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

No, you do add variety because you don't have the same eight to nine teams year in and year out. You also have a "true" representative because in the rotating division idea, each team has roughly the same amount of games to play against the same teams.

By "true" representative I was saying that depending on the format you could have someone representing one side of the SEC without playing all of the teams they were directly competing against for that spot. Before you respond to this section of my post I ask that you re-read my previous post as to where I acknowledged the fix for this.

No, you don't have protected rivalries, but that's going to happen in a sixteen team conference. I would assume that all the teams that vote in the SEC would know this. If you want to expand, you are going to have to get rid of some of the rivalries. Over time, there will be new rivalries that will pop up. It happens when you over-expand. In addition to that, the Aggies are going to give up great rivals in Oklahoma, Baylor, and Texas Tech. In time, their new rivals will be Louisiana State and Missouri to go along with Arkansas. How do you think the Razorbacks built their new SEC rivalries?

TAMU giving up their long time rivals doesn't mean that the conference they are joining up should give up all of their long time rivals. Arkansas and South Carolina have developed rivalries in the SEC, but neither begin to compare to with any of the long standing rivalries that were already in place. The SEC is a conference deep in history and tradition and it doesn't make sense to break up those just because one school is giving up theirs.

In a conference this large, do you think the rivalries matter anymore? I thought we established that this is all about the money. If these teams wanted the rivalries, they would have never accepted the Aggies.

Money is the driving force, but it isn't the only one. Adding the Aggies doesn't show that the tradition doesn't matter, it just shows that they see the opportunity for more markets without screwing up scheduling because a 14 team conference isn't much more difficult to deal with than a 12 team one is. Also, rivalries themselves do a lot for marketing purposes because they create hype. For instance, UGA has a historic rivalry with Clemson, but they didn't play for years. So, when they scheduled a new home and home early last decade it was kind of neat and there were some story lines about renewing the rivalry, but it really wasn't anything special.

The SEC is rich in tradition and appears to be proud of that tradition. So, maybe this this is just wishful thinking but I don't see them not at least trying to make something work to protect it. There is some precedence for it as well.

If you "just completely re-do the conference," you have to agree that there will no longer be those traditional rivalries. You have to have give and take. My proposal makes sense because you have the tradition along with the variety. Otherwise, it's just two conferences with the name of one.

I've already agreed that a 16 team conference creates all sorts of logistical problems, but it would make more sense to do it this way. Two large divisions, 8 teams per division. A team from the East will have 7 natural division conference games, maybe 1 protected rivalry from the west depending on the format (that's 8 conference games), and another rotating conference game (9 natural conference games + the eventual conference championship). This format would require 1 less out of conference game a year, but it's not like any team ever schedules Texas, USC, and Wisconsin out of conference in the same year.

Maybe the two division scenario makes it seem more like 2 conferences, but at least it would protect much of the tradition that has been a part of the SEC for the last 80 years rather than make it look like the NFL or MLB with a bunch of loosely affiliated teams vying for a spot in some championship game.

[simgamer0005]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

TAMU giving up their long time rivals doesn't mean that the conference they are joining up should give up all of their long time rivals.

Yup, that's it exactly. When you add a team to a conference, you have to put that team on the schedules of every team that is in that conference in the place of one of your traditional conference rivals. It's not that conferences can't be free to expand. they can, but they should happen for the right reasons. look at what's happening to the BigXII. schools are running for the hills. this is a conference that played some good football and had some highly ranked teams. this was a conference that had a conference championship game. now the conferences who have the conference championship game switched. because Nebraska and Colorado left the BigXII and now they can't have one with 10 teams? So the BigXII tried to make the best of it and have a full round robin. Now other teams are thinking of leaving. What caused Colorado and Nebraska to leave the Big12? What is really going on here? We haven't really seen anything like this before. Now the talk is that Texas A&M and Texas may not have agreed on some things. Why can't they work things out? How do A&M fans and Texas fans feel about this? Don't you want to have the Texas vs Texas A&M game anymore?