Started By
Message
re: A&M supports LSU's desire to not play UF every year
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:12 pm to pvilleguru
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:12 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
I don't care what the circumstances are, nothing would make me want to quit playing them.
Oh shut the frick up. You sound like an idiot.
0
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:15 pm to WDE24
quote:
But it had nothing to do with permanent rivals or even them having a tough west schedule. They lost to a bad AU team.
Here is my entire point:
LSU wants to see the schedule changed. In my opinion there are one of two options:
1) Do away entirely with permanent cross division rivals. (This should not happen, IMO because I enjoy the LSU-UF game.)
2) Make only divisional games count toward division standings. That way all the cross-division games are still played, but only divisional matchups count toward who wins the West or East. (This is what I think should happen.) That was why I mentioned A&M this year and USCe a few years ago: losses to out of division SEC teams cost them ATL trips.
That's the gist of all I have said.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:15 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:Remember when Bama was beat 7 years in a row by UT?
Do tell, professor.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:17 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
Here is my entire point:
LSU wants to see the schedule changed. In my opinion there are one of two options:
LSU wants the schedule changed because of its obsession with Bama. However, I think we will go to a 6-1-2 schedule as soon as a ninth game is added. Until then, nothing is going to change.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:18 pm to bgator85
quote:
I have no problem with LSU's complaint about the schedule. I love the game and don't want to see it end, but you can't ignore the imbalance we see year in and year out in SEC schedules. You should not have that much disparity within a conference, and something needs to be done.
That's all LSU is saying! There is a monumental amount of disparity right now and there are options to alleviate some of it. But pointing that out, you get labeled as a "whiny bitch." I want LSU to meet UF every year, it just shouldn't affect UF's standing in the East nor LSU's in the West.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:19 pm to WDE24
quote:
LSU wants the schedule changed because of its obsession with Bama.
You're an idiot. Definition of myopic.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:20 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:Irony. I like it.
You're an idiot. Definition of myopic.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:21 pm to WDE24
quote:
Remember when Bama was beat 7 years in a row by UT?
You mean the same span of years where they finished in the top 10 one year and went unranked several years? Yes, I do. Your analogy needs a little work.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:21 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
You're an idiot. Definition of myopic.
Um, I think it's in the rule book that you should use complete sentences whilst calling WD24 an idiot.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:22 pm to WDE24
quote:
Irony. I like it.
Doesn't compute. I'm talking larger picture, something that affects multiple SEC teams (as has been pointed out.) You're the only one that keeps referring to just Bama.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:24 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
You can't be serious
yes, I'm serious. At the time of the SEC expansion in 92, LSU had winning records against all but two SEC teams. UF, Auburn and UGA were not in those two.
Basically the two strongest teams in the conference since 2000 are locked down with each other. There is really only one reason that other teams don't want to change the schedule, they would all have to play LSU and UF more often.
If you're scared, just say you're scared.
Disclaimer: I actually like playing UF every year, I'm looking forward to regaining the series from them.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:24 pm to ibldprplgld
quote:
2) Make only divisional games count toward division standings. That way all the cross-division games are still played, but only divisional matchups count toward who wins the West or East. (This is what I think should happen.) That was why I mentioned A&M this year and USCe a few years ago: losses to out of division SEC teams cost them ATL trips.
Fricking this. Keep all rivaly and cross division opponents, but only count division wins. Everyone is happy and it makes the most sense.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:24 pm to roadGator
quote:
roadGator
My fragment notwithstanding, the sentiment remains.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:25 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:I wasn't offering an analogy. I was pointing to a fact that undercut your position that Bama fans would be arguing for a change in permanent rivals if UT was a power. Well, there was a time UT was a power and was beating Bama like a drum. Not a single Bama fan was calling to end the permanent rivals.
You mean the same span of years where they finished in the top 10 one year and went unranked several years? Yes, I do. Your analogy needs a little work.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:26 pm to joeytiger
quote:
Fricking this. Keep all rivaly and cross division opponents, but only count division wins. Everyone is happy and it makes the most sense.
Not so fast, my friend. Just wait for the, "well then why should we even have a conference" comments.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:26 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Auburn took on UF and UGA every year while LSU clamored for Kentucky every year.
If you're scared, just say you're scared.
quote:that was part of the reasoning for the permanent cross division rivalries. It had an aspect of parody scheduling involved. Pit the traditional big 6 against each other.
Basically the two strongest teams in the conference since 2000 are locked down with each other.
This post was edited on 5/21/13 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:27 pm to WDE24
quote:
I wasn't offering an analogy. I was pointing to a fact that undercut your position that Bama fans would be arguing for a change in permanent rivals if UT was a power. Well, there was a time UT was a power and was beating Bama like a drum. Not a single Bama fan was calling to end the permanent rivals
And why was that? Because they sucked, notwithstanding losses to Tenn. It was a non-issue.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:28 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
And why was that? Because they sucked, notwithstanding losses to Tenn. It was a non-issue.
So it only matters if both teams are good? You aren't making any sense, but you are proving that this is completely about Bama. 
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
yes, I'm serious. At the time of the SEC expansion in 92, LSU had winning records against all but two SEC teams. UF, Auburn and UGA were not in those two. Basically the two strongest teams in the conference since 2000 are locked down with each other. There is really only one reason that other teams don't want to change the schedule, they would all have to play LSU and UF more often. If you're scared, just say you're scared.
You were serious. That's a great laugh.
You might want to learn a little bit about the other teams before you spout this shite.
Posted on 5/21/13 at 1:30 pm to WDE24
quote:
So it only matters if both teams are good? You aren't making any sense, but you are proving that this is completely about Bama.
Has nothing to do with bama
"lsu is getting hosed in their schedule, hey look at bama's schedule"
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News