So we have a Southern bloc, a Northern bloc, an Easternish bloc (ACC) and a Western bloc if this happens, basically. It matters for the Big 12 teams scrambling for a home, but otherwise, just rich athletic departments securing more cash it seems.
It’s so dumb. Make one big conference where you play three guaranteed games every year (for example, Auburn, Tennessee and LSU for Alabama) and get six unique opponents every year. Allows teams to face each other more frequently. Top two conference records face in the conference title game. I hate divisions.
SEC West Texas Texas A&M Oklahoma Arkansas SEC South LSU Ole Miss Mississippi State Alabama SEC North Missouri Tennessee Kentucky Vanderbilt SEC East Auburn UGA UF South Carolina
That would set up for vastly uneven schedules. Divisions allow for some semblance of balance. Sure it sucks for UGA or UF now when they draw Bama and the other doesn't but it's not as bad as if there we no divisions.
Why would ND be in the coastal? get rid of of Minnesota, Indiana or Iowa Add Duke or Pitt maybe Ville
Not sure that's entirely accurate. KU's bball recruiting has been suffering for 3 years and the charges are still hanging over their heads bc Jeff Long was a fucking idiot. Fwiw, the transfer portal is the only reason Self will have a good team next year.
i guess i don't really understand the allure of more money for some of these programs that already have enough money for anything. which top ~25 program is wanting for better facilities or a bigger stadium or anything else? the money is already more than enough. i know 'there's never enough money' or whatever but these are athletic departments with goals of sustainable winning (right?!), not maximizing cash flows. so either this is 1) all a big early move to prepare for paying athletes salaries (where more money = better players?) or 2) it's an effort to eliminate the needs and therefore demands of fans. fans who previously have funded the AD and can cause turnover. basically, if a program has enough money through TV contracts, why would an Athletic Director ever step down? If it's not 1 or 2 above, I honestly don't get why a big money program would want this sort of turnover in their leagues/rivalries. from that perspective, i could see kansas or texas tech-like programs being more likely to explore new opportunities (because for them, money matters) than big programs like Texas or OU.
Not really. With 6-7 unique opponents odds are you’ll get a mix of good, bad and mediocre. If anything, having less uniques can screw you if one school is stuck with Bama and A&M while the other gets Arkansas and Miss State.
well the SEC East is dogshit right now so theres always gonna be one bad pod. just leave the appalachian-ozark incel bastards to themselves
I mean there's a reason every professional sport has divisions instead of just random games. Don't feel like arguing this for hours though so we'll just disagree.
Same reason ND, if out of options, would join the ACC over the B1G. Despite their location, they don't want to be a Midwestern school. Also, they eat corn with the husks on.
Mizzou, TAMU, Oklahoma, Arkansas Ole Miss, Texas, LSU, Miss State AU, Bama, Kentucky, Vandy Florida, GA, SC, Tennessee
I think when Banner Society did their mock set up the schedules in the SEC averaged out to roughly the same difficulty for each school based on S&P ratings
man poor UK and Vandy but I guess they get theirs during basketball and baseball season I can deal with the bertwing and Truman duo with some 50/50 games vs OU
Because they can play the teams in those divisions home and away in the same year. You're just wrong. It's okay.
the key to understanding it is that none of them actually care about success or keeping the sport interesting
Because it's a nuclear arms race and the cost of the nukes keeps going up. Most athletic department budgets aren't balanced and if they are it's probably fancy accounting for public facing numbers
The pod system where each division team has roughly the same schedule while rotating through all teams every 5 years or whatever is much better than just random scheduling imo. Too much variation from year to year for me.
There is nothing random about the scheduling. You play the other SEC teams home and away, until you've gotten through all of them and then you start over. For example, it might mean that Florida has to play at A&M more than once a decade despite being in the same conference.
Guy has less total posts in 12+ years than you have in 3 days so I’m going to reserve judgement at this time
Pods accomplishes that too while keeping a good chunk of the schedule the same every year. You're not going to change my mind but feel free to keep wasting your time.
Don’t think pods of four will work. Because Tennessee and Kentucky need to play each other every year. But Tennessee also needs to play Vanderbilt, UGA, Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina every year. Couldn’t give a fuck about playing Missouri or Oklahoma if I’m honest. I’d rather play Ole Miss or Arkansas.
Without being rude, no one cares about Tennessee - Kentucky or Vandy. They will find a way but this is about marquee matchups.
I understand that. And agree. But we’ve been playing those bastards since Georgia Tech was in the SEC, and it is important to fans of those schools.
That's not the way this is going to work. Everyone will lose something traditional/familiar and nobody needs to play anyone.
When the NCAA dissolves and the BB tourney that had revenue of ~$880 million in 2019 becomes something this confederacy of super conferences controls like they do the CFP...BB and more importantly KU become something to give a fuck about. And Kansas has a population of 2.9 million.
Agree on first point, disagree on 2nd. Alabama needs to play Auburn and Tennessee every year. Florida needs to play UGA every year. There's zero chance games like that are dropped.
Management was not going to sit around watching labor get a pay raise without taking one of their own.
no one cares about Tennessee fans after they ran off respectable coach Greg Schiano back to Rutgers CHOP CHOP