1. They can simply add Missouri to the East and Texas A&M to the west. (preserves Alabama/Tennessee annually) Arkansas would be Missouri's cross-divisional game with South Carolina getting Texas A&M or some one else.

2. Keep Alabama and Auburn together and send them to the East and send Vandy to the West. Give Bama the choice of LSU, Texas A&M or Ole Miss as cross-divisional. (preserves Alabama/Tennessee annually)

3. Send Auburn to the East (give up Alabama/Tennessee annually)

I think option #1 is the way to go. If the SEC chooses options #2 or 3, that tells me that the SEC is done with expansion. They are not going to send existing schools to different divisions and possibly have to send them back down the road with future expansion.

I think some of those schools would have problems being in a division called "North"

Perhaps "South" and "Southern"

Or the ole' "South" and "East"

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

NCAABBS MB thread discussing "unconfirmed rumor" out of Dallas that Missouri now has enough SEC votes to be invited as early as by the end of today.Link at http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=520347

Those North/South divisions are lopsided. The "South" is just loaded with LSU/Florida/Alabama/Auburn. I doubt Slive would do something like that.

The only two options really are to put Missouri in the East and have Arkansas become their crossover rival and have Texas A&M pick up South Carolina. Or the SEC could put Missouri in the West and move Auburn to the East but that would interrupt the Alabama/Tennessee rivalry which is one of the best in the SEC.

However, Missouri could be added to the West AND Vanderbilt and have both Alabama and Auburn move to the West but then the East is unfavorably stacked with Alabama/Auburn/Florida/Georgia/Tennessee/South Carolina.

Yeah, that sounds good

That's why I said it would be unfavorably stacked. The best situation would be just to add Mizzou to the East and leave it at that.

I was referring to my post 5 or 6 post above yours where I say the exact same thing and in more detail.

Article out of FtWorth discussing Missouri/SEC situation.Article reports that SEC Presidents are scheduled to meet tomorrow and will discuss this matter.Link at http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/08 ... mbers.html

Mizzou needs to announce their decision soon. If they are indeed seriously pursuing the SEC, wouldn't they announce they were leaving the B12 first, later followed by a formal SEC invitation as was done with T-A&M? Obviously, Mizzou would know if they have informal approval to join the SEC prior to the leaving announcement.

Mizzou has appeared to dally per their intentions and not spoken with real clarity one way or the other.

NCAABBS MB thread discussing SEC release regarding today's SEC Presidents meeting at http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=521074

SEC -

I think you are correct about the order things will happen.

SEC will not publically announce an invitation, unitl Mizzou withdraws from B-12.

Mizzou is not moving until they have been given the word.
I'm guessing that they will soon be informed that during today's SEC meeting, the SEC:
a) decided they don't want Mizzou, OR
b) decided that Mizzou SHOULD apply, if Mizzou likes the divisional set-up that SEC was able to agree upon.

If b) and Mizzou is happy with the offer, Deaton will inform the board of curators that Mizzou will withdraw and apply to the SEC
(as though the two parties have had NO discussion whatsoever !!!).

Then the SEC will have a meeting a few days later to unanimously accept Missouri's application.

My guess: Missouri is being invited. Sticking them in the EAST should work for all the SEC schools,and their current schedule will be unaffected,
except WEST schools will an additional game every year vs. TA&M, and EAST schools will play an additional game very year vs. Missouri.
And of course, there will be the rotation of the inter-division games. SEC curenly plays 5 intra, 1 rival, 2 inter.
They may go to 6 + 1 +2 + 9 games.

When Arkansas and SC joined, they were assigned to be each other's rivals. Arkansas would be a logical rival for Mizzou (if Mizzou in East).
Then we'd need new pairings, If TA&M were paired as rivals with SC, no other inter-divisional rivalry pairings would need to change.

Missouri could be shot down, but I think this is unlikely. At some point, Missouri did receive communication from SEC, encouraging them to pursue a switch.
The fight recently has been about divisions. If one new team goes to West, and one goes to East, not that much changes for the current 12 teams.

IF they go to 16, they could add 2 to the West (maybe schools leaving the Big XII) and then slide Alabama / Auburn east TOGETHER.
Or add two teams to East and shift Missouri back to West. Missouri gives SEC more future flexibility, if most of futre targets are located to the West of SEC footprint.

Kind of late to pull out the atlases:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/49588/3-point-stance

CBS' Eye on CFB: SEC: We have three options for 13-team schedule http://bit.ly/oxtj7m Texas A&M playing 4 teams in each division is most likely

What's been reported, stemming from last week, is that Mizzou does not have unanimous support right now from the SEC, and just a vote or so short of approval. Some view the SEC can do better than Mizzou and/or prefer an addition from the "east" side. This certainly relates to divisional setups. Also, Clemson has emerged again in a press report(s) as a potential 14th, but Clemson President Barker has denied any inquiries from the SEC on any level, and affirmed Clemson's continued relationship in the ACC. Also noted, was South Carolina's, Georgia's, and Florida's resistance to having an "in-state" addition whereby a SEC school already exists. While much of this was already known, it appears the SEC has some convincing/deciding to do from within. Mizzou, in addition to seeing what the B12 can deliver for the immediate future, may be holding off until the SEC is fully committed to add them, at least a solid informal assurance.

There is an article in today's The State newspaper (Columbia, SC) pertaining to this.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/10/14/2008 ... rumor.html

Nice find, SEC.

Has anyone seen any mention of discussion of adding Missouri to the SEC East ?
Missouri borders Kentucky (SEC East) and Tennessee (Tenn. & Vandy - both SEC East).
Currently I believe Arkansas and South Carolina (teams #11 and #12) are cross-division rivals (rather lame....)
If Mizzou went to SEC East, they could become Arkansas's rival (pairing A&M with South Carolina - a bit lame, but not so big a deal).

I think this might address Alabama's concerns (basically they would be rather unaffected by the expansion vs. having to change divisions).


So some SEC (east ?) president's think "they could do better than Missouri" ?
Maybe so, I'm curious as to whom...
Texas ? (LHN issues)
OU ? (have to add SOU, too)
ACC schools (I really like FSU, however UF may object, $20 mill exit fee, and FSU may not want to play in a tougher FB league).
West Virginia (Definitely available, definitely a good fit athletically and culturally, travel well, NOT a big TV market)
Missouri (AAU academics (who cares ? in my opinion), decent athletics, would be middle-of-the-road competitor, St. Louis/KC add some of best TV markets available to SEC).

Personally, I like WVU to the SEC East. This works great if 14 is the ultimate plan.
If you ultimately want to go to 16, and wait for the B-12 to go into turmoil again in 6 years, add Mizzou, then come back and add UT/OU, OU/OSU, KU..

In ultimate configuration, I do think Alabama / Auburn should be in same division.
It can stay this way, if Mizzou comes into SEC west, then later add to B-12 schools and move Mizzou west and both Alabama/Auburn to SEC East.