Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:35 pm to sarc
quote:
I believe one of the stipulations for expansion is that it would not interrupt certain cross-division rivalries. If it was that big of a consideration, it leads me to believe that they won't be going away anytime soon
Well now the SEC is being criticized across the board for not only our OOC scheduling, but now our in-conference scheduling.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:36 pm to cas4t
Look at all the gumps blasting the OBC. You people are PATHETIC!!!!
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:37 pm to cas4t
quote:
And yea didn't that GOAT Miami team only play like 2 top 25 teas that year?
Miami's first Natty was in 1983 and UF beat them 28-3 that year.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:39 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Yea this group of gumps must be somewhere between 17-21 years old.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:40 pm to bigDgator
And I may be waaaay off base here but IIRC didn't they barely get by Boston College?
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:41 pm to cas4t
quote:
Why even expand if everyone isn't going to play each other consistently?
historically the strange thing was how infrequently some teams ended up playing each other... but then again that makes sense when you realize a lot of those years the SEC only had 5-6 conference games
obviously things have changed, the SEC has 8 regular season conference games plus a CCG (9 games = almost double what was once played in a single year in conference)... and the product is a national product which should stand up to scrutiny.
OBC has always said what he thinks and I'm not sure people will be able to dismiss his opinion just because they perceive it to be to their advantage
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:41 pm to cas4t
quote:
Well now the SEC is being criticized across the board for not only our OOC scheduling, but now our in-conference scheduling.
I think you're overstating it. If the criticism was that strong or that compelling, I doubt they would've voted to maintain 6-1-1 for '14 and '15
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:44 pm to sarc
quote:
I think you're overstating it. If the criticism was that strong or that compelling, I doubt they would've voted to maintain 6-1-1 for '14 and '15
Yes, they would. Nothing is changing yet because the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt as the best football conference, no matter their SoS.
That will eventually change. Slive also urged teams to schedule better OOC games. He recognizes the criticism.
It'll eventually change. Especially if we end up going to 16 teams.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:46 pm to cas4t
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:47 pm to Bham4Tide
Good, good...
you know the rest
you know the rest
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:48 pm to cas4t
quote:
The issue is that our current scheduling system is completely flawed and gives teams too much of a advantage in certain years
So what you are saying is some years some teams have difficult schedules and some years they dont? that is totaly unfair
Teams rotate to play everyone, what is not fair about that? What do you want to reevaluate teams strength every couple of years and change the schedules accordinly? Then what about the other argument, "we just want to play everyone in a certain period of time"
quote:
Again, the issue is not tradition here for everyone
yes it is, just some teams/fans like to pick and choose not caring about traditions to suit their arguments.
quote:
flawed system of scheduling
please pinpoint exactly what you are talking about. Just saying, you know what it is, is not an answer. Are you bitching about playing forida or are you bitching about the teams bama has played last year and this upcoming year, or something else?
quote:
preserve a "rivalry" that is supposedly sacred, yet doesn't even crack the top 10 in national viewers.
lets just scrap every tradition because it doesnt equate viewership. no more bands for games, they dont bring in viewers. No more this, no more that.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Draconian Sanctions
'bout time you made an appearance. Where have you been all afternoon?
A schedule thread without DS just isn't the same.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:51 pm to cas4t
quote:
Yes, they would. Nothing is changing yet because the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt as the best football conference, no matter their SoS.
I don't follow. Going from 6-1-1 to 6-2 wouldn't increase SoS. Going to 9 games would.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:55 pm to cas4t
quote:
The SEC has made their decision - the coaches voted and the presidents will vote soon. It is what it is, there's nothing any message board poster or fanbase fan do to change it. Every coach has to prepare his team to play the schedule he was given.
quote:Change is inevitable. But the SEC got a bad wrap for "oversigning" and damned if Slive didn't cave to the outsider bullshite and cap the conference at signing 25/yr.
Absolutely. But for some people to have the nerve to actually think that these traditions are more important than correcting the current flaws, is ridiculous.
The SEC is starting to get a bad rep with all this shite. There is no way these bridge schedules should be enforced into 2015.
But change is coming. The media is involved. Big name coaches are involved. Slive has addressed it and made it clear that they can only protect these rivalries for so long.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 4:58 pm to sarc
quote:
I don't follow. Going from 6-1-1 to 6-2 wouldn't increase SoS. Going to 9 games would.
Going to 9 games under the current 12 game format, only hurts the conference. We lose televised games, we will lose good OOC match ups. instead of teams playing 1-2 bcs teams, it will now be 0-1.
7 team divisions in a 12 game regular season are the problems on finding a solution. either smaller more divisions(16 conf. 4 div) or 13 game regular seasons(9 game conference).
Even with a 9 game conference schedule there will be inequalities(the amount of home games).
The solutions discussed have just as many possible problems as the current setup
Posted on 6/6/13 at 5:02 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
So what you are saying is some years some teams have difficult schedules and some years they dont? that is totaly unfair
It is when the inequality isn't coming from the rotating schedule, but more from the permanent rivals. Rotating every game would still lead to inequalities each year, and that's fine.
quote:
Teams rotate to play everyone
Yea, every what, 6 years?
gimme a break. quote:
What do you want to reevaluate teams strength every couple of years and change the schedules accordinly? Then what about the other argument, "we just want to play everyone in a certain period of time"
No, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think. Eliminate all permanent cross divisional games and then literally rotate every SEC game. It's really that simple.
quote:
yes it is
No it's not. Notice I said *everyone*.
quote:
just some teams/fans like to pick and choose not caring about traditions to suit their arguments.
The same thing could be said about teams wanting to preserve tradition. What makes their opinions weigh any more than the teams who don't think the traditions should be protected? The point is we have expanded and the current scheduling format is flawed.
quote:
Are you bitching about playing forida
No. I go to this game often and interned with UF so I absolutely love this game. Do I care if it's played every year? No. Would I like to catch a fricking break and get to go beat up on Mizzou within the next 3 years? Of course.
My complaint with the scheduling is protecting certain rivalries. I don't think it should be up to the conference to protect any games that aren't in your division. I think the SEC has a greater responsibility to make sure scheduling won't be effected by the expansion. Bama should absolutely have to play UF as much as LSU. And so should Miss. St. And Auburn. And Arkansas. etc.
Just like I think UF should have to play Bama as much as LSU does. And everyone else. The conference should not protect tradition. That's not their job. Their job should be to make sure everyone is playing everyone. Again, why expand if you're going to not even have the teams play each other consistently?
quote:
lets just scrap every tradition because it doesnt equate viewership. no more bands for games, they dont bring in viewers. No more this, no more that.
If you want your tradition, then do what OBC said and schedule the damn game. It's not up to the conference to protect tradition.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 5:02 pm to cas4t
quote:Many SEC teams have scheduled strong OOC games in the past and are still doing it. i.e. Oregon/Michigan/West Virg/VaTech/Clemson/Boise St/TCU/OklSt/PennSt/FSU................
Yes, they would. Nothing is changing yet because the SEC gets the benefit of the doubt as the best football conference, no matter their SoS.
That will eventually change. Slive also urged teams to schedule better OOC games. He recognizes the criticism. It'll eventually change. Especially if we end up going to 16 teams.
Posted on 6/6/13 at 5:04 pm to RT1941
Why in the hell do Bama and Tennessee pretend to hate each other so much? Clearly this is some kind of inbred love affair? Good God, you would think we were asking you to drop football.
If tradition is so important, then why aren't you playing on the TSIO this year? I mean it's all about tradition, right? Can't change things, but you did.
If tradition is so important, then why aren't you playing on the TSIO this year? I mean it's all about tradition, right? Can't change things, but you did.
This post was edited on 6/6/13 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 6/6/13 at 5:06 pm to RT1941
quote:
Many SEC teams have scheduled strong OOC games in the past and are still doing it. i.e. Oregon/Michigan/West Virg/VaTech/Clemson/Boise St/TCU/OklSt/PennSt/FSU................
Hey, I agree.
But none of us should be scheduling some of these cupcakes. The "lowest" any SEC team should be scheduling should be like a Middle Tenn State or Western Kentucky.
Anything lower than that should hurt your SoS in a major way IMO.
Page 9 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News