Started By
Message
re: SEC Roommate Switch schedule format...PROBLEMS SOLVED.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 12:34 am to sdmlsu1
Posted on 5/31/13 at 12:34 am to sdmlsu1
quote:
Hard to get good conversation when many people only want to argue. The flame threads get bumped the most. Most won't even take time to read the link. Hell most won't even read through a thread.
Amazingly it was the board I expected all the trash talk on that I actually got the good, well thought out conversation.
Neither board was this one, but I agree with what you're saying. People always have something to say when they are angry though, so you have to expect the flame threads to stay active.
1
Posted on 5/31/13 at 12:38 am to molsusports
quote:
isn't the primary problem with this type of schedule that you can end up with 3 or more undefeated teams that haven't played each other?
No, like the Aggie said, it is still two divisions. We just shuffle the pods between the two divisions each year. So pods A&B are always going to be SEC East and West (if they stick with those names), but pods C&D would switch between East and West each year. Still only two divisions though.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 12:39 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 12:39 am to Nicolae
Works well and shows it can be done. If SEC expands again I think at some point a major overhaul is in our future.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 12:52 am to sdmlsu1
There's no reason I can spot not to make that proposal a reality. The only semi-tricky issue might be making sure everyone gets the same number of home games within their division.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 1:36 am to The Aggie
Maybe play with the permanents a little, but yea, this is the best solution.
I know personally, the 3 teams I want LSU to play every year are A&M, Ole Miss, and Bama. There isn't a rivalry with MSU, and they have beaten LSU only once since the first Bush was President. No need to keep that as a permanent opponent, when LSU could play a Bama, AU, or UF every year. Though I'm sure UF fans would prefer, UGA, UT, and AU as their permanents. And Auburn fans would likely prefer, UF, UGA, and Bama.
I know Bama would want UT and AU most, but not sure about about #3. LSU?
I wish the SEC would find a way to make this a reality.
I know personally, the 3 teams I want LSU to play every year are A&M, Ole Miss, and Bama. There isn't a rivalry with MSU, and they have beaten LSU only once since the first Bush was President. No need to keep that as a permanent opponent, when LSU could play a Bama, AU, or UF every year. Though I'm sure UF fans would prefer, UGA, UT, and AU as their permanents. And Auburn fans would likely prefer, UF, UGA, and Bama.
I know Bama would want UT and AU most, but not sure about about #3. LSU?
I wish the SEC would find a way to make this a reality.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 1:37 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 3:11 am to Tiger Live2
Under this plan, during even years, Bama is the only present day SEC power in their division.
On the other hand, Florida, Georgia, USC, LSU, and TAM find themselves competing against each other in the other division during even years.
What is fair about Bama being virtually guarranteed a divisional title during even years?
On the other hand, Florida, Georgia, USC, LSU, and TAM find themselves competing against each other in the other division during even years.
What is fair about Bama being virtually guarranteed a divisional title during even years?
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 3:41 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 3:14 am to Sheetbend
Like people have said. The permanents can be adjusted a little bit. Either way it's a better option than what we have now.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 4:21 am to Sheetbend
quote:
Under this plan, during even years, Bama is the only present day SEC power in their division.
On the other hand, Florida, Georgia, USC, LSU, and TAM find themselves competing against each other in the other division during even years.
What is fair about Bama being virtually guarranteed a divisional title during even years?
Yeah, I pointed that out in the first thread that suggested this matrix. While Alabama would be playing tough opponents every year, the ultimate teams we would be competing against would be middle-tier at best. True, Auburn and Tennessee tend to have up years at times, but they haven't had a strong run of recent success since the 90s, unlike Florida, UGA, USCe, LSU. Texas A&M, honestly, would need to prove to me they can continue their pace without a JFF at QB. They're one year removed from 7-6, and their record since 2005 is only 58-43 (with losing seasons in 08 and 09).
Posted on 5/31/13 at 4:43 am to skrayper
quote:
Under this plan, during even years, Bama is the only present day SEC power in their division.
I see that point but Alabama would still be in a small division with Auburn and Tennessee. I don't think either program has the advantages (mostly the coach) that Bama does... but then again neither does anyone else in teh NCAA so it might be something of an unavoidable problem.
Looking again the only thing that makes me worry a little bit is the SEC North is really weak in terms of not only traditional powers (none of the big 6 and no A&M) but also really weak in terms of recruiting grounds... they have Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee whereas other divisions have Florida, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
In theory I do think Missouri could recruit a lot better if they dipped into Illinois more seriously but as it stands that division is reminiscent of teh Big 12 North's recruiting problems.
SEC East: Florida, UGA, USC
SEC South: Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama
SEC West: LSU, A&M, MSU, Ole Miss
SEC North: Missouri, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 5:33 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 6:01 am to Sheetbend
quote:
Under this plan, during even years, Bama is the only present day SEC power in their division. On the other hand, Florida, Georgia, USC, LSU, and TAM find themselves competing against each other in the other division during even years. What is fair about Bama being virtually guarranteed a divisional title during even years?
If you claim to be an Ohio State fan, (which I personally think you are an LSU fan), why do you even care?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 7:48 am to BoDidley
It's easy to nitpick this (or any) plan. This is hands down the BEST idea I have seen. Compare this to the 6-1-1 format and The Roommate Switch plan wins and its not even close. No team goes more than one season without going head to head.
As far as Bama being in an "easy" division in even years goes....are we really going to say Auburn (recent MNC) and TN are pushover programs? They also play Florida & S. Carolina in even years, so there are plenty of teams they have to beat to get to the SEC CG. Also, Arkansas is historically competitive and Vandy is starting to build something too.
This format would make the SEC even more competitive. Until Someone else figures out a better way.....this gets my support!
As far as Bama being in an "easy" division in even years goes....are we really going to say Auburn (recent MNC) and TN are pushover programs? They also play Florida & S. Carolina in even years, so there are plenty of teams they have to beat to get to the SEC CG. Also, Arkansas is historically competitive and Vandy is starting to build something too.
This format would make the SEC even more competitive. Until Someone else figures out a better way.....this gets my support!
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:03 am to gnarkill1529
quote:
tl;dr
Maybe ol' Gordy was right about us. We can't read.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 8:03 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:13 am to Gradual_Stroke
I read it, I think an AU fan had it as an OP recently. It's actually a pretty good deal (though I still like my 2-6 better than their 3-5). I don't know if NCAA would have a problem with 'flexible' divisions or not though. As the author said "The Divisions are what ultimately matter."
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:16 am to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
Is there some rule that says divisions must be limited to two, split down the middle? Otherwise I can't see the NCAA getting involved.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 8:17 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:20 am to Gradual_Stroke
That's what I mean, I don't know. Divisions is the requirement for a sanctioned CCG...just don't know if they have specifications on what a division is. Remember, this is an entity with a 700+ page rule book.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 8:23 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:21 am to USMC Gators
quote:
quote:
* preserves the historic annual SEC rivalry games (Bama/Tenn, Iron bowl, Egg bowl, AU/GA, GA/FL, Etc.)
One of these is definitely not like the others.
You would be correct. Why does the rest of the SEC not have stronger competition for this tailgate favorite?
From this LINK
Everyone at the 2004 conference in Oxford, Mississippi, loved these, so we knew you would too. Enjoy.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:25 am to The Aggie
So Mizzou would play Arky, Vandy, and Kentucky every year?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:34 am to TlGERBLOOD
I think the NCAA rule requires that the divisions play every team in their division in order to have a CCG. I don't think there is a requirement that the divisions must be the same from year to year.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:35 am to molsusports
quote:
SEC East: Florida, UGA, USC SEC South: Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama SEC West: LSU, A&M, MSU, Ole Miss SEC North: Missouri, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
Couldn't you just switch Florida and Tennessee? Bama keeps UT as the small pod rival and Florida/auburn get their game back.
The south would be the toughest.
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 8:41 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:33 am to Dire Wolf
Maybe I missed it, but how would you determine the representative for the SEC Championship? There is no way they would give up that money make.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News