SEC 360: A completely sensible suggestion for Power 5 conference realignment
OK, college football, real funny.
Joke’s over.
We’re over 5 years removed from the biggest conference cataclysm in college football history, and frankly, I’m not sure this is working out.
I mean, Nebraska in the Big Ten? Missouri in the SEC? West Virginia in the Big 12?
Really?
A few years ago, college football did this crazy thing where several teams jumped from 1 conference to another like frogs to a lily pad. Let’s review what took place from 2011-14:
– Missouri and Texas A&M joined the SEC
– West Virginia and TCU linked up with the Big 12
– Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers accepted invitations from the Big Ten
– Colorado and Utah said hello to the Pac-12
– Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Louisville came to the ACC
After reading this list, admit it. Something just doesn’t feel right.
With these major conference shake-ups came the inevitable detritus: lost rivalries and/or border wars and athletic travel that has gotten completely out of control. Raise your hand if you miss watching the Texas A&M Aggies march into Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium at the University of Texas or the Sooner wagon descending on Lincoln, Nebraska. (I see several hands being raised). Now raise your hand if you miss the vitriol and pageantry of the Missouri-Kansas skirmish at Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City. (More hands).
That said, I often think about the strain on West Virginia’s athletic budget to send their women’s volleyball team half a country away (actually, it’s nearly 1500 miles) to Lubbock for a meeting with the Texas Tech Lady Raiders on a school night.
Other current conference travel itineraries that leave you scratching your head: Miami, Florida, to Syracuse, New York (ACC); Gainesville, Florida, to Columbia, Missouri (SEC); Columbia, South Carolina to College Station, Texas (SEC).
Next thing you know, Moon U will be playing Saturn State for the Milky Way Championship (sponsored by Dr. Pepper, of course).
There’s a saying that goes, “What’s the answer to 99 out of 100 questions? Money.” And I understand that often (always?) the Almighty Dollar has a great deal to do with where an institution affiliates. But what has happened in recent years has created a power shift heavily to the east and to the south. Save for Oregon, the Pac-12 has become a joke. Outside of Oklahoma, the Big 12 has become a joke. And with Clemson usurping all of the power on the eastern seaboard, the ACC has become a joke. Bowls are a joke, too.
Unfortunately, no one is laughing.
All the while, the SEC, the greatest beneficiary of said realignment, just keeps gobbling up titles and flexing its might. As an SEC football fan, I have absolutely no problem with this, but if my allegiance was to Texas or USC, I’d have a serious problem with it. There’s a reason why the top recruits out of California and Texas keep defecting to SEC schools. It’s because the SEC has become the Golden State Warriors of college football—the place where everyone has decided to go.
I’m not suggesting that the SEC is doing a thing wrong. The conference has every right to do what it needs to do to be the best, and there’s no question that the additions of Texas A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Missouri have benefited the conference, both financially and from a standpoint of championships. But you wonder whether or not the current alignments are sustainable over the long haul and create the best possible outcomes for the game as a whole.
Ask yourself: Is it good for 1 conference to totally dominate? Can we truly say that college football is better than it was 10, 15 years ago?
I should say that I do not advocate socialism here. The heavy hand of leveling should not come down on the Big Bad SEC to make things more “fair.” However, it would be nice to have a bit more regional equality in college football as a whole. I don’t think the current selection system is particularly fair to conferences west of the Mississippi River, but I also think those conferences need to step up and take college football as seriously as the teams in the east do. USC was the last great dynasty of the west, but since Pete Carroll left for the NFL, the power has shifted to the opposite coast.
I realize that conference affiliations are tied up with contracts and the decisions to realign have a lot to do with money and TV rights, but if you could wave a magic wand and fix the conferences in collectively the best possible format, how would it all look?
Before we get started, I’ve broken down the conferences into 12 teams each with 2 divisions each. I felt that was important for consistency sake, and because I believe conferences are better the less teams you have in them. This way, we could retain the conference championships (yes, I think we should keep them) and the rivalries that divisions facilitate. For your convenience, I have listed the teams in alphabetical order.
Here we go:
SEC
SEC East: Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
SEC West: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, LSU, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
Notice first that there is no Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, or Texas A&M on this list. More on that in other conference discussions. The SEC East, the traditionally weaker of the 2 football divisions, would be bolstered with the addition of Clemson and the subtractions of Missouri and Vanderbilt. The East would also add a traditional rivalry with Clemson and South Carolina and bring in its geographical fence by eliminating road games at Missouri (the drive from Clemson to Athens is only 75 miles, about the same distance as Starkville to Tuscaloosa).
The addition of Florida State would add another traditional rival to an existing SEC school, Florida, and would also make sense geographically, as FSU is just 190 miles to Auburn and 152 miles to Gainesville.
Furthermore, this particular alignment would create some interesting matchups: Clemson-Tennessee, Clemson-LSU, Florida State-Auburn, Clemson-Alabama, and Florida State-LSU (who are slated to play in 2022 and 23), to name a few.
Big 12
Big 12 North: Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Big 12 South: Arkansas, Baylor, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
This alignment would be a blend of the old Southwest Conference and the Big 12, while at the same time heal college football of the biggest damage of realignment—the loss of major Big 12 rivalries. Bringing back Nebraska and Missouri would renew these teams’ respective rivalries with Oklahoma and Kansas, and luring A&M back west would do the same with Texas (in my opinion, it’s sinful that A&M and Texas do not play anymore). Arkansas seems to be a better fit here, as does Colorado, but to maintain the 12-team format, you’d have to drop TCU and Iowa State off the roster. TCU would go into the either the American Athletic Conference or Conference USA and Iowa State into the Big Ten.
You can imagine how a Nebraska-Colorado matchup would feel right, as would a trip to Norman, Oklahoma, for the Texas A&M Aggies. Arkansas-Oklahoma would be a rootin’ tootin’ affair, or what about a yearly Arkansas-Texas matchup that harkens back to the Broyles Royal(e) of ’69?
…my mouth is already watering.
Big Ten
Big Ten East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Penn State, Wisconsin
So Notre Dame is in the ACC in basketball, but the football team has never been in a conference? That makes a lot of sense—or actually it makes no sense at all.
Look, I get that Notre Dame plays a tough schedule (I mean, if a game with Stanford doesn’t put the fear of God in you, I don’t know what does), but seriously, Irish, man up and join a conference. I’m not necessarily saying this because I’m upset with Notre Dame. I’m saying this because it makes college football better. Who wouldn’t get excited about a Notre Dame-Penn State or Notre Dame-Ohio State matchup? Who wouldn’t love for Notre Dame-Michigan State to have conference implications? It just makes too much sense.
Also, I love the addition of Iowa State here to bring a traditional rivalry in the Big Ten West. But to do this, conference mainstay Northwestern would have to drop out and move to either Conference USA or the American Athletic Conference. It’s just part of the big decisions we have to make here at SDS.
You may have made note that I added Penn State in the West also. That’s because the East is chock-full of good teams and someone needed to move for balance sake. The Nittany Lions were the obvious choice.
ACC
ACC North: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C. State
ACC South: Central Florida (UCF), Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), South Florida (USF), Vanderbilt, Wake Forest
How do you make the ACC competitive in football again? By taking Clemson out of the equation.
Let’s be honest: no one in the ACC is going to compete with Clemson anytime soon. But, if you were to relocate the Fighting Dabos to, say, the SEC, then you immediately create more parity than before, thereby making the conference more competitive.
Honestly, I’d like for the ACC champion to be up in the air for once. I miss that.
And what would be wrong with adding the Sunshine State twins, Central Florida and South Florida? Both teams have been competitive over the last twenty or so years and have enrollments north of 49,000 (yes, I said that right), so maybe it’s time for these schools to join a Power 5 Conference. The ACC seems as good a fit as an elbow pad on the American Dream Dusty Rhodes.
I also added Vanderbilt here, not necessarily because I don’t like Vandy in the SEC, but because I feel it’s a better fit with the high academic institutions like Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina all residing in the ACC.
Pac-12
Pac-12 North: Boise State, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Pac-12 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah
At first glance, I love Boise being in the Pac-12. There’s no question I’d tune into a Boise-Oregon or Boise-UCLA matchup. The problem with this alignment is that you separate traditional rivals California and Stanford to accommodate for the addition of Boise in the Pac-12 North. Does anyone strenuously object? I didn’t think so.
The only change to the Pac-12 South in this format is the addition of Stanford and the subtraction of Colorado. Otherwise, I’d keep it as-is. Though Utah still feels a bit like the stranger of the bunch, you and I will both warm up to the Utes being a Pac-12 staple as the years go by.
I do realize that travel is an issue here, but you cannot logically break up this conference and maintain the same level of quality as before.
Big East
Big East North: Army, Boston College, Navy, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple
Big East South: Appalachian State, East Carolina, Maryland, Marshall, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
I know. I’m creating an entirely new conference. And I know. We’ve experimented with this before.
But if you look at this collective, it seems like a really good grouping, both from a rivalry standpoint and a geographical one.
The Big East South is a group of teams bunched up from just 4 states: West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The teams listed here all have that Appalachian huskiness to them and travel would flow relatively easily between these institutions of higher learning. The only question I have is, “Why would it behoove West Virginia to agree to this?” I’ll give you 2, actually 3, reasons. Because the Mountaineers would have a greater opportunity to become conference champions year in and year out, and travel would be much less of a burden. And third, I love a West Virginia/Marshall game in either Morgantown or Huntington.
In the north, you bring Army and Navy into the same conference and add the markets of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston into the mix. No, a Syracuse-Rutgers matchup doesn’t necessarily invite a cascade of emotions like Elvis in his prime at the International Hotel in Las Vegas, but it’s a much easier road trip for the alumni base and seems more natural than Syracuse-Duke at Wallace Wade Stadium in Durham.
So now that we’ve created the Power 6 conferences, how do we arrange the College Football Playoff? Simple.
Since under the current format there is absolutely no chance that a non-Power 5 team is getting into the final 4 grouping (believe me, I’ve sat in on a mock selection exercise at the Gaylord Texan Hotel in Grapevine, Texas), we’ll arrange the brackets based on the Power 6.
Let’s reward the top 2 seeds with a bye. For these purposes, let’s just say that Clemson and Alabama claim those slots, Clemson being the 1-seed and Alabama the 2-seed. The 3-seed would be matched up in the first round with the 6-seed, and the 4-seed with the 5-seed.
It would look something like this:
First Round
(3) Ohio State vs. (6) West Virginia
(4) USC vs. (5) Miami (FL)
Second Round
Winner of (3) vs. (6) against Clemson
Winner of (4) vs. (5) against Alabama
Third Round
CFP Championship
“But Al,” you say. “What if North Carolina gets in?”
So be it. The very nature of this playoff structure will facilitate greater regional equality. Soon, you’ll see teams from all conferences actually vying for these 6 slots instead of being left to twist in the wind. You’ll see a lot of teams get better quickly. You won’t see as much recruiting defection to other regions if a player truly believes he can compete for a championship by staying closer to home. And, at the same time, the elite powers that have been successful recently (Alabama, Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma) will still have essentially the same opportunity to win the national title.
The only difference between this set-up and the current format is that you’ll extend the invitations only to the conference champions and bar anyone else from sneaking in with an at-large bid.
If you’re terribly offended by that structure, keep the current 4-team format and have an extra conference from which to choose.
These are just suggestions, mind you. At the end of the day, I think we all want the same thing. I think we all want college football to be as strong as it can possibly be.
But we have to be careful not to get to a point where money sacrifices quality at the altar.
No.
Missouri would go independent before it petitioned to be back in the Texas conference. Clemson has repeatedly said it has no interest in the SEC, (too much competition), Vandy is a charter member of the SEC and isn’t going anywhere, Arkansas is like Mizzou, they had enough of Texas years ago. Pie in the sky article.
Plus Florida and SC would almost certainly veto their in state rivals from the SEC.
It’s February, and you have to write something.
Is it spring practice yet?
Getting close. Two or three weeks.
Auburn should be in the SEC East. Missouri in the East make zero sense. Move them to the West.
Cry me a river
On what planet does it make sense for Missouri to be in the SEC East?
The problem is that the SEC has one permanent cross-over opponent from the other division. Until the scheduling format is changed, if Auburn is in the East, that would kill the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry, because obviously Alabama and Auburn would need to play each other every year.
Planet Earth. Hope this helps.
“Until the scheduling format is changed, if Auburn is in the East, that would kill the Alabama-Tennessee rivalry, because obviously Alabama and Auburn would need to play each other every year.”
Who cares. Bama/UT is about as popular as you and your herpes outbreak.
Who cares about your opinion.
Move Mizzou and Vandy to the west, Bama and AU to the east. Problem solved.
The problem with that is all the traditional powers is in the East other than LSU…
It makes the west very weak.
I’m all for it. Still have LSU and A&M (not that A&M has ever done anything but they recruit like they are a top team). Would actually make the SEC more competitive in my opinion.
That would work as well, simply swapping Bama and Mizzou accomplishes the same thing with less teams but either way makes a ton of sense.
Yes that makes 100% sense. But you do realize Nick Saban didn’t like that idea so therefore it didn’t happen. Just have to wait until Saban is gone.
Could be waiting a long time for that.
Indeed. But even after Saban is gone I’m not entirely confident common sense will come to fruition.
So Saban stopped Auburn from going to the east? Playing Missouri is a guaranteed win most years so I doubt Bama would care based on opponent strength… That being said Bama has a rivalry with the Vols that is more important than where missouri landed…
Yes he did actually. But lets face it, the easier thing to do instead of moving Auburn would have been to move Bama to the East. That way they still play TN every year and then Auburn could become their permanent crossover to continue playing them every year. Although that made more sense, I guess moving a team from one division to the other to help the conference make more geographic sense confused everyone in the SEC.
You don’t understand how any of this works do you? Saban doesn’t stop any team from moving… Losing the game with Auburn or Tennessee is bigger than Saban…
Evidently not. Bama loses to Auburn quite often and Saban is still there.
And evidently you still don’t understand moving Bama to the East still allows them to play Auburn and TN every year.
If you’re trying to troll you suck at it. Losing the game is it going away.
Missouri has done nothing but embarrass the SEC since joining yet they’re still there. Banned from post season and a Hunger Strike. They have been so impressive since Joining the conference..
And evidently you still don’t understand how any of this works… If you move Auburn and Bama to the East then the west becomes Trash… The commissioner is not going to do that..
Trolling the conference my team is in? Hilarious. First I simply stated the truth. Second, I stated an easy solution that clearly suggested moving Bama to the East, NOT Auburn and it still confused YOU. That doesn’t make me or anyone a troll. Grow up, or learn how to read, or both.
So the conversation is about geographical fit and you want to move Bama who is west of Auburn? That doesn’t make any sense either.. One of the things the conference has tried to do is split the traditional powers in the conference.. You have UGA, Fla, UT in the East and Bama, LSU, Auburn in the west….
Your trolling comment is talking about Bama losing to Auburn and Saban Not being fired. You got your feelings hurt and tried to lash out… Maybe you should grow up..
No, that comment was in response to the your suggestion that losing to Auburn is bigger than Saban. If losing to Auburn is that big then Saban would be gone losing to Malzahn 3 times already. I don’t buy your assertion. Saban clearly bigger.
I am talking about the game not being played anymore. Not who won/lost the actual game…. It’s not hard to understand considering the conversation..
So the easiest thing to do is make the divisions North/South…. You can keep all the traditional powers split.
Holy crap, what part of “move Bama to the East. That way they still play TN every year and then Auburn could become their permanent crossover to continue playing them every year.” is confusing you?
It’s not confusing.. That throws out the entire argument of doing it for geographical alignment. Auburn and Bama still wouldn’t play as well as Auburn and UGA wouldn’t give up their cross division game…. So it’s not confusing, it just doesn’t solve anything.
That also screws up the split of the better teams.
Yes, it solves Saban’s whole argument for not moving Auburn to the East because then Bama won’t get both TN and AU every year, which left the SEC with no choice but to put Mizzou in the East. I mean, that very thing is what started this whole thread, yes, what I suggested actually solves that very problem.
Except it’s not Saban’s argument. Like I said above, it’s bigger than Saban. It doesn’t matter who the coach is Bama wants both those games. You can continue to try to act like it Saban’s fault but it isn’t.. Also like I just pointed out it doesn’t solve anything because the Deeps Souths Oldest Rivalry isn’t going to be stopped either just to move Missouri to the west….
So that’s why it doesn’t solve anything. You’re making the assumption that Auburn/UGA just gives up their Rivalry. That’s not going to happen.
And it doesn’t throw out the whole geographical alignment as CoMo is much farther West than Tuscaloosa. It actually squeezes the geographical alignment more in line.
And it also doesn’t keep the top 6 teams split up.. which is another thing the conference is trying to do.
You still have a team in the east that is west of a west division team…
So moving Bama to the East so they can still play TN and Auburn every year doesn’t solve the issue of making sure TN and Auburn can play every year. Lmao, got it!
What is confusing you? Teams get one traditional cross division rival… For Auburn that is UGA and it’s not going to change…
Moving Bama to the east means they don’t get the game with Auburn every year… I have said this over and over..
Yes it can change, and it will have to. The problem you have is accepting the fact the SEC is getting too big for it’s own good if it want’s to expand and yet stay the same. You can’t do both, change is inevitable to continue operating sensibly with expansion. You just can’t continue expanding West like the SEC wants to do and put everyone in the East. Those geographic lines (in terms of footprint) do change. Honestly, even the conference’s name SEC outgrew itself years ago in respect to the original area it was named for- South and East of the Appalachians. Concessions will need to be made based on geography no doubt.
If the teams and conference was ok with giving up rivalries it would have already happened.. For anything to happen remotely close to what you’re trying to pitch the conference will have to go to 9 games first… Until all the teams get on board for that change I don’t see anyone getting on board to do away with rivalries…
They don’t mean much to you but they’re important to a lot of people and to the conference itself.. The commissioner has made that clear.
How does the west become trash? Seems like the west becomes more competitive to me.
If both Bama and Auburn went to the east and Missouri/Vandy to the west you don’t see how the west gets weaker?
It won’t be competitive as LSU runs away with it every year in that scenario…
“So Saban stopped Auburn from going to the east?”
I highly doubt Saban gives a crap where Auburn goes.
To nyhog: the division would be more competitive if you take 2 of the 3 teams that historically win the division. The more accurate statement is that the quality of the division would be much less.
BamaTime no one ever suggesting both Auburn and Bama move to the East. That doesn’t solve Saban corn cob. Just Bama, that way they can still play TN every year and Auburn making them Bama’s permanent crossover. I mean, all were trying to do here is find the easiest solution to keep Saban happy. Moving Bama would solve it quite easily. He was the one big road block.
Booche’s… You’re just being a whiny b!tch at this point. I don’t know how many times someone has to tell you that Saban isn’t stopping any team from moving.. You continuing to try to blame him just shows your point in the conversation is
Just to take shots at Saban….
You should stop telling people to grow up till you grow up yourself.
Ok, in an effort to keep you from tuning into a complete disaster lets do this, move Auburn to the East Mizzou to the West and force the conference out of the dark ages into a 9-game conf schedule. Teams could have a revolving crossover and 2 permanent one’s to maintain the precious crossovers that would keep dogs from sleeping with cats and asteroids from hitting the planet.
Or like I said 15 posts go split the conference north/south and nothing else needs to happen… Nobody is doing any of that for Missouri..
Nobody? Aubrun has publicly said they would move to the East. Wrong again.
So now we’re back to Auburn going to the east? Let me help you again… Auburn going to the east keeps the UGA rivalry and Bama has to decide between Auburn and the Vols so that would be a no…. Bama going to the east keeps the Vols but now UGA Auburn would have to agree to stop their rivalry so that would be a no from those two..
So no… Nobody wants to give up their rivalries to benefit Missouri…
BamaTime, I assume by North/South you would swap Arkansas and Florida? That still creates rivalry problems and messes
Hate that we can’t edit. To continue, it messes with competitive balance and forces Georgia to choose between Auburn and Florida.
North/South solves nothing, it just keeps him arguing against easier, more sensible solutions. He’s not thinking on his own, he’s a lamb in line afraid to look side to side just following anything Saban says or wants.
And realize this whole thread was started by a non-Mizzou fan saying ‘move Auburn to the East and Mizzou to the West, Mizzou in the East makes no sense.’ So assuming this is just a ‘Mizzou’ thing is obviously wrong.
You don’t have a solution. Your posts do nothing but try to place the blame on Saban because you’re a dumba$$…
Actually look at the locations of the schools and break them down North/South and it makes more sense.
But like pointed out below nobody is looking to give up rivalries for Missouri. If they don’t like it they can leave right?
I agree with him that North/South makes more sense geographically. It just doesn’t solve the rivalry issue and it would create an even wider gap in the balance of power.
I guess it makes %100 sense if you are tired of being second fiddle in your division.
Grow up. It makes 100% sense to help get the conference in better geographical sense. Unfortunately it made Saban angry. Moving Bama to the East instead of Auburn and making Auburn their permanent crossover will bring the conference in better geographic alignment plus keep Saban happy. It would be the easiest solution. Yeah a few other crossovers would end up getting rearranged but that’s just the cost of expansion. This way Bama would still have both TN and Auburn every year.
So let’s try to explain this to you one more time. For Bama to move to the east and get The Vols and Auburn both every year it will take Auburn and UGA agreeing to drop the Deep Souths Oldest Rivalry…
You can continue to be a b!tch but you clearly have no clue what it takes to actually do something like this….
“Yeah a few other crossovers would end up getting rearranged but that’s just the cost of expansion.”
Except those teams aren’t going to agree to giving up a rivalry to help Missouri…
It’s not the cost of expansion. If Missouri wants a seat at the table, then they can fit in where the conference can make room. The teams that have been in the conference since 1933 should not have to give up long-standing rivalries just to accommodate Missouri. I’m not really sure what the issue is anyway. The closest teams are 3 in the East and Arkansas. By being in the East and having a crossover with Arkansas, Missouri gets those teams every year.
Entertaining, but I think as a reward the top seed should get to pick their opponent in the playoffs, that would have capped this thing off nicely. When Paul Finebaum lands his sitcom you’ll probably get a call.
They are proposing that in MLB so that is probably where you got that from.
Yeah it’s all over the news so it’s already in people’s heads and goes better with Blanton’s gimmicky suggestion here than it does in MLB to be honest. It would have been a perfect to parlay it here.
This is great. Include Cincinnati in the Big East?
Not bad. But, you really only need four conferences at most. Many of those teams should go form another league where they could actually compete for something.
Wish the SEC could trade Missouri with FSU.
Problem: One conference is dominating CFB, and has won 10 of the last 14 NCs.
Solution: Realign so that the aforementioned conference contains all 14 of the last 14 national champions.
Genius!!! Of course that’ll make everything more competitive…
*13/14
hilarious. Doesn’t matter how you split it the south is always going to dominate because it’s the south. Simple!
I like the overall concept for football. It would be more like the pro sports in terms of equitable distribution. The playoff system he describes essentially nullifies subjective rankings (made by journalists or coaches), and makes the conference championship games a ticket to the national stage. You win, you play on.
People will still quibble about rankings and which conference champion was seeded too low, but at least there will be no denying that the best of each conference got in.
The bowls could still exist to reward the non-finishers in each conference with a post season game.
I wonder how this would work with the other sports, especially basketball, baseball and softball.
Perfectly fine we’ll just most certainly win almost any championship known to man. Especially baseball
So it’s okay that the best team from each conference gets in but not the best teams in the nation. That makes sense.
Not in favor of any plan that allows FSU into the conference.
I can relate to this ^^^
UF would almost certainly veto FSU coming into the SEC as the Aggies would Texas.
The entire reason for adding Mizzou and A&M was to expand television markets. I would love to add ClemPson & FSU to the SEC but how does that help the conference? It doesn’t bring in any more money and it makes the already “best conference” even tougher while making other conferences weaker. You would annually have 4 or 5 of the best teams in the country in the same conference. Not to mention taking ClemPson and FSU out of the ACC makes them REALLY bad. Like not worthy of P5 bad.
Glad to see you get it Dawg. SEC Network would all of the sudden start losing money. This is a bad proposal to make some “feel better” about college football.
This is the best take on realignment, in my opinion. Cramming the SEC with all the traditional powers located in the South, would make other conferences weaker and the SEC tougher. That would not help CFB overall.
Ah yes, a 6 team playoff with only conference champions. Except that you put Clemson and Alabama in the same conference and still put them as the #1 and #2 seeds.
This is just a not very well though out attempt to get Clemson and Florida State in the SEC while also going back to 12 teams. Neither of which will ever happen.
Am I missing something here? There’s talk about domination and equality, but you pull a lower level team like Vandy and replace it with Clemson? If you did this, you might need to expand each by two to capture some other rivalry’s such as putting BYU in the Pac 12/14 North with Utah and moving Cal down to the south where it belongs and adding San Diego State or Nevada. Go back to the drawing board.
Funny that I knew Arkansas would be cut out of the SEC before I read the article
Exactly
Relax, there is no mechanism for expelling a team from the conference. Arkansas is as much a member as Bama or Georgia.
I’m just a dumb hillbilly but I did not realize UNC was considered in the same league as Georgia Tech or Vandy when it comes to academic quality.
It probably depends on your source, but Forbes has UNC ranked in the top 50, higher than Georgia Tech or Vanderbilt. Duke is on its own tier, though, in the top 10
UNC med school is highly regarded, not sure about the other programs.
The Association of American Universities lists to top 63 academic institutions in America. North Carolina isn’t one of the. Duke is. The SEC only has 4 of the top 63. Vanderbilt, Florida, Missouri and Texas A&M
This was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but he put just enough thought into it to get people talking about it. That said, even though I like bowl games, I’ll admit that many of these bowl games are meaningless. Bowl games in general will become obsolete if we ever get a true playoff system based on conference title games as the first round of playoffs. For better or worse, that seems to be the future. The main question will be what to do with the mid-majors.
So, you complain about a conference being too dominant but drop weaker teams from the SEC and add teams that have won national titles in the last decade?
I read that article because college football is far beyond addictive. I am so ashamed.
The Southeast is where the talent grows up. Jordan Burch chooses South Carolina because LSU is too far from home? What chance does that give Boise State?
A snowflake’s chance in the core of the Sun.
With Jordan Burch….Mama won.
Thank goodness, and mama, if that is the case.
His conferences and divisions make a lot of sense, which is why this will never happen. Clemson totally belongs in the SEC and Vanderbilt fits in much better with the brainy schools in the ACC.
Something is going to have to be done or CFB is going to become a regional sport. It is probably too late for anyone, other than the B1G 10, to even begin to compete with the SEC. CFB in the west is already about dead as only Oregon has a pulse. The Northeast could not care less.
“The only difference between this set-up and the current format is that you’ll extend the invitations only to the conference champions and bar anyone else from sneaking in with an at-large bid.”
You said this but put Clemson and Alabama in the CFP and excluded the Big 12?
Never, never, never again!!! Are you kidding me? You call it sinful that Aggies no longer play the horns? I call it freedom from those jerks. No, no, no way we ever get back in any conference with them and we will do all in our power to block them from getting in the SEC. You show your ignorance with this proposal.
Exactly. What real college athletic conference believes one member can own the television network (ATM) for every other member. Johnny Carson couldn’t make up jokes this funny and Ed McMahon couldn’t say anything this stupid for Carson to jump on.
Why isn’t Texas still in the Southwest Conference? That’s right it blew up in their ignorant hands, as soon as they lit it on fire.
Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska were charter members of the Big 8 conference…and they left the Big 12 so fast that nobody knew what hit them. Kansas is still in shock and hasn’t found themselves. Bill Snyder said “disturbing”, but he meant, like ‘global thermonuclear war’.
I can’t even imagine how dumb aTm fans felt being associated with the Lowborns, whose spokespeople even, talk like trashy people who found some money in the bathroom.
Mizzou still hemorrhaging students that don’t want to go to that joke of a school? Tigers who graduate typically work for Longhorns…
Missouri is a member of the top 63 elite research universities designated by the Association of American Universities. Look it up.
Battered Aggie syndrome in full mode. Little brother stomp fest wonderful to behold! A&M always in the shadow of the state of Texas Flagship, forever…
Now that’s funny s#!+ right there. Enjoy your joke of a home schedule in your BDF conference there sippy. Adios.
Pure fantasy (but as Class of 98 says, it’s February). A&M would never go back to the Big XII as long as tu has its own tv network (among other reasons). You’ll notice there is still no Big XII network. The only way these two will play a conference game is when the Horns give up their network and join the SEC. We’d love to see that, they would get chewed up in the SEC west. (much like A&M has, but give us time, we’re getting there)
“…when the Horns give up their network and join the SEC. We’d love to see that…”
I can’t believe you would ever want that unless you bleed some other maroon, not Aggie maroon.
Someone got triggered. Consolation prize Aggies guaranteed a participation trophy since 1939…
This actually isn’t a horrible realignment idea. The only thing I would change is switching Kentucky in the East with FSU in the West. Then you could keep the UF FSU to a regular divisional matchup and the geography would make more sense, and assuming FSU someday returns to relevancy, the divisions would be pretty even with UGA, Clemson, & UF vs Bama, LSU, & Auburn.
As it stands right now in real life, I think Pitt should switch conferences with Maryland and WVU should switch with Nebraska, maybe. The Huskers have no good reason for being in the B1G.
I still don’t see the point in a 6-team playoff, but it’s not a horrible idea, nor is the expansion too bad. Just means you’ll have even more teams whining about exclusion.
Let me get this straight, you use GEOGRAPHY to argue for realignment and then say Colorado should be in the B12 SOUTH?!?!?
Can’t. Fix. Stupid.
Hey Al, the SEC is already an academic joke. The conference only has three elite AAU research Ph.D granting institutions, and you just eliminated three of them leaving only Florida.
Another good point, and proof this is just a “wouldn’t this be cool”, pie in the sky dream of an off-season article.
But yeah, other than all the BS, “completely sensible”.
Rich. Aggie acknowledging anyone can get in. 72% accept rate, academics and A&M just don’t equal each other…
What does academics have to do with CFB?
Exactly! Any school (who isn’t a cash cow for the NCAA) actually trying to uphold a standard of education will do nothing but get you put on probation and a bowl ban by the NCAA. Which further solidifies the fact the NCAA has always existed for one reason and one reason only, to make sure student-athletes don’t get the money they’re bringing in.
I can understand your a little sensitive. But, that wasn’t my point.
you are* (guess we will never get the ability to edit)
I was showing how your point is absolutely valid. When it’s obvious the NCAA doesn’t even exist because of academics but rather money. Academics have always had far less (basically zero) to do with CFB than money, you are 100% correct JTF. I mean it’s not called the National Collegiate Education and Athletic Association for a reason. Collegiate athletics (and it’s money) that’s it, that’s all their existence is there for.
I think you got jobbed by the NCAA but your post is wrong. Vandy has a much better academic reputation than Mizzu and they don’t run afoul of the rules. An informed opinion would show that athletes get their education and everything that goes with it for free. They also get Pell Grants ($2,600 per semester) and monthly stipends of $400 and up.
Mike5657 I understand your point, however, AAU membership doesn’t necessarily equate with “elite,” and the quality of a Ph.D depends on the individual program. I’m honestly not trying to have this conversation, I just don’t like hearing that SEC schools are an “academic joke” – not true and unfair. At least, it’s the same all over – I taught a large state school in the west with excellent research, medical, and law programs, and the quality of underclassmen was shockingly…sad. I know from my own field that “pay-to-stay” Tulane (AAU) can’t hold a candle to LSU’s research in many departments. In the end, it’s what the student makes of it, and I just don’t believe the stereotype. Ok, back to football…GEAUX!!!
Easy fix for the SEC is: East – Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. West-LSU, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri and Vanderbilt.
With cross-over games of: Arkansas vs Florida, LSU vs Alabama, Texas A&M vs Auburn, Ole Miss vs Georgia, Miss State vs South Carolina, Missouri vs Kentucky, Vanderbilt vs Tennessee.
None of those permanent crossover games save Vandy-UT make any sense. Also, that SEC East would wipe the floor with the West year in and year out.
That alignment makes more sense than any. But this is the SEC, common sense isn’t important. Alabama playing Tennessee AND Auburn every year is what’s most important. Change Bama’s crossover game to Auburn to keep Nicole Saban happy and you’ve got a very plausible solution.
Easy fix. Looks like you want an easy division. Why not flip LSU and Kentucky. Maybe you can compete then.
Michigan big10 East and penn st big1 west?
Nope. FSU and Clemson belong in the ACC, but either Va TEch or WVU should have been invited into the SEC (and not Mizzou.)
Clemson could start their own league…playing Wofford, S.C. State, Gardner Webb, Furman, etc. and the Playoff Committee would still rank em high enough to get in the Playoffs.
What a ridiculous plan. If youre gonna kill time speculating,at least come up with something that is 1 % plausible. Just stupid. Maybe the dumbest article here this year.
Too many. You don’t need to add teams. You need to get rid of these teams that don’t take this seriously. I don’t care what they do with basketball, baseball, and women’s field hockey. Who gives a crap. I’m talking about the only sport that matters and that’s football. Jettison Vandy, Syracuse, Maryland, Duke, wake forest, NC State, all of the Big 12 except ok and ok state, Texas and Baylor. Boot Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue. Get rid of Oregon State, Washington state, Cal, Arizona. Force ND to join a conference or miss out. Make three or four conferences with teams that compete year in and year out. Tell the NCAA to kick rocks and negotiate your own TV deals. And if you suck you can get booted out and replaced by somebody that gives a crap about winning.
Only conference champions get in after you add Clemson to the SEC? Wow! So now it’s very possible that a 3 loss team in an even weaker ACC goes to the play offs over a one loss runner up in the SEC. Now that makes sense.
I thought we were still in the primaries? Right?
Bernie Sanders has still not legalized pot yet, or am I dreaming? Maybe this article was written in Colorado? I am confused.
No pot yet, but he’s in the process of solving the national distress of not having legalized sex workers. #socialism.
I like the idea of this but A&M can stay put in the SEC. I wouldn’t mind having Arkansas in the Big 12 because they are a great traditional name, and Mizzou I could take or leave. We don’t need A&M since we already have more than enough Texas teams, and quite frankly Texas Tech is more noteworthy in basketball and baseball than A&M is in anything (no, we don’t care about womens bb, sorry). In fact I’d rather we dump Baylor and TCU and bring in Arizona and Arizona State. So ditch the private schools, bring in UA, ASU and maybe Mizzou and we’d be good.
True, but 3rd and 4th place finishes in the SEC “mean more” than the same in the Big XII. Eases Battered Aggie Syndrome (BAS) symptoms…
Leave the conferences as they are. Create an 8 team playoff. It would only add an extra week which can be put in the dead week before the playoff we have now. Let each Power 5 conference champ get in. Then add 3 at large teams which would allow for the Group of 5 to get in as well as teams from the same conference who while they didn’t win, are possibly better than anyone else. The current selection committee pick the at large teams. With this setup, the makeup of the conferences wouldn’t matter that much and it would be a real playoff not a beauty contest playoff.
SECHomer,
I’m all for a playoff expansion but if you’re talking 8 teams, that’s still adding two more weeks to the playoff and pushes it closer to Super Bowl time. One of the big reasons for expansion’s rejection right now is that NCAA would have to start the season in mid-August before the academic year began so they didn’t interfere with NFL playoffs. Then there’s the conversation of wear & tear on players’ bodies. We agree that the current playoff structure is not viable and it needs to change.
I had enough of tu. No. Do not want to be in a conference with them.
Feel better now? Always in your state’s flagships shadow regardless… “And its Goodbye to A&M”…
Poor sippie…you guys are done. We are larger than you and make more money than you. Your network is a joke and you destroyed your bush league conference. You are irrelevant in every sport except volleyball. Be happy you have baylor and purple baylor as your rivals, although both kick your asses most of the time. Even your baseball program is a joke. The Aggies have passed you by and don’t even hate you anymore because you can’t compete. You will never get in the SEC.
This is so easy. Let every conference member that wants to have a rivalry game schedule it as a non-conference game, it wouldn’t decide the division or the conference championship.
6 division member games decide each division (wow, the division is decided by the division games?, why didn’t you think of that)
Now we have 2 rotating cross division games that decide pride between the two divisions by letting every college recruit play every conference member at least once while earning their degree. (?what you mean right now young men join a conference and don’t even get to play all the members? that’s right mentally challenged leaders of the conference schedules, and how does that feel like a conference?)
As for who is in what division, it matters a lot less because everybody gets to play each other. If you like this idea a lot then we could schedule 9 conference games and rotate 3 of those every year. Now you play almost everybody at least every other year. And there would still be a schedule of 3 exciting non-conference games.
One of the stated goals was to try to create more balance in conference strength. How do you achieve that by adding teams to the SEC that have won 3 of the 4 titles not won by the SEC over the last 15 years? This proposal only widens the gap while totally eviscerating the ACC. The proposed Big East is even weaker than the Big East that couldn’t hold on to major status the first time. Finally, how does the addition of Arkansas solve the problems the Big 12 had that caused it to dissolve in the first place? None of this makes sense, even in an admittedly fantasy scenario?
There’s always a few tweaks in these and here goes. Why isn’t South Carolina a better fit for the ACC? Take the Gamecocks put them in ACC and leave Mizzou in SEC, flip them with Florida state. Put Memphis and Cincy, two decent teams you left out and put them in the Big East. Take out 2 of Army, Navy, Marshall, ECU, etc…..Put Houston in Big 12.
We were in the ACC, Sparky.
Very well written article Al, and I like some of the ideas. Some of them a LOT.
How do we achieve more parity by moving Clempson and FSU to the SEC though? With the lineup you have proposed for the ACC, I would dare call that a Power-anything conference.
The power SEC schools aren’t going to approve anything to bring in two schools (one ultra dominant, the other in re-build mode) that threaten to create more cannibalization of SEC teams in a regular season schedule. The SEC has become its own college football league, with everyone else playing for NIT status. You really think Georgia and Florida are going to say “surrrreee, bring Clempson into our league?”
If we’re being honest about what has set the SEC apart from other conferences over the last umpteen years, its really TV money. It has allowed these schools to build not only hype around the programs, but has given teams the ability to build Cindarella Castle-like facilities (look at Georgia’s new facilities and Florida’s one under construction, featuring a friggin lazy river lagoon for players to relax). It ain’t the education drawing these top players to SEC schools. Its stuff like that, and the fact that they’re going to be on national TV every Saturday.
I’m really surprised in this article you didn’t mention TV’s role in the SEC dominance and adding parity to that. TV money has really built the SEC empire. When does the Big 10 get their own ESPN TV station? Do the conferences under your proposal all split TV revenue, or does that stay Conference Intra-League like it is now?
I think right now, we’re beginning to see a shift in SEC schools and the non-con games that look more respectable, like UGA playing Ohio State in 2028. Florida playing Michigan or Miami. Stuff like that.
All that said, I’m still cheering for a two-team expansion to the current playoff structure. 6 total and the top 2 get a bye.
Again, very well written and thought provoking article Al. Nicely done
Bottom line is none of this will ever happen. It just won’t. So why argue it? The SEC is powerful not just because of money, but because the passion for college sports is stronger. The PAC 12 is becoming weaker because the passion for college sports out west is weaker.
I’m not arguing anything. Was just commenting on the article?
As a lifelong Razorback – I agree with you. Arkansas should have never joined the SEC. Texas was always Arkansas big game. Get the Razorbacks back to the Big 12.
we We’re able to keep our OOC rivalry game each year. I don’t know the circumstances of Missouri and AandM not carrying theirs on. I remember some bad blood between Texas and A&M the year before they came to the SEC. I think if both programs want to renew it, it is a matter of scheduling and maybe a few years before it happens. Personally I think A&M and Mizzou would take care of business with both rivalries.
I don’t have a problem. I only read a couple of paragraphs. I can stop any time. I only read like ten comments. I do not have a problem. If had a problem, I wouldn’t have stopped, right?
So tired of hearing the Mizzou/SEC East unfair geography blah blah blah. Geographically speaking there’s nothing “south east” about Missouri, so if your division argument is based on geography it’s flawed from the start.
What I find funny is they want to throw out the rivalries for geography. They didn’t have to Join the SEC..
Good point. And in the spirit of the SEC actually getting it’s name (South and East of the Applachian Mts) there’s nothing South AND East with Auburn fitting in. Maybe the SEC has just outgrown itself and it’s time for a new name that actually makes sense.
Missouri borders 8 states and only plays schools in 3 of them. I like the SEC but I’m a little tired of the disrespect. We’re treated like a garbage team when in fact we’ve performed far better than several traditional SEC schools since 2012. Im not going to try and reconstruct the entire country but if I could hand pick Mizzou’s conference, it might be this:
West: Mizzou, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota
East: Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State, Kentucky, Notre dame
Geographically it makes sense for us, restores some rivalries while creating a natural rivalry with Iowa.
That’s not a bad idea. Perhaps what makes more sense than these ridiculous band-aid fixes is realizing it’s just time to blow up the entire SEC, Big12 and Big10 and start all over.
I would sign that petition. The SEC will never embrace Mizzou, and honestly I don’t want to still feel like a red headed stepchild 20 years from now.
Bring back Tulane to the SEC it makes about as much sense as your plan.
This has zero chance of ever happening.
Less than zero
Wow, just wow!! If conference affiliations took into account the games fans want to see, then some of this makes sense. Otherwise, it is pure fantasy. No way do conferences downsize. The networks pay for packages of games so they can fill as much tv space as possible with advertising worthy content. Your proposal makes some feature matchups, but needs more programming content for the bundles.
I also agree that teams will shy away from the Texas/Oklahoma Conference, if there are other options. As a Cincinnati fan, we would gladly welcome a bid to join the Big 12, but I personnaly don’t think we get a bid to a P5 conference until our stadium can hold 60-70,000 fans. Nippert is a cozy little rockin’ place that is very tough on visiting teams.
Speaking of Cincinnati, did you really create a new Big East that includes App St, Temple, Marshall and East Carolina without teams like Cincy, Memphis, or S Florida? Unreal. Plus, again, teams with better options would not leave a P5 conference to join this pipe dream.
I love your CFP expansion to 8 teams, but I would take it to 32. With 32 teams, you could eliminate conference championship games and include the regular season champs, adding in a 9 conference game requirement minimum, and limiting regular season to 12 games.All conference teams play 4 home, and 4 away games. Each conference will have a “Game-of-the-week” at a neutral site big city host (think Atlanta for SEC, and Indy for Big Ten). This weekly revenue stream replaces the conference championship and makes it easier to add two games at end. The final four teams would be playing an unprecedented 16th game, with the championship game as game 17. Top 16 seeds get home game in the round of 32, extra revenue home game, thus no need for conference championship that might knock a team out of top 16.Use the existing Bowls for round of 16, 8, 4, and CFP. A bowl could host multiple games, i.e. Rose Bowl could get Round of 16, 8, possibly one more if rotation goes their way. Pick top 16 Bowl sites to always host a round of 16, rotate the round of 8 every other year and keep current rotation of top tier bowl sites as is used for the Playoff.
What to do with those pesky 3 non-conference games that are left on the schedule? First put in place that for any team to be considered selection in the round of 32, they must play 9 conference games and one non-conference game against a P5 opponent. In this scenario, the the G5 teams would glad take the payday to travel to a P5 home for most games. Second the P5 versus P5 non-conference games would be home and home deals. The P5 teams like Ohio State could have 8 home games in some years and likely 7 home games in most years they travel to P5 non-conference foes (assuming they will always be in the top 16 seeds is pretty safe).
Lastly, we have many more than 16 bowl sites, right? Have a 16 team NIT or just single Bowl games for the next 16 seeds or however many fills out the Bowls. A lot of teams still get rewarded with a Bowl game, those games could even be mid-week affairs at same site as some of the Bowl sites that get the top seeded teams. It’s all about that money grab for the Bowl sites, their cities, and the TV Networks. This makes more sense than conference realignment.