Conference Realignment

[roadkill]

LOL! I'd say over the past 20 years Auburn has been in one of the weakest divisions in college football. The SEC East has not been good.

You may want to check that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You may want to check that.

I have lived it. Maybe 15 of the last 20. There are odd years where there have been more than 1 good team.

 

[roadkill]

nm

 

[roadkill]

I have lived it. Maybe 15 of the last 20. There are odd years where there have been more than 1 good team.

Auburn was in the SEC west up until this year when they've abandoned divisions. They play Bama every year, as well as uga as their cross-division rival. So their schedule included Bama, uga, LSU, Ole Miss, TAMU, etc, etc every year. Typically a top-ten SoS.

 

[roadkill]

I think there's a difference in "being happy with 8 wins every year" and wanting to win more in certain years but being OK with 7-8 wins. If Brent Key was a consistent 8 win coach (see: Chan Gailey) for the next 5-6 years, I don't think Batt/Cabrera and GT fans would be happy. However, if Brent won 8 Year 2, 9 Year 3, 6 Year 4, 11 Year 5 (with playoff and ACC Championship), 8 Year 6 I think the administration and fans would be very happy. That would be a combination of Chan Gailey's 7 win floor, plus CPJ's upside. Average wise it's more than 8 wins but less than 9 wins (8.4 to be exact).

I get what you're saying about Auburn (and what Auburn symbolizes to this discussion), but Auburn is also in the toughest division in college football. There's a bit of nuance to Auburn's numbers. As someone who invests in various companies for a living, I can tell you if I'm increasing operating budget by 30%, I expect much better results. Comparatively, let's say Key's 7 wins is the baseline. 30% increase with expectations of similar win returns is 2.1 more wins. Obviously, college sports isn't that clean or that simple as to invest 30% and expect 30% increase in ROI. Nothing is, but you do raise expectations for that kind of percentage increase. For GT, it's much easier in the ACC than it would be in the SEC.

When I have time, I'll have to see where GT's 30% budget increase compares to our peers...teams in the ACC.

I tried to look at this with the Knight database numbers, but I think they are skewed due to the ACC having so many private institutions that don't report. That would tend to bias the data toward the larger budgets of the state institutions and the football factories of Clemson and FSU. Miami may be the exception, but we don't know.

As far as trends go, GT went from being typically 15-25% below the median for the last 5 years, to less than 5% below in 2023. We caught up a lot last year.

When most fans speak of wins/year as a program characteristic ("They're an 8-win program now"), they probably are thinking average as you described. I would be pretty happy with a run like O'Leary's 1998-2001 teams that went 10, 8, 9, 8 wins. That was 8.8/year. Of course, most of us would sacrifice a win (or perhaps 2) for a win at the end of the regular season.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Auburn was in the SEC west up until this year when they've abandoned divisions. They play Bama every year, as well as uga as their cross-division rival. So their schedule included Bama, uga, LSU, Ole Miss, TAMU, etc, etc every year. Typically a top-ten SoS.

You're right. Sorry. I was lumping them in with the East because they played uga every year. Wasn't thinking clearly this morning. I thought you were suggesting I check that the SEC East wasn't a miserable division.

 

[roadkill]

You're right. Sorry. I was lumping them in with the East because they played uga every year. Wasn't thinking clearly this morning. I thought you were suggesting I check that the SEC East wasn't a miserable division.

I recognize now that my initial response to you wasn't clear. I agree that the SEC east has been weak, especially with UF's decline.

 

[Techster]

I would be pretty happy with a run like O'Leary's 1998-2001 teams that went 10, 8, 9, 8 wins. That was 8.8/year. Of course, most of us would sacrifice a win (or perhaps 2) for a win at the end of the regular season.

That run by O'Leary and Paul Johnson's 2008-2014 run was what I had in mind...though the sandwich years between 2009 and 2014 seasons for some reason made donors and Bobinski unhappy.

 

[stinger78]

That run by O'Leary and Paul Johnson's 2008-2014 run was what I had in mind...though the sandwich years between 2009 and 2014 seasons for some reason made donors and Bobinski unhappy.

How folks became unhappy with Paul Johnson I’ll never know. Did he need to continue to afapt his O? Yes. The rules were changing around him and making his style of O more and more difficult. He was somehow catching heat at home and just decided to retire.

Yes, he ran an outdated offense, but winning never gets old. In his last 5 seasons he won, 11, 3, 9, 5, and 7 games. That’s an average of 7 wins/season even with the really bad 2015. I think chances are he’d have bumped that up to 8 rather than to have dropped to 6.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I recognize now that my initial response to you wasn't clear. I agree that the SEC east has been weak, especially with UF's decline.

And Tennessee.

 

[Vespidae]

He was somehow catching heat at home and just decided to retire.

That’s putting it mildly. The donors and the AA wanted him gone at the end of the 2013 season. They pretty much cut off his oxygen supply after 2014.

 

[cpf2001]

While fan bases talk about being in the P2 “haves”, there’s another level of “haves” (Bama, Mich, UGA, OSU) and the “near haves” (TX, Penn State, Oregon, some others). The others mainly don’t see a realistic path to a championship, and are living off of bowl games. If they cannibalize themselves by playing only in-conference, they won’t even have THAT.

But so far it’s been money ruling the day. Have South Carolina’s chances of anything been improved by adding top-end teams to the SEC to date? I don’t think so. But the people running the show are getting more money, so… make them run the gauntlet against Mizzou and whoever else to make all their regular season games matter, and pocket the money from the increased eyeballs. I think they’ll be a 16 or 20 team playoff and eventually no other bowl games anyway as the pro model continues. So they’ll fight for their first round exit, but wouldn’t get any style points for that from exhibition games anyway.

 

[slugboy]

But so far it’s been money ruling the day. Have South Carolina’s chances of anything been improved by adding top-end teams to the SEC to date? I don’t think so. But the people running the show are getting more money, so… make them run the gauntlet against Mizzou and whoever else to make all their regular season games matter, and pocket the money from the increased eyeballs. I think they’ll be a 16 or 20 team playoff and eventually no other bowl games anyway as the pro model continues. So they’ll fight for their first round exit, but wouldn’t get any style points for that from exhibition games anyway.

We can even skip South Carolina and Missouri (#2 SEC East). Let’s look at Florida and Auburn. They’ve both won championships in the past 20 years. Adding Oklahoma and Texas didn’t help them be more competitive. The money differential helps them against ACC, B12 and other teams, but if you’re a top recruit, would you rather go to Florida or Michigan?

Aside: Dan Mullen had winning conference records at Florida. His last year was terrible, but he looks better than anyone else since Meyer.

Conference play is a zero-sum game, and elites are getting relegated to “mid”, and mid-tier teams are relegated to sub-par.

It’s not just money, though. Texas and Oklahoma have more money than anyone. Texas A&M is super-rich. Alabama is rich, but they beat even better funded programs.

Crystal Palace and Nottingham hang around in Premier League, but surviving and thriving are two different things.

 

[stinger78]

This is my issue with it all. Why did UTA and OU join the SEC? It won’t be easier to win a championship for them. It will be more money. It’s now all about money - administrators, coaches, and players - not about love and loyalty to your alma mater.

 

[RonJohn]

This is my issue with it all. Why did UTA and OU join the SEC? It won’t be easier to win a championship for them. It will be more money. It’s now all about money - administrators, coaches, and players - not about love and loyalty to your alma mater.

Are you sure about that? (championships) The Big12 will likely get one representative in the playoffs. The SEC will likely get 3-4 representatives in the playoffs. A Big12 team will need a VERY good story to make the playoffs if they don't win the conference championship. An SEC team will only need 10 wins and a lot of lobbying.

 

[stinger78]

Are you sure about that? (championships) The Big12 will likely get one representative in the playoffs. The SEC will likely get 3-4 representatives in the playoffs. A Big12 team will need a VERY good story to make the playoffs if they don't win the conference championship. An SEC team will only need 10 wins and a lot of lobbying.

It won’t be impossible, particularly in the era with the SECheat getting multiple entries into the CFP. It will, IIPO, be harder to finish a season with less than 3 losses in the SECheat if they don’t favor certain teams in scheduling.

Here’s the lineup now…
Tier 1: Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Tier 2: Ole Miss, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and TAMU.
Tier 3: Missouri, Miss State, South Carolina, and Kentucky.
Tier 4: Arkansas and Vandy.

There’s 10 T1-2 teams and 6 T3-4 teams. I think it’s harder than we think unless we go to 4-5 teams for the SECheat and B1G.

 

[RonJohn]

It won’t be impossible, particularly in the era with the SECheat getting multiple entries into the CFP. It will, IIPO, be harder to finish a season with less than 3 losses in the SECheat if they don’t favor certain teams in scheduling.

Here’s the lineup now…
Tier 1: Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Tier 2: Ole Miss, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and TAMU.
Tier 3: Missouri, Miss State, South Carolina, and Kentucky.
Tier 4: Arkansas and Vandy.

There’s 10 T1-2 teams and 6 T3-4 teams. I think it’s harder than we think unless we go to 4-5 teams for the SECheat and B1G.

Before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC, there were SEC fanboys saying that TX and OK would be lucky to win six games a year if they had to play an "SEC schedule". They said it is so hard that bowl teams from the SEC are equivalent to conference champions from any other league. The first season A&M was in the SEC, they went 11-2 and were second in the West. The second AND third seasons that Missouri was in the SEC, they played in the SEC championship game and were 12-2 and 11-3.

I will not say that the schedule will be somewhat harder, but last year TX played Alabama and Oklahoma and went 11-1. This year, sure they play the mutts and the play OK. They play Michigan OOC. They also play CO State, LA-Monroe, UTSA, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, MS State. They play some tough teams, but they also have many more lesser teams on the schedule than they have overly dominant teams.

 

[stinger78]

Before A&M and Missouri joined the SEC, there were SEC fanboys saying that TX and OK would be lucky to win six games a year if they had to play an "SEC schedule". They said it is so hard that bowl teams from the SEC are equivalent to conference champions from any other league. The first season A&M was in the SEC, they went 11-2 and were second in the West. The second AND third seasons that Missouri was in the SEC, they played in the SEC championship game and were 12-2 and 11-3.

I will not say that the schedule will be somewhat harder, but last year TX played Alabama and Oklahoma and went 11-1. This year, sure they play the mutts and the play OK. They play Michigan OOC. They also play CO State, LA-Monroe, UTSA, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, MS State. They play some tough teams, but they also have many more lesser teams on the schedule than they have overly dominant teams.

We’ll just have to see. That’s why they play the games.

 

[cpf2001]

Are you sure about that? (championships) The Big12 will likely get one representative in the playoffs. The SEC will likely get 3-4 representatives in the playoffs. A Big12 team will need a VERY good story to make the playoffs if they don't win the conference championship. An SEC team will only need 10 wins and a lot of lobbying.

If it was all about winning championships UT/OU would’ve joined the ACC to even things out a bit and have an EXCELLENT chance of being one of 2-3 ACC teams in the playoff every year.

Top 2-3 in that ACC would’ve been easier than top 3-4 in the current SEC.

But it wouldn’t have the same $$$.

Hell, don’t drive schools away with the LHN cash grab and the Big 12 might not have fallen so far behind in the first place. And then you have the relatively light schedule the Vince Young team enjoyed, vs a consolidated gauntlet.

 

[roadkill]

It won’t be impossible, particularly in the era with the SECheat getting multiple entries into the CFP. It will, IIPO, be harder to finish a season with less than 3 losses in the SECheat if they don’t favor certain teams in scheduling.

Here’s the lineup now…
Tier 1: Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Tier 2: Ole Miss, Auburn, Tennessee, Florida, and TAMU.
Tier 3: Missouri, Miss State, South Carolina, and Kentucky.
Tier 4: Arkansas and Vandy.

There’s 10 T1-2 teams and 6 T3-4 teams. I think it’s harder than we think unless we go to 4-5 teams for the SECheat and B1G.

Bear in mind that the CFP isn't necessarily stopping at 12. And much of this realignment is about positioning your team to be in the top tier of college football when the dust settles. That is a reason that Clemson and FSU desperately want out of the ACC now, even if it means a harder path to the conference championship. So much has changed since Bobby Bowden was said to have chosen the ACC because it was an easier path to the natty.