North and South Division

[JonnyC]

"The only quam I have with the divisions is that Baylor is not in the South and Texas State is not in the North."

But Baylor is farther north than TSU, right?

"The problem I have is that Baylor is closer to TAMU than it is to texas and that Texas State is closer to texas than TAMU."

Baylor is an hour and a half from Dallas, College Station, and Austin, so how do you choose?

"San Marcos is farther south than Waco but I think that in this case traveling teams like Tech and Okie State would be able to knock out two birds with one stone. They can travel to texas and then play Texas State instead of driving another three hours northeast to Baylor."

Tech and Okie State would have an even shorter trip if they came to play in Waco and then went to play UT the next day, or the other way around. And if it takes you 3 hours to get from Waco to San Marcos, you may be driving too slow. The league is great as is. It makes the teams in the north better through better competition, and makes a playoff goal possible for younger teams in the south. We like it here in Waco, where we're an hour and half from everywhere.

[OldBalls]

I am sitting here wondering why this topic was even brought up...If this is a legit topic/argument, then I guess the Big XII, the SEC, and the ACC should all change their alignment every year based on the preseason rankings of their football teams. There was no way that Colorado's football team was in the same league as say...Texas, A&M, OSU, Tech, etc. But they still made the championship game.

By the way, I think that the "official" rankings that were used for this point should be thought out a little bit more. UNT is having a totally different year than they had last year due to players who are no longer there, and this is the same with many other programs.

Until there is another two or three teams that can compete with A&M, Texas, and maybe Tech; this league will always be lop-sided.[/quote]

[benji]

interestingly enough, it seems that many teams play at neutral sights from time to time. I know we're playing TAMU in Arlington. A more balanced division breakdown would be possible if more neutrally located games were scheduled.

However, then poses the issue of the lack of home games. We only have three this year, I know I'd sure be pissed off if we were subject to even less.

It seems, based upon the evident geographic spead of LSA teams, that the only two possibilities for this league are either the current situations, or to revert back to a no division conference.

... Texas is just too big...

[tamu33]

JonnyC,

Woah back man. I said that was my only tiff about it. I never said change it up. And then I gave my reasons to mikeg123. I personally think the league coordinators did a great job factoring in many contigents. And another thing. I did make a mistake on the three hours from san marcos to waco. ( I wrote that message in haste.) Don't get offended.

[LaxC21]

I think it is pretty funny that we are discussing how hard some teams competition is because of the division they are in. That is the problem with this league and the fundamental difference between Tech, UT, A&M and mabye one or two other schools. They don't think the league is tough enough so they schedule out of conference games against quality opponents (CSU, Auburn, Michigan, Oakland, etc.) They also aren't focused on just making the playoffs. I believe that for the most part they are focused on winning the LSA championship and playing a tough enough schedule in case that doesn't happen they have proved they are a quality opponent nationally, thus deserving an at-large bid. Maybe if more teams in this conference thought this way and were not so concerned with their conference/division schedule, we would finally get two teams to the national championships.

[benji]

LaxC21... well put.

I agree whole-heartedly.

[Campbell]

I think it is pretty funny that we are discussing how hard some teams competition is because of the division they are in. That is the problem with this league and the fundamental difference between Tech, UT, A&M and mabye one or two other schools. They don't think the league is tough enough so they schedule out of conference games against quality opponents (CSU, Auburn, Michigan, Oakland, etc.) They also aren't focused on just making the playoffs. I believe that for the most part they are focused on winning the LSA championship and playing a tough enough schedule in case that doesn't happen they have proved they are a quality opponent nationally, thus deserving an at-large bid. Maybe if more teams in this conference thought this way and were not so concerned with their conference/division schedule, we would finally get two teams to the national championships.

I think this is why the conference is split now. For bigger teams they only have to play their division games and then they have plenty of room left over for OOC games or more LSA teams. It is also beneficial to the smaller teams that want to keep a small shedule while competing for a playoff chance in the LSA. This compared to the 8 game schedule we had last year is much better I think. It also gives the LSA room to grow if need be. As far as geography, I think it works out fine. Maybe the north is more competitive this year, but that doesnt mean the South wont be either this season or in the following years.

[Nickilizer03]

It would take LSU 12+ hours to drive to Tech and 11+ to drive to OSU and it is hard enough to get guys to travel 4 hours to Houston. So geographically it makes sense.

[TUlaxA]

Add 1 hour more to LSU's travel time, and you get how long that it takes Tulane to travel there. I mean, It took us 6 and a half hours to get to A&M, and we consider them geographically close, and they are in our division. It seems like the geographical split of the two divisions works just fine.

[Karl Lynch]

The split has been discussed for several years now. A preview of the split was given to all teams prior to the league meeting. This subject was discussed at the league meeting. A vote was taken and the division split passed unanimously.

The reasons for the move have been thoroughly discussed on this board:

1) Geography
2) Travel Cost
3) MDIA only requires 6 league games
4) Allow teams to be in better compliance with MDIA rules
5) Allow teams to determine their schedules for themselves to fit their budgets
6) Allow for more non-conference games to secure at large bids to Minn.
7) Simplify league scheduling
Allow league to expand playoffs
9) Provide a structure that the league could maintain in the future.

The relative strengths and weakness of particular teams in a particular division in a particular year are completely irrelevant to why the league voted for the change.

As a historical note, Rice beat Tech in recent history to earn a playoff spot. Trinity from 94-98 routinely beat everyone but Texas and A&M. Tulane beat many teams at A&M tournament to win college division a few years back.

Let's wait and see. Those guys in San Marcos, Houston, and Lousiana may have something to say about which teams are good in the LSA.

[LaxC21]

Well put Karl.

[Hotbox]

I believe that for the most part they are focused on winning the LSA championship and playing a tough enough schedule in case that doesn't happen they have proved they are a quality opponent nationally, thus deserving an at-large bid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not even eligible for an at-large bid unless you have at least 2 OOC wins. Being a "quality opponent" + 1 OOC win = no at large bid.

[Karl Lynch]

To receive an at-large bid to Nationals, you must play 3 non conference games. There is no requirement to win any of them.

You must also finish in the top of the polls relative to the AQs.