SEC Realignment

[Neednewcoach]

I know this has been talked about numerous times.  Does it actually happen at some point?  Saban will eventually retire, Gus may be on his last leg and you have to think that at some point the balance of power will shift.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2016/4/7/11319796/alabama-auburn-sec-west-missouri-vanderbilt-sec-east

[DeltaBoy]

Nick is in Good Health and his wife is happy at BAMA as long as they are winning he will stay till his health goes South.

[NaturalStateReb]

I think the SEC will wait to see if it can expand to 16 before shaking things up.  If the SEC decides that future expansion is unlikely, then I think this plan is sound. 

I would say, though, that UGA, Tennessee, and Florida won't be down forever.  Add Bama and Auburn to that, and you're basically just shifting the current problem to the East.

[code red]

Obviously nice to think about but from what I read.....just conjecture?? 

[code red]

As a Arkansas fan do we really want this?  I figure you only have to play bama once in the current division arrangement.  Could have to play them twice in the other.  Plus, that one time could be at home in Fayetteville.

[HogBreath]

As a Arkansas fan do we really want this?  I figure you only have to play bama once in the current division arrangement.  Could have to play them twice in the other.  Plus, that one time could be at home in Fayetteville.

And..might not have to play them any if we change the teams around.

[Murr]

Obviously nice to think about but from what I read.....just conjecture??

Yes, just conjecture due to the West/Saban's dominance.  Due to the current formatting rules for conference divisions and championship game requirements, I wouldn't mind rotating members between the two divisions.  But I do agree with NaturalStateReb in that a formatting change will probably not be considered until another round of expansion occurs.

[Murr]

As a Arkansas fan do we really want this?  I figure you only have to play bama once in the current division arrangement.  Could have to play them twice in the other.  Plus, that one time could be at home in Fayetteville.

?

The article gave us a western division of:
Ark, LSU, MSU, Ole, Mizzou, A&M, Vanderbilt with a permanent rival in Auburn. 

That's very manageable path to Atlanta.  To be honest, I really liked the SEC West before Saban arrived in Tuscaloosa because the SEC West was wild.  Any given year, anyone could win it.

Actuality, all programs have their ups and downs. 

If the SEC were to realign it's divisions and formatting, it'll happen when we add more members.  I would love to see four pods of four rotating yearly and form two different divisions every year.  One or maybe two permanent rivals to ensure rivalries are not lost, might require 9 conference games if two permanents are needed.  Anyway, the earliest this could get looked at would be if Oklahoma finally decides to quit "wall flowering" this summer when their public demands are not met; conference expansion, conference championship game, and Longhorn Network converted into the Big 12 Network.

[RzRbAcK18]

If this was ever to come up, do the coaches have to sign off on it? If I was coaching a current SECW, I wouldn't want to go on record of moving BAMA out. That seems the equivalent of saying that we don't want to play them anymore because we never win. I think if you want to be the best, you have to play the best. CBB seems like he would feel the same way. Forgive me if it mentioned it in the article, it was quite long, just skimmed it.

[TUSKtimes]

?

The article gave us a western division of:
Ark, LSU, MSU, Ole, Mizzou, A&M, Vanderbilt with a permanent rival in Auburn. 

That's very manageable path to Atlanta.  To be honest, I really liked the SEC West before Saban arrived in Tuscaloosa because the SEC West was wild.  Any given year, anyone could win it.

Actuality, all programs have their ups and downs. 

If the SEC were to realign it's divisions and formatting, it'll happen when we add more members.  I would love to see four pods of four rotating yearly and form two different divisions every year.  One or maybe two permanent rivals to ensure rivalries are not lost, might require 9 conference games if two permanents are needed.  Anyway, the earliest this could get looked at would be if Oklahoma finally decides to quit "wall flowering" this summer when their public demands are not met; conference expansion, conference championship game, and Longhorn Network converted into the Big 12 Network.

Actually, if anyone in the SEC could read a map the barn would and should reside in the east. Mizzou being just slightly in the western hemisphere would assume their rightful place. There you go, balance and problem solved. 

[Murr]

Actually, if anyone in the SEC could read a map the barn would and should reside in the east. Mizzou being just slightly in the western hemisphere would assume their rightful place. There you go, balance and problem solved.

True, but the problem with that was and still is Alabama would lose a yearly rival; either Tennessee or Auburn.  That is why Missouri is in the east.  Now, if we went to a nine game SEC schedule, we could easily swap Mizzou for Auburn and preserve more rivalries.

If this was ever to come up, do the coaches have to sign off on it? If I was coaching a current SECW, I wouldn't want to go on record of moving BAMA out. That seems the equivalent of saying that we don't want to play them anymore because we never win. I think if you want to be the best, you have to play the best. CBB seems like he would feel the same way. Forgive me if it mentioned it in the article, it was quite long, just skimmed it.

Athletic Directors would be the ones rearranging the divisions with the help, input and approval of the commissioner and the league's TV partners.  The coaches can give their inputs internally to their AD's or voice out their opinions publicly at their own risk.  Remember, that these format changes will out live the majority of the coaching tenures and will have longer effects on fan and alumni support.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I know this has been talked about numerous times.  Does it actually happen at some point?  Saban will eventually retire, Gus may be on his last leg and you have to think that at some point the balance of power will shift.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2016/4/7/11319796/alabama-auburn-sec-west-missouri-vanderbilt-sec-east

I don't think that there will be any realignment of SEC Divisions until there is a move towards expansion to 16 teams and I think that will only be triggered by the breakdown of the Big 12. When that happens, and I think that it will eventually, we will probably see a mad scramble by a few conferences to scoop up what they perceive to be the "cream" of the Big 12, and that number of teams is much smaller than the ten that currently comprise that conference.

[Supermark101]

As a Arkansas fan do we really want this?  I figure you only have to play bama once in the current division arrangement.  Could have to play them twice in the other.  Plus, that one time could be at home in Fayetteville.

It is a no brainier for us. With the way current scheduling is done, we would play Bama, in the regular season, once every 7 years. We would replace them with Vandy EVERY year.

[Inhogswetrust]

I don't think that there will be any realignment of SEC Divisions until there is a move towards expansion to 16 teams and I think that will only be triggered by the breakdown of the Big 12. When that happens, and I think that it will eventually, we will probably see a mad scramble by a few conferences to scoop up what they perceive to be the "cream" of the Big 12, and that number of teams is much smaller than the ten that currently comprise that conference.

This is the most likely scenario.

[TUSKtimes]

True, but the problem with that was and still is Alabama would lose a yearly rival; either Tennessee or Auburn.  That is why Missouri is in the east.  Now, if we went to a nine game SEC schedule, we could easily swap Mizzou for Auburn and preserve more rivalries.

Frankly the SEC world might be a little surprised to find Bama fans more than willing to scarifice either rival to the scrap heap. With this 4 team playoff thing, everyone is going to be thinking more so out of the box. So far Saban is the only coach still clamoring for a 9 game conference schedule. My goodness hogvillians, we have got to get rid of atleast one of these minor league cupcakes on our schedule anyway. Who can watch this slop. E-mail your head hog and plead with him, go 9 or go home.

[bphi11ips]

The league is already balanced.  The only way to balance further is to trade Auburn for Vandy.  The only way to make that happen is to play 9 conference games. 

That guy is butthurt because he's from the East, and he probably doesn't remember the '90's.  The West leads the East 13-11 in championship game wins. Move Alabama and Auburn to the East and the record would be 4-20.  The only West team to have won an SEC Championship Game other than Auburn and Alabama is LSU. 

The East is fine as it is.

[Inhogswetrust]

The league is already balanced.  The only way to balance further is to trade Auburn for Vandy.  The only way to make that happen is to play 9 conference games. 

That guy is butthurt because he's from the East, and he probably doesn't remember the '90's.  The West leads the East 13-11 in championship game wins. Move Alabama and Auburn to the East and the record would be 4-20.  The only West team to have won an SEC Championship Game other than Auburn and Alabama is LSU. 

The East is fine as it is.

If Auburn and Bama would compromise for the better of the whole SEC then move Auburn to the east and Mizzou to the west is the answer in my opinion. They could still be permanent opponents and it sure means more to Bama than their secondary rival in Tennessee.

[bphi11ips]

If Auburn and Bama would compromise for the better of the whole SEC then move Auburn to the east and Mizzou to the west is the answer in my opinion. They could still be permanent opponents and it sure means more to Bama than their secondary rival in Tennessee.

But Bama means more to Tennessee than anyone else, and the history of that series trumps Missouri. 

[Inhogswetrust]

But Bama means more to Tennessee than anyone else, and the history of that series trumps Missouri. 

A one vote by Tennessee doesn't carry the same weight as two schools in Auburn and Bama would if it came to a vote. Yes I agree TO Tennessee the rival is most important, but it isn't to Bama. Sort of like how the old SWC rivals between Arkansas and Texas was not the most important to Texas but it was to Arkansas. The most important one to Texas back then was TAMU and maybe even OU was second. In todays college sports world if history was so important then we would have never gotten into the SEC and other realignments would have never happened either.

[bphi11ips]

A one vote by Tennessee doesn't carry the same weight as two schools in Auburn and Bama would if it came to a vote. Yes I agree TO Tennessee the rival is most important, but it isn't to Bama. Sort of like how the old SWC rivals between Arkansas and Texas was not the most important to Texas but it was to arkansas. The most important one to Texas back then was TAMU and maybe even OU was second. In todays college sports world if history was so important then we would have never gotten into the SEC and other realignments would have never happened either.

Before Hogville did you sit around and argue with yourself?

[Murr]

A one vote by Tennessee doesn't carry the same weight as two schools in Auburn and Bama would if it came to a vote. Yes I agree TO Tennessee the rival is most important, but it isn't to Bama. Sort of like how the old SWC rivals between Arkansas and Texas was not the most important to Texas but it was to arkansas. The most important one to Texas back then was TAMU and maybe even OU was second. In todays college sports world if history was so important then we would have never gotten into the SEC and other realignments would have never happened either.

You're forgetting the other side of college sports: financial stability.

We left the Southwest Conference for two reasons; TV revenues just transitioned from being sent to the NCAA to the conferences/schools and the SWC was in poor shape.  Many of the SWC stadiums we were playing in were having attendance problems, revenue issues and soon recruiting was going to catch up.  In an ideal world, Arkansas would have stayed in the SWC or joined the Texas schools and form the B12 with the original Big 8.  Arkansas didn't have the political chains holding us back that UT and A&M had, so we left for the greenest pastures at the time.  That gave UT and A&M the tools required to abandon some of the dead weight they were carrying in the SWC.

[jackflash]

moving to the East would help Auburn

[LZH]

The West leads the East 13-11 in championship game wins. Move Alabama and Auburn to the East and the record would be 4-20.  The only West team to have won an SEC Championship Game other than Auburn and Alabama is LSU. 

Wow, I didn't realize that. That's actually quite a number when you think about it. Nice job BP...goes to show that you might actually be almost as smart as me.

[PonderinHog]

Move Bama to the east and make Auburn its permanent rival.

[Pigsknuckles]

Move Bama to the east and make Auburn its permanent rival.

Yes, but wait until after the 2016 season. I'm "pondering" 4 bowl quality games in Fayetteville this fall. I doubt the stars line up again this way for some time.

[TUSKtimes]

Yes, but wait until after the 2016 season. I'm "pondering" 4 bowl quality games in Fayetteville this fall. I doubt the stars line up again this way for some time.

A lot more about the stars under the hat lining up.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This is the most likely scenario.

When that occurs, I expect that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will be faced with a choice of going East, or going West. Going East would provide a more difficult road for them to the play-offs so they may choose to move West. I don't think they move North though there has been some talk about that in the past. They not only have to consider the money side of things but wins are important as well and there are probably more wins to be found by going West, than East.

Texas will probably go Independent. They are arrogant enough to think that would be a better deal for them and they may be right. That way they can dictate their own schedule and it doesn't always have to include SEC teams who may test their metal more often than other teams that are perceived to be big name schools.

Texas Tech and TCU would most likely pressure Oklahoma to be included in a package with Oklahoma State in heading West. If that happened it would create the Pac 16 Conference.

W. Virginia would be scrambling for a home and with one of the lowest academic rankings in the Big 12 and all of P-5 football, they might have few choices.

It could be that if a deal isn't struck for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a package to the SEC, the second choice could wind up being a package of Baylor and Kansas (the Vanderbilt of the West).

That would leave K-State and Iowa State twisting in the wind and hoping that the Big Ten would issue adoption papers for them. If not the Big Ten, then who? That really is the best regional fit for them, though I am sure the Big Ten would covet and fight for Kansas instead of one of the other two given KU's academics and Basketball.

That's the possibilities that I see, though I know that there are others.

[Murr]

When that occurs, I expect that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will be faced with a choice of going East, or going West. Going East would provide a more difficult road for them to the play-offs so they may choose to move West. I don't think they move North though there has been some talk about that in the past. They not only have to consider the money side of things but wins are important as well and there are probably more wins to be found by going West, than East.

Texas will probably go Independent. They are arrogant enough to think that would be a better deal for them and they may be right. That way they can dictate their own schedule and it doesn't always have to include SEC teams who may test their metal more often than other teams that are perceived to be big name schools.

Texas Tech and TCU would most likely pressure Oklahoma to be included in a package with Oklahoma State in heading West. If that happened it would create the Pac 16 Conference.

W. Virginia would be scrambling for a home and with one of the lowest academic rankings in the Big 12 and all of P-5 football, they might have few choices.

It could be that if a deal isn't struck for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a package to the SEC, the second choice could wind up being a package of Baylor and Kansas (the Vanderbilt of the West).

That would leave K-State and Iowa State twisting in the wind and hoping that the Big Ten would issue adoption papers for them. If not the Big Ten, then who? That really is the best regional fit for them, though I am sure the Big Ten would covet and fight for Kansas instead of one of the other two given KU's academics and Basketball.

That's the possibilities that I see, though I know that there are others.

The OU/OSU package didn't go over too well the last time.  The SEC turned it down and the PAC held it to a vote and turned it down because it would take away games played in California.

If the Big 12 can no longer provide a good home for Texas, they'll go independent and make a ton of money on the football side.  I would love it; any chance for the hogs to schedule Texas yearly in football is a win.

A good chunk of the remaining B12 schools could find new homes.  Before Nebraska joined the B1G, there were conversations with the B1G in adding Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa State  http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-during-realignment-four-others-from-big-took-a-look/article_2d507fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html  That was probably used to counter the PAC16 conversations.

As far as likely targets looking to move, I'll look for the usual signs; publicly unhappy members and schools with financial concerns.  Oklahoma's David Boren has been very critical of the B12's setup.  Florida State's BOT has concerns over the ACC's payout and exposure.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The OU/OSU package didn't go over too well the last time.  The SEC turned it down and the PAC held it to a vote and turned it down because it would take away games played in California.

If the Big 12 can no longer provide a good home for Texas, they'll go independent and make a ton of money on the football side.  I would love it; any chance for the hogs to schedule Texas yearly in football is a win.

A good chunk of the remaining B12 schools could find new homes.  Before Nebraska joined the B1G, there were conversations with the B1G in adding Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa State  http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-during-realignment-four-others-from-big-took-a-look/article_2d507fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html  That was probably used to counter the PAC16 conversations.

As far as likely targets looking to move, I'll look for the usual signs; publicly unhappy members and schools with financial concerns.  Oklahoma's David Boren has been very critical of the B12's setup.  Florida State's BOT has concerns over the ACC's payout and exposure.

It may not have gone over too well last time, but times change. I would imagine that the Pac 12 would love to add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU and to a lesser extent, Texas Tech, but you have to take the bad with the good, especially when the good is that much better than anyone else you could hope to add to the conference.

That would create a likely 8 team division in the East of the Pac 16 of OU, OSU, TCU, Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and maybe Utah. The West would be comprised of the remaining 8 members with one rotating cross-division game each year for each team. The financial strength in a t.v. package that they would gain overall by this expansion outweighs any number of reduced number of games in California that they might experience. JMO

[Inhogswetrust]

The OU/OSU package didn't go over too well the last time.  The SEC turned it down and the PAC held it to a vote and turned it down because it would take away games played in California.

If the Big 12 can no longer provide a good home for Texas, they'll go independent and make a ton of money on the football side.  I would love it; any chance for the hogs to schedule Texas yearly in football is a win.

A good chunk of the remaining B12 schools could find new homes.  Before Nebraska joined the B1G, there were conversations with the B1G in adding Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa State  http://www.omaha.com/huskers/barfknecht-during-realignment-four-others-from-big-took-a-look/article_2d507fc0-3337-11e5-8cc1-4373847a1bfe.html  That was probably used to counter the PAC16 conversations.

As far as likely targets looking to move, I'll look for the usual signs; publicly unhappy members and schools with financial concerns.  Oklahoma's David Boren has been very critical of the B12's setup.  Florida State's BOT has concerns over the ACC's payout and exposure.

I never read where the PAC said that fewer games played in ONE state they operate in was the reason some vote turned out the way it did. The PAC operates in six states. California is only one of them. Only four members out of twelve are in that one state so a LOT of games are already not played there and if expansion occurred it would not change that much.

[Inhogswetrust]

Before Hogville did you sit around and argue with yourself?

You mean stating what is generally accepted as correct in this case is arguing? I do admit and think you would agree that no good debate ever happens without someone playing devils advocate.

[bphi11ips]

You mean stating what is generally accepted as correct in this case is arguing? I do admit and think you would agree that no good debate ever happens without someone playing devils advocate.

So you're an attorney?

Whether Tennessee and Alabama are perfectly reciprocal in their rivalry is immaterial to the question presented - will the SEC swap Auburn for Missouri?  The answer is "no" under the current 6-1-1 format, because the SEC would lose the UT/Alabama rivalry.  It's that simple.  That very issue was discussed at length when A&M and Missouri joined the league.  A&M made no sense in the East, and the league hopes that geography, population and money over time create a rivalry between A&M and LSU. 

So what is there to debate?  The SEC thinks in terms of generations.  It doesn't base decisions on any given team's recent performance.  Tennessee won 2 SEC championships in the 90's and has been to the championship game 5 times. Since 1936, Tennessee is second only to Alabama in SEC rankings based upon final AP polls.  The Third Saturday in October was a big deal for generations.  It still is and will draw 100,000 fans every year. It is the biggest hurdle to realignment without changing rotation and/or number of conference games.

Here's a typical article from 2012 discussing issues created by expansion:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/07/will_new_sec_football_division.html

And an excerpt on point:

"The Birmingham News reported last fall that Alabama was among the minority that wanted the 14th school from the East Coast but would support Missouri if it joined the SEC East. Alabama's reasoning: Keep its annual cross-divisional rivalry game against Tennessee, and not watch Auburn move to the East and possibly grow its recruiting presence in talent-rich Florida and Georgia."

[Murr]

So you're an attorney?

Whether Tennessee and Alabama are perfectly reciprocal in their rivalry is immaterial to the question presented - will the SEC swap Auburn for Missouri?  The answer is "no" under the current 6-1-1 format, because the SEC would lose the UT/Alabama rivalry.  It's that simple.  That very issue was discussed at length when A&M and Missouri joined the league.  A&M made no sense in the East, and the league hopes that geography, population and money over time create a rivalry between A&M and LSU. 

So what is there to debate?  The SEC thinks in terms of generations.  It doesn't base decisions on any given team's recent performance.  Tennessee won 2 SEC championships in the 90's and has been to the championship game 5 times. Since 1936, Tennessee is second only to Alabama in SEC rankings based upon final AP polls.  The Third Saturday in October was a big deal for generations.  It still is and will draw 100,000 fans every year. It is the biggest hurdle to realignment without changing rotation and/or number of conference games.

Here's a typical article from 2012 discussing issues created by expansion:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/07/will_new_sec_football_division.html

And an excerpt on point:

"The Birmingham News reported last fall that Alabama was among the minority that wanted the 14th school from the East Coast but would support Missouri if it joined the SEC East. Alabama's reasoning: Keep its annual cross-divisional rivalry game against Tennessee, and not watch Auburn move to the East and possibly grow its recruiting presence in talent-rich Florida and Georgia."

Bama holding down the cow college.  Auburn in the East would make the Iron Bowl much more interesting IMHO.

[bphi11ips]

Bama holding down the cow college.  Auburn in the East would make the Iron Bowl much more interesting IMHO.

Auburn already has the second best series record of any SEC team vs. Alabama (except Missouri, which is 2-3 against the Tide), winning 41.2% of all games played.  First?  Tennessee, at 41.8%.

[Inhogswetrust]

So you're an attorney?

Whether Tennessee and Alabama are perfectly reciprocal in their rivalry is immaterial to the question presented - will the SEC swap Auburn for Missouri?  The answer is "no" under the current 6-1-1 format, because the SEC would lose the UT/Alabama rivalry.  It's that simple.  That very issue was discussed at length when A&M and Missouri joined the league.  A&M made no sense in the East, and the league hopes that geography, population and money over time create a rivalry between A&M and LSU. 

So what is there to debate?  The SEC thinks in terms of generations.  It doesn't base decisions on any given team's recent performance.  Tennessee won 2 SEC championships in the 90's and has been to the championship game 5 times. Since 1936, Tennessee is second only to Alabama in SEC rankings based upon final AP polls.  The Third Saturday in October was a big deal for generations.  It still is and will draw 100,000 fans every year. It is the biggest hurdle to realignment without changing rotation and/or number of conference games.

Here's a typical article from 2012 discussing issues created by expansion:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/07/will_new_sec_football_division.html

And an excerpt on point:

"The Birmingham News reported last fall that Alabama was among the minority that wanted the 14th school from the East Coast but would support Missouri if it joined the SEC East. Alabama's reasoning: Keep its annual cross-divisional rivalry game against Tennessee, and not watch Auburn move to the East and possibly grow its recruiting presence in talent-rich Florida and Georgia."

So you have to be an attorney to enjoy a spirited debate? Unbelievable. IF only attorney's can debate then Hogville would only have a small number of members and wouldn't be any fun at all. You like to debate on here as much as anybody and get your dander up as much as anybody. Also WHO said that ALL of the Bama people wanted Mizzou in the east? Maybe it was a majority and maybe not. The thing is the PTB;'s there apparently did. They don't always speak for the majority similarly to elected politicians. Besides we all know times change. I guess you don't like that............Case in point, your droning on in the past anytime the subject now known as the GSD shows up on here. Besides Auburn already has a BIG recruiting base in talent rich Georgia and Florida already. Any move by them would not affect Bama's recruiting there that much.   

[bphi11ips]

So you have to be an attorney to enjoy a spirited debate? Unbelievable. IF only attorney's can debate then Hogville would only have a small number of members and wouldn't be any fun at all. You like to debate on here as much as anybody and get your dander up as much as anybody. Also WHO said that ALL off the Bama people wanted Mizzou in the east? Maybe it was a majority and maybe not. The thing is the PTB;'s there apparently did. They don't always speak for the majority similarly to elected politicians. Besides we all know times change. I guess you don't like that............Case in point, your droning on in the past anytime the subject now known as the BSD showed up on here. Besides Auburn already has a BIG recruiting base in talent rich Georgia and Florida already. Any move by them would not affect Bama's recruiting there that much.   

Lol.  You said you were the devil's advocate.

[Inhogswetrust]

Lol.  You said you were the devil's advocate.

HaHa. Not ALL the time. It's the wise one's that know when to pick their battles!

[bphi11ips]

HaHa. Not ALL the time. It's the wise one's that know when to pick their battles!

Sorry if that went over your head.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

So you're an attorney?

Whether Tennessee and Alabama are perfectly reciprocal in their rivalry is immaterial to the question presented - will the SEC swap Auburn for Missouri?  The answer is "no" under the current 6-1-1 format, because the SEC would lose the UT/Alabama rivalry.  It's that simple.  That very issue was discussed at length when A&M and Missouri joined the league.  A&M made no sense in the East, and the league hopes that geography, population and money over time create a rivalry between A&M and LSU. 

So what is there to debate?  The SEC thinks in terms of generations.  It doesn't base decisions on any given team's recent performance.  Tennessee won 2 SEC championships in the 90's and has been to the championship game 5 times. Since 1936, Tennessee is second only to Alabama in SEC rankings based upon final AP polls.  The Third Saturday in October was a big deal for generations.  It still is and will draw 100,000 fans every year. It is the biggest hurdle to realignment without changing rotation and/or number of conference games.

Here's a typical article from 2012 discussing issues created by expansion:

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/07/will_new_sec_football_division.html

And an excerpt on point:

"The Birmingham News reported last fall that Alabama was among the minority that wanted the 14th school from the East Coast but would support Missouri if it joined the SEC East. Alabama's reasoning: Keep its annual cross-divisional rivalry game against Tennessee, and not watch Auburn move to the East and possibly grow its recruiting presence in talent-rich Florida and Georgia."

Oh yes, there would be a lot of folks who would have to be in agreement if there were teams moving from the West to the East and based on what you guys have been discussing here, about the only way we see a couple of notable teams moving from the West to the East (while still maintaining long held rivalry games) would most like occur as a result of expansion in the West.

If what I projected above ever comes to pass where two of Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State ever join the SEC West, it would be easy to then move Alabama and Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West to provide two 8 team divisions that would keep the vast majority happy while maintaining the most revered long-term rivalries.

It wouldn't bother me at all to see a Western Division that consists of Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri and A&M, though I am sure A&M wouldn't be pleased with the addition of Baylor.

[NaturalStateReb]

When that occurs, I expect that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will be faced with a choice of going East, or going West. Going East would provide a more difficult road for them to the play-offs so they may choose to move West. I don't think they move North though there has been some talk about that in the past. They not only have to consider the money side of things but wins are important as well and there are probably more wins to be found by going West, than East.

Texas will probably go Independent. They are arrogant enough to think that would be a better deal for them and they may be right. That way they can dictate their own schedule and it doesn't always have to include SEC teams who may test their metal more often than other teams that are perceived to be big name schools.

Texas Tech and TCU would most likely pressure Oklahoma to be included in a package with Oklahoma State in heading West. If that happened it would create the Pac 16 Conference.

W. Virginia would be scrambling for a home and with one of the lowest academic rankings in the Big 12 and all of P-5 football, they might have few choices.

It could be that if a deal isn't struck for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a package to the SEC, the second choice could wind up being a package of Baylor and Kansas (the Vanderbilt of the West).

That would leave K-State and Iowa State twisting in the wind and hoping that the Big Ten would issue adoption papers for them. If not the Big Ten, then who? That really is the best regional fit for them, though I am sure the Big Ten would covet and fight for Kansas instead of one of the other two given KU's academics and Basketball.

That's the possibilities that I see, though I know that there are others.

Or OU and OSU could split up, especially if OU and Texas went to the same place.  Let's say, for discussion's sake, that OSU ended up in the SEC and OU ended up in the PAC or Big 10 with Texas.  If Texas is a conference game, OU doesn't have to sacrifice an OOC game to play the series.  You figure OU can't place both OSU and Texas OOC, because they would essentially be left with no OOC slots to ever play anyone else from a P5 league.

That's part of the reason why I think OU won't move unless it knows what's going to happen to OSU.  Doesn't mean they have to move together, necessarily, but that they'd want to know where the Pokes were going to land before the folks in Norman made a move.

[NaturalStateReb]

Oh yes, there would be a lot of folks who would have to be in agreement if there were teams moving from the West to the East and based on what you guys have been discussing here, about the only way we see a couple of notable teams moving from the West to the East (while still maintaining long held rivalry games) would most like occur as a result of expansion in the West.

If what I projected above ever comes to pass where two of Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State ever join the SEC West, it would be easy to then move Alabama and Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West to provide two 8 team divisions that would keep the vast majority happy while maintaining the most revered long-term rivalries.

It wouldn't bother me at all to see a Western Division that consists of Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri and A&M, though I am sure A&M wouldn't be pleased with the addition of Baylor.

Kansas and Baylor?  Yankees and litigators?  No thanks.

I'd rather see Taco Tech and Okie Light before that.  Or even K-State.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Or OU and OSU could split up, especially if OU and Texas went to the same place.  Let's say, for discussion's sake, that OSU ended up in the SEC and OU ended up in the PAC or Big 10 with Texas.  If Texas is a conference game, OU doesn't have to sacrifice an OOC game to play the series.  You figure OU can't place both OSU and Texas OOC, because they would essentially be left with no OOC slots to ever play anyone else from a P5 league.

That's part of the reason why I think OU won't move unless it knows what's going to happen to OSU.  Doesn't mean they have to move together, necessarily, but that they'd want to know where the Pokes were going to land before the folks in Norman made a move.

OU and OSU are tied at the hip. Wherever OU goes, OSU will go as well. The annual Bedlam games in football, basketball, wrestling and baseball are too big of a deal in Oklahoma for the politicians to ever allow those two to split up. Where one goes, the other will too, which leaves OU and maybe OSU as well, to schedule one OOC game with Texas each year, OU for certain. And that is made easier if Texas goes Independent, which I think that they eventually will.

All that said, I really believe that both schools, along with TT and TCU go west to the Pac 12. Baylor wouldn't be considered by the Pac 12 because they are considered to be a "religious" school. There has been mention of that previously. But Baylor would be a good fit in the SEC West, as would Kansas, if for only the basketball program and the academics.

[bphi11ips]

Oh yes, there would be a lot of folks who would have to be in agreement if there were teams moving from the West to the East and based on what you guys have been discussing here, about the only way we see a couple of notable teams moving from the West to the East (while still maintaining long held rivalry games) would most like occur as a result of expansion in the West.

If what I projected above ever comes to pass where two of Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State ever join the SEC West, it would be easy to then move Alabama and Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West to provide two 8 team divisions that would keep the vast majority happy while maintaining the most revered long-term rivalries.

It wouldn't bother me at all to see a Western Division that consists of Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Missouri and A&M, though I am sure A&M wouldn't be pleased with the addition of Baylor.

These offseason threads can be mundane, but I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks researching a few of them.  One of the things I've learned is that no team not named Alabama, Auburn, LSU Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee has won the SEC in 50 years!  And that was a tie in 1976 between Kentucky and Georgia.  Before that, Ole Miss won in 1963.  THAT'S the biggest reason Missouri was sent East.  It was so the Big 6 (see the article I linked above) would be evenly divided.

An East division that includes 5 of the Big 6 would destroy the balance of power that makes the SEC such a compelling league. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

These offseason threads can be mundane, but I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks researching a few of them.  One of the things I've learned is that no team not named Alabama, Auburn, LSU Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee has won the SEC in 50 years!  And that was a tie in 1976 between Kentucky and Georgia.  Before that, Ole Miss won in 1963.  THAT'S the biggest reason Missouri was sent East.  It was so the Big 6 (see the article I linked above) would be evenly divided.

An East division that includes 5 of the Big 6 would destroy the balance of power that makes the SEC such a compelling league. 

It's a good point that you make but things change.

[bphi11ips]

It's a good point that you make but things change.

Things are like people.  They change, but not much.

And this particular thing hasn't changed at all in our lifetimes.  54 years for me.   

[code red]

And..might not have to play them any if we change the teams around.

I would imagine we'd have a 50/50 shot at the SEC championship with this arrangement....and I would imagine Bama would be our opponent more often than not.

[lefty08]

These offseason threads can be mundane, but I've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks researching a few of them.  One of the things I've learned is that no team not named Alabama, Auburn, LSU Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee has won the SEC in 50 years!  And that was a tie in 1976 between Kentucky and Georgia.  Before that, Ole Miss won in 1963.  THAT'S the biggest reason Missouri was sent East.  It was so the Big 6 (see the article I linked above) would be evenly divided.

An East division that includes 5 of the Big 6 would destroy the balance of power that makes the SEC such a compelling league.

Several people on other boards make this argument as well , I always counter with , the big 6 wouldn't be the big 6 without those advantages. If you put 5 of the big 6 in one division, for instance, 1 or 2 of them would have never been big 6 to begin with. The reason the division's don't change is rivalries, nothing to do with power

[NaturalStateReb]

OU and OSU are tied at the hip. Wherever OU goes, OSU will go as well. The annual Bedlam games in football, basketball, wrestling and baseball are too big of a deal in Oklahoma for the politicians to ever allow those two to split up. Where one goes, the other will too, which leaves OU and maybe OSU as well, to schedule one OOC game with Texas each year, OU for certain. And that is made easier if Texas goes Independent, which I think that they eventually will.

All that said, I really believe that both schools, along with TT and TCU go west to the Pac 12. Baylor wouldn't be considered by the Pac 12 because they are considered to be a "religious" school. There has been mention of that previously. But Baylor would be a good fit in the SEC West, as would Kansas, if for only the basketball program and the academics.

I'm not sure that's as true as it once was.  You can still have all of the OU/OSU matchups if you've got OU and Texas together.  OU/OSU can only get in the Pac 12 with help--they've already said no to the pair on their own.  If you're OU, it's starting to look like you can't get where you want to go (B1G, PAC, or SEC) with OSU in tow. 

[NaturalStateReb]

Several people on other boards make this argument as well , I always counter with , the big 6 wouldn't be the big 6 without those advantages. If you put 5 of the big 6 in one division, for instance, 1 or 2 of them would have never been big 6 to begin with. The reason the division's don't change is rivalries, nothing to do with power

These teams won titles before there were divisions, too.  I'm not saying competitive balance between the divisions doesn't matter, but they all played together before 1992.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I'm not sure that's as true as it once was.  You can still have all of the OU/OSU matchups if you've got OU and Texas together.  OU/OSU can only get in the Pac 12 with help--they've already said no to the pair on their own.  If you're OU, it's starting to look like you can't get where you want to go (B1G, PAC, or SEC) with OSU in tow. 

I don't remember the Pac 12 saying "no" to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State coming together, in fact it was a part of a bigger package that initially included Baylor, that the Pac 12 rejected (or stalled negotiations) because they didn't want Baylor. Wasn't the original package deal Texas, OU, OSU and Baylor? Heck, I can't remember...slept since then.