Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Even though Vandy in the West could work, I believe the SEC did not want to split schools from the same state. The impact may not be felt in football, but it could be felt in the other sports. Even though the SEC may not officially use divisions for the other sports, I believe they still try to follow a divisional scheduling model. If Vandy was placed in the West Division, then it may be difficult for them to annually play Tennessee and Kentucky twice a year in basketball.
    Since when does the SEC put anything ahead of football?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieDevil View Post
    Since when does the SEC put anything ahead of football?
    I can't really say for sure the SEC's motives for its decision. Some decisions may not always be in football's best interest. For example, Auburn has a rivalry with Georgia and Florida. At one time both schools were Auburn's protected cross-divisional opponent. When the SEC decided that schools could only have 1 protected cross-divisional opponent, Auburn was forced to drop its annual game with Florida. Now the Auburn-Florida rivalry has become an intermittent rivalry which I am not sure can be viewed as a good thing for SEC football.

  3. #33
    BUGGZY's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 15, 2002
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieDevil View Post
    I thought when the SEC went to 14 the best idea I saw was move Vandy to the west and bring Bama and Auburn to the east. Then you can make Vandy-Tenn cross divisional rivalry.
    i don't think conferences should dictate crossover "rivalries" that don't actually exist. this goes for all leagues. in the ACC, i'm fine protecting FSU-Miami, NCSU-UNC, GT-Clemson, and dook-Wake, but for the other 6 of us, let us rotate among one another. VT, uva and Pitt in the Coastal could rotate BC, 'Cuse and L'ville either every year or every 2 years for a 6 year cycle. it wouldn't help us play Clemson or FSU any more often, but it would keep the schedule a little more fresh and knock BC down to twice every 6 years as opposed to annual.

    for the SEC, protect Bama-UT, auburn uga and maybe UF-LSU (though i've heard those 2 feel their "rivalry" is also forced/not real). the rest of the league should just rotate their crossover game. why make Arkansas-USC-e a "rivalry"? even Mizzou-aTm is a rivalry of convenience at best. let them rotate.
    "This no more resembles that than something unlike something else resembles that." - Loosely quoting PHNC

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by HokieDevil View Post
    I thought when the SEC went to 14 the best idea I saw was move Vandy to the west and bring Bama and Auburn to the east. Then you can make Vandy-Tenn cross divisional rivalry.
    I did find this article that could explain why the SEC did not like the idea of moving Alabama and Auburn to the East Division (see Option 2).

    http://www.saturdaynightslant.com/20...divisions.html

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by BUGGZY View Post
    i don't think conferences should dictate crossover "rivalries" that don't actually exist. this goes for all leagues. in the ACC, i'm fine protecting FSU-Miami, NCSU-UNC, GT-Clemson, and dook-Wake, but for the other 6 of us, let us rotate among one another. VT, uva and Pitt in the Coastal could rotate BC, 'Cuse and L'ville either every year or every 2 years for a 6 year cycle. it wouldn't help us play Clemson or FSU any more often, but it would keep the schedule a little more fresh and knock BC down to twice every 6 years as opposed to annual.

    for the SEC, protect Bama-UT, auburn uga and maybe UF-LSU (though i've heard those 2 feel their "rivalry" is also forced/not real). the rest of the league should just rotate their crossover game. why make Arkansas-USC-e a "rivalry"? even Mizzou-aTm is a rivalry of convenience at best. let them rotate.
    When a conference does not protect an equal number of games for its members, then it runs into quirks with establishing future schedule rotations. Eventually the rotation will have 2 teams scheduled to play the same team and 1 of those teams will have to be delayed because their slot is reserved for a protected game. As a result of the delay it will trigger other quirks because it will mean a team will get to play another team sooner to fill a void left by a protected game. The Big Ten will run into this problem since it is only protecting the Indiana-Purdue rivalry. I think this issue may prompt the Big Ten to expand to 16 as quickly as possible so Purdue and Indiana end up in the same division (preferably with Illinois and Northwestern). The PAC-12 has this problem too since Cal, Stanford, USC, and UCLA are protected games. However, it has managed to reduce the impact of the quirk by going to a 9 game conference schedule.

    WRT to the ACC, the simple solution would be for either VT or UVA to swap places with either Syracuse or BC. If that change is made, then everyone (except Pitt and Louisville) could have a rival for its protected cross-divisional game.
    Last edited by VTHokie2000; Tue Nov 12 2013 at 12:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •