Started By
Message
re: I'm going to say it again
Posted on 11/3/15 at 2:27 pm to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 11/3/15 at 2:27 pm to Lonnie Utah
How is Missouri in the east anyway?
1
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:04 pm to LSUrecruiting
I don't know why it is so hard to folks to understand that the 9 game schedule balances out. On the year you only have 4 home SEC games, play your P5 OOC game at home; and the year you have 5 home SEC games, play your P5 OOC game away.
It ain't rocket science.
It ain't rocket science.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:07 pm to Lonnie Utah
Time to take the conference back to 12 teams. For the good of CFB, there should be 6 power conferences of 12 teams each. I'd even be OK with 5 conferences of 12. That should be the FBS / Div I.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:17 pm to Lonnie Utah
As soon as you shuffle the divisions, everything will change and be unbalanced again. You can't count on the teams staying the same for long.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:23 pm to Ancient Astronaut
quote:
randomly shuffle
Yeah at the SEC office in Birmingham. Then Bama would get to play Vandy and Kentucky every year.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:23 pm to chattabama
quote:
TSIO runs this conference.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:33 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
6 team playoff
I like the idea of a 6-team playoff but it takes the same amount of time to play an 8-team playoff. There's no way the money those 2 additional games would bring gets left on the table.
ETA: There's a pretty elegant solution to the imbalance in the divisions The Roomate Switch which I think I first heard about on here so I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet
This post was edited on 11/3/15 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:46 pm to laxdabs
Unfortunately crappy rivalries that no one cares about outside of the states of Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia are crippling the SEC's ability to be a fair conference.
Bama-UT literally matters to no one outside of those two schools. UGA-Auburn is the same. Auburn-Bama has only again mattered when it has had some bearing on the national/SEC title picture. Outside of that, no one cares.
Because of their self-fellatio, those schools are going to end up ruining the conference.
They want competitive balance, yet refuse to allow that to happen consistently.
There are work arounds to a 9-game schedule that would not only solve people's concerns but also bring in extra revenue to the conference members.
Each team plays 9 conference games per year, 4 home, 4 away, and 1 neutral site that rotates within division opponents.
That means you'll play your division foes home and away for 5 years, and then one year at a neutral site. This could be in Nashville, New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc. It just would be in a stadium relatively close to both schools.
It's not perfect, but gets the schools the money they'd get from a neutral site game (which is more usually than a home game, and provide exposure for all teams while keeping home and away games even. This would require teams like UF-UGA from moving their neutral site games back to their home and home routine in off years though.
Again though, the 4 trouble-makers (Bama/Aub/Tenn/UGA) want it their way and to their advantage or nothing at all, so I doubt it happens.
Bama-UT literally matters to no one outside of those two schools. UGA-Auburn is the same. Auburn-Bama has only again mattered when it has had some bearing on the national/SEC title picture. Outside of that, no one cares.
Because of their self-fellatio, those schools are going to end up ruining the conference.
They want competitive balance, yet refuse to allow that to happen consistently.
There are work arounds to a 9-game schedule that would not only solve people's concerns but also bring in extra revenue to the conference members.
Each team plays 9 conference games per year, 4 home, 4 away, and 1 neutral site that rotates within division opponents.
That means you'll play your division foes home and away for 5 years, and then one year at a neutral site. This could be in Nashville, New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc. It just would be in a stadium relatively close to both schools.
It's not perfect, but gets the schools the money they'd get from a neutral site game (which is more usually than a home game, and provide exposure for all teams while keeping home and away games even. This would require teams like UF-UGA from moving their neutral site games back to their home and home routine in off years though.
Again though, the 4 trouble-makers (Bama/Aub/Tenn/UGA) want it their way and to their advantage or nothing at all, so I doubt it happens.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:50 pm to Geauxgurt
There is no reason to do the neutral site thing. All that is needed to maintain competitive balance is to have the East play 5 home games in Year A, and the West in Year B. That way no one is disadvantaged in the divisional race.
It doesn't need to be so complicated.
Quite honestly, the best option is to wait for the Big XII/ACC proposal to pass and do away with divisions all together.
It doesn't need to be so complicated.
Quite honestly, the best option is to wait for the Big XII/ACC proposal to pass and do away with divisions all together.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 3:55 pm to bamawriter
quote:
There is no reason to do the neutral site thing. All that is needed to maintain competitive balance is to have the East play 5 home games in Year A, and the West in Year B. That way no one is disadvantaged in the divisional race.
This only works if Cross-divisional matchups have no bearing on winning your division. Otherwise, Bama plays 2 road games against UK/Vandy and at home to Tennessee wouldn't be the same as LSU playing say two road games against UF/UGA and then home to USCe.
It is unfair the way you describe. Again, the easiest thing to do is end the self-absorbed "rivalries" that hinder the conference and move forward to untethered scheduling.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 4:00 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Again, the easiest thing to do is end the self-absorbed "rivalries" that hinder the conference and move forward to untethered scheduling.
No, the easiest thing to do is do away with divisions all together. They serve no purpose other than complying with a rule that was originally designed for the large conferences in the lower divisions. Do away with that rule, which is likely to happen soon, and it's easy to fix the problem.
Without divisions, everyone could keep three permanent rivals and still play a home-and-home with every conference team within a four year cycle.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 4:07 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Again though, the 4 trouble-makers (Bama/Aub/Tenn/UGA) want it their way and to their advantage or nothing at all, so I doubt it happens.
Preach on Brother!!
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News