Started By
Message
re: Finebaum took up the "Auburn to the East" thing again today.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:19 am to SFVtiger
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:19 am to SFVtiger
quote:
how so?
Because it completely shits on tradition. The SEC is absolutely steeped in history, which is what makes this league so great. Bama/UT, Bama/AU, UGA/UF, UGA/AU, and OM/MSU are games that NEED to be played every year. I don't care how it has to happen or what everyone else thinks, those games ARE the SEC and we need to do everything in our power to preserve them. And that doesn't mean playing them in some silly exhibition that doesn't count like you suggested.
2
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:20 am to DoUrden
quote:
Yes it does, they have bragging rights over quite a few SEC teams.
And braggin' rights a $2 will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:21 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
And my retort is "So what?" Why do historical championships matter in MODERN DAY college football? Does UGA's 1980 national championship have any bearing on college football today? Not really. What really needs to be looked at is where the balance of power might lay in the future an try to equalize that.
You don't think the numbers of SEC titles over the past half century have any value in predicting who good teams are likely to be over the next half century?
If you really believe that, would you be willing to enter a bet with me where I get to have six SEC teams of my choosing and you get to have the other eight that I don't choose. Whoever wins the most SEC titles over the next decade wins the bet.
If you really believe what you typed you should absolutely jump at that bet, but of course you wouldn't.
This post was edited on 5/1/15 at 10:22 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:21 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Which is why the solution of moving both Bama and Auburn works best
No, because then you have way too imbalanced divisions.
quote:
saying it would screw up the balance of power between east and west. Well guess what, It's already screwed up.
Sorry you can't remember what you had for lunch yesterday. You realize the league has been around for about 80 years right? Sure the west is up now, but in the 90s it was the exact opposite. UT/UF aren't going to be in historically bad ruts forever.
quote:
The best, easiest and fairest solution for all is 8 games and no rivals.
Sorry, this isn't the big 12 where hundreds of years of tradition are just wiped away on a whim.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:24 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
And braggin' rights a $2 will get you a cup of coffee at 7-11.
As I said time to change your diapers. UT-Bama tends to run in streaks and neither fan base has ever called for a halt when the other team was up. I DGAF if LSU want's to play UK more than once every 10 years I wan't the traditional rivals to stay in place, when I die you are welcome to change it in the name of "outdated traditions."
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:24 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
the only team in the western division who has won an SEC title over the past 50 years would be LSU
quote:
And my retort is "So what?" Why do historical championships matter in MODERN DAY college football?
Sigh. If you can't look at 100s of years of data and realize that UGA/UF/UT/Bama/AU/LSU are head and shoulders above the rest of the league then I don't know what to tell you. UGA winning a title in 1980 isn't some end all be all measuring stick. But it's clear that those 6 teams have run shite in this league since the league was first formed. You can't have 5 on one side and 1 on the other. That is comically absurd.
quote:
What really needs to be looked at is where the balance of power might lay in the future an try to equalize that.
So what happens when the balance of power shifts again (which it undoubtedly will), do we switch up divisions every 5 yeras? This isn't soccer, there is no relegation.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:24 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Bama/UT, Bama/AU, UGA/UF, UGA/AU, and OM/MSU are games that NEED to be played every year. I don't care how it has to happen or what everyone else thinks, those games ARE the SEC and we need to do everything in our power to preserve them.
I agree with you 110% on those points. But I also very strongly think that playing a team from the other division every 8 years is silly too. If you make the move(s) I have suggested and then also go to a rotating schedule, then every game you list above stays intact AND "kids" get to play at every school in the conference if they stay all 4 years (like is done in every other sport). There is also something equally compelling about that. You truly become a conference at that point. You also provide the opportunity for NEW rivalries to develop and that's a good thing as well.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:27 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I agree with you 110% on those points. But I also very strongly think that playing a team from the other division every 8 years is silly too
I'm kinda with you there, as I said earlier. It will put UGA/UF/SC (and I guess kentucky) at a disadvantage, but it would help out some.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:27 am to WG_Dawg
Yep, a hypothetical bet where one party gets to have far more teams, but the other party gets to pick their teams is really where the rubber meets the road on this.
No one with any intelligence would argue that Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee are going to win fewer SEC titles than the other 9 SEC teams will over any future period of time.
What are they basing that off of if not history?
No one with any intelligence would argue that Bama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee are going to win fewer SEC titles than the other 9 SEC teams will over any future period of time.
What are they basing that off of if not history?
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:29 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I agree with you 110% on those points. But I also very strongly think that playing a team from the other division every 8 years is silly too.
Well said. That's why I'm a proponent of a 9 game league schedule.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:31 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
But it's clear that those 6 teams have run shite in this league since the league was first formed.
Since, as you state, these 6 teams have been in the league the longest, it's simple statistics to say those teams have won the most championships. But this fact has no bearing on what will happen in the future.
My reply would be 1). we're a new league now and 2). The cream will always rise to the top.
This post was edited on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:32 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
some silly exhibition
what do you mean silly exhibition? if these are such great rivalries, they stand on their own. tradition is maintained.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
If you did this, the only team in the western division who has won an SEC title over the past 50 years would be LSU. That is so much worse than the imbalance now its absurd.
This is a valid point. Going back to the 90's up to today - you have Auburn, Alabama, Tenn, UGA, and Florida - all have been in the mix (of course with the respective down years) for the SEC championship. The west would have only one SEC winner over the past 25 years in the division. Along with Ole Miss and Vandy who have never been to the SECCG. Granted, Arkansas is on the upswing and A&M would def be towards the top of the division, but still would be an imbalance.
Seems like 9 conf games is the best route. There are plenty of benefits - increases everyone's schedule strength, more $$ for the conf, preserves rivalries, and gives the fans of all the schools a better game to watch or attend. It also furthers the argument we all as fans of the SEC make - that the SEC is hands down the toughest conf because of the grueling schedule.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:34 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Since, as you state, these 6 teams have been in the league the longest, it's simple statistics to say those teams have won the most championships.
Ummm and because they are just clearly better programs. OM/MSU/Vandy/UK have been around since formation as well. Arkansas and SC have yet to win the league in the 23 years they've been in. What historical accolades to atm/missouri have in their history (in a weaker league) that compare to our big 6? The 6 has more hardware not just becauuse of longevity, but because they are traditional football powers.
quote:
1). we're a new league now
Right, so the new folks need to adjust to their new home. We shouldnt' bend over backwards to accommodate them and throw 80 years of history in the dumpster.
quote:
2). The cream will always rise to the top.
Right, and the big 6 has won every SEC title since expansion.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:35 am to Dawg in Beaumont
Just move us to the East and Mizzou to the West, for Christ sake. Move the SEC schedule to 9 games, problem solved. Each team now gets 2 permanent cross-division games
Alabama - Auburn and Tennessee
Arkansas - South Carolina and Auburn
Auburn - Alabama and Arkansas....etc
Alabama - Auburn and Tennessee
Arkansas - South Carolina and Auburn
Auburn - Alabama and Arkansas....etc
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:36 am to Lonnie Utah
I might be on an island here but I think the current setup gives the fans 85% of what they want to see. As a UGA fan, I would like to play Bama and LSU more often, but not at the expense of Auburn or our SEC east opponents (save Vanderbilt...it's like playing a FCS team with no real upside most years). With the size of the conference, that's about as much as you can ask for on a yearly basis.
Rotating the schedule means that some years, we would be playing Ole Miss, MSU, and Arkansas rather than Auburn. It would make for a great season when you can snag Auburn and Alabama, or Alabama and LSU, but most years would be the same as it is now - one cross-division game with intrigue, and another that is void of much history. OR worse, a year when we would play the two Mississippi teams. I know they were decent last year, but if that becomes the norm I think most would be surprised.
Just my opinion. Incredibly biased because I love playing Auburn. I don't care. I'm allowed to be biased. Get off my back.
Rotating the schedule means that some years, we would be playing Ole Miss, MSU, and Arkansas rather than Auburn. It would make for a great season when you can snag Auburn and Alabama, or Alabama and LSU, but most years would be the same as it is now - one cross-division game with intrigue, and another that is void of much history. OR worse, a year when we would play the two Mississippi teams. I know they were decent last year, but if that becomes the norm I think most would be surprised.
Just my opinion. Incredibly biased because I love playing Auburn. I don't care. I'm allowed to be biased. Get off my back.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:36 am to thirdlawson
I vote for Commissioner Lawson's plan.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:37 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
My reply would be 1). we're a new league now and 2). The cream will always rise to the top.
Read as:
"We can't make it but want a shot in the dark"
"Can I have my baba please"
Never was always finds an way to try and make themselves relevant with shortcuts, the ones that have been there strive to make the way back there with what they have to work with.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:38 am to Lonnie Utah
And my honest opinion of why the WON'T happen is because it hurt Alabama the most (and then SC).
I think it helps LSU and TA&M the most. UT and UF won't be down forever. If/when UGA, AU, Bama, UF and UTK are back to full strength that would be a heck of a division schedule. But with that also comes lots of interest and eyeballs. THAT my friends is what this conference needs to remain #1.
I think it helps LSU and TA&M the most. UT and UF won't be down forever. If/when UGA, AU, Bama, UF and UTK are back to full strength that would be a heck of a division schedule. But with that also comes lots of interest and eyeballs. THAT my friends is what this conference needs to remain #1.
Posted on 5/1/15 at 10:40 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
Since, as you state, these 6 teams have been in the league the longest, it's simple statistics to say those teams have won the most championships.
understood - but look at it over the past 25 years, or 15. Those schools have been in the hunt consistently. Maybe not all at the same time - but look at it this way, if you had UGA, FLA, Tenn, Bama and AU all in the east - I am guessing that over the past 50, 25, 15 years you could say at least 3 of them have been at some point in their season in a position to win the SEC.
And to add - as an LSU fan, I would be kind of bummed to know that Auburn and Alabama where not on the schedule every year. When going over the yearly schedule - looking at homes games - you know it is either the Ole Miss / Bama year or the Florida / Auburn year with regards to home games.
Page 5 of 13
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News