Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/8/17 at 2:14 pm to Vecchio Cane
I like it. It is sort of old school, yet you are pretty much guaranteed the two best teams will be represented. However, it would also potentially lead to a lot of repeat matchups in the Championship Game.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 2:34 pm to kingbob
I'm sure an LSU fans would love having only one big 6 regular opponent while Georgia and Florida have two and Bama and Auburn have three.
I don't understand why people keep trying to fix something that's not broken. This conference makes millions because Alabama plays Tennessee every year. Because Georgia plays Auburn every year. And because Florida plays LSU every year.
Nobody is cutting fat checks to see Mizzou play Arkansas or South Carolina play Mississippi State. You can whine about what's 'fair' or what are natural rivalries. But 25 years of evidence says the current set up cashes checks.
I don't understand why people keep trying to fix something that's not broken. This conference makes millions because Alabama plays Tennessee every year. Because Georgia plays Auburn every year. And because Florida plays LSU every year.
Nobody is cutting fat checks to see Mizzou play Arkansas or South Carolina play Mississippi State. You can whine about what's 'fair' or what are natural rivalries. But 25 years of evidence says the current set up cashes checks.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 2:38 pm to UAtide11
quote:
I'm sure an LSU fans would love having only one big 6 regular opponent while Georgia and Florida have two and Bama and Auburn have three.
I don't understand why people keep trying to fix something that's not broken. This conference makes millions because Alabama plays Tennessee every year. Because Georgia plays Auburn every year. And because Florida plays LSU every year.
Nobody is cutting fat checks to see Mizzou play Arkansas or South Carolina play Mississippi State. You can whine about what's 'fair' or what are natural rivalries. But 25 years of evidence says the current set up cashes checks.
Or try to do something that has never been done in the past. The teams in the SEC have never really been about getting to play at an opposing teams field every couple of years. LSU has spent most of their history not playing teams from the SEC east, now its a priority.
How does playing a road trip benefit a team? sure your players get to see a new stadium, but thats the least of anyone's priorities
Posted on 9/8/17 at 2:47 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
The change still mandates round robin formats either way around
Good call. Hadn't seen the full wording, but makes sense.
I'm still intrigued by this quote:
quote:
“We felt like in an era of deregulation, this was an area that could and should be deregulated,” Bowlsby said. “I’m happy we were able to come to a compromise that got us part of the way down that path.”
To me that certainly sounds like there is interest in opening it up beyond what has been done thus far, but maybe not enough support to get it done.
I understand there might be some challenges from a tie breaker scenario, but ultimately, isn't that what the BCS/CFP ranking piece would help to sort out? If there isn't a clear head to head equation, it would seem that CFP ranking would be the next best factor as a "neutral committee" determines those placements.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 3:02 pm to fibonaccisquared
Why can't the SEC create a more fair tie-breaker. To me, polls show more bias than truths (as in WHO can watch every game & HONESTLY say "this team should be ahead of that team"?)
This post was edited on 9/8/17 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/8/17 at 3:19 pm to kingbob
quote:
LSU: Texas A&M, Ole Miss, Alabama
Rivalry requested denied, bruh. LSU's 3 permanent rivals would be A&M, Ole Miss and Arkansas based on history. I'd allow it.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 3:36 pm to kingbob
My immediate thought is that Alabama and Auburn get hosed.
Of all the permanent opponents, those teams are the only ones who have three of the "power six" permanently on their schedule.
Of all the permanent opponents, those teams are the only ones who have three of the "power six" permanently on their schedule.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 7:19 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
LSU should be: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida/Auburn. Dont try to take away the games that make the season.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 7:40 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
What problem are we trying to solve?
By the time LSU makes its first trip to Columbia, Mizzou will have been in the SEC for 11 years.
It took 4 years until our first meeting in 2016 and we'll wait another 7 years to play them again. Same conference, 1 matchup in 11 years. 7 year gap between meetings. We may as well not be in the same conference. It just strikes me as absurd to have such a long delay of seeing conference foes.
This post was edited on 9/8/17 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 9/8/17 at 7:58 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
By the time LSU makes its first trip to Columbia, Mizzou will have been in the SEC for 11 years. It took 4 years until our first meeting in 2016 and we'll wait another 7 years to play them again. Same conference, 1 matchup in 11 years. 7 year gap between meetings. We may as well not be in the same conference. It just strikes me as absurd to have such a long delay of seeing conference foes.
We've been in the same conference with you since 1932 and at one point it was 25 years between matchups. You really give a shite about playing Missouri?
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:01 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
7 year gap between meetings
Not to nitpick but I believe it's 6 years. 7 in each division, subtract your permenant and that leaves 6 teams in the rotation.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:04 pm to kingbob
quote:
Tennessee: Alabama, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
2-1 every single year?
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:17 pm to kingbob
quote:
each SEC team gets 3 permanent rivals,
Never... No way to make parity with three permanent rivals.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:18 pm to teke184
quote:
teke184
Thoughts on the 3-5 conference schedule (elimination of divisions)
My immediate thought is that Alabama and Auburn get hosed.
Of all the permanent opponents, those teams are the only ones who have three of the "power six" permanently on their schedule.
HUH???
Oh. You mean the 3 teams listed in the OP.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:20 pm to GetmorewithLes
Thank you! That's why "no divisions" is a bad idea.
The only thing it's good at is being a better solution for a faster rotation of teams.
The only thing it's good at is being a better solution for a faster rotation of teams.
This post was edited on 9/8/17 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:29 pm to kingbob
I'm all for it. A&M is in its 6th year and hasn't yet played UK or UGA, home or away and won't this year. That's ridiculous. And once they DO play (in '18, '19, '24 and '25), rewind and do it all over again.
On NCAA rules: The rules about championship games will be changed as soon as Nick Saban says they should be changed.
On NCAA rules: The rules about championship games will be changed as soon as Nick Saban says they should be changed.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:35 pm to finestfirst79
You'll notice they've NOT made that schedule out for MORE than 12 years. Wonder if that's the SEC's way to say things will change then (if not sooner)? 
Posted on 9/8/17 at 8:51 pm to armtackledawg
quote:
Don't want to give up the yearly UT game.
DNGAF about playing 10RC every year
Love the 3-5 model
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News