- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Auburn to the East
Posted on 10/4/11 at 10:55 pm to Govt Tide
Posted on 10/4/11 at 10:55 pm to Govt Tide
Boys and girls it's all about balancing the two divisions. Yes it would be nice to maintain some of the traditional rivalries that are going to get lost, but it is what it is.
Alabama and Florida since division play started are clearly the dominant two teams, they have to be in separate divisions both geographically and from a conference division strength standpoint.
Next up are Tennessee and LSU, again, clear 3 and 4.
Here's where it gets difficult, it should be Auburn and Georgia as 5 and 6, however Florida's significant dominance in the east warrants some more weight there, but not too much with Alabama. I'm not sure some of you realize this or not, but between Alabama and Florida they have almost half the total appearances in the SECCG game of all teams combined.
So Georgia and Auburn to the East, Arkansas to the West with TAMU to roughly balance that.
South Carolina = Missouri
Kentucky + Vandy = Ole Miss + Miss St.
That gives the west some strong teams, but not making it excessively weighted. It gives the east some strong teams, and should be more competitive.
I see the west with 3 teams that can win it any year, possibly 4 if TAMU can improve, Missouri with a least a puncher's chance and the long shots from Mississippi.
I see the east with 4 teams that can win it any year, South Carolina with a shot if it can maintain it's level of improvement, and punching bags Kentucky and Vandy which don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning their division with that lineup.
Frankly I'd expect the SEC to go to a 9 game schedule to try and keep as many of those games as possible, with the 3 off games being the biggest cupcakes we can find.
8 SEC games are rough enough as is, going to a 9 game schedule (10 counting the SECCG) should put the SECCG champ in as an automatic entrant to the BCSCG regardless of their record.
Just surviving that conference would be worthy of it.
Alabama and Florida since division play started are clearly the dominant two teams, they have to be in separate divisions both geographically and from a conference division strength standpoint.
Next up are Tennessee and LSU, again, clear 3 and 4.
Here's where it gets difficult, it should be Auburn and Georgia as 5 and 6, however Florida's significant dominance in the east warrants some more weight there, but not too much with Alabama. I'm not sure some of you realize this or not, but between Alabama and Florida they have almost half the total appearances in the SECCG game of all teams combined.
So Georgia and Auburn to the East, Arkansas to the West with TAMU to roughly balance that.
South Carolina = Missouri
Kentucky + Vandy = Ole Miss + Miss St.
That gives the west some strong teams, but not making it excessively weighted. It gives the east some strong teams, and should be more competitive.
I see the west with 3 teams that can win it any year, possibly 4 if TAMU can improve, Missouri with a least a puncher's chance and the long shots from Mississippi.
I see the east with 4 teams that can win it any year, South Carolina with a shot if it can maintain it's level of improvement, and punching bags Kentucky and Vandy which don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning their division with that lineup.
Frankly I'd expect the SEC to go to a 9 game schedule to try and keep as many of those games as possible, with the 3 off games being the biggest cupcakes we can find.
8 SEC games are rough enough as is, going to a 9 game schedule (10 counting the SECCG) should put the SECCG champ in as an automatic entrant to the BCSCG regardless of their record.
Just surviving that conference would be worthy of it.
1
Posted on 10/4/11 at 10:59 pm to MontanaTiger
quote:
You're complaining about this? If we get rid of Bama and Auburn, LSU will win the West every year - what's wrong with that?
Because if all I cared about was winning conference championships I'd join the ACC! You want to play MSU, Ole Miss, Ark, Mizzou, and A&M every year, and 2 teams from the East? You must not have season tickets. I happen to like playing Auburn, Bama, Florida and 2 teams from the East. This year's home schedule sucks, but at least we get Auburn and Florida. You want to take those away for Mizzou and A&M? bullshite!
Posted on 10/4/11 at 11:01 pm to Chicken
quote:
Mizzou to the east...then no cross division rivalries are affected.
You would play six division games and two out-of-division games.
One thing they could do is get rid of the fixed opponent for any team that doesnt have a traditional cross division rival.
Bama could still play Tennessee and auburn could still play Georgia. And then they would rotate their second game.
However, other teams like LSU could rotate both of their cross division games.
I have a feeling this is exactly what will happen.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 1:21 am to Draconian Sanctions
This is why it sucks having Slive & SEC HQ's in the state of Alabama. All of the decisions will be made solely based upon accommodating Gumps & Barners. 
Posted on 10/5/11 at 5:16 am to 1LoudTideFan
quote:
Mizzou to the East actually makes sense if you look at the map here
This is actually a good breakdown of teams. Only draw backs I can see is Florida and Mizzou are about as far apart geographically as two teams can get to be stuck in the same division. And of course it's more like Northeast/Southwest so East and West would be a bit of a misnomer.
I'd say play the 6 in division teams every year and two out-of-division teams would be floaters. That way you'd play them every 3 years or so. Plus you'd see them in the SEC champ. game from time to time.
TGK4LSU:
quote:
Bama & Auburn to the East. Mizzou & Vandy to the West. All traditional rivalries preserved
That would kind of suck. The divisions would be way out of whack with Bama, Auburn, Florida, Tennesee and Georgia all in the East. I'd hate to see the west become a weaker sister division. It'd have to hurt our own competitiveness in the long run.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 5:53 am to Blakely Bimbo
quote:
If Oklahoma and OK State decide to tuck their tails and bail, then you could be looking at Bama and Auburn both going to the east.
This would be the worst case scenario, imo.
If I ever see LSU get this schedule:
Vandy
@KY
S. Carolina
@Ole Miss
State
@Ark
A&M
@Mizzou
OSU
@OK
I would think that LSU was kicked out of the SEC and joined the damned Big Southwest 8 or some shite.
Yes, traditions are so important, let's kick founding member LSU out of the SEC so we can keep UT/UA together.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 8:52 am to BASCTiger
quote:
This is why it sucks having Slive & SEC HQ's in the state of Alabama. All of the decisions will be made solely based upon accommodating Gumps & Barners.
No, some LSU fans seem hellbent on making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state of Alabama is the breakpoint geographically for the conference and is the natural point of potential reshuffling therefore it's more affected. Tennessee fans have probably even a bigger problem with Auburn moving East than Alabama fans do. They lose BY FAR their biggest traditional rival if that happens. It would be the equivalent of LSU losing both the Alabama and Auburn game each year or Auburn and Georgia losing their game.
It's not difficult AT ALL. Put Missouri in the East (they border East division states Tenn and Ky already), preserve AU/UGA and UA/UT as permanent opponents and all other SEC schools can choose their 1 permanent opponent. That way all the pissing and moaning from some LSU fans over having to play Florida each year will end and all schools who want to will get a fresh start on their permanent opponent. The other 2 cross division opponents will rotate like they do now. You simply replace 1 non-conference game with a game against the new team in your division.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:19 am to BASCTiger
quote:
All of the decisions will be made solely based upon accommodating Gumps & Barners.
Not really. Us Aubbies got the short end of the stick last time around in 1992 when we lost the UT and UF games. We were not especially happy, but didn't really complain and did what was best for the league.
This time around is the same. AU is not campaigning to go East. We will though if asked, same as before.
This post was edited on 10/5/11 at 11:20 am
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:30 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Not really. Us Aubbies got the short end of the stick last time around in 1992 when we lost the UT and UF games. We were not especially happy, but didn't really complain and did what was best for the league.
This time around is the same. AU is not campaigning to go East. We will though if asked, same as before.
Not 100% true, we did lose the game with UT, but continued to play Florida until 2002 (losing 8 of 10). Originally you had two permanent rivals and Auburn had UGA and UF... Bama had Vandy and UT.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:38 am to allin2010
quote:
Not 100% true, we did lose the game with UT, but continued to play Florida until 2002 (losing 8 of 10). Originally you had two permanent rivals and Auburn had UGA and UF... Bama had Vandy and UT.
Good catch. I had totally forgotten about that, which is pretty ridiculous as I was at 6 AU/UF games in the 90's (two in the Swamp).
And I just looked up our record against them and we have actually played UF 82 times. That has to put them towards the top as far as rivals we have played the most.
This post was edited on 10/5/11 at 11:39 am
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:41 am to allin2010
quote:
I don't see this happening, but if you're trying to ruin the lives of all LSU fans, this would do it. Hell, we might as well join the freakin' ACC. We would have a much easier road to Atlanta, but to only have MSU and Ole Miss from the traditional SEC in our division would completely suck!
I feel for you guys. As happy as we are to join I realize it screws some shite up. Part of the reason we're so excited is the opportunity to get to play a SEC schedule, but what constitutes a SEC schedule changes with our addition.
Selfishly I hope the conference stays at 13 or 14 tops(Mizzou would be a great add IMO). And I can't see the SEC going to 9 conference games, the schedule is already too tough.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:45 am to manwich
Is Bama UT really that big of a deal anymore. I wouldn't see that rivalry as a reason for not having Auburn move to the East.
Just have Alabama keep Auburn and that is it.
Who cares about Bama-UT.
Just have Alabama keep Auburn and that is it.
Who cares about Bama-UT.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:47 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
I always knew the Auburn/Florida series was pretty substantial but didn't realize the game had quite the history it does. I don't blame Auburn fans for wanting Florida back on a regular basis but from an objective (as much as one can be) perspective what would the SEC consider a bigger loss, the AU/UF game or the UA/UT game? If it's an either/or decision (Auburn moving East), I think this is a legitimate factor to consider.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 11:52 am to Govt Tide
I think the SEC may weight the Bama/UT game more as Bama/UT have historically been the most successful teams in the SEC, but I am not sure it should carry much more weight than AU/UF. People do forget, but AU/UF was a very big deal for a very long time.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:01 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Us Aubbies got the short end of the stick last time around in 1992 when we lost the UT and UF games
You didn't lose the UF game until after 2002, when we changed from the 5-2-1 format to the 5-1-2.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:09 pm to MontanaTiger
quote:
You're complaining about this? If we get rid of Bama and Auburn, LSU will win the West every year - what's wrong with that?
What are you, 12?
For some of us it's not ALL about winning a championship. If it were we could just move over to CUSA and win every year.
No, the best part of the SEC are the actual matchups.
You remember those?
They are also known as GAMES. BIG games.
Anyone who would rather see LSU's conference schedule look like this just so they can say they won a championship...:
So. Carolina
@Vandy
State
@Ole Miss
Arky
@Texas A&M
Okie state
@Oklahoma
...Might as well just switch their allegiance for Boise State NOW.
I just can't believe LSU fans are talking about avoiding Alabama. It wouldn't be college football for me without LSU/Alabama.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:16 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Alabama and Florida since division play started are clearly the dominant two teams, they have to be in separate divisions both geographically and from a conference division strength standpoint
Only because the whole rest of the conference, other than Tennessee, was in the toilet in the 1990s. From 2000 forward, Alabama and Florida haven't been any more dominant than some others, notably LSU. But I digress.
The whole problem would easily be solved by putting Missouri in the West, moving both Alabama and Auburn to the East, and moving Florida to the West.
LINK
Auburn's traditional (pre-1992) rivals were Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and I don't recall the other one. They would keep (or, in the case of Tennessee, get back) all of these except Florida, which they already lost in 2002.
Florida's are LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Georgia and Auburn. By keeping UGa as their permanent cross-divisional opponent, they keep (or get back) all of these except Auburn, which they already lost in 2002.
Alabama's are Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss (ETA: not sure about this, I know they played Vandy every year, too, so maybe they didn't play Ole Miss every year) and Mississippi State. By keeping LSU as their permanent cross-divisional opponent, they keep all of these except MSU and Ole Miss, which aren't that big a deal anyway. And besides, since it's Bama's obsession with keeping their Auburn and UT rivalries that makes all this necessary to begin with, they shouldn't mind sacrificing these two meaningless ones.
LSU's are Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Florida and Kentucky. By keeping Alabama as our permanent cross-divisional rival, we keep all of these except Kentucky, which was already sacrificed in 2002.
The only major current "rivalries" that would be sacrificed are those that were artificially created in 1992, but were never annual before that: LSU-Auburn, Florida-Tennessee, Arkie-Bama and Arkie-Auburn, along with a few meaningless ones between Auburn and the other West teams and Florida and the other East teams.
You'd have to go to 9 games, though, if you wanted to keep permanent interdivisional rivals.
This post was edited on 10/5/11 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:21 pm to Nuts4LSU
JMO - for recruiting reasons you want Florida in one division and A&M in the other division. Yes there are fertile recruiting states ranging from Louisiana to Mississippi to Alabama and Georgia... but the most talent by far is in Florida and Texas
A major part of the imbalance problem in the Big 12 (that generally made the big 12 north so much weaker than the big 12 south) was a recruiting based inequality between the divisions
A major part of the imbalance problem in the Big 12 (that generally made the big 12 north so much weaker than the big 12 south) was a recruiting based inequality between the divisions
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:37 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I think the SEC may weight the Bama/UT game more as Bama/UT have historically been the most successful teams in the SEC, but I am not sure it should carry much more weight than AU/UF. People do forget, but AU/UF was a very big deal for a very long time.
Where would you rank Florida among Auburn's rivals? Where would Florida fans rank Auburn?
Not saying that game didn't mean anything to you, but it's not the same as it would be for Tennessee to lose Alabama.
Posted on 10/5/11 at 12:44 pm to molsusports
quote:
- for recruiting reasons you want Florida in one division and A&M in the other division. Yes there are fertile recruiting states ranging from Louisiana to Mississippi to Alabama and Georgia... but the most talent by far is in Florida and Texas
A major part of the imbalance problem in the Big 12 (that generally made the big 12 north so much weaker than the big 12 south) was a recruiting based inequality between the divisions
I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's a good point. On the other hand, Alabama has done fine with recruiting despite not playing in Florida every other year, and the whole SEC has done fine without playing in Texas every other year, so it might not be necessary to keep them in separate divisions.
The imbalance in the Big XII was sort of inherent from the start, with only Nebraska as a powerhouse in the North. When they went into the tank after Osborne retired, it was a vacuum. I don't think OU would have gone the same way if they had been put into the North back in 1996. But I agree that the South schools had a major recruiting advantage over the North schools, which probably did play a major role.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News