Here's Harry King at Arkansas News making a case against expansion.* He's got some good points, but still comes up a bit short-sighted by not looking at all the possibilities. The biggest oversight of all? Not toying with the four, 4-team division idea. He says: "Expansion to 16 teams comes with seven games against division opponents." But, his assumptions are built around a two-division league. And, like I said, he makes good points, but if we're still in the "what if" phase, then we need to look at all the options.
King assumes, based on having 7 division games, the SEC's best options would be either a 7-0-2 or 7-1-2 format (7 league games-1 or 0 permanent cross-division opponent, and 2 rotating cross-division opponents). Fans would then ostensibly be robbed of the opportunities they currently have to see cross-division teams as often. "If expansion comes about, fans who like a smorgasbord of opponents will suffer..." But would they really? Would they suffer from a lack of variety in opponents? I say the answer lies in exploring the four divisions of four teams model (4x4).
How about a nine game league slate consisting of 3 division foes, a permanent opponent from each other division, and a rotating opponent from each division. So, a 3 - 3 (1.1.1) - 3(1.1.1)...I guess. Look at the variety of opponents you get there - especially considering there will be four entirely new teams in the league. Now, I haven't done the math, but with four divisions, you may need an eight-conf.-game schedule for the numbers to work out, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. Plus, let's face it: it's all about the money. And, if another conference expands first, we'll have to do it, too...sooo, we may as well iron out all the options and find ways to enjoy the idea instead of deriding it out of fear of change. Of course, I guess that makes me one of those " proponents [who] will say [expansion] is a must and call it progres (sic)." Indeed I am, sir. Indeed I am.
----------------------------------------------
* h/t Blutarsky
I like the 3.1.1.4 idea that was talked about briefly. Kinda like the NFL, you play your interdivisional foes, an entire other division, and the same level finishing team (1st vs 1st from 2009) from the other two divisions, one home one away. This would at worst keep every team on an even schedule year to year. And if it didnt matter going undefeated because of a plus one playoff system, wouldnt that ultimately gives every team the best opportunity to compete annually?
ReplyDeleteNot a bad call. Especially if each conference works in their own min-playoff to end the season, like I saw mentioned somewhere last week.
ReplyDeleteActually on second thought, if you do that, you might lose some rivalries that need to be played. So, scratch that. UGA-UF, BAMA-UT, AU-UGA might not be in the same division and we need those games.
ReplyDelete