re: Cowherd takes shots at Alabama scheduling and the SEC

quote:

---

Why did you cherry pick years?

---

Sorry I cut and paste from a prior post I made and left out how I came up with those years; those are years either Bama or LSU won the national title (in the case of '11 one won the SEC the other the BCS, splitting their meetings 1-1 and were the 2 best teams in the country). We can compare the schedules to see what each went through prior to getting to the SECCG and BCS title game. In the aggregate, LSU face the toughest road for when comparing the three years each team has reached the pinacle of college football since 2000. I'd rank the toughest schedules as LSU in '03, then '07, Bama '09, both teams' eastern schedules were even in '11, then Bama '12.

quote:

---

So it was even that year? What about 2010?

---

As stated above the 2011 schedules were roughly equal. If we look at a Bama '10 or LSU '10, or an LSU '05 or '06 or Bama '05, those are years where the schools fielded excellent teams; however those teams didn't maximize their potential or weren't good enough to get to the top.

My opinion on the Bama/UT traditional rivalry game is that why does the SEC office want to protect the tradition of a particular game, yet expands the conference outside of the SEC's traditional footprint and add two schools into the conference that have nothing in common with the others? Either the SEC wants to preserve tradition or not. I think the league's answer was we'll sacrifice tradition for money. So we need to sacrifice tradtion across the board. LSU gave up a long time rivalry game with UK to make UP the permanent cross divisional game. If we would've kept our longest tenured eastern opponent, we'd be playing UK every year not UF. Then the shoe would be on the other foot and Bama would be the complainers.