Started By
Message
2
Posted on 1/19/24 at 5:17 pm to southernboisb
Many people cite the “unfairness” of having traditional powers as their permanent opponents. In particular, that was the argument by Alabama.
But the thing is that in a 9-game schedule, the permanent opponents are only 1/3rd of the schedule.
However let’s say there’s a demarcation between TOP 8 and BOTTOM 8. If Alabama has 3 TOP 8 teams as permanents, and they themselves are a TOP 8 team, then there are 4 TOP 8 and 8 BOTTOM 8 teams to choose for their other 6 opponents. If those are divided up evenly, they would have 5 TOP 8 opponents and 4 BOTTOM 8 opponents each year.
Now, consider LSU, who are said to have 2 TOP 8 and 1 BOTTOM 8 team as permanents. This leaves 5 TOP 8 and 7 BOTTOM 8 for rotating. One year they would get 2 TOP and 4 BOT and the other year they would get 3 TOP and 3 BOT to round out their schedules, so they would end with 4 TOP 8/5 BOT 8 one year and 5 TOP 8/4 BOT 8 the next.
So hardly the huge disadvantage that it’s been made out to be. When you consider the rise and fall of programs through the years, sometimes a bottom 8 team may be a tougher opponent than a top 8 team (looking at you, Tennessee).
But the thing is that in a 9-game schedule, the permanent opponents are only 1/3rd of the schedule.
However let’s say there’s a demarcation between TOP 8 and BOTTOM 8. If Alabama has 3 TOP 8 teams as permanents, and they themselves are a TOP 8 team, then there are 4 TOP 8 and 8 BOTTOM 8 teams to choose for their other 6 opponents. If those are divided up evenly, they would have 5 TOP 8 opponents and 4 BOTTOM 8 opponents each year.
Now, consider LSU, who are said to have 2 TOP 8 and 1 BOTTOM 8 team as permanents. This leaves 5 TOP 8 and 7 BOTTOM 8 for rotating. One year they would get 2 TOP and 4 BOT and the other year they would get 3 TOP and 3 BOT to round out their schedules, so they would end with 4 TOP 8/5 BOT 8 one year and 5 TOP 8/4 BOT 8 the next.
So hardly the huge disadvantage that it’s been made out to be. When you consider the rise and fall of programs through the years, sometimes a bottom 8 team may be a tougher opponent than a top 8 team (looking at you, Tennessee).
Posted on 1/19/24 at 5:36 pm to southernboisb
quote:
Let me go ahead & ask it:
In your opinion, is it BETTER to go to 9 games?
Or does it not matter since the challenges faced with 8 or 9 games?
It depends.
9 games would definitely be harder than 8 games.. but I would much rather watch that 9th game than play Scrub U and beat them by 40 points every year.
That being said, if I am in playoff contention, and I have a 25% chance of losing that 9th game vs a 1% chance of losing that game against Scrub U.. that would suck pretty bad to miss the playoffs because of it.. but it would also mean my team isn't as good as I thought they were.
Ultimately, I would rather play 10 SEC games each year and 1 B1G OOC game and 1 warm up game. But that's me and I would rather play good competition every week. My team will either be up to the challenge or they will have to get better. Making the playoffs because of a weak schedule would imply that I'm going to get my arse taken to the cleaners once I get there.. and that defeats the purpose.
I want National Championships. You have to make the playoffs in order to do that, but you also have to have a pretty damn good team once you get there.
Give me as many good games as possible.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News