Started By
Message
re: (Final Draft) Evidence Mounts of a Scandal in the SEC
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:11 pm to Nuts4LSU
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:11 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Auburn does not belong on a list like this.
They absolutely do, as long as he's using their schedule as part of his "conspiracy" argument.
Either add them, or don't bring them up at all.
1
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:11 pm to Wideman
quote:
But I don't think you can blame LSU fans for being a little suspicious of how the bridge schedule situation has unfolded, especially given the officials administering it
Like I said, its narrow minded and short sighted. So yes I can blame them a little bit. When you(not you personally) create fact and stats that purposefully leave off items that disprove, make up stuff, use short periods to extrapolate data over long time, its looks juvenile and childish
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:11 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:Fine. Still doesn't change the fact that Bama complained and the SEC office changed the scheduling. LSU fans complained, nothing happened... Bitch fest commences.
"You" being LSU fans in general, of course. And there was plenty of it.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:11 pm to NorthGwinnettTiger
quote:
Then he should have left AU out of his entire conspiracy theory dumbass.
Fricking this.
Dammit. These LSU fans are getting really close to making me have to pull for Auburn in that game.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:12 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
LSU had easy schedules in 2011 and prior and Bama had hard then
Really? LSU and Bama had the same schedule in 2011 except we had Kentucky while they had Vandy. In the regular season, Vandy was 6-6 and UK was 5-7. Are you really suggesting that's the same as 14-2 vs. 1-15?
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:13 pm to Wideman
quote:
Bama complained and the SEC office changed the scheduling
Scheduling rules weren't added until the following year. We had to play that schedule with 6 teams getting a BYE. And it just happened to be the only year since the 2009 season that we haven't won a national championship. All 3 losses were to teams who were coming off a BYE.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:15 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Scheduling rules weren't added until the following year. We had to play that schedule with 6 teams getting a BYE. And it just happened to be the only year since the 2009 season that we haven't won a national championship. All 3 losses were to teams who were coming off a BYE.
One of those games Bama themselves were coming off a BYE.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:15 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Really?
reading and shite
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:16 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Dammit. These LSU fans are getting really close to making me have to pull for Auburn in that game.
Oh, it has already come to that for me.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:16 pm to McManus
I'm sick of the subject but I didn't think this was that badly written or anything but JKF needs to be JFK.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:16 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Auburn does not belong on a list like this.
They absolutely do, as long as he's using their schedule as part of his "conspiracy" argument.
Either add them, or don't bring them up at all.
I don't know why he brought Auburn into it, either. I think at one point in his argument (I am not going back to read it again--maybe it was in an earlier "draft") he mentions the possibility that Auburn getting an easier game was done so Alabama wouldn't be the only one (which would make what is already obvious even more obvious), but who cares about Auburn anyway? He could have stuck to the issue (Bama being coddled and protected by an alum who is in charge of scheduling), and there is more than enough. Adding the Auburn angle doesn't help his case, IMO, so I wouldn't have brought it up if I were he.
This post was edited on 7/24/13 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:18 pm to DaleDenton
quote:
One of those games Bama themselves were coming off a BYE.
Doesn't matter. Played 6 SEC teams coming off a BYE, lost to 3 of them.
Finished the season 10-3.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:19 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
He probably left off Auburn for the same reason he left off Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss. St., Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee. He was obviously listing the differences in schedules among teams who actually have a chance to win the SEC title.
He didn't include the other 8 teams because they put a giant hole in the argument and actually show nothing abnormal. we are talking about SEC scheduling, right? that does encompass more than 2 teams I believe
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:19 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Bama being coddled and protected by an alum who is in charge of scheduling
Except this was clearly not the case.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:22 pm to pvilleguru
It's like arguing with 3rd graders about who gets to be in the front of the line.
This post was edited on 7/24/13 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:24 pm to McManus
This OP somehow reminds me of this one:
I. LEGITIMACY
We must go to the contract signed by the PAC 10 and SEC. There we will find the answer to the question of legitimacy. The BCS contract explicitly states that each year, there will be a National Champion Game between the two most worthy teams, based upon a pre-agreed system. The National Championship Game will determine the National Champion. USC agreed to this contract by agreeing to be in the PAC 10. For years, USC fans used the BCS webpage, which intimated a "split." But now if you go to the BCS Webpage, it upholds the BCS contract and clearly states that LSU is the one and only 2003 National Champion. The reason for the change was legal pressure arising from not honoring its own contract....
I. LEGITIMACY
We must go to the contract signed by the PAC 10 and SEC. There we will find the answer to the question of legitimacy. The BCS contract explicitly states that each year, there will be a National Champion Game between the two most worthy teams, based upon a pre-agreed system. The National Championship Game will determine the National Champion. USC agreed to this contract by agreeing to be in the PAC 10. For years, USC fans used the BCS webpage, which intimated a "split." But now if you go to the BCS Webpage, it upholds the BCS contract and clearly states that LSU is the one and only 2003 National Champion. The reason for the change was legal pressure arising from not honoring its own contract....
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:35 pm to McManus
First, tl;bcnr (but could not resist).
Second, there are many flaws to your arguments. In order to accept your premise, we have to accept the notion that teams that suck now have always sucked and will continue to suck.
As an example, Auburn "due" to play Florida, but now is playing Tennessee. Those who have a problem with that switch have made a projection of each team's strength going forward. But, just a couple of years ago, Florida was projected as a weaker opponent.
You have to assume that the "schedule maker" is making these projections and deliberately altering the scheduling with ONLY Alabama or Auburn (or even LSU in a negative way) in mind.
It seems that everybody tends to ignore the scheduling wants/needs of the other teams when these conspiracy theories start to materialize. It's all about them and totally short-sighted when considering the opponent's needs.
Georgia is not getting a break. LSU is getting screwed.
Kentucky is not getting a marquee match up at home. Alabama is getting a cakewalk.
Arkansas is not getting a marquee match up in very fertile recruiting grounds of the Sunshine State (which, given the population of Arkansas and relative local talent, this exposure is something Arkansas desperately needs). Auburn is getting a cakewalk at Tennessee (UT fans should be insulted).
The guys who talk about these scheduling conspiracies remind me of former rivals that were so self-centered and disinterested in the needs of their business partners that 4 programs left the conference. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just making a point. Consider the conference needs as a whole.
Second, there are many flaws to your arguments. In order to accept your premise, we have to accept the notion that teams that suck now have always sucked and will continue to suck.
As an example, Auburn "due" to play Florida, but now is playing Tennessee. Those who have a problem with that switch have made a projection of each team's strength going forward. But, just a couple of years ago, Florida was projected as a weaker opponent.
You have to assume that the "schedule maker" is making these projections and deliberately altering the scheduling with ONLY Alabama or Auburn (or even LSU in a negative way) in mind.
It seems that everybody tends to ignore the scheduling wants/needs of the other teams when these conspiracy theories start to materialize. It's all about them and totally short-sighted when considering the opponent's needs.
Georgia is not getting a break. LSU is getting screwed.
Kentucky is not getting a marquee match up at home. Alabama is getting a cakewalk.
Arkansas is not getting a marquee match up in very fertile recruiting grounds of the Sunshine State (which, given the population of Arkansas and relative local talent, this exposure is something Arkansas desperately needs). Auburn is getting a cakewalk at Tennessee (UT fans should be insulted).
The guys who talk about these scheduling conspiracies remind me of former rivals that were so self-centered and disinterested in the needs of their business partners that 4 programs left the conference. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just making a point. Consider the conference needs as a whole.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:37 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
it just happened to be the only year since the 2009 season that we haven't won a national championship
In 2011...
The reward: National Championship
The task: Split two games against your toughest opponent
Who did it: Alabama and LSU
Who got the reward: Alabama
Why didn't the other get the reward: LSU was required to sweep two games, not split two games.
Both teams accomplished the same task, but LSU was held to a higher standard and had to do twice as much to get the reward.
In 2012...
The reward: SEC West title, path to the NC through the SECCG
The task: Split two games against your toughest division rivals
Who did it: Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M
Who got the reward: Alabama
Why didn't the others get the reward: LSU and Texas A&M, in addition to splitting against their top two division rivals, were also required to sweep a combined three games against two SEC East teams that went a combined 21-3 in the regular season, with one of the losses coming when they played each other and someone had to lose.
All three accomplished the same task, but A&M and LSU were held to a higher standard and had to do twice or three times as much to get the reward.
In 2013...
The reward: SEC West title, possible path to the NC through the SECCG
The task: Lose 1 game or less in the SEC
Who will do it:
Alabama if it splits two games against LSU and A&M
A&M if it splits two games against Alabama and LSU
LSU if it splits two games against Alabama and A&M AND sweeps two games against SEC East teams that went a combined 22-2 in the regular season last year, with one of the two losses coming when they played each other and someone had to lose.
So, guess who is being held to a higher standard again and has to do three times as much to get the reward. It gets old.
This post was edited on 7/24/13 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:43 pm to Nuts4LSU
you know what I gather from all those "ifs" and stuff?
if you win, you get a chance to play for a NC or SEC CG.
I guess yall LSU fans have already conceded defeat to your schedule though, so why bitch about it.
if you win, you get a chance to play for a NC or SEC CG.
I guess yall LSU fans have already conceded defeat to your schedule though, so why bitch about it.
Posted on 7/24/13 at 12:44 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
You bitches weren't "suspicious" in 2010 when Alabama played 6 different SEC opponents who were coming off a BYE week prior to playing us. You told us Bama fans to stop our whining and moaning
Nobody had time to complain.
That shite was fixed pronto.
Page 4 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News