- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Try this SEC divisional alignment
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:56 am to TopWaterTiger
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:56 am to TopWaterTiger
TopWater, having SC in Div 2 was an effort to make Div 2 stronger...
1
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:00 am to Chicken
quote:because Mizzou is not in the east. my alignment makes more geographic sense
but why not just leave divisions as they are, add Mizzou to the East and give them A&M as their permanent?
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:08 am to Rouge
quote:Nashville is further west than Auburn.
because Mizzou is not in the east. my alignment makes more geographic sense
it would be the NorthEast and SouthWest (imagine the SEC states in a square grid, with a line drawn from top left to bottom right), but call it east and west.
I think your alignment is ok, and should be on the drawing board.
That being said, you are putting the only teams from the SEC to win BCS titles in the last five years in the same division...that is why it will be shot down.
This post was edited on 10/18/11 at 10:10 am
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:16 am to Chicken
quote:correct, but that is a slight error
Nashville is further west than Auburn.
mizzou in the east is a huge geographic error
quote:i totally get that
you are putting the only teams from the SEC to win BCS titles in the last five years in the same division...that is why it will be shot down.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:18 am to Chicken
quote:
TopWater, having SC in Div 2 was an effort to make Div 2 stronger
understand that, But too far for travel intradivision. Vandy is very close to Ole Miss, Arky & Mizzou. USC is on the far east end and too far for anyone in the West.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:21 am to Rouge
quote:i would have to see the mileage chart to agree or disagree with this statement...I might have to type one up
mizzou in the east is a huge geographic error
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:22 am to Chicken
quote:
To me, Arkansas and South Carolina seem more SEC than Kentucky and Vandy
Yeah, I guess I'm being a little too traditional here. This is their 20th year of playing in the SEC, and now there will be one or two members more recent than they are, so I suppose it's time to let them graduate from their newbie status and be considered real SEC teams.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:25 am to Rouge
quote:
i do realize that the UF-Tennessee rivalry is lost in my scenario
That's not a big deal. That "rivalry" never really existed until 1992 anyway. It was one of the artificial rivalries manufactured by expansion and divisional play. Also created at that time were Auburn-LSU, Georgia-Tennessee and Arkie-LSU/Bama/Aub. All of those are pretty heated these days, but never were a big deal before 1992.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:27 am to Rouge
quote:
Mizzou is not in the east. my alignment makes more geographic sense
From a travel standpoint, Missouri isn't much worse off being in the east than in the west. I think their closest SEC opponents would be Arkie, Vandy, UT and UK, but I haven't seen the mileage comparison, so I could be wrong about that.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:28 am to TopWaterTiger
quote:
understand that, But too far for travel intradivision. Vandy is very close to Ole Miss, Arky & Mizzou. USC is on the far east end and too far for anyone in the West.
So you're suggesting that you want LSU in a division with: Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Ole Miss, and Miss State? I bet you would love that.
Put Mizzou in the East (or Northeast; whatever you want to call it) and be done with it. It's only a temporary situation until we inevitably move to 16 teams within the next five years anyway. Then we can reevaluate the divisional alignment in a more permanent manner.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:31 am to Chicken
quote:How are there too many issues with a 9 game SEC schedule?
- nine-game conference schedule (one permanent and two rotating)...two many issues with this.
The Big 10 and Pac 10 played 9 game schedules over the last few years have they not, and it didn't seem to hurt them all that much.
You lose one OOC game a season. You either drop an OOC game against a BCS school and make up for it by playing an additional conference team or you drop a powderpuff team and play one at homecoming which will be your yearly ppv game under the current tv contracts.
In some years your team will have more road conference games than home conference games. That isn't such a big deal because it balances out in one year you will have 4 and the next you have 5. UGA and Florida deal with this already due to playing in Jax every year and they don't seem to have an issue with it.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:44 am to Chicken
quote:here are mizzou's travel distances to the other schools:
i would have to see the mileage chart to agree or disagree with this statement...I might have to type one up
Arkansas 309
Vanderbilt 434
Kentucky 457
Ole Miss 475
Miss State 575
Tennessee 608
Alabama 622
Georgia 735
Auburn 739
LSU 774
Texas A&M 781
South Carolina 871
Florida 1009
Looks like a toss up to me...
Yes, Florida is a long way away, but I don't think it is a big deal. It is a long way to Baton Rouge and College Station from Columbia, MO...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:44 am to Chicken
I think over time a new big 6 would be formed. 3 from each conference. Bama is a given. I think Florida and UGA would be the other 2 in D1. So this would suck for Tenn and Auburn.
In D2 I think LSU is the given and A&M and probably Arkansas are the two teams that step up and benefit the most in this scenario.
SOOOO, I 10000% support this. Make it happen Chicken!
In D2 I think LSU is the given and A&M and probably Arkansas are the two teams that step up and benefit the most in this scenario.
SOOOO, I 10000% support this. Make it happen Chicken!
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:04 pm to Chicken
Regardless of Cross Division Opponents, I still think this is the best set up:
EAST:
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
WEST
Alabama
Arkansas
LSU
Mizzou
Miss State
Ole Miss
Texas A&M
Right now the alignments, in terms of Football, may look out of balance, but it is not totally out of whack. Over time, these alignments will work as well as when we had 12.
Now, cross-division games are another animal unto itself.
EAST:
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
WEST
Alabama
Arkansas
LSU
Mizzou
Miss State
Ole Miss
Texas A&M
Right now the alignments, in terms of Football, may look out of balance, but it is not totally out of whack. Over time, these alignments will work as well as when we had 12.
Now, cross-division games are another animal unto itself.
This post was edited on 10/18/11 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:39 pm to Chicken
I say screw geography, go Rivalry + balance.
Just let us play Flo-rida every year (keep perm rivals) and we'll end up playing bama/auburn enough in the title game to make up for losing them I guess.
Just let us play Flo-rida every year (keep perm rivals) and we'll end up playing bama/auburn enough in the title game to make up for losing them I guess.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:50 pm to mre
quote:
Put Mizzou in the East (or Northeast; whatever you want to call it) and be done with it. It's only a temporary situation until we inevitably move to 16 teams within the next five years anyway. Then we can reevaluate the divisional alignment in a more permanent manner.
This x10000!!
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:56 pm to Chicken
MO to east. Keep permanent opponents (Big 12 screwed up ending Neb/Ok annual game).
You don't have to wait 10 years to play everyone. Change other division opponent every year. Home/away on back to back years is unnecessary.
You don't have to wait 10 years to play everyone. Change other division opponent every year. Home/away on back to back years is unnecessary.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:59 pm to cheesey
quote:I tossed this idea out a few months ago and it was shot down...mainly because some felt that you should get to exact revenge on a team the following year if you lost the first time playing them.
Home/away on back to back years is unnecessary.
I definitely think the idea needs to be explored...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 1:09 pm to Chicken
I prefer playing everyone within 5 years over the emotional revenge motive of back to back years of play.
Graduation changes teams every year anyway. This year teams aren't getting revenge on Cam Newton and Fairley playing Auburn.
Sorry no quote from Chicken in response. Great minds...
Graduation changes teams every year anyway. This year teams aren't getting revenge on Cam Newton and Fairley playing Auburn.
Sorry no quote from Chicken in response. Great minds...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 1:13 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:+1
Division 2:
LSU
Arkansas
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Mizzou
Ole Miss
Miss State
This would feel like we had been kicked out of the SEC.
This would be the "also ran" division, year in and year out. Playing lesser opponents will not hone LSU's reputation nor help the Tigers get used to competition on the highest levels. Just the name "Division 2" sounds like second best.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News