Started By
Message
Exactly. 
2
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:44 pm to southernboisb
quote:
what would be an acceptable compromise in scheduling to you?
the roommate switch is the obvious answer
RE: the cross divisional scheduling it is for two obvious reasons... one Bama gets a cream puff every year while LSU gets a team that has won two NCs in the last ten years. That's a disadvantage if the cross divisional games count.
I actually like playing Florida but you'd have to be an idiot not to notice Auburn and LSU are at a disadvantage when cross divsion games count and Alabama has a gimmie game in the bag (sometimes two if they get teh SEC to move Kentucky up and shunt over UGA to LSU)
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:44 pm to Monticello
I guess at this point you've given up trying to defend an indefensible position? 
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:44 pm to Monticello
You have an easier path than your biggest competitor, year in, year out.
You already get the number one class every year. Nut up and schedule like it.
You already get the number one class every year. Nut up and schedule like it.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
These threads should say "Sponsored by DS" at this point.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:50 pm to magildachunks
quote:
What happened the last time we beat Bama? Oh, yeah...it didn't matter.
And whose fault was that? The SEC offices had nothing to do with that. That's the BCS. Go make a rematch griping thread if you want. You beat Bama in the regular season, you were put in a position to win the SEC and national title, just like you deserved, then lost the national title game due to no fault of anyone but LSU.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Well #1 you're ignoring 3 way ties. LSU, A&M and Bama all beat each other in 2012. LSU and A&M lost to Florida so Bama, who had a very weak eastern division slate (as usual) won the division so yes, it has happened before.
And #2 you're ignoring fatigue/injuries that come with playing a harder schedule. When you're Bama you only have to get "up" for 1 or 2 games instead of 3 or 4. It means Alabama can focus their energies on just a couple of opponents instead of week in, week out like LSU.
exactly
someone the other day was very critical of Bama's schedule from last year because they essentially had NO tough games in a row... while their competitors could hardly say the same thing
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:52 pm to Monticello
Thank you so much for bringing up 1/9.
There's recent proof a loser can win a rematch.
All the more reason we should have fair scheduling so that rematches can occur in the playoffs.
There's recent proof a loser can win a rematch.
All the more reason we should have fair scheduling so that rematches can occur in the playoffs.
This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:54 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:
2. Reconfigure the divisions as follows:
East: Carolina, UGA, UF, AU, alabama, UTenn, and UK
West: LSU, A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas, State, Ole MIss, and Vandy.
Damn son.
quote:
And let's be honest here: schools like State, Ole Miss, UK, and Vandy support the current setup because it is easier for them than a true rotation.
Totally agree.
I'm actually fine with getting rid of permanent opponents. Use that offering as leverage to negotiate going to a 9 game schedule. A 9 game schedule with no permanent opponents would be best for the overall health of the conference. What I dispute is the contention that LSU would have significantly more SEC and national titles if they did not have to play Florida every year. I think it is nothing but an excuse for a failure to beat Alabama when they needed to.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:56 pm to Monticello
I didn't care before the playoffs. Now I care.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:56 pm to southernboisb
I enjoy watching the Tigers play Florida every year, but on the flip side it would be refreshing to get to play 2 different East teams every year.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:57 pm to Monticello
quote:
I think it is nothing but an excuse for a failure to beat Alabama when they needed to.
What was Bama's reasoning behind the push for the "bye week" rule?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:58 pm to BigEdLSU
quote:
Thank you so much for bringing up 1/9.
There's recent proof a loser can win a rematch.
All the more reason we should have fair scheduling so that rematches can occur in the playoffs.
What are you talking about?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 3:59 pm to Monticello
Seriously?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:01 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I guess at this point you've given up trying to defend an indefensible position?
I have supported getting rid of permanent opponents and going to 9 games the last several years. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that Florida being on LSU's schedule has rarely been the sole reason for them not winning the West. In other words, it has been a disadvantage in years when Florida is better than UT, but it is not as bad as LSU fans have made it out to be. You guys come off as a little whiny to most people is all I am saying.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:02 pm to BigEdLSU
quote:
Seriously?
Yes teams can win rematches. I never disputed that. What is your point?
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:02 pm to Monticello
We have a legit and valid point that no other team than auburn could make.
Throw in usc because of the time they beat every eastern team and didn't advance.
Throw in usc because of the time they beat every eastern team and didn't advance.
This post was edited on 7/27/14 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:05 pm to Monticello
That if you only have to beat auburn LSU and a&m to advance, you could drop a game and still get in the playoff.
We don't have that luxury. Neither do a few other teams.
We don't have that luxury. Neither do a few other teams.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:05 pm to tween the hedges
quote:
They think it's unfair that they have to play Florida every year while Alabama gets to play Tennessee. Also, the point I agree on is actually playing west teams not named Auburn more than once every 6 years, although I don't want to not play Auburn
it's not even about that. I think every team should play every team.
Posted on 7/27/14 at 4:07 pm to BigEdLSU
I was trying to understand your playoff argument about rematches. That's what I did not understand. Maybe you referenced it in a post I did not read.
Page 5 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News