Started By
Message
re: "The SEC's 6-1-1 Disaster"
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:51 pm to UAalumnus
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:51 pm to UAalumnus
quote:
I agree that the REAL problem is the expansion we should just to go a 9 game 6-1-2 schedule and be done with it. This all needs to be a lesson on why NOT to go to 16 teams!
Yeah, the problem is expansion but I hope we never go to 9 games. That will basically be the death of quality OOC games. I know other conferences do it but they also don't have to run through the gauntlet of an SEC schedule. There would just be zero incentive to schedule any top caliber OOC teams. You would see a healthy dose of Washington States and UConns just so you the conference can boosts its record over other BCS conferences.
1
Posted on 6/4/12 at 12:53 pm to UAalumnus
quote:
I can not BELIEVE how whiny you guys are...
The BAMA/UT and AU/UGA games MUST remain. College football has given up too much tradition already and it MUST STOP. For instance, we have already lost Nebraska/Oklahoma (which I LOVED watching as a kid), AU/Georgia Tech (which WAS the oldest rivalry in CFB), Texas/Texas A&M... and so on.
AND... just because the Vols havent been that competitve recently doesnt mean that it will stay that way. This rivalry has a TON of history and must be preserved!
I am even for keeping the AU rivalry with UGA. (honestly, this game and the politics surrounding it probably have more weight with the SEC office - since Auburn was already forced to lose playing UF every year when we went to 12 teams)
I guess I shouldnt expect LSU fans to understand, because you guys don't really have a natural rival. Ole Miss? Arky? Tulane? ... now Texas A&M will be forced on you as your 'rival'. ('jus sayin')
Just admit that you dont want to play UF every year and be done with it.
Oh look, an ignorant Bama fan...what a surprise. I have nothing against playing Florida. Unlike some, I like the competition...it just serves to make us better and get us ready for the stretch run when we'll need to be battle tested.
And IDGAF what anyone says...LSU/Bama IS a rivalry. We are .500 against each other over the last 30 years. It doesn't get any closer than that and who gives a flying frick what the series looked like 50 years ago, it has no bearing on today. Especially since the arrival of Saban, LSU/Bama has become THE game not only in the SEC, but in college football hence all the hype for 11/5 last year and the pandering of ESPN to get Bama in the title game.
Personally, I want to travel to watch LSU play every SEC team during my lifetime. I have a good start on that but still a long way to go and with the SEC catering to Bama for a rivalry that no one else in the country cares about, it'll be another 20-30 years before I can accomplish that goal
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:07 pm to UAalumnus
quote:
The BAMA/UT and AU/UGA games MUST remain. College football has given up too much tradition already and it MUST STOP. For instance, we have already lost Nebraska/Oklahoma (which I LOVED watching as a kid), AU/Georgia Tech (which WAS the oldest rivalry in CFB), Texas/Texas A&M... and so on.
I agree with this 100%. I too loved watching the Oklahoma/Nebraska game, and I think fans in Texas will sorely miss the UT/A&M game.
quote:
AND... just because the Vols havent been that competitve recently doesnt mean that it will stay that way. This rivalry has a TON of history and must be preserved!
I am even for keeping the AU rivalry with UGA. (honestly, this game and the politics surrounding it probably have more weight with the SEC office - since Auburn was already forced to lose playing UF every year when we went to 12 teams)
I can't argue with either point. But instead of the convluted scheduling model we have now, a simple divisional realignment would solve all the problems you are concerned about, including the fact that Auburn and Florida can't play each other regularly with the current alignment. (Yes, I know that the current East teams would not like adding Bama and Auburn but, as you write, competitive balances do shift over time.)
The point of the article is that the SEC's identity as a single conference will be undermined with the new schedule. It's hard to get worked up about playing someone if you see them only once every six years, and in your place only once every twelve years.
quote:
I guess I shouldnt expect LSU fans to understand, because you guys don't really have a natural rival. Ole Miss? Arky? Tulane? ... now Texas A&M will be forced on you as your 'rival'. ('jus sayin')
Ole Miss is our most "natural" and long-standing rival, but we have had periods when we played A&M relularly. I would suspect that this rivalry will grow in importance, as has the rivalry with Arky.
quote:
Just admit that you dont want to play UF every year and be done with it.
Sigh.... Look, it's not about fear of another team. In addition to the fact that fans will be cheated and the conference's identiy will be diluted, one also has to think about about how the current distorted schedule can affect the divisional races. Who do you think has the advantage in the East right now? Florida (who must play LSU), or South Carolina (who must play A&M)? Let's say that several years down the road UT again becomes the best team in the East and UF reverts to its pre-Spurrier status as a so-so team. Do you think Bama would enjoy competing year-after-year with LSU and Arky (who will play Mizzou) having a yearly scheduling advantage?
The bottom line is that there are no easy answers, but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate arguments against the current situation and better options out there to address the TWO rivalry games that are mucking up the entire schedule. It ain't a matter of "being scared."
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:09 pm to Starchild
quote:
SEC catering to Bama for a rivalry that no one else in the country cares about
Why is Bama consistently singled out here? Tennessee wanted to keep the game and UGA/AU lobbied to keep their rivalry going. Not to mention the smaller schools who had more selfish reasons for keeping their permanent opponents. The vote passed because a majority of SEC schools approved it. Singling out Bama as the culprit in all of this is every bit as dishonest as Bama fans claiming LSU fans are simply scared of Florida.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:12 pm to UAalumnus
quote:
I can not BELIEVE how whiny you guys are...
The BAMA/UT and AU/UGA games MUST remain. College football has given up too much tradition already and it MUST STOP. For instance, we have already lost Nebraska/Oklahoma (which I LOVED watching as a kid), AU/Georgia Tech (which WAS the oldest rivalry in CFB), Texas/Texas A&M... and so on.
AND... just because the Vols havent been that competitve recently doesnt mean that it will stay that way. This rivalry has a TON of history and must be preserved!
I am even for keeping the AU rivalry with UGA. (honestly, this game and the politics surrounding it probably have more weight with the SEC office - since Auburn was already forced to lose playing UF every year when we went to 12 teams)
I guess I shouldnt expect LSU fans to understand, because you guys don't really have a natural rival. Ole Miss? Arky? Tulane? ... now Texas A&M will be forced on you as your 'rival'. ('jus sayin')
Just admit that you dont want to play UF every year and be done with it.
Hey, what are you doing!?!
This is an LSU whine fest! I had to double check to see if I accidently clicked the Tiger Rant link.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:15 pm to frankenfish
quote:
I've yet to see a valid reason why you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Vandy and Mizzou to the West. Then it's an actual geographic reality in East and West.
It used to be that the West was weak and the East was strong with Tennessee and Florida as kings; now it's LSU and Bama. Things chance as far as who's on top but this would allow the sacred Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee games to be played every year and for fans to actually get to see all of the teams in their stadium more than 4 times a lifetime.
Why don't we just move Georgia and Tennessee to the West and move Ole Miss and Mississippi State to the East?
That solves your problem...Oh wait...you'd have to play two tougher teams (when the Vols get back on track).
Nevermind...
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:18 pm to ksrph
I can't figure out why some of this fan base wants to ditch UF. It's one of the games of the year every year....even in 2010 when neither of us were good it was still a great game. Why give it up to play Kentucky or Missouri more frequently? I'm sure everyone is fine with playing north Texas or fricking Towson....I'd rather have a 9th conference game and ditch those pussies.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:32 pm to ksrph
quote:
Why don't we just move Georgia and Tennessee to the West and move Ole Miss and Mississippi State to the East?
That solves your problem...Oh wait...you'd have to play two tougher teams (when the Vols get back on track).
Nevermind...
Move them. I think that would be better for the conference. The problem is the conference is still clinging to the idea that geography should matter in the alignment. It isn't surprising that the Alabama solution would be to inconvenience its rivals in order for it to keep everything exactly how they want it, though.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:41 pm to TigerStripes06
quote:
I can't figure out why some of this fan base wants to ditch UF. It's one of the games of the year every year....even in 2010 when neither of us were good it was still a great game. Why give it up to play Kentucky or Missouri more frequently? I'm sure everyone is fine with playing north Texas or ----- Towson....I'd rather have a 9th conference game and ditch those ------.
Agree 100% I love watching the LSU/UF game every year.
I also agree that I would rather watch 9 conference games than the 'other' non-conference games. three of the four BAMA non-con games are HORRIBLE each year.
I would rather rotate KY, VU, UM etc.
People that say 'going to a 9 game conference schedule will ruin the SEC chances of a national championship'....
Must be the same people that said the SEC 'will never win another national championship' when we went to 12 games and the conference title game.
How many has it been since 1992? ten?
This post was edited on 6/4/12 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 6/4/12 at 1:42 pm to ctiger69
quote:
I hate the 6-1-1 format.
Adding Texas A&M and Missouri ruined the SEC forever.
No. The additions are okay and necessary given current events and trends, bowing to blue hairs in Birmingham and deciding that playing 42% of your conference at home one time every 12 years is what is damaging.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 2:07 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Just because the PAC 10 threaten to go to 16 it caused the SEC to jump the gun and make a mistake. The PAC 12 and Big 10 are happy with 12 teams. 12 teams is the perfect number and balance for a conference. Now, the SEC became greedy and invited Missouri and A&M for the sole purpose of money and TV sets. They literally screwed up the best conference in it's prime for greed.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 2:34 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
No. The additions are okay and necessary given current events and trends, bowing to blue hairs in Birmingham and deciding that playing 42% of your conference at home one time every 12 years is what is damaging.
You may not view it this way, but tossing aside traditional rivalries that helped shape the conference is just as damaging. I hate that we won't play the East teams as much and I would hate it if we were forced to take UT off our schedule. However, neither scenario was worth the expansion to 14. Considering the current strength of the SEC, the move to #14 was not an absolute necessity at the time.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 2:42 pm to TigerCard
quote:
The SEC's 6-1-1 Disaster
The only thing that makes me not go crazy about the format is the fact that the SEC will go to 16 teams with 4 team pods within the next 5 to 7 years.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 2:55 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
You may not view it this way, but tossing aside traditional rivalries that helped shape the conference is just as damaging. I hate that we won't play the East teams as much and I would hate it if we were forced to take UT off our schedule. However, neither scenario was worth the expansion to 14. Considering the current strength of the SEC, the move to #14 was not an absolute necessity at the time.
Play them out of conference. It wasn't a problem before to do that, I'm not sure why everyone is so dead-set against doing it now.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 2:56 pm to BoobieWatcher
I like the 6 division, 1 permanent, and 2 rotating schedule as well. They should have taken their time in Destin and thought it out more. You can still have basically the same setup as before with 2 rotating games without losing a home game on the schedule if you are creative with non conference scheduling.
As for moving Alabama and Auburn to the East, you'll essentially piss the entire SEC East off with such a move and create a horrribly unbalanced league. LSU would cakewalk to the SEC title game each year while the SEC East would be a blood bath. It would be much better to appease LSU and let them give up Florida as a permanent and take Kentucky or Vandy as a permanent instead of pissing of an entire division in the league.
As for moving Alabama and Auburn to the East, you'll essentially piss the entire SEC East off with such a move and create a horrribly unbalanced league. LSU would cakewalk to the SEC title game each year while the SEC East would be a blood bath. It would be much better to appease LSU and let them give up Florida as a permanent and take Kentucky or Vandy as a permanent instead of pissing of an entire division in the league.
Posted on 6/4/12 at 3:37 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
but tossing aside traditional rivalries that helped shape the conference is just as damaging.
I'm not trying fall into the "bitching LSU fan" camp on this, but I do think it's ridiculous that 6 teams are essentially out of the loop. Why not compromise and schedule differently with UA/UT and AU/UGA? It is mathematically possible, correct? (Honest question)
I like the Florida rivalry but long term there should be some balance. Sure we keep Florida, but losing completely Tennessee and Georgia most notably, sucks too.
If mathematically it works, and I'm not sure if it does and am not going to look it up, it should go like this:
For example, LSU plays:
Year 1:
@ UF
vs. UGA
Year 2:
@ UK
vs. Mizzou
Year 3:
@USC
vs. UT
Year 4
@Vandy
vs. UF
Year 5:
@UGA
vs. UK
If you're Alabama it goes like this:
Year 1:
vs. UF
@ UT
Year 2
@Uga
vs. UT
Year 3:
vs. UK
@UT
Year 4:
@MU
vs. UT
Year 5:
vs. USC
@ UT
Year 6:
@Vandy
vs. UT
This post was edited on 6/4/12 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 6/5/12 at 4:16 am to FairhopeTider
Stay at 14 teams and go to a 9 game schedule, 6-3 home and home format, and eliminate permanent cross-division rivals. Really simple stuff. The problem is that bama wants the win over tn every year, as does ms state and ole miss, who play ky and vandy, and auburn wants to play ga because they can't beat out bama for instate recruits and rely on raiding ga every year for talented players. Oh and no one in the east wants to play 3 western division teams every year. The tradition argument is just a bullshite excuse to cover up the truth. Tradition went out the window when they added teams to the conference. New members makes it a new conference, i.e. b12, b11, pac12. Slive and his cohorts are morons.
This post was edited on 6/5/12 at 4:32 am
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News