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 4:22 pm to NATidefan
Posted on 7/16/13 at 4:22 pm to NATidefan
quote:If winning a 7th straight BCS Championship is important, it matters.
Not really sure. What does it matter?
Considering Bama and LSU were the favorites to win the SEC heading into 2012, they chose to protect Bama. Not because they favoried Bama over LSU, but because Bama was easier to protect.
All they had to do was to find a way to give Bama Missouri and take Georgia off the schedule.
Protecting LSU was harder with Florida as their permanent opponent. Tennessee was already a sure win for Bama.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 5:14 pm
0
Posted on 7/16/13 at 4:51 pm to Rickdaddy4188
quote:
For the 1 millionth time. It's not about who LSU plays. IT'S ABOUT WHO BAMA HASN'T PLAYED.
It's sweet that you believe that but I was responding to the following posts:
quote:
Unpossible. Let's just give LSU the top 2 East opponents every year instead.
quote:
You think any other schools want to give up a permanent opponent and risking drawing something like LSU's 2013 schedule?
So I responded by pointing out that LSU played the teams that were due to rotate onto their schedule. Sorry it resulted in a difficult couple years but you'll probably get easy rotating cross-division opponents the next few years.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 5:21 pm to sarc
quote:
I responded by pointing out that LSU played the teams that were due to rotate onto their schedule thanks to the permanent opponent rule. Sorry it resulted in a difficult couple years.
Bama didn't play the difficult teams that were due to rotate onto their schedule because the SEC wanted to protect Bama.
Fixed it for you.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 5:24 pm to Sheetbend
So when LSU plays Kentucky, Missouri, and Vandy over the next few seasons we can assume the SEC is protecting them?
Posted on 7/16/13 at 5:26 pm to Sheetbend
Oh and it was team, not teams, and I'm pretty sure they'll rotate on next year.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 5:31 pm to Sheetbend
quote:
Bama didn't play the difficult teams that were due to rotate onto their schedule because the SEC wanted to protect Bama
That's just ridiculous. It was the REC who rigged the schedule not the SEC
Posted on 7/16/13 at 5:56 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
we're talking about the opportunity to play in the SEC Champ game here, idiot! Bama is the only team relevant in '91 & '92.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 6:01 pm to NATidefan
quote:
So when LSU plays Kentucky, Missouri, and Vandy over the next few seasons we can assume the SEC is protecting them?
When the SEC takes scheduled games with Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina off of LSU's schedule, you can assume the SEC is protecting them.
The SEC chose to put Missouri on Bama's schedule and take off Georiga. If you think that was by a flip of a coin, you are nieve.
The SEC chose to put Florida on TAM's 2012 schedule. If you think that was by a coin flip your are wrong.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 6:25 pm to Sheetbend
I don't think it was by a flip of a coin. I prescheduled OOC games had alot to do with who played who and when. That along with trying to keep close to the old rotation. I'm not naive, I'm just not a conspiracy nut.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 6:43 pm to NATidefan
The decision by the SEC to ditch the uga Bama game these past two years determined at least one participant in the seccg this past year and possibly one this year.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 7:00 pm to Adam Banks
Yes, and when we play Georgia next year, while y'all play Mizzou, Vandy, or Kentucky it may then as well. I never said it hasn't or won't effect the outcome of the seasons. I'm just saying there is no big conspiracy to help Bama and screw LSU.
If we play Georgia next year to get them in rotation it will be in a year we weren't supposed to play them just like if we play USC 2015 it will be in a year we weren't supposed to play them, but it's only a year off.
They kept teams rotations close to the old rotations, even Bama's with Kentucky next year. There was no mathematical way to keep everyone's the same (too many teams not enough slots).
If we play Georgia next year to get them in rotation it will be in a year we weren't supposed to play them just like if we play USC 2015 it will be in a year we weren't supposed to play them, but it's only a year off.
They kept teams rotations close to the old rotations, even Bama's with Kentucky next year. There was no mathematical way to keep everyone's the same (too many teams not enough slots).
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 7:03 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 7:09 pm to sarc
quote:
It's sweet that you believe that but I was responding to the following posts:
For me anyway
Posted on 7/16/13 at 7:16 pm to NATidefan
Roommate switch is the only answer that would stop all the bitching. (Yeah, I know, shut up. The bitching will never stop.) Schedules would be set through the next expansion (if it ever happens), so there are no claims of shenanigans.
The only downside I see to that scheme is there is no longer an East/West identity. But the big pluses are that the schedules would be fair and every team in the conference would play every other team at least once in 4 years - which isn't currently true.
I also acknowledge that it's us new guys who have screwed this up. Oops!
The only downside I see to that scheme is there is no longer an East/West identity. But the big pluses are that the schedules would be fair and every team in the conference would play every other team at least once in 4 years - which isn't currently true.
I also acknowledge that it's us new guys who have screwed this up. Oops!
Posted on 7/16/13 at 8:14 pm to NATidefan
quote:
I'm just saying there is no big conspiracy to help Bama and screw LSU.
I agree that the SEC was not trying to screw LSU with the 2012 Bridge schedule, but they didn't give a shite if it did.
The team the SEC was trying to screw with the 2012 bridge schedule was Texas A&M by scheduling Florida as A&M's first game of their season--worked perfectly.
The SEC is trying to screw both LSU and Florida by making them play each other--permanent opponent rule. This rule reduces the number of times all the other teams in the SEC have to play either one of them.
When you consider Florida and LSU are the two most winingest teams in the SEC since 2000, the permanent opponent conspiracy makes sense in the modern SEC.
The Permanent Opponent Conspiracy harms two schools, but benefits the majority of SEC schools--for divisiional titles or for becoming bowl eligible.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 9:37 pm to Sheetbend
Yes, back in 1992, when LSU wasn't a conference power and Florida just was emerging as one the SEC office saw 9 years into the future, the hiring of nick Saban by LSU, their rise to a powerhouse and said we will frick them in the future By making them play each other every year.
ETA: damn Im still laughing. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory right there. That's got nothing on the JFK assassination. So did we add Arky and South Carolina as a part of this plan, or was that was this an afterthought?
Wouldn't it be more believable that they made the permanent rivals in 92 and you got paired with Florida when the conference split because they wanted to keep traditions of UA-UT and AU-UGA. Not because they wanted to frick over LSU and UF 9-10 years into the future?
ETA: damn Im still laughing. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory right there. That's got nothing on the JFK assassination. So did we add Arky and South Carolina as a part of this plan, or was that was this an afterthought?
Wouldn't it be more believable that they made the permanent rivals in 92 and you got paired with Florida when the conference split because they wanted to keep traditions of UA-UT and AU-UGA. Not because they wanted to frick over LSU and UF 9-10 years into the future?
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:54 pm to NATidefan
Dropping Georgia and picking up Mizzou benefitted both the gumps and dawgs. The SEC home office seems like it was hedging its bets. I don't blame them. They are looking out for the SEC not LSU. We usually get the shaft on 50/50 decisions like that. Such is life. The bottom line is that if we win them all, we should be champs. If we lose even once, it puts everything in the hands of others. If the SEC home office has any chance to screw us, history says its very likely they will. The fact that gumps run the league office probably works against LSU and Florida. Again...win and that shite doesn't matter.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:48 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
The bottom line is that if we win them all, we should be champs.
With that logic, you probably expect to win against the house odds in Vegas.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 1:26 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
If we lose even once, i
You act like that's unique to LSU, any team that loses a game is subject o others. And truth be told if LSU beat Bama last year they go to the NC. Florida hasn't kept y'all out of a NC game yet. Even when you lost to them in 2003 you still got to the game.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 1:28 am to NATidefan
Alabama will play Mizzou and Vandy
LSU will play the NFC Pro bowl team, and the 72 Dolphins.
LSU will play the NFC Pro bowl team, and the 72 Dolphins.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 1:34 am to memphisplaya
quote:
LSU will play the NFC Pro bowl team, and the 72 Dolphins.
Bama will have the better Strength of Schedule.....Bunch of old white guys and some rich dudes that DGAF.
This post was edited on 7/17/13 at 1:35 am
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News