Conference Realignment: What It Means for the SEC and Florida

by Arnaldo

A conference is like a party.  You go where your friends go, that is after all, the whole point of the party, being with your friends.  If one person wants to leave to go to another party, chances are, they'll take someone with them.  Two less people there give a third person less reason to be there instead of another party.  A chain reaction ensues and before you know it, said party is over and the keg is still full.  Now I don't know what the keg is in this metaphor but the rest should be pretty clear, and that's exactly what's been happening the last year of college football.


But how does it affect us?

First of all, it really shouldn't.  The SEC scheduling looks like this (as of before the realignment): there are 12 teams and 2 divisions.  Each school plays the five other divisional schools, one permanent school from the other division, and two rotating home-away basis schools from the other division.  The four remaining games are out of division and up to the school itself to schedule.  I say this because intraconference scheduling is up to the conferences and not the NCAA.  Each conference schedules differently.  The Pac-12 plays a 9 game conference schedule with 12 teams.

So does this mean the SEC needs to move to a 9 game conference schedule?  Not necessarily, but it isn't a bad idea.  The problem here is that removing one of those slots removes the SEC's much needed "padded match-ups".  Coaches will tell you they need these games, especially in the beginning of the season.  The SEC is obviously the toughest conference in the NCAA; that's no longer a point of contention.  Each match-up has the potential to be unforgiving and disastrous.

We have to contrast this to the problem with keeping an 8 game conference schedule.  With one more team in each division (Texas A&M to the west and Missouri to the east [sure, moving Auburn to the east was rumored and makes more sense, but that's just making too many waves]), one interdivisional game has to go.  Schools and fans will not allow the permanent match-up to dissolve.  Florida would lose playing LSU every year, and Deep South's Oldest Rivalry (Auburn-Georgia) would need a new name, or actually no name at all.  The SEC, however, will probably prefer this option so that there is more complete competition.

Trust me, we NEED this game.

Either way, the media loves to pretend these things are already decided and that all rivalries will cease to exist starting next year, but they're just plain wrong.  The worst case scenario involves some teams losing secondary or tertiary rivalries, which is a loss, don't get me wrong.  When the SEC was last expanded in 1992, Florida and Miami had to stop meeting up yearly.  Miami's rivalry with Florida State held together because Miami moved from the Big East to the ACC in 2004, FSU's conference.  The teams that suffer the most are the teams actually moving, and they elected to move in the first place.  Texas A&M will most likely keep their rivalry with Texas in the same way Florida plays Florida State every year even though they're in separate conferences.  They will lose yearly match-ups with Texas Tech and Baylor, but coincidentally, the Aggies are rivals with Arkansas and LSU and total over 60 match-ups with each.  Obviously they'll be awarded those rivalries back.  In the same fashion, Missouri should keep their Border War with Kansas but lose their rivalries with Oklahoma and Illinois.  Their rivalry with Nebraska already dissolved when The Cornhuskers moved to the Big 10.  Hopefully, Mizzou will develop another Border War with Arkansas in the upcoming seasons.


Where do we go from here?

But we JUST made this cool new logo.

The SEC looks pretty comfortable with 14 teams; let's hope the superconference trend ends there.  I say this because larger conferences only complicate things.  Think about it, if conferences get bigger, more divisions will be formed, more rivalries lost, and there will be a larger pool of teams from which to play all around.  The end result is a copy of the NFL, where there are no real rivalries and nobody remembers which conference they're in, because the conferences mean nothing, only the divisions do.

However, I see no problem with the constant changing of conferences for teams scattered around the map; not only is it happening now, it's been happening for years.  This holds with me as long as the party scenario doesn't happen again.  Conferences were already nicely set geographically across the map, rivalries were well established, and scheduling was simple.  The sad news is that despite adding TCU and West Virginia, the Big 12 is still not stable.  Less stable than them is the Big East.  Losing their BCS automatic qualification is looking inevitable, and hopefully this may make them less desperate to add more significant teams and help them to stabilize.

What's most important to remember is the SEC is looking indestructable. Five consecutive national championships (six soon), the addition of two teams that should be growing back to prominence (new management at Texas A&M with an SEC budget should help), and a sweet TV deal with CBS that should (God willing) be opting for an ESPN upgrade in the near future makes the SEC party look like New Years at the Playboy Mansion.

This actually looks kind of awesome.