re: My wish: take Mizzou, move Bama/Auburn to the East, Vandy to the West.

It is astounding how delusional some of these LSU fans are who actually think Slive would even think of breaking up all of these rivalries or having an unbalanced league with LSU dominating the West every year.

The most important key to conference success is competitive balance between the divisions. Anyone remember the Big 12 North? That would be the new SEC West with Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee all in the East. 5 of the league's 6 glamour teams would be in the East.

Grow a sack and quit bitching about playing Florida every year. It could be a great rivalry if the LSU fans would quit bitching about it so much.

quote:

---

Grow a sack and quit bitching about playing Florida every year. It could be a great rivalry if the LSU fans would quit bitching about it so much.

---

Some do bitch about the Florida matchup, but I like the game. However, I like being part of the greater conference more than that game. The conference is getting too big for these permanent cross conf rivalries to continue. Grownups have to make tough choices. Which do you want? A balanced conference or AL/TN? Your choice.

quote:

---

It could be a great rivalry if the LSU fans would quit bitching about it so much.

---

Yea, that's whats keeping it from being a great rivalry, not the fact that we are far from neighbors.

LSU fans just don't care about LSU/Florida, and it's a tough team, so sure lots of us would be in favor of losing it. Who wouldn't want to lose a tough opponent that you just don't care that much about? Florida hasn't been that much fun to beat since they lost Spurrier. (Comparatively speaking of course. Anytime you beat any highly ranked team it feels good.)

The point being made through this thread is that Alabama supporters are going to have something they don't like happen in this process, because y'all have too many requests. With Missouri and A&M added you can't hope to play Auburn and Tennessee every year AND have a balanced East vs West. It can't happen.

And, no, the SEC is not likely to add Missouri to the East. You don't add a team and then look to alienate from their best possible rivals off the bat.

quote:

---

With Missouri and A&M added you can't hope to play Auburn and Tennessee every year AND have a balanced East vs West.

---

Put Mizzou in the East, make them play A&M.

Everything is balanced, everything stays the same, and Slive still gets his clusterfrick of an expansion.

the only balanced way to do this is put Auburn in the east . The fans on both sides of the iron bowl need to take a break anyway. This wouldn't be the first that this has happened.

quote:

---

the only balanced way to do this is put Auburn in the east . The fans on both sides of the iron bowl need to take a break anyway. This wouldn't be the first that this has happened.

---

That wouldn't end the Iron Bowl. Probably just TSIO.

FWIW Florida wants to get rid of LSU as their permanent rival as well

quote:

---

I have no problem at all with LSU and Florida not playing if that`s what they want. I just think it`s absurd that some people would rather see total chaos with teams shuffling back and forth and century old rivalries ending all because they don`t like their one cross divisional permanent opponent. Even worse is this notion that we must go out of our way to accomodate a brand new member even if that means blowing up divisions, rivalries, and schedules of long time members. If LSU could pick another permanent East opponent, are y`all still against putting Missouri in the East?

---

Not all LSU are of like mind. Some don't want the permanent opponent because it's FL; some want the permanent opponent because it's FL; some don't want the permanent opponent because with expansion, it hurts conference cohesion. I'm in the latter group, so I don't care which div MO ends up in.

I know you think that games like AL/TN and GA/AU are what made the SEC what it is today. I don't agree. What made the conference today is the realization that we, the whole WE, are a partnership and that partnership is strengthened when we are bonded closely.

The roots of the SEC is more like a collection of cliques that really were not that closely bonded. Hell we didn't play AL until like the 11th year after the conf formed. Twice we played as few as 4 conf games (1943 and 1968). It wasn't until the mid to late 80's that the conference went to a standard 7 game rotation. When we went to 12 teams we added the 8th and we reached our peak after they got rid of the 2nd perm opponent and we came together as a conf.

The problem with the permanent opponent is that as we expand, we start going backwards. Assuming 14 teams, a permanent opponent will mean it takes 12 years to cycle through the conference on a home and home, which is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you add a 9th game it will take 6 years, which is still too long. 5 years, the max player eligibility, is the max it should be, which is where we are now.

Something has to give. Either div balance or one of these games, AL/TN, AL/AU, or AU/GA. Your choice.

quote:

---

AU/GA

---

Until we go to 16 and 4 div, probably only one can be protected. If AU goes east, AU/GA; AL/TN if AL goes east; AL/AU if 14th team goes east. With 16 and 4 div, you can group AL, TN, AU, and Vandy together and only lose AU/GA. Also, while I wouldn't want it, with 16 and 9 games, you can have the permanent opponent and rotate through the conf in under 5 years.