Started By
Message
How about this for an 8-game SEC schedule rotation?
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:22 pm
It's simple:
8 game schedule. No divisions. No 'permanent' opponents.
Each school would play:
3 teams each year for four years
5 of the 10 other schools would rotate onto the schedule for a home and home for two years
5 remaining schools rotate home and home for the next two years in this four-year cycle.
Top 2 records go to Atlanta (tiebreakers would be necessary)
Then, switch out the three four-year schools and start over.
In this system, each school would play every school in the conference at least twice every four years. To placate Bama, TN, Aub, and GA, the longest any school would go without playing the other would be two years.
8 game schedule. No divisions. No 'permanent' opponents.
Each school would play:
3 teams each year for four years
5 of the 10 other schools would rotate onto the schedule for a home and home for two years
5 remaining schools rotate home and home for the next two years in this four-year cycle.
Top 2 records go to Atlanta (tiebreakers would be necessary)
Then, switch out the three four-year schools and start over.
In this system, each school would play every school in the conference at least twice every four years. To placate Bama, TN, Aub, and GA, the longest any school would go without playing the other would be two years.
14
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:22 pm to bluestem75
No thanks.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:22 pm to bluestem75
This post was edited on 2/16/13 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:23 pm to bluestem75
That works for teams that don't have rivals.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:23 pm to bluestem75
quote:
To placate Bama, TN, Aub, and GA, the longest any school would go without playing the other would be two years.
You seriously thought this would placate them?
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:24 pm to BrerTiger
Wow. And I thought the TEA Party was bad at compromising...
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:25 pm to BrerTiger
When you typed out this question for the Rant did you think it would go well?
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:28 pm to bluestem75
quote:
To placate Bama, TN, Aub, and GA, the longest any school would go without playing the other would be two years.
Lol no. We will continue playing yearly.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:31 pm to bluestem75
quote:
No 'permanent' opponents.
You can't take Tennessee away from Bama.
You can't ever do away with tradition. Like Oklahoma and Nebraska.
Oh wait.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:33 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Bama, TN, Aub, and GA
I don't usually GAF about who wins these rivalry games but I enjoy watching them add another chapter to their rivalry every year. That's one of the SEC's greatest strengths
:inb4Arkansashasnorival:
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:38 pm to Porker Face
Porker Face:
I do, too, but I think it's no longer practical with a 14-team league. Giving them 6 out of every 8 years is a reasonable compromise. If they wanted to keep things the same in the league, they should have thought through the consequences of adding two new teams.
I do, too, but I think it's no longer practical with a 14-team league. Giving them 6 out of every 8 years is a reasonable compromise. If they wanted to keep things the same in the league, they should have thought through the consequences of adding two new teams.
This post was edited on 11/7/12 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:38 pm to Lacour
quote:
You can't take Tennessee away from Bama.
In the last 6 meetings, Tenn has led for a total of 9 MINUTES. If I were a GUNT,I'd fight to keep that rivalry too.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:40 pm to bluestem75
The consequences are that you will be visiting Knoxville, Athens, etc. once every 12 years. Our game will not be affected.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 10:41 pm to bluestem75
If it's such a big deal to those pussies to keep playing their little "rivals" then Auburn and Bama should carry their asses to the East where they belong.
Missouri in the East, but Bama and Barn in the West.
Makes about as much sense as Dallas being in the NFC East.
Missouri in the East, but Bama and Barn in the West.
Makes about as much sense as Dallas being in the NFC East.
Posted on 11/7/12 at 11:11 pm to bluestem75
quote:
If they wanted to keep things the same in the league, they should have thought through the consequences of adding two new teams.
I agree, let's contract
Posted on 11/7/12 at 11:21 pm to bluestem75
quote:
I do, too, but I think it's no longer practical with a 14-team league. Giving them 6 out of every 8 years is a reasonable compromise. If they wanted to keep things the same in the league, they should have thought through the consequences of adding two new teams.
No. Ignorant argument is ignorant. No possible way we go multiple seasons without playing Ole Miss. Literally LSU and maybe Florida would be the only teams supporting ANYTHING remotely close to your proposal. These things need 75% approval to pass.
The only "fix" is to keep everything exactly the same and go to a 9 team conference schedule, which is coming in 2014 with the launch of the SEC network whether everyone likes it or not...
Posted on 11/8/12 at 5:28 am to engie
The order of teams, starting in the furthest East, is:
South Carolina
UF
UGA
UT
UK
AU
Vandy (Stop - we've reached 7 teams)
Then for the western division we'd have:
UA
MSU
OM
LSU
Mizzou
Arky
A&M
I don't think the state of Alabama would care for ending the UA/AU rivalry, and UA would prefer not to end the rivalry with Tennessee. From a historical standpoint, Tenn is the second team in the SEC based on total conference championships. The rivalry is long and storied.
That said, we can't go around altering the alignment based on which teams are good or not. If you aligned it on that perception in, say, 1992 - then Alabama was the #1 team. Does that hold true for 2000-2006? Alabama gets moved around for being weak, then suddenly in 2008 starts 12-0, wins the title the next year, etc.
When the divisions were established in 1992, there were two static foes, and one rotating one. Alabama had Tennessee (a force in the 1990s) and Vandy (weak).
To be honest, the original division was based almost entirely on time zone, with Vandy being the lone exception. That's obviously not the case anymore, thanks to Mizzou, but still applies to 12 of the 14 schools.
Basically, the original division would've forced AU into the East, with Alabama in the West. Alabama would then get Auburn, most likely, as their permanent rival, ending the "Third Saturday in October" - or, possibly, ending the "Iron Bowl".
LSU, on the other hand, counts its primary rival as Ole Miss, if memory serves, and in recent years Alabama. Nothing was up for being altered for LSU.
South Carolina
UF
UGA
UT
UK
AU
Vandy (Stop - we've reached 7 teams)
Then for the western division we'd have:
UA
MSU
OM
LSU
Mizzou
Arky
A&M
I don't think the state of Alabama would care for ending the UA/AU rivalry, and UA would prefer not to end the rivalry with Tennessee. From a historical standpoint, Tenn is the second team in the SEC based on total conference championships. The rivalry is long and storied.
That said, we can't go around altering the alignment based on which teams are good or not. If you aligned it on that perception in, say, 1992 - then Alabama was the #1 team. Does that hold true for 2000-2006? Alabama gets moved around for being weak, then suddenly in 2008 starts 12-0, wins the title the next year, etc.
When the divisions were established in 1992, there were two static foes, and one rotating one. Alabama had Tennessee (a force in the 1990s) and Vandy (weak).
To be honest, the original division was based almost entirely on time zone, with Vandy being the lone exception. That's obviously not the case anymore, thanks to Mizzou, but still applies to 12 of the 14 schools.
Basically, the original division would've forced AU into the East, with Alabama in the West. Alabama would then get Auburn, most likely, as their permanent rival, ending the "Third Saturday in October" - or, possibly, ending the "Iron Bowl".
LSU, on the other hand, counts its primary rival as Ole Miss, if memory serves, and in recent years Alabama. Nothing was up for being altered for LSU.
Posted on 11/8/12 at 5:51 am to bluestem75
quote:
No thanks
Posted on 11/8/12 at 5:59 am to bluestem75
After careful consideration of your well thought out , logic based proposal, we, the big four, have decided that we will still run this shite and reject the offer.
Thanks for playing though.
Thanks for playing though.
Posted on 11/8/12 at 6:12 am to orangehater
Aren't conference divisions required for a championship game?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News