Started By
Message
Traditional Rivals (UA-Tenn, AU-UGA) as OOC games?
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:44 am
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:44 am
I have been on the 9 game band wagon for a whole because I want to preserve the traditional rivalries, but still wanted to play the other cross divisional teams more often than every 10 years or whatever it is. Now I'm sorta thinking keep the 8 game schedule, get rid of the permanent rivals, and play the big traditional rivalry games as OOC the years they don't fall in the conference schedule.
I don't buy into saying they'd be meaningless because they still obviously count for the overall season, and they are huge rivalries that each team would want to beat purely on those merits. The cross divisional teams that don't necessarily care to play each other every year (LSU-FLA, etc) can drop each other accordingly.
From Bamas perspective, if we play 8 regular conference games, one "Michigan" like big OOC game, an also play TN as an OOC game, that's 10 quality opponents and only 2 cupcakes, so scheduling looks a lot better.
Problem solved.
I don't buy into saying they'd be meaningless because they still obviously count for the overall season, and they are huge rivalries that each team would want to beat purely on those merits. The cross divisional teams that don't necessarily care to play each other every year (LSU-FLA, etc) can drop each other accordingly.
From Bamas perspective, if we play 8 regular conference games, one "Michigan" like big OOC game, an also play TN as an OOC game, that's 10 quality opponents and only 2 cupcakes, so scheduling looks a lot better.
Problem solved.
9
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:49 am to bodask42
why can we not reach an agreement on the 9 game format? hell, I'd take 10 league games and 2 OOC, in a heart beat.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:51 am to bodask42
9 game schedule. Keep perms.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:51 am to Tennessee Jed
quote:
why can we not reach an agreement on the 9 game format? hell, I'd take 10 league games and 2 OOC, in a heart beat.
In which case, bye-bye SEC dominance. 9 game conference slate and you almost for sure have to get rid of the SECCG. No team would make it out alive.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 11:56 am to tylerdurden24
Disagreed. A 1 loss sec team would make it over any other 1 loss team from any other conference and with a 9 game schedule, depending on the loss, possibly even an undefeated.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:03 pm to bodask42
quote:
The cross divisional teams that don't necessarily care to play each other every year (LSU-FLA, etc) can drop each other accordingly.
This is all that needs to happen.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:03 pm to ThaKaptin
quote:
Disagreed. A 1 loss sec team would make it over any other 1 loss team from any other conference and with a 9 game schedule, depending on the loss, possibly even an undefeated.
Saban is a smart man, the rest of the conference is simply scared. Vandy's coach went on record saying, next Saban will want to play a NFL team, when will it stop.
:lol: :lol:Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:11 pm to bodask42
quote:
9 game band wagon
I don't think its going to happen.
I heard it about a week ago, but the SEC network would be loosing 7 games to broadcast. Thats huge money. Slive might have originally thought about it, but I think once they think about it more they will scrap the plan because of the loose of revenue from 7 TV games.
Also, its a horrible idea. The net affect will keep teams from scheduling out of conference "big games". Teams will schedule more like Bama did this year. (Not swiping at Bama's past scheduling - its just weak this year. It happens and its OK.) The schools will want to make sure they are guaranteed 6 wins to get to a bowl.
I like it when big time SEC schools play big time schools from other conferences. Its much better for college football with Bama plays Michigan, LSU v Oregon, or UT v a West Coast team and etc.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:14 pm to sarc
quote:
This is all that needs to happen.
Yeah but it won't because then there's no advantage for bama.
But you are correct. It really is just that simple. Nobody cares if you want to play Tenn every year. Have at it. But what the hell are all these other teams forced to play each other for every year?
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:15 pm to bodask42
Can you a-holes come up with new ideas.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:16 pm to bodask42
Quit talking about scedules, whiner LSU fan
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:18 pm to bodask42
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:18 pm to Vol Fan in the Bayou
quote:
. Teams will schedule more like Bama did this year. (Not swiping at Bama's past scheduling - its just weak this year. It happens and its OK.) The schools will want to make sure they are guaranteed 6 wins to get to a bowl.
You realize that when Bama scheduled the VT game they were coming off their 8th straight season with 10+ wins? We thought we were would be playing a top 10 team, but VT unexpectedly tanked last year
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:19 pm to bodask42
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:24 pm to LukeSidewalker
quote:
. Vandy's coach went on record saying, next Saban will want to play a NFL team, when will it stop.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:26 pm to bodask42
quote:
I have been on the 9 game band wagon for a whole because I want to preserve the traditional rivalries, but still wanted to play the other cross divisional teams more often than every 10 years or whatever it is. Now I'm sorta thinking keep the 8 game schedule, get rid of the permanent rivals, and play the big traditional rivalry games as OOC the years they don't fall in the conference schedule.
I don't buy into saying they'd be meaningless because they still obviously count for the overall season, and they are huge rivalries that each team would want to beat purely on those merits. The cross divisional teams that don't necessarily care to play each other every year (LSU-FLA, etc) can drop each other accordingly.
From Bamas perspective, if we play 8 regular conference games, one "Michigan" like big OOC game, an also play TN as an OOC game, that's 10 quality opponents and only 2 cupcakes, so scheduling looks a lot better.
Problem solved.
This is the most logical thing to do. Regardless if we stay at 8/9 games or expand this format affords the most balance. Also the least restrictive the schedules the better. Less restrictions allow easier schedule manipulation.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:27 pm to ThaKaptin
quote:
Disagreed. A 1 loss sec team would make it over any other 1 loss team from any other conference and with a 9 game schedule, depending on the loss, possibly even an undefeated.
If you want to wager that resume in the hands of a national title committee, then be my guest. It's a foolish decision, IMO, when you have a good thing going as is.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:28 pm to Vol Fan in the Bayou
quote:
I heard it about a week ago, but the SEC network would be loosing 7 games to broadcast
I'm not sure the SECN is going to be broadcasting every shitty OOC game, so I'm not sure it's true that they'd be losing 7 games.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:30 pm to tylerdurden24
quote:
If you want to wager that resume in the hands of a national title committee, then be my guest. It's a foolish decision, IMO, when you have a good thing going as is.
Although I don't think the 6-1-1 setup is worth a damn, I tend to agree. Slive ain't buying their what they're selling re this committee IMO.
Wait and see approach is best. Lets see how they implement SOS.
Posted on 5/30/13 at 12:32 pm to sarc
quote:
You realize that when Bama scheduled the VT game they were coming off their 8th straight season with 10+ wins? We thought we were would be playing a top 10 team, but VT unexpectedly tanked last year
Sorry, horrible example. You're right though - VT is solid. Got no problem with that. Pure ignorance on my behalf.
But OK that even proves my more. - do you think Bama or other teams are scheduling the VT's of the world if they are playing 9 SEC games? No way.
Further, do you think BAMA, LSU or anyone else is willing to give up a home game? Thats what is going to happen if they have to play 9 conference games.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News