SEC East...what about the schedules?

[OHvol40]

An idea doesn't have to be radical to be bad.

But I'll add "make FSU a neutral site game" to the list with all the other suggestions on how to improve our schedule.

UF-UGA in Jax and OU-Texas in Dallas should never be changed. Ditto for every major in-state rivalry played on campus.

Don't kid yourself, The "not" Coctail Party ain't the RRR. It's just not.

It comes down to just personal preference, but I bet if you polled everyone outside of the Florida-UGA fan bases, everyone would love to see that series played on campus.

Again, I understand though. It's a pretty sweet deal for UF to have that game closer in proximity and in-state. I wouldn't wanna change it either.

 

[Lawrence Wright]

Don't kid yourself, The "not" Coctail Party ain't the RRR. It's just not.

It comes down to just personal preference, but I bet if you polled everyone outside of the Florida-UGA fan bases, everyone would love to see that series played on campus.

Again, I understand though. It's a pretty sweet deal for UF to have that game closer in proximity and in-state. I wouldn't wanna change it either.

Would you poll fan bases outside of UT and Bama to determine what changes should be made to YOUR rivalry game?

Would you give two $h!ts what anyone not wearing UT orange or crimson had to say about it?

Proximity is overrated. When UGA plays Alabama in the SECCG, Bama has more fans.

Cocktail Party tickets are split 50/50....and it's been that way for 80+ years save for '94 and '95 when the old Gator Bowl was being renovated.

 

[OHvol40]

"The University of Florida: We don't set trends, we follow them"

Has a nice ring to it, eh LW?

 

[Reefa_Madness]

"The University of Florida: We don't set trends, we follow them"

Has a nice ring to it, eh LW?

I'm a little confused by that statement...isn't the "trend" to play home and home series? That being the case then "following the trend" would be to change to a home & home series, whereas keeping UF-GA game in Jacksonville is actually unique and not following the trend at all.

I live in the Jacksonville areas and have friends from both GA & UF come to town for the game and we get together downtown Friday night and sometimes I've even joined them at the game. Its a blast (the whole weekend) and I'd hate for it to change.

Really believe you are misinformed on this issue...have you actually ever attended?

 

[OHvol40]

I'm a little confused by that statement...isn't the "trend" to play home and home series? That being the case then "following the trend" would be to change to a home & home series, whereas keeping UF-GA game in Jacksonville is actually unique and not following the trend at all.

I live in the Jacksonville areas and have friends from both GA & UF come to town for the game and we get together downtown Friday night and sometimes I've even joined them at the game. Its a blast (the whole weekend) and I'd hate for it to change.

Really believe you are misinformed on this issue...have you actually ever attended?

He has numerous posts citing his objections to having FSU as a neutral site game being that basically no one else does it. Hence, they don't set trends, they follow them.

 

[99gator]

He has numerous posts citing his objections to having FSU as a neutral site game being that basically no one else does it. Hence, they don't set trends, they follow them.

To take this seriously for a second.

You'd have to get both schools to agree and there is no way, due to season ticket sales, that Florida State would ever give up a home game every two years vs. Florida. That ain't happening.

And, to be frank, Florida would have the same issue. If both FSU and Georgia were neutral site games with only 40,000 tickets going to each fan base.....why the hell would anyone bother to purchase season tickets, particularly in an odd year (odd years are currently when FSU is a home game for Florida).

And that's if the game were in Jacksonville due to seating capacity. In another location, we're talking about a smaller amount of tickets.

 

[OHvol40]

To take this seriously for a second.

You'd have to get both schools to agree and there is no way, due to season ticket sales, that Florida State would ever give up a home game every two years vs. Florida. That ain't happening.

And, to be frank, Florida would have the same issue. If both FSU and Georgia were neutral site games with only 40,000 tickets going to each fan base.....why the hell would anyone bother to purchase season tickets, particularly in an odd year (odd years are currently when FSU is a home game for Florida).

And that's if the game were in Jacksonville due to seating capacity. In another location, we're talking about a smaller amount of tickets.

#1, it's UF's schedule, I don't care enough to really take it seriously.

#2 my whole point was FSU and UGA should be switched.

 

[Reefa_Madness]

He has numerous posts citing his objections to having FSU as a neutral site game being that basically no one else does it. Hence, they don't set trends, they follow them.

Yeah, I confused which game you were referencing.

That said...they're following the same trend every school does...including UT...for the obviou$ reas$on$. Gotta pay the bills.

 

[AM64]

I'm pretty sure that ooc games have absolutely no bearing on which team makes it to atlanta

In a way they do. If all OOC games are tough games, then those games might well cause a tired team to lose a conference game - barring a trip to Atlanta.

If you schedule and lose to a couple of good OOC teams, then those losses might undo any good from going to Atlanta.

Before the college schedule expanded from 10 games, one good OOC game plus the conference games made for a respectable looking slate. With twelve games, the schedule starts looking gratuitous because most teams are going to schedule some patsies rather than commit athletic suicide. Everybody does it, but it still leads to a lot of finger pointing - the FCS games, etc. The political game becomes not what tough teams you play, but about the patsies - opposing fans and media forget you play AL if you play Chattanooga.

Tennessee has typically played solid OOC teams, but it was more meaningful when that one good OOC game was part of the ten game lineup. If SC plays Clemson, FL plays FSU, and GA plays GA Tech, those usually have the same stature as the one reasonably solid OOC games that the other teams play. I'm far less sold on the guest appearances that AL makes than real scheduled home and away games with a solid OOC opponent.

What makes it all look weak are the gratuitous games thrown in to expand the season. With so much on the line these days, that's the way it will stand unless some sanctioning body forces a change. Actions have consequences. The PAC probably demonstrated that as aptly as anyone; schedule that extra game in a fairly equal conference and you might well not be in the NC hunt.

 

[AM64]

Every team should have to play TWO power 5 OOC teams imo unless the SEC goes to 9 games.

That would be stupid unless the same rule applies to all P5 teams. The ninth PAC game may well have cost the PAC a playoff team. The ACC and b1g would benefit with a ninth conference game requirement by virtue of having so many bottom feeders in the conference.

 

[AM64]

You boys from the east then get:

South Carolina
Kentucky
Missouri
Vandy

That's some serious shortcuts on the road to Atlanta.

That's true if you simply forget that SC and MO imploded - can't argue about Vandy and KY. The west teams are better top to bottom right now, but if some start replacing coaches don't bet against a very lopsided west division. And since those four teams will play eight cross conference games, west teams do benefit from their being down - just perhaps not equally. It probably would have been better if the SEC had not put Vandy and KY in the same division; but aside from that, there is no assurance that an equal division would remain equal over the years.

 

[TUSKtimes]

That's true if you simply forget that SC and MO imploded - can't argue about Vandy and KY. The west teams are better top to bottom right now, but if some start replacing coaches don't bet against a very lopsided west division. And since those four teams will play eight cross conference games, west teams do benefit from their being down - just perhaps not equally. It probably would have been better if the SEC had not put Vandy and KY in the same division; but aside from that, there is no assurance that an equal division would remain equal over the years.

Bigger picture was to say, Tenn and Florida trying to discuss who has the tougher road, is relative, given the layout of the east. Gators choose to backload with their serious OOC game. Tennessee usually takes their medicine earlier. If either team, including Georgia, didn't permanently cross over, the SOS could feel more like the big ten.

 

[OHvol40]

Bigger picture was to say, Tenn and Florida trying to discuss who has the tougher road, is relative, given the layout of the east. Gators choose to backload with their serious OOC game. Tennessee usually takes their medicine earlier. If either team, including Georgia, didn't permanently cross over, the SOS could feel more like the big ten.

Not so long ago the west was an afterthought and the SEC championship was basically decided when UT and UF met. There are ebbs and flows. I recall the Mississippi schools being as close to an automatic win as Vandy/Kentucky

 

[jakez4ut]

Bigger picture was to say, Tenn and Florida trying to discuss who has the tougher road, is relative, given the layout of the east. Gators choose to backload with their serious OOC game. Tennessee usually takes their medicine earlier. If either team, including Georgia, didn't permanently cross over, the SOS could feel more like the big ten.

easy to say now, it hasn't always been that way, these things run in cycles, it wasn't all that long ago, pre saban, that the west was the joke and FL, TN and GA were vying for conf supremacy every year.

the big feather in the West's cap....Miss schools got better and you got aTm, we got Missouri.

over the history of the divisions though, the West has primarily been a one horse show, Bama, with LSU and Auburn peppered in.

it's easy to toot the West's horn right now.

but let's not try to pretend like it's been that way forever.

and id certainly say with GA still being relevant, FL still being relevant, and TN finally throwing our hat back in the ring, the East stands to look more like it did 10 years ago than it did 3 years ago.:thumbsup:

 

[jakez4ut]

The Iron Bowl used to be played in B'ham every year.

The Egg Bowl also has had several stretches where the game was played in Jackson.

exactly.

the only thing i'd offer that would favor the cocktail party is that Legion field and whatever stadium they played in JAckson didn't get replaced by a state of the art NFL stadium that only fills up for the cocktail party.

but the larger point is taken. things change....

 

[99gator]

exactly.

the only thing i'd offer that would favor the cocktail party is that Legion field and whatever stadium they played in JAckson didn't get replaced by a state of the art NFL stadium that only fills up for the cocktail party.

but the larger point is taken. things change....

If we are a proponent of change, lets move auburn to the east, missouri to the west, kill the alabama-tennessee game and make scheduling a lot easier while also making more sense.

Are you up for that change?

 

[99gator]

Not so long ago the west was an afterthought and the SEC championship was basically decided when UT and UF met. There are ebbs and flows. I recall the Mississippi schools being as close to an automatic win as Vandy/Kentucky

The west was always better. The difference was the top of the east was better than the top of the west.

As a general rule, arkansas and the mississippi schools are better than south carolina, vandy and kentucky. A&M will also be better than mizzou more often than not

 

[ConantheVolbarian]

I agree with most of this. I don't think getting up to play UGA will be an issue but it is, no doubt, a must win and I don't believe the fans are talking enough about this game.

For the reasons you mentioned above, a loss here and any other SEC loss will be hard to overcome. As always , beat UF and UGA and you're in the drivers seat.

Any other SEC loss will be easier to overcome. The UGA game might be for all the marbles!

People aren't talking about the Georgia game as much because Tennessee tends to play very well against Georgia. Heck, we even played them close during the dark ages of UT football. Florida is the sticking point for most UT fans for a reason. They have owned us for over a decade and have historically been our biggest obstacle to get to Atlanta.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Not so long ago the west was an afterthought and the SEC championship was basically decided when UT and UF met. There are ebbs and flows. I recall the Mississippi schools being as close to an automatic win as Vandy/Kentucky

Don't ever remember Kentucky or Vandy having any ebb or flow, historically or currently. South Carolina has been relevant in the Spurrier era a few years.

The way the east is set up since the latest expansion has changed future' balance. Missouri should have logically and otherwise been in the west. I would have been happy personally to send you the barn. I think they would be happy to go at this stage.

We are now in the 4 team playoff era and we are not going back to the 12 team past glory days and all their dynamics. Therefore, balance with the bottom feeders is particularly relevant. The SEC need to get their maps out and geographically straighten out what should have already happened.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The west was always better.

That, sir, is demonstrably false. Fact: for the majority of two-division SEC history, the halves have been well balanced. Only in the past 7-8 years have things gotten out of kilter.

You might recognize this chart; it has been on these boards before, because this discussion is not a new one.

From 1992 when the SEC was split into divisions, to 2008, the two halves were well balanced. Some years the East won more, other years the West. Back and forth. That was 17 years of balance.

Only from 2009 to 2015, the last 7 years, have things gotten out of whack. Not coincidentally, that corresponds pretty closely with the Vols' Kiffin/Dooley Dark Ages and the Gators' Fall from Grace period under Muschamp...as well as Saban's tenure at Bama (there is no debating it, that guy is a difference-maker).

So, 24 years of East vs West, 17 balanced, 7 unbalanced.

Yes, Vandy sucks. But looking at the totality of those 24 years, Kentucky is more like Ole Miss and Miss State (or Ole Miss and Miss State are more like Kentucky) than a person would think, if they only knew about the last 3-4 years. And Mizzou, for all their weaknesses, has won as many division titles (SEC and B12) as A&M.

Now, I'm a huge fan of the idea of flipping Auburn for Mizzou to rebalance the divisions. It just makes geographic sense, and should've been done at the start. Plus it puts an old rival into our half of the conference where we get to play every year. My only counter would be, let's go to 9 conference games, so we and Auburn can both have Bama as permanent cross-division rivals. That way we don't lose the Third Saturday in October.

But even if we don't realign the conference, balance will return. Life goes in cycles, it ebbs and flows. Football is just a part of life.

 

[captennmike]

That's true if you simply forget that SC and MO imploded - can't argue about Vandy and KY. The west teams are better top to bottom right now, but if some start replacing coaches don't bet against a very lopsided west division. And since those four teams will play eight cross conference games, west teams do benefit from their being down - just perhaps not equally. It probably would have been better if the SEC had not put Vandy and KY in the same division; but aside from that, there is no assurance that an equal division would remain equal over the years.

Thats true, 15 years ago seems it was the west that was weak while the east carried the conference. The balance shifts from time to time.

 

[99gator]

That, sir, is demonstrably false. Fact: for the majority of two-division SEC history, the halves have been well balanced. Only in the past 7-8 years have things gotten out of kilter.

You might recognize this chart; it has been on these boards before, because this discussion is not a new one.

From 1992 when the SEC was split into divisions, to 2008, the two halves were well balanced. Some years the East won more, other years the West. Back and forth. That was 17 years of balance.

Only from 2009 to 2015, the last 7 years, have things gotten out of whack. Not coincidentally, that corresponds pretty closely with the Vols' Kiffin/Dooley Dark Ages and the Gators' Fall from Grace period under Muschamp...as well as Saban's tenure at Bama (there is no debating it, that guy is a difference-maker).

So, 24 years of East vs West, 17 balanced, 7 unbalanced.

Yes, Vandy sucks. But looking at the totality of those 24 years, Kentucky is more like Ole Miss and Miss State (or Ole Miss and Miss State are more like Kentucky) than a person would think, if they only knew about the last 3-4 years. And Mizzou, for all their weaknesses, has won as many division titles (SEC and B12) as A&M.

Now, I'm a huge fan of the idea of flipping Auburn for Mizzou to rebalance the divisions. It just makes geographic sense, and should've been done at the start. Plus it puts an old rival into our half of the conference where we get to play every year. My only counter would be, let's go to 9 conference games, so we and Auburn can both have Bama as permanent cross-division rivals. That way we don't lose the Third Saturday in October.

But even if we don't realign the conference, balance will return. Life goes in cycles, it ebbs and flows. Football is just a part of life.

Florida is 66-6 vs vandy, ky and sc since divisional play.

Florida has more losses vs. Mississippi schools alone in that time and we didnt play near 72 games against them.

Make whatever argument you want, there is no layup on the western side like vandy and kentucky.

On a side note, none of those losses by Florida to vandy, ky, and sc were against a decent gator team either except 2005 to carolina.

Not like ole miss beating national champion florida in 2008

 

[OHvol40]

Don't ever remember Kentucky or Vandy having any ebb or flow, historically or currently. South Carolina has been relevant in the Spurrier era a few years.

The way the east is set up since the latest expansion has changed future' balance. Missouri should have logically and otherwise been in the west. I would have been happy personally to send you the barn. I think they would be happy to go at this stage.

We are now in the 4 team playoff era and we are not going back to the 12 team past glory days and all their dynamics. Therefore, balance with the bottom feeders is particularly relevant. The SEC need to get their maps out and geographically straighten out what should have already happened.

I agree Mizzou in the west and Auburn in the east just makes sense. I didn't get that one at all. Of course, that would mean losing the Third Saturday in October which would be trumped by the iron bowl. Auburn would get to renew some traditional rivals in the east which would be fun, though.

 

[MSME Vol]

Florida is 66-6 vs vandy, ky and sc since divisional play.

Florida has more losses vs. Mississippi schools alone in that time and we didnt play near 72 games against them.

Make whatever argument you want, there is no layup on the western side like vandy and kentucky.

On a side note, none of those losses by Florida to vandy, ky, and sc were against a decent gator team either except 2005 to carolina.

Not like ole miss beating national champion florida in 2008

I imagine Alabama has a similar record against state, Arkansas, and Ole miss. Maybe not quite as dramatic but similar. The traditional teams at the top of their division get there by doing just that, beating those traditionally below them.

I think the point is that historically in head to heads the east and west were balanced. Let's wait and see if the east has pulled itself out of the terrible coaching hire decisions that killed them before we declare a must have need for change.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Florida is 66-6 vs vandy, ky and sc since divisional play.

Florida has more losses vs. Mississippi schools alone in that time and we didnt play near 72 games against them.

Make whatever argument you want, there is no layup on the western side like vandy and kentucky.

On a side note, none of those losses by Florida to vandy, ky, and sc were against a decent gator team either except 2005 to carolina.

Not like ole miss beating national champion florida in 2008

Florida's record versus other East teams has precisely zero bearing on East-vs-West balance. Just like Bama's record versus select teams in the West has no bearing.

If you're looking for balance or parity inside each Division, that's a totally different matter. And yes, you could make an argument that the distribution of wins inside the East looks more like an hourglass, while the distribution of wins inside the West is shaped more like a football. That would be an interesting argument to see.

But it's a different argument entirely. We're talking East versus West here.