Started By
Message
re: CFN: The SEC's 6-1-1 Disaster
Posted on 6/5/12 at 2:38 pm to therick711
Posted on 6/5/12 at 2:38 pm to therick711
quote:
Since 1990 we have played 22 times. LSU has won 7 of those match-ups.
From 1990 to 1999, we were getting beat by practically everyone except Mississippi State. 1990-1999 is irrelevant to the present when drawing any conclusions relating to LSU. It would be like going to Germany in 1945 to determine whether it's a good place to vacation.
In the last 12 years, LSU and Florida are dead even at 6-6. Until 1992, LSU led the series. Using the worst nightmare decade in our history as any indication of anything produces misleading results and incorrect conclusions.
This post was edited on 6/5/12 at 2:39 pm
2
Posted on 6/5/12 at 2:44 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
In the last 12 years, LSU and Florida are dead even at 6-6. Until 1992, LSU led the series. Using the worst nightmare decade in our history as any indication of anything produces misleading results and incorrect conclusions.
Arbitrarily throwing out a period where we got our brains beat in to say it hasn't disadvantaged us seems misleading to me. Also, since 2000 UA has 7 wins over UT and UGA has 7 wins over AU, but I'm not sure over that time period you could fairly say that it has been an advantage to those teams. That's why the time horizon should go back to expansion.
That would give UF a 13-7 advantage.
This post was edited on 6/5/12 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 6/5/12 at 2:57 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
From 1990 to 1999, we were getting beat by practically everyone except Mississippi State. 1990-1999 is irrelevant
You a closet Bama fan dude?
Posted on 6/5/12 at 7:46 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
But this is their only way to stifle dissent. They don't have a valid argument based on an equitable solution, so they resort to calling us "scared" or "whiners" or a number of other things. They're just trying to bully their way to inflicting silence on the subject.
Exactly. Its the same defense every single time something doesnt work out in their favor. It really blows that its so damn hard to have an actual conversation on this forum these days.
Posted on 6/5/12 at 9:39 pm to JPLSU1981
I agree totally! With 2 alternating oppenents each year from the East, a student/athlete would get to experience more of what the SEC, and the south has to offer. Over 4 years of eligibility, that would mean 4 trips, to different locales. Different (probably good) food, music, etc. Would love to play Vanderbilt more often!
Posted on 6/5/12 at 11:38 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
just wanted to come and laugh at you because we got our way
And this is different from the last time I talked and you flamed? When have I not been clear that I realize we're in the stark minority and that is unlikely to change in the near future? I know you didn't really take part in the discussions, but just wasted your time calling everyone afraid and stuff, but you really should try to keep up. Because as it stands, you're just a pretty shitty poster in regards to these discussions.
This post was edited on 6/5/12 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 6/5/12 at 11:41 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
For the life of me, I'll never know what he thought he would accomplish by whining that "it's not fair",
I guess the fact that it isn't fair may have been what he was thinking. I have yet to hear a coherent answer as to how it isn't unfair. Maybe you can provide one for Alleva. But no, you just want to be concerned with what internet posters from opposing fanbases will call you. Grow up.
Posted on 6/5/12 at 11:52 pm to Tiger Authority
I think you have to define what you think is fair before you take it upon yourself to deem something fair.
It might not be fair for what you deem important, but you aren't the authority, and your priorities for conference parity may not mesh with those of other people in the conference. We all have different viewpoints, and there aren't absolutes.
It might not be fair for what you deem important, but you aren't the authority, and your priorities for conference parity may not mesh with those of other people in the conference. We all have different viewpoints, and there aren't absolutes.
Posted on 6/5/12 at 11:55 pm to Bellabama
quote:
I think you have to define what you think is fair before you take it upon yourself to deem something fair.
This is about the tenth thread on this though. I've been involved in most of them in some regard and have pretty much established my stance. Simple fact of the matter is that having constants is patently unfair because it creates inherent/built-in inequities to the scheduling format.
ETA:
Under a 6-2 format, you play everyone in your division and rotate to play every team in the other division the same amount over a period of time just like everyone else. As it stands, however, we have a 6-1-1 format and it creates unfairness for teams in our own division that have easier roads built-in to the scheduling format.
We can debate why we have the schedule, but to debate that the 6-1-1 is a more fair system isn't a winning argument IMO.
This post was edited on 6/5/12 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:00 am to Bellabama
quote:
It might not be fair for what you deem important, but you aren't the authority, and your priorities for conference parity may not mesh with those of other people in the conference. We all have different viewpoints, and there aren't absolutes.
Yep. But we have this system due to four teams that want to continue rivalries. And then we have a series of other teams that don't want to change because the inequity benefits them (ie OM playing Vandy, Kentucky playing MSU). It's in those teams best interest to continue this unfairness because it benefits them.
For that reason I don't expect any of this to change unfortunately. But it should.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:02 am to Tiger Authority
Right. But that's only one viewpoint. You speak as though your mindset is the absolute authority. I think that balance is an important component to a fair schedule. And that until this point, having the 6 teams that are the best play each other regularly ensures that, given the ebb and flow of college football.
I also think that it's unfair to change a schedule to fit the agenda of one or two schools when the majority of schools, for whatever reason, find that the current scheduling system, while flawed, has what they think are the fewest flaws for what they are looking to achieve for each school's individual needs.
SO perhaps, in your future posts, you might say, "what YOU think is fair for LSU" and not what is "fair" in general. They are very different, and it's disingenuous to make any other assertion.
I also think that it's unfair to change a schedule to fit the agenda of one or two schools when the majority of schools, for whatever reason, find that the current scheduling system, while flawed, has what they think are the fewest flaws for what they are looking to achieve for each school's individual needs.
SO perhaps, in your future posts, you might say, "what YOU think is fair for LSU" and not what is "fair" in general. They are very different, and it's disingenuous to make any other assertion.
This post was edited on 6/6/12 at 12:04 am
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:03 am to Tiger Authority
If the "big 4" want to play each other, then move them all to the east. If they aren't willing to do that, then they should stfu about their precious rivalries.
This post was edited on 6/6/12 at 12:04 am
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:06 am to Jon Ham
quote:
If the "big 4" want to play each other, then move them all to the east. If they aren't willing to do that, then they should stfu about their precious rivalaries.
Well, then that's not "fair" in the argument for balance. Naturally you would want all but one of the teams that have won BCS championships in the past 6 years to be in one division.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:08 am to Bellabama
quote:
Right. But that's only one viewpoint. You speak as though your mindset is the absolute authority. I think that balance is an important component to a fair schedule. And that until this point, having the 6 teams that are the best play each other regularly ensures that, given the ebb and flow of college football.
But we're all in the same conference, vying for the same title, making the same money, etc. but some roads are easier than others before a game is even played.
quote:
I also think that it's unfair to change a schedule to fit the agenda of one or two schools
Are you joking? This entire format is because of four teams. You can cite who voted for what but we have this format to salvage your game. OM and the others just vote in their interest at this point. So I'm not sure you can honestly say that with a straight face.
quote:
SO perhaps, in your future posts, you might say, "what YOU think is fair for LSU" and not what is "fair" in general. They are very different, and it's disingenuous to make any other assertion.
Not really. Everyone in one division vying for the same title rotating to play the same teams is more fair than allowing some teams to play lesser opponents every year for that same title opportunity.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:09 am to Bellabama
quote:
Well, then that's not "fair" in the argument for balance. Naturally you would want all but one of the teams that have won BCS championships in the past 6 years to be in one division.
So you're saying overall fairness is more important than preserving the rivalries? Interesting...
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:10 am to Bellabama
quote:
Well, then that's not "fair" in the argument for balance. Naturally you would want all but one of the teams that have won BCS championships in the past 6 years to be in one division.
Dude you can't be serious can you? Why do we have this format? To salvage y'alls pointless rivalries. It was never established to segment the haves and have nots.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:10 am to Jon Ham
I said that different people have different definitions of fairness. That's even more interesting.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:12 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Dude you can't be serious can you? Why do we have this format? To salvage y'alls pointless rivalries. It was never established to segment the haves and have nots.
It's an AND issue. It solves 4 teams' needs for rivalries as well as 6 teams who think it would be unfair to have to play teams like Alabama and LSU every single year.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:12 am to Jon Ham
quote:
If the "big 4" want to play each other, then move them all to the east. If they aren't willing to do that, then they should stfu about their precious rivalries.
He's under the impression that this vote shows that everyone wants this but is consciously choosing to ignore the very reason for the game, which is four teams and two games they hold so dear. The other teams just vote with them at this point so their schedule will remain easier in the conference. But at the inception of the format, it was all about keeping these "rivalries". Bella is choosing to ignore that pertinent fact or he would be perfectly content with them going 6-1-1 and everyone else going 6-2. Because that is unfair. It's remarkable.
Posted on 6/6/12 at 12:13 am to Bellabama
quote:
I said that different people have different definitions of fairness. That's even more interesting.
"it depends what your definition of 'is' is."
Page 15 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News