Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:11 pm to BhamTigah
quote:i like looking at the setup from this perspective
From a recruiting standpoint, this probably favors LSU more than anyone else. LSU and USCe are the only SEC teams that get to play regularly in both Texas and Florida.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:12 pm to therick711
quote:
In odd years, LSU would be locked into 5 away games. Seven home games, while not as untenable as 6, still puts an awful lot of strain when you have to build softball stadiums and pay $1 million to women's basketball coaches.
2011 - 6 home games.
2010 - 7 home games.
2009 - 7 home games.
2008 - 8 home games.
2007 - 7 home games.
2006 - 8 home games.
2005 - 6 home games.
2004 - 7 home games.
2003 - 7 home games.
2002 - 7 home games.
7 home games is obviously not untenable by any means to LSU. Over the last 10 years they have averaged exactly 7 home games per year, with just as many 6 home game schedules as 8 home schedules.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:13 pm to therick711
quote:
Because of higher education budget cuts, the AD is now tasked with "donating" more money back to the school. Alleva has already managed a schedule with only 6 home games, it doesn't work very well. In odd years, LSU would be locked into 5 away games. Seven home games, while not as untenable as 6, still puts an awful lot of strain when you have to build softball stadiums and pay $1 million to women's basketball coaches. Right now, Alleva is locked in to 8 SEC games, only four away, and he can do what he pleases with the rest.
So finances are more important than rotating opponents.
And finances were supposedly the overwhelming reason the SEC expanded to 14 teams.
So it's all about money but AU/UA/UT/UGA are the bad guys for wanting to preserve their rivalries?
Again, were any of those four schools actively lobbying to expand to 14 teams?
This post was edited on 6/4/12 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:16 pm to BrerTiger
quote:This is my only issue with the discussion. A bunch of fans having this kneejerk reaction to the scheduling and blaming certain schools, when it was voted on and the majority (not just 4) agreed it was the best solution.
So it's all about money but AU/UA/UT/UGA are the bad guys for wanting to preserve their rivalries?
The solution, imo, is stupid. But that's what the majority wanted. Somehow, instead of blaming the SEC (which I'm assuming the OP was), other fans are throwing UA/AU/UGA/UT under the bus for it.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:24 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Welcome to the 6-1-1 schedule, SEC fans – as brutal a compromise as the league could've come up with, and it's all to preserve two games for four schools: Alabama vs. Tennessee and UGA vs. Auburn.
Ohhh...but we scaaaared
and
It's effin stupid and it will change sooner than later. For the time being though, we get to play UF and have an exciting East opponent the next few years.
But the SEC is compromising the entire league for those two games and it's just dumb.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:27 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
But the SEC is compromising the entire league for those two games and it's just dumb.
Why did we need to expand to 14?
What was wrong with 5-1-2?
Are AU/UA/UGA/UT to blame for expansion?
Take off your homer blinders and give these questions some serious thought.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:35 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
Did people complain this much about only one rotational opponent before we switched the format in the early 2000s?
Yes, that's why they changed it.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:35 pm to 12
quote:
I seem to remember one loss being much more significant than the other.
Yep. One loss kept one team from being able to play in TWO championship games last season.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:38 pm to Teague
quote:
As I said from the beginning, frick Expansion. frick aTm. frick Missouri. frick playoffs. The greatest sport and regular season in the world will now slowly turn into some watered down bullshite.
this
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:44 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Why did we need to expand to 14?
$
quote:
Are AU/UA/UGA/UT to blame for expansion?
Nope....but they are part of the blame for hangin on to "rival" games instead of doing whats best (and fair) for the ENTIRE SEC.
And, the vote wasn't there because I'm sure some other teams are ok with the weaker teams being on the schedule...so why change it?
quote:
Take off your homer blinders and give these questions some serious thought.
I have no reason to have blinders on....just want what's best for the league and not just a few teams.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:46 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Yep. One loss kept one team from being able to play in TWO championship games last season.
Only because that 1 loss was to a fellow West Team that happened to be undefeated.
If Bama didn't like it, they should have won the game at BDS.
They got lucky and got a rematch.....so
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:51 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
that means LSU is a giant among midgets in the West. 5 of the Big 6 will be in the East and LSU will run roughshod over everyone.
You obviously haven't been following too closely.
You've missed the 'cyclical nature' of college football which says that Tennessee will eventually return to greatness and that according to this theory, LSU will inevitably return to it's rightful place in the SEC cellar.
You've also apparently missed the fact that there is no "Big 6" in the SEC, it is the "Big 4 + UF".
Also note how coawrdly LSU fans are by demanding that they get the chance to play UGA more often.
So I really don't understand this fear that lowly LSU would be able to run roughshod over anyone on a consistant basis. After all, LSU has a losing record vs MISSOURI, of all teams.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:52 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
Nope....but they are part of the blame for hangin on to "rival" games instead of doing whats best (and fair) for the ENTIRE SEC.
Not exactly a new demand by AU/UA/UT/UGA. They've made it clear from day one that their rivalry games are NOT negotiable. I don't know how they could have possibly been more clear about this.
quote:
And, the vote wasn't there because I'm sure some other teams are ok with the weaker teams being on the schedule...so why change it?
Schools acting in their self interest. So why not venomous rage directed at Ole Miss and Vandy? Kentucky and Miss State? Missouri and Arkansas?
quote:
I have no reason to have blinders on....just want what's best for the league and not just a few teams.
And I don't buy this high and mighty shite from Miles and Alleva. They most certainly are thinking of LSU's self interest and not the league as a whole. If LSU was locked into a cross divisional game with Vandy, I'll bet you Miles and Alleva wouldn't have any complaints at all.
I don't blame Miles and Alleva for advocating on LSU's behalf. It's kinda their job to be passionately advocating for LSU in every way on every day.
I just don't see how UA/UA/UGA/UT are to blame for consistently advocating the same position for over 20 years now.
I highly doubt Bama was lobbying for expansion. It's not like they need the extra money that expansion brought.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:54 pm to BrerTiger
Bama/UT/AU/UGA traditions will always win out. Those games survived expansion in 1992 and they survived 2012. If LSU doesn't like it they can leave and play Vandy 12 times a year, I don't give a shite.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:55 pm to ProjectP2294
quote:
would 9 conference games be that bad?
That wouldn't work either because then the Auburn fans would start crying about how it's not fair that LSU won the West because they got 5 home games with 4 on the road, while Auburn only got 4 home games.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:56 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
That trip out to Gainesville too pricey for you, A&M fans? Well then, you best take a few extra pictures this September to remember the Gators because Muschamp and his College Station-loving self won’t circle back around until the year 2024.
Anybody that can read this and say "frick it, my rivalry is more important" is a self-serving a-hole.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:56 pm to attheua
quote:
Bama/UT/AU/UGA traditions will always win out. Those games survived expansion in 1992 and they survived 2012. If LSU doesn't like it they can leave and play Vandy 12 times a year, I don't give a shite.
Correct. More than likely, LSU will lose out twice. They want an 8 game schedule without a permanent rival when they will most likely get a 9 game schedule with permanent rivals.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Correct. More than likely, LSU will lose out twice. They want an 8 game schedule without a permanent rival when they will most likely get a 9 game schedule with permanent rivals.
We'll take out our frustration by curbstomping the Aggies in October.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:00 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
Not exactly a new demand by AU/UA/UT/UGA. They've made it clear from day one that their rivalry games are NOT negotiable. I don't know how they could have possibly been more clear about this.
No such thing as "not" negotiable.......what would/could they do if it's changed? Threaten to leave?
quote:
Schools acting in their self interest. So why not venomous rage directed at Ole Miss and Vandy? Kentucky and Miss State? Missouri and Arkansas?
I am pissed at any team that hasn't voted to change the scheduling.....including those u mention.
quote:
They most certainly are thinking of LSU's self interest and not the league as a whole. If LSU was locked into a cross divisional game with Vandy, I'll bet you Miles and Alleva wouldn't have any complaints at all.
As would most teams not named Bama, UGA, AU and UT. Yet these schools are not above whining...don't kid yourself.
I would NOT like being stuck playing Vandy every year and SC or UF only once every 12 or so years......that's just stupid.
quote:
I highly doubt Bama was lobbying for expansion. It's not like they need the extra money that expansion brought.
While I don't have a link.......Bama benefits from more teams (and money) as much as everyone else. They weren't against expansion.
This post was edited on 6/4/12 at 1:01 pm
Page 8 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News