Started By
Message
An option to keep 8 games, rivalries, recruit visit every campus in 4 years
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:33 pm
There's another option, get rid of divisions.
Every team has 2 permanent rivals and rotate 6 games. 2 best records in ATL (with appropriate conference-centered tie-breakers). I think this works out where everyone plays everyone else, at every stadium, in the course of a recruits 4 year tenure. (If he leaves early, that's his choice). Wouldn't this address rivalry issues, schedule fairness, and going to every campus once in 4 years?
AU/UGA, AU/UA
UA/UT, UA/AU
For example:
LSU/UF, LSU/A&M
Every team has 2 permanent rivals and rotate 6 games. 2 best records in ATL (with appropriate conference-centered tie-breakers). I think this works out where everyone plays everyone else, at every stadium, in the course of a recruits 4 year tenure. (If he leaves early, that's his choice). Wouldn't this address rivalry issues, schedule fairness, and going to every campus once in 4 years?
AU/UGA, AU/UA
UA/UT, UA/AU
For example:
LSU/UF, LSU/A&M
10
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:35 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
Schedule board
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:36 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
It would require an NCAA rule change to allow a CCG without divisions, but I like the idea.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:36 pm to NYCAuburn
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:37 pm to Master of Sinanju
I am for this, or only counting division games to see who goes to ATL. Either option keeps current rivalries and cross divisional opponents without giving an advantage to other teams.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:38 pm to Master of Sinanju
quote:
It would require an NCAA rule change to allow a CCG without divisions, but I like the idea
This
This post was edited on 5/21/13 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:38 pm to Master of Sinanju
True, but I bet with solid reasoning, especially emphasizing student-athlete competing in every conference stadium during his 4 years, it could be sold.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:01 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I like the concept, but I wouldn't want to lose Ole Miss and the AL schools every year
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:07 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:True, but it would take a majority of the SEC teams to get on board with this concept. How many head coaches & AD's want this?
True, but I bet with solid reasoning, especially emphasizing student-athlete competing in every conference stadium during his 4 years, it could be sold.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:20 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
This is by far the best solution to this issue
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:24 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I like this idea... basically every game would have the same weight. Playing teams from the east over the last 20 years hasn't meant as much due to the divions, IMO.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:26 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
A stab at it
Alabama: AU, UT
Arkansas: A&M, MO
Auburn: AL, UGA
Florida: UGA, USC
Georgia: UF, AU
Kentucky: VU, MSU
LSU: OM, A&M
MSU: OM, UK
Missouri: Ark, USC
Ole Miss: LSU, MSU
South Carolina: MO, UF
Tennessee: VU, AL
Texas A&M: Ark, LSU
Vanderbilt: UK, UT
ETA: I know a lot of people (esp Verne L. and Chris Lowe) would bemoan losing AL/LSU, but this would be impossible since I think you have to keep Auburn and Tennessee on their schedule.
Also couldn't justify getting rid of VU/UT so no annual UF/UT match up. Other than that, I think everyone's happy.
Alabama: AU, UT
Arkansas: A&M, MO
Auburn: AL, UGA
Florida: UGA, USC
Georgia: UF, AU
Kentucky: VU, MSU
LSU: OM, A&M
MSU: OM, UK
Missouri: Ark, USC
Ole Miss: LSU, MSU
South Carolina: MO, UF
Tennessee: VU, AL
Texas A&M: Ark, LSU
Vanderbilt: UK, UT
ETA: I know a lot of people (esp Verne L. and Chris Lowe) would bemoan losing AL/LSU, but this would be impossible since I think you have to keep Auburn and Tennessee on their schedule.
Also couldn't justify getting rid of VU/UT so no annual UF/UT match up. Other than that, I think everyone's happy.
This post was edited on 5/21/13 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:29 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
quote:
Wouldn't this address rivalry issues, schedule fairness, and going to every campus once in 4 years?
Not so sure about the schedule fairness. I think some schools might still complain that the 2 permanent opponents for some teams are weaker than the 2 permanent opponents of other teams. There's also the potential for a team to "dodge" every single upper level SEC program in a season. Imagine the outrage that would cause. With the current system, every team is guarenteed to play 2 of Bama, LSU, A&M, UF, UGA, and USCe.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:35 pm to sarc
quote:
every team is guarenteed to play 2 of Bama, LSU, A&M, UF, UGA, and USCe.
Problem with this thinking is that these teams aren't going to stay good forever.
A&M was average at best for the last decade until last year.
UF would have been an awesome permanent opp to have in 2010 & 2011, not too mention the zook years.
USCe made MSU and Arkie's life much simpler until spurrier.
On the flipside, Auburn always has the potential to field a good team. Fayetteville is never an easy trip, and on and on. For those who are upset w/ their permanent opp, just give it a year or two.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:39 pm to ukraine_rebel
I would hate losing the UT game, especially since the SEC took the annual Auburn game away from us already.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:41 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I think the most positive things is that this will always put the two teams with the best record in ATL. No team with a 5-3 record in the East playing an 8-0 team from the West while another team from the West is 7-1. That would have settled LSU/BAMA in ATL in 2012 and the winner would have moved on to play the best team the rest of the country could field. The SEC would then still not have a loss in the BCSCG.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:43 pm to ukraine_rebel
I don't understand the "Need" for a student athlete to see every stadium?
It never mattered before. And I'm referencing back when the conference was only 10 teams. We now have 14 and it is more difficult to arrange.
The only game that "needs" to be played is the CCG.
It never mattered before. And I'm referencing back when the conference was only 10 teams. We now have 14 and it is more difficult to arrange.
The only game that "needs" to be played is the CCG.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 2:56 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
Problem with this thinking is that these teams aren't going to stay good forever
I completely agree. Which is why it is so difficult to devise a long term schedule that is considered fair both in the long term and short term. This is true for both the OP's suggestion and the 2 division system.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:05 pm to braindeadboxer
quote:
I think the most positive things is that this will always put the two teams with the best record in ATL. No team with a 5-3 record in the East playing an 8-0 team from the West while another team from the West is 7-1. That would have settled LSU/BAMA in ATL in 2012 and the winner would have moved on to play the best team the rest of the country could field. The SEC would then still not have a loss in the BCSCG.
If this had always been the case, here are a couple of examples of how it might have turned out different.
1993, 1995-98, 2001- UF and UT would have had a rematch
2002: Georgia and Florida
2003: Ole Miss and LSU
2005: Auburn and LSU
2010: Auburn and Arkansas
2011: Could debate inserting Alabama over Georgia.
So a couple of interesting things, one, LSU wouldn't have had a chance to win the SEC in 2001.
USC and MSU would still be looking for their first trip.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 3:06 pm to dbt_Geaux_Tigers_196
I like this much better than going to 9
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News