Started By
Message
re: The Bridge Schedule isn't as random as some like us to think it is...
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:03 am to NATidefan
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:03 am to NATidefan
Granted, but you can generally assume, if you're making a 1 year bridge schedule, that 2 teams which combined for 1 conference win probably will not be as strong as 2 teams that combined for 2 conference losses.
Therein lies the bitching, and it is hilariously unfair.
Therein lies the bitching, and it is hilariously unfair.
3
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:10 am to wadewilson
I made this post months ago on the Rant similar to the OP and the other listed if you want all the data.
LINK
There is not much to complain about pre-expansion, except for maybe permanent opponents, but when they were 1/3 it was obviously less than 1/2.
The issue is that the "bridge" schedule is hand picked with reasonable knowledge of who will be good and has been incredibly unbalanced.
For example in 2012, the SEC had an exceptional year of cross-divisional games had it followed pre-expansion format. The top 4 teams were due to play: LSU/USC and UGA/Bama knowing the loser of each game would likely be knocked out or have a very difficult time getting back in the hunt. This game basically knocked out USC. Too many incidents like that.
LINK
There is not much to complain about pre-expansion, except for maybe permanent opponents, but when they were 1/3 it was obviously less than 1/2.
The issue is that the "bridge" schedule is hand picked with reasonable knowledge of who will be good and has been incredibly unbalanced.
For example in 2012, the SEC had an exceptional year of cross-divisional games had it followed pre-expansion format. The top 4 teams were due to play: LSU/USC and UGA/Bama knowing the loser of each game would likely be knocked out or have a very difficult time getting back in the hunt. This game basically knocked out USC. Too many incidents like that.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:11 am to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
Bridge Schedules = Bama not playing the east's top 3 teams = (Bama's BCS Championships), TWO YEARS IN ROW.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:14 am to Vlad The Inhaler
Removing permanent opponents is the best way to make it fair. Adding a third cross-divisional game would brutalize the postseason hopes of many SEC teams.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:28 am to wadewilson
Based on your way of going about it, hypothetically if they had made a bridge schedule a year and a half in advance for the 2009 season they would be looking at Bama as weak coming off a 2007 season at 7-6 with a loss to ULM. Bama went on to a undefeated regular season in '08 and a national championship in '09.
Things change quickly, you can't base or judge what a team will be like next year based on what they were like last year, especially before you've played this year.
I'll revisit this thread after the new schedule comes out and update to see if they are still trying to SOMEWHAT follow the old rotation while merging into the new one.
Things change quickly, you can't base or judge what a team will be like next year based on what they were like last year, especially before you've played this year.
I'll revisit this thread after the new schedule comes out and update to see if they are still trying to SOMEWHAT follow the old rotation while merging into the new one.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:50 am to NATidefan
quote:How did they decide to put Missouri on Bama's 2012 schedule.
I finally got curious enough to look and see how they were doing the schedule instead of wondering if they were just randomly picking teams for everyone to play. Obviously they aren't and are basing it off the old rotation.
They could have put Missouri on any of the other Western school's schedule.
If you think that was just by coincidence, you are pretending.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:52 am to wadewilson
quote:
if you're making a 1 year bridge schedule, that 2 teams which combined for 1 conference win probably will not be as strong as 2 teams that combined for 2 conference losses.
Therein lies the bitching, and it is hilariously unfair
But again, they were just trying to stay on rotation as much as possible, which they've done. They weren't worried about making everything fair, it's just the same rotation with the exception of giving Mizzou and Texas A&M a marquee home game last year against a cross-division team. It's why next year UGA or USC will be on Alabama's schedule and not LSU's.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:11 pm to Sheetbend
Well someone pointed out they might have wanted missouri and A&M to have big cross divisional games for press purposes. Not really sure. What does it matter? They had to play us eventually just like y'all probably will play them next year. Would it be better if we were playing them next year instead of UGA or SC?
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:14 pm to Sheetbend
quote:
They could have put Missouri on any of the other Western school's schedule
so by them putting on bama's schedule, it is a conspiracy, despite you even confirming it could have gone on anyone's.
I want to believe
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:18 pm to NATidefan
quote:
Based on your way of going about it, hypothetically if they had made a bridge schedule a year and a half in advance for the 2009 season they would be looking at Bama as weak coming off a 2007 season at 7-6 with a loss to ULM. Bama went on to a undefeated regular season in '08 and a national championship in '09.
Curious comparison, as Alabama's cross-divisional opponents for 2013, Tennessee and Kentucky, combined for 7 wins in 2012, including 1 conference win. I mean, shite, one of them had to win when they played each other.
2007 Alabama was not weak, they were mediocre. There is a difference.
I'm not trying to argue with you about details, but you're distorting what I'm saying.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:23 pm to wadewilson
Why don't you write up a schedule for 2012 and 2013 for all the teams that you think is fair and I'll point out all the holes in it using your way of thinking.
Oh and you have to keep permanent cross divisional games and a 8 game SEC schedule cause that's the way the schools voted.
Oh and you have to keep permanent cross divisional games and a 8 game SEC schedule cause that's the way the schools voted.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:28 pm to NATidefan
quote:
Some people can't understand that it is mathematically impossible to keep everything the same or equal while going from 3 cross divisional games to 2, while adding two new teams, keeping cross divisional rivals,
Thats the whole argument. It would be mathematically possible if they got rid of the xdivision rivalry.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:32 pm to dgnx6
Well that argument sucks cause until the majority of the schools vote to get rid of the cross divisional rivalries, you're shite out of luck.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:34 pm to NATidefan
quote:
Why don't you write up a schedule for 2012 and 2013 for all the teams that you think is fair and I'll point out all the holes in it using your way of thinking.
Oh and you have to keep permanent cross divisional games and a 8 game SEC schedule cause that's the way the schools voted.
Unpossible. Let's just give LSU the top 2 East opponents every year instead.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:35 pm to wadewilson
quote:
Let's just give LSU the top 2 East opponents every year instead
I like it
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:35 pm to NATidefan
quote:
until the majority of the schools vote to get rid of the cross divisional rivalries, you're shite out of luck.
You think any other schools want to give up a permanent opponent and risking drawing something like LSU's 2013 schedule?
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:42 pm to wadewilson
Sorry LSU had to play top East teams in consecutive years even though they were due to play them anyway going by the old rotation. Yes, Bama was supposed to play UGA in '12 but someone had to play Muzzou. We were due to add UK in '13 going by the old rotation.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:44 pm to wadewilson
Yes, your right. We want to keep UT cause we think they will suck for all time, and Georgia wants to keep Auburn cause they think they will suck for all time. Thus ensuring we have a easy schedule forever. It has nothing to do with tradition.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:45 pm to sarc
quote:
old rotation
You said it.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 12:48 pm to sarc
quote:
Sorry LSU had to play top East teams in consecutive years even though they were due to play them anyway going by the old rotation. Yes, Bama was supposed to play UGA in '12 but someone had to play Muzzou. We were due to add UK in '13 going by the old rotation.
Why didnt you add UGA this year? You were still supposed to be playing them by the all important previous rotation? Then yall sit here and say that yall are going to add UGA next year even further deviating from the previous rotation. So which is it.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 12:49 pm
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News