I like things the way they are, especially now that we have 6 games in your division and 2 in the other. South Carolina lost to Auburn 16-13 last year, while UGA beat the tar out of them 45-7. The pitiful home loss to Auburn is what knocked them out of the game in Atlanta, not the loss to Arkansas. The bottom line is SC did not handle their business against the easy teams from the West, where UGA did. They did not have to win that Arkansas game at all if they had taken care of business.
Let's think this through for just a second. If you beat everyone in your division, you can still afford one loss to the other division and still win because you would have the head to head tiebreaker over everyone else in your division. You would need 2 losses to the other division to knock yourself out of contention, and even then there would have to be someone else in your division who won all of their games except for that head to head loss. That is exactly what happened to South Carolina last year.
So, as it is right now, a loss to the other division already does not hurt as bad as a loss within your division. If you beat everyone else in your division, you will always be able to afford at least one more loss to the other division than what your competitors have. In other words, SC could have lost 2 games to the west, had UGA lost 1 game to the west. SC could have lost all 3 games with the west, if UGA had lost 2 games to the west. This current system still gives you an advantage if you beat everyone in your division, yet every game is still important.
In hindsight, I think UGA may have actually been the better team last year, especially by the end of the season. SC caught UGA the week after a very disappointing loss to Boise State where they let the entire conference down, and SC barely beat them 45-42. Later in the season SC was squeaking by Miss St. 14-12, losing to Auburn, and they only beat Tennessee 14-3. Meanwhile UGA lost the first 2 and didn't lose again during the regular season, winning the next 10 in a row.
Which hints at another scheduling issue. Playing tougher opponents from the opposite side is definitely a disadvantage, like an east team playing Bama and LSU where another team might play Ole Miss and Miss State.
The other scheduling issue is like when Bama played 5 or 6 SEC games in a row, and every team had a bye week before playing Bama. This also was a scheduling disadvantage. Saban's quote, that the problem is parity in schedules, is spot on. But Spurrier's proposal only addresses one aspect of that lack of parity, diminishes the importance of SEC non-divisional games, and therefore is more akin to whining about USCe's schedule, something Saban avoided for the most part about Bama's schedule (letting the talking heads bring it up, and mostly addressing the matter behind the scenes rather than pubically complaining).
I don't think we can do away with divisions in football because they don't play as many games as basketball, for good reason. Also, the SECCG is a huge money maker for SEC teams, and that isn't going away -- since the SEC started this game, other conferences have seen its benefit and are copying the SEC. That's why the Big10 and PAC10 increased to 12 teams, and why the Big 12 is trying to keep 12 teams.
I think you are correct SC, Georgia ultimately was better than USCe last year. They gave LSU a run for their money in the SECCG. Georgia instituted a 3-4 defense, similar to Bama's, and it took a few games for the new system to gel. After giving up points to BSU and USCe, Georgia's defense started looking better. Georgia should be better still this year, even under CMR.
Poll
Total Members: