Ever since the SEC announced they were adding Texas and Oklahoma, I've been intrigued by how they're planning on making the conference schedule when those two join. I'm intrigued by it because there are a number of different options they seem to be considering, and there's no consensus over what different schools prefer! They obviously have to have some sort of realignment and figure out the schedule, though, so they're gonna have to pick one of them!
The most obvious solution would be to put Texas and Oklahoma in the West and shift the two easternmost West Division teams, Alabama and Auburn, to the East. (They'd also likely have to move Missouri to the West to keep the divisions balanced.) Which both divisions would probably have mixed feelings about. Sure, it takes two good teams out of the division, but it also means you're not playing Alabama every year (and, more importantly, at home every other year). Likewise, I'm sure Florida and Georgia would be excited to have the annual matchup while still dreading the thought of playing them every year.
That would create another problem, though. SEC teams currently play eight conference games--six in their division, one permanent crossover, and one rotating crossover opponent. Adding Texas and Oklahoma would put seven teams in each division, which would mean that if they keep the eight-game schedule, they'd never face half the league! Because the only teams they'd face would be their seven division opponents and their permanent crossover. That doesn't work either!
Either way, I think the SEC will have to go to a nine-game conference schedule. Last season's 10-game, conference-only schedule was so well-received that fans want to see them play each other more often, not less. (Teams in opposite divisions go more than a decade without visiting each other's campuses.) That would also give them an extra week's worth of conference games for the SEC's new TV contract.
I'm sure there will be some push back regarding the ninth conference game, which they'd all lose a non-conference game every season...and half of them would lose a home game every other year (as well as there being a guaranteed eight additional losses across the league). That lost home game would almost certainly be a guarantee game against an FCS or non-Power 5 opponent, which they'll have to exchange for a conference matchup against a much stronger team. However, the powers-that-be should win out and the ninth conference game should be added.
Although, simply adding a ninth game to accommodate Texas and Oklahoma but otherwise keeping the same schedule wouldn't change the frequency with which you play teams in the other division. Because that ninth game would simply be your seventh division game. You'd still have your permanent crossover and just the one rotating opponent, which would now be a seven-team rotation instead of six, so you'd actually go longer between games. So I don't think that's the best option, either.
Some people have suggested they just drop divisions altogether, but there's some concern about that, too. Not only would it be a drastic step, it would potentially create a situation where the SEC Championship Game is a regular season rematch. That's still technically a possibility now, but the fear is it would happen far more frequently.
One of the options that I saw eliminated the divisions, but not entirely. Instead, the teams were grouped into four four-team scheduling pods, where they play the three teams in their pod every year, as well as two teams from each of the other three pods. It's similar to what the WAC did during those few years it had 16 teams before the Mountain West schools broke away.
However, the pods could end up being very imbalanced, especially if they were based strictly on geography. It would also mean that some rivalry games between teams not in the same pod wouldn't be played every year. Although, the advantage is that teams would cycle through the entire league more often, and under this format, you'd visit everybody's campus at least once in a four-year span. That's a huge plus.
What I'd like to see, though, is the third option that's being floated around. It's the 3-6-6 model. There are no divisions. No pods. Instead you have your three designated rivals who you play every year. You play a home-and-home with six of the other 12, then flip it and play a home-and-home with the other six. Once again, that guarantees you make a trip to every other campus and everybody comes to you at least once during the four-year cycle, which is actually pretty good for a 16-team league. And far more frequent than some interdivision matchups happen now, I might add.
It would be easy to preserve rivalries in this format, too. Sure, you're not gonna be able to keep all of them, but it keeps the most important games that schools wouldn't be willing to trade. (And let's not forget, some SEC schools' biggest rivalry game isn't against another SEC team...it's against the ACC school in their state!) I'm not just talking about the obvious Auburn-Alabama, Florida-Georgia and Texas-Oklahoma, either. I'm talking about the annual games like Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia that are incredibly important to the fan bases, as well as the TV-friendly matchups like LSU-Texas A&M or the newly-revived Texas-Texas A&M matchup.
Another nice thing about the 3-6-6 model is that it can also be used for basketball. The obvious difference is that in basketball you play everybody every year, but this would make determining your home-and-home opponents very easy. You play a home-and-home with your three permanent football opponents and flip your home and away with the other 12 every other year.
Obviously some of the more attractive football games aren't as attractive in basketball. But that's less of a concern when you're already guaranteed to play the entire league at least once anyway. And, whether it's football or basketball, I'm not sure fans necessarily care how good each team is when you have a rivalry game like Texas-Oklahoma or Florida-Georgia. Those are basketball games that the schools would still want to guarantee take place in their building every year no matter what.
Same thing with baseball and softball, sports where the SEC was already the best and will only get stronger. The schedule model is a little different in those sports, but they still have conference opponents they won't play. But the 3-6-6 model would guarantee that they face their three designated rivals every year regardless.
So, the way I see it, the 3-6-6 model is the way to go. The logistics of who qualifies for the SEC Championship Game would obviously have to be worked out, but I think the SEC Presidents and Athletic Directors who may be hesitant will be willing to jump on board once the idea of a guaranteed home game against everyone in the league at least once in a four-year period is floated out there.
And, for the record, here's who I would designate as the three permanent opponents under this format, which I really hope is the one they go with:
- Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
- Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
- Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
- Florida: Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee
- Georgia: Auburn, Florida, Mississippi State
- Kentucky: Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
- LSU: Alabama, Texas, Texas A&M
- Mississippi: Auburn, Mississippi State, Missouri
- Mississippi State: Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina
- Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma
- Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
- South Carolina: Kentucky, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
- Tennessee: Alabama, Florida, Vanderbilt
- Texas: LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
- Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
- Vanderbilt: Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
No comments:
Post a Comment