quote:
Let's use LSU as an example:

2006: Tennessee, UK
2007: UK, USC
2008: USC, UGA
2009: UGA, Vandy

So in '12, with no expansion, LSU would've played UK and USC. We switched from a 5-1-2 format to a 6-1-1 format, meaning there's only room on the schedule for either UK or USC. If they were to play UK, then they would fail to play a different East opponent than they played in '11. This is not desirable when we're trying to rotate thru more teams while maintaining the same number of conference games. So, LSU dropped the 2nd half of it's home-and-home with UK and played USC which it had last played in '08.

Ok, now we've hit the central issue. You are correct that with the addition of A&M to the West, LSU had to drop one of the '12 rotating East opponents it was supposed to play had there been no expansion (UK or USC).

You say the desirable thing is to have LSU not complete the series w/ UK and play the "new team" from '07, USC, in order to get thru as many opponents as possible. On the surface this makes sense, but when you actually draw it up it ends up creating long gaps between inter-divisional opponents when teams had to drop a "due" opponent for one of the expansion teams.

In short, it would've made more sense for everyone to complete the series they started in '11, with expansion adjustments as needed. In that case, Bama in '12 trades out Vandy for Mizzou. No problem losing Vandy on the schedule since they just played them in '11. The method the SEC used trades out UGA for Mizzou - uh oh, big problem, Bama hasn't played them since '08 and may not play them until '14 or '15. The SEC method created these 6 and 7 year gaps for Bama-UGA and also UF-Ole Miss.

This is what they should have done in '12 (allowing all teams to complete the cross-division series they started in '11, plus making the expansion adjustments):
MSU - SC
OM - UGA
Aub - Van
Ark - Ten
Bama - Mizzou
LSU - UK
TAMU - UF

Again, Bama had to trade out Vandy but no problem since they just played in '11. And UF had to trade out Auburn but no problem since they just played in '11.

Then in '13 you play the team that was supposed to rotate on next:
MSU - Ten
OM - UF
Aub - Mizzou
Ark - UK
Bama - UGA
LSU - SC
TAMU - Van

This post was edited on 7/28/13 at 1:06 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by sarc

Member since Mar 2011

9997 posts

Posted on 7/28/13 at 10:28 am to RidiculousHype

quote:
The method the SEC used trades out UGA for Mizzou - uh oh, big problem, Bama hasn't played them since '08 and may not play them until '14 or '15. The SEC method created these 6 and 7 year gaps for Bama-UGA and also UF-Ole Miss.

That's true and that is a negative but there's no perfect system. Using the method you propose, 8 teams would fail to play a different cross-division opponent in '12 than the the ones they played the year before. That's not ideal either.

Also, consider that with your method we're going to run into the same gap issue in '14. Using your '13 schedule, A&M plays Vandy and Mizzou plays Auburn even though Auburn and Vandy are due to play one another. Meaning that there will be a 6+ year gap in that series.

Now, you might say that that can be addressed/corrected in the long term schedule that will start in '14 (hopefully) so that Auburn and Vandy play sooner rather than later. Well, the same can be done with Bama/UGA and Florida/Ole Miss. Also, consider that the original plan was for there to only be 1 bridge year ('12) with the long term schedule starting in '13 so it may well be that the schedule designers had planned on being able to address the skipped games a year earlier than how it actually turned out.

0 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board