Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/21/14 at 11:33 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
We've had two years of it, and the groaning has been astronomical.
No they haven't. The schedule hasn't been that bad either.
We've had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Missouri, Miss State, Vanderbilt, and Arkansas at home.
Most of the complaints were centered on the year one 6 game home schedule w/two FCS and an away in Shreveport vs La Tech. It wasn't anywhere near the same last year b/c enough people like beating the piss out of old SWC teams.
The games people absolutely do not want are the FCS games. Adding a 9th SEC game is NOT going to end those.
Again, the only way that happens is if the SEC bans everyone from playing them.
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 3/21/14 at 11:37 am to bgator85
quote:
Foley has been pretty open about his opposition to the 9 game schedule, maybe he has changed his stance, but I would imagine they want his support.
quote:
They'll be fine without it.
Doubtful. Florida wants to play Miami and FSU every year, Alleva will likely vote no just to be obstructionist, and I highly doubt all of the weaker schools will vote for an extra conference game knowing that'll ruin bowl game chances.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 11:41 am to TeLeFaWx
quote:
They'll be fine without it.
Maybe, but I don't think this is the type of decision they will make without a guy like Foley on board or else this would probably already be done.
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 11:44 am
Posted on 3/21/14 at 11:46 am to spslayto
quote:
Then I'm sure Tennessee would start bitching about not having its annual game with Vandy.
I doubt that.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 11:59 am to absolute692
quote:
And I don't know why the Bama UT game is always the keepsake when talking about the permanent opponents. IMO, UGA vs AU >>>>>> Bama vs UT
It should you be pretty clear when you think about what the game means to the respective fan bases.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 12:21 pm to volfan30
Who the frick is Dave Hart, and why does his athletic department (minus softball) suck? Maybe one day they'll break the .500 mark in football.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 12:39 pm to wadewilson
quote:
The rest of the conference doesn't have to bend over for that, and won't.
You really think that the other 11 have more pull than Bama/Auburn/UT?
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:11 pm to Patton
No, they can't (UF-LSU) just pick new opponents.
The league did a great job in 1992 of preserving rivalries & being fair to all parties. The top 6 were pittted against one another, Tenn. vs. Bama, AU vs. UGA and UF vs. LSU and the bottom 6 historicaly was pitted in permanent matchup, year in and year out the top 6 have no advantage over each other over the long time, occasionally some teams get a marginally tougher schedule, but that is because of the rotation games instead of the permanent games.
The bottom 6 love the weaker permanent games because with 3 or 4 wins out of conference they now have a better shot to go 6-6 or 7-5 and make a bowl, which is why they will always vote en bloc with Tenn., Bama, AU, and UGA.
CASE CLOSED.
Bama - Tenn. top 2 winningest programs by far in 1992. UGA, AU, UF & LSU pretty much the same now, but in 1992 UF & LSU was probably behind AU & UGA.
The league did a great job in 1992 of preserving rivalries & being fair to all parties. The top 6 were pittted against one another, Tenn. vs. Bama, AU vs. UGA and UF vs. LSU and the bottom 6 historicaly was pitted in permanent matchup, year in and year out the top 6 have no advantage over each other over the long time, occasionally some teams get a marginally tougher schedule, but that is because of the rotation games instead of the permanent games.
The bottom 6 love the weaker permanent games because with 3 or 4 wins out of conference they now have a better shot to go 6-6 or 7-5 and make a bowl, which is why they will always vote en bloc with Tenn., Bama, AU, and UGA.
CASE CLOSED.
Bama - Tenn. top 2 winningest programs by far in 1992. UGA, AU, UF & LSU pretty much the same now, but in 1992 UF & LSU was probably behind AU & UGA.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:11 pm to wadewilson
quote:
Doubtful. Florida wants to play Miami and FSU every year, Alleva will likely vote no just to be obstructionist, and I highly doubt all of the weaker schools will vote for an extra conference game knowing that'll ruin bowl game chancs.
kige
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:14 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
The league did a great job in 1992 of preserving rivalries & being fair to all parties. The top 6 were pittted against one another, Tenn. vs. Bama, AU vs. UGA and UF vs. LSU and the bottom 6 historicaly was pitted in permanent matchup, year in and year out the top 6 have no advantage over each other over the long time, occasionally some teams get a marginally tougher schedule, but that is because of the rotation games instead of the permanent games.
Year in and year out for the foreseeable future Alabama will have an advantage if their permanent opponent is a fading program like Tennessee.
FWIW I'd agree with you if it weren't for the changing status of Tennessee. They just aren't an equitable matchup for an elite program like Alabama (and wouldn't be for Florida if Florida were in the West)
I suppose the SEC could remove my primary competitive objection if they went to only considering division records when determining a division championship - but I doubt they do anything that practical or equitable.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:27 pm to volfan30
Everyone (at least everyone sane) has seen this coming for years.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:27 pm to molsusports
quote:
I suppose the SEC could remove my primary competitive objection if they went to only considering division records when determining a division championship - but I doubt they do anything that practical or equitable.
Because it's as much about making LSU's path to Atlanta harder as it is making Alabama's path easier.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:37 pm to TeLeFaWx
No point in having a conference if you don't play the other teams in it.
Going to 9 games is basically mandatory with 14 teams.
Yes it will make it harder to go undefeated, but with the new playoff going undefeated isn't required. The SEC Champ will get into the playoff even with a loss, or 2.
Truth be told, the conference shouldn't have expanded past 12 IMO.
Going to 9 games is basically mandatory with 14 teams.
Yes it will make it harder to go undefeated, but with the new playoff going undefeated isn't required. The SEC Champ will get into the playoff even with a loss, or 2.
Truth be told, the conference shouldn't have expanded past 12 IMO.
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:42 pm to IAmReality
you can't have it both ways. THe larger the conferences get, the less the teams will play. If you want a round robin, stick with 10. 12 is probably the max to feel the conference unity. Once you get to 14 or 16, you aren't playing everybody.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:54 pm to IAmReality
quote:
No point in having a conference if you don't play the other teams in it.
if this is the goal then go to the roommate switch proposal. that would preserve the UGA/Auburn/Bama/UT games and rotate everyone through a complete home and away rotation against every team in the conference at least once in a four year period.
9 game schedule just muddies things up even more with an uneven number of games played home/away in conference, a lot of variability with respect to the difficulty of your draw, and costs your lower to middle tier teams some wins they need to get bowl eligible. On top of that it will further reduce (just as going from around 6 conference games to 8 did in 1992) the number of quality OOC teams played by pretty much every team in the conference and reduce the number of home games played per year for everyone.
Posted on 3/21/14 at 1:57 pm to volfan30
quote:
quote: "There's been talk about competitive imbalance in regards to permanent opponents, but there's a group of us in this league that have been very firm in our belief that they are here to stay. That's not something we're flexible on in any way, whether we had stayed with eight games or not, that wasn't something that was going to change. We had made that very clear, that wasn't going to be something we were open to. It's too important for our university, our players and our fans. As someone who's been both places, the Alabama game is a game that's a special deal to both sides and it's one of the games that sets the SEC apart from other leagues. Auburn and Georgia are with us on that deal too. We have a majority of the league, so it's really not an issue that should be talked about moving forward. We're going to play them."
Oh look at that, a program who doesn't bitch about a permanent opponent that is really good most of the time. I'm looking at you LSU
Posted on 3/21/14 at 2:00 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Here is where i think some LSU fans get upset: I agree that UT/Bama should say. It is a great tradition and would be a shame to see it go. HOWEVER, another great tradition was LSU night games. But we got that shite on because, "The CBS contract was good for the conference".
Posted on 3/21/14 at 2:03 pm to lsupride87
I'm sure I'm biased but apples to oranges IMO.
All you did was change the game time by a couple if hours, get over it
The cubs played day games for over 90 years, guess what? They play night games now
All you did was change the game time by a couple if hours, get over it
The cubs played day games for over 90 years, guess what? They play night games now
Posted on 3/21/14 at 2:04 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Here is where i think some LSU fans get upset: I agree that UT/Bama should say. It is a great tradition and would be a shame to see it go. HOWEVER, another great tradition was LSU night games. But we got that shite on because, "The CBS contract was good for the conference".
1 founding member as opposed to 4 being affected
This post was edited on 3/21/14 at 2:05 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News