re: The True Scheduling Disadvantage

quote:

---

Boucher logic: The schedule was fair in 2010 when Tennessee and Vandy rotated onto LSU's schedule, while South Carolina and Florida rotated onto Alabama's (along with half the teams having an off week prior to playing 'Bama).

The schedule is unfair when LSU is forced to play two half-way decent teams from the east, while Alabama gets a breather.

---

No. You either do not understand the issue or you are being deliberately obtuse.

The last two schedules have been bridge schedules due to the entrance of Missouri and Texas A&M into the conference. These bridge schedules broke with the regular rotation. During these bridge schedules, Alabama was given easier schedules than they would have had under the regular rotation. Moreover, LSU has played harder schedules than the regular rotation would have called for. Add to it the fact that the person who is the head of SEC scheduling, Mark Womack, went to both Tuscaloosa High and the University of Alabama, and you got some pissed off LSU fans.

quote:

---

Again, this thread regards how easy the path for non-SEC teams is. Even though some conferences have 3 or 4 Top 25 teams right now, the SEC looks like it might regularly have 4-8. It is improbable that a team doesn't play at least two legit opponents in the SEC. You can't say the same thing for other conferences. I can see an argument regarding how teams fall on the schedule but please don't turn this into an Alabama avoiding SEC East powers thread.

---

But you seem to be trying to argue that every SEC team has a tougher road to the NCG than any team from any other conference. While this is true for many SEC schools, Alabama, and their schedule the last 3 years and how they've missed the top teams from the east, is exactly why that isn't true. There are schools this year from other conferences with tougher paths to the NCG than Alabama.

quote:

---

Its worse - its gets Baylors and Boise's in without the grind of sec.

---

quote:

---

It takes all other bowls and makes them meaningless.

---

Yeah, bowl season really is a joke. How many people truly care about what happens before New Year's Eve? Heck, some of the BCS games are a joke, e.g. Florida State versus Northern Illinois University.

quote:

---

How about the choice between a 10-2 LSU, 10-2 FLA 10-2 GA, 10-2 A&M and 10-1 Baylor, 10-1 tOSU, 10-1 Bama and 10-1 Stanford and you get Stanford, Baylor, tosu, Bama. With 5 SEC teams that would be favored against 3 teams in the 4. It will SUCK. and the other sec will have nothing worth a shite to do.

The playoff people are idiots

---

Spot on.

The worse things about all this is that college football has been played for 100+ years and we're still not close to where things should be. Progress is incredibly slow in this sport. It could take another few decades before the game is right, and even then it will be flawed in some people's heads.

If LSU can play Bama (again) for all the marbles in 2011, then I see no reason the playoff couldn't have 2 SEC teams. Hell, depending on the cards, it could be 3.

quote:

---

But you seem to be trying to argue that every SEC team has a tougher road to the NCG than any team from any other conference. While this is true for many SEC schools, Alabama, and their schedule the last 3 years and how they've missed the top teams from the east, is exactly why that isn't true. There are schools this year from other conferences with tougher paths to the NCG than Alabama.

---

Here is where things get even more subjective. How do we determine which teams are pretenders and which teams are contenders this early? There are a few teams that are perennially overrated, lose a game they shouldn't, collapse late, blow bowls, etc. yet right now they may look good. It's as if people tend to forget the recent past when they make the rankings. If we're going to let Alabama be ranked #1 despite not looking like a championship caliber team, then we should also rank other programs that tend to fold under certain conditions appropriately. Everyone should have to work their way up in the rankings.

I think I got off track so let me highlight the portion I really wanted to discuss.

quote:

---

There are schools this year from other conferences with tougher paths to the NCG than Alabama.

---

That's true for a few schools that aren't on the level of the Alabama program. I will admit that Alabama's offensive line and defense are below the standard that Saban has set, but it hasn't gotten Michigan/Akron or Clemson/North Carolina State bad. Some teams have tougher schedules just because they aren't that good. Other teams are highly ranked because their conferences are weak. The SEC is fortunate that other teams underachieve or choke regularly because certain programs could easily have displaced the SEC Champion if they'd handled business. U.S.C., Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, and Clemson don't really have a good excuse for underachieving this long, and it doesn't seem like half those programs will be turning around things anytime soon.

quote:

---

I assume you are one of the college football fans whom believes LSU was jobbed on 1/9/12. While one late season rematch may sound bad, imagine 2 or 3.
The Top 8 feature Oregon whom lost to Stanford, Florida whom lost to Georgia, and Alabama whom lost to Texas A&M (a team that lost to Florida and LSU). Do you see the problem? Scenarios like that must be considered if the 4-team playoff is just a transition stage.

---

I didn't say that. What I meant by what I said was that I am surprised to hear a Bama fan say that a rematch postseason would be an issue, given that they argued so heavily recently that there is no problem with a rematch if it happens to include the top 2 teams. Sounds like the application of an argument one way when it is convenient (benefits that way) and then back to a true way of thinking otherwise.

Tl;IR