Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/15/13 at 12:59 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
How is it going Scooter? How did you get the name Scooter btw?
Unlike some, I won't pretend to be someone I'm not.
I do know him, but it does not affect my judgement when critiquing writers.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:12 pm to 167back
quote:
More than a few occassions the bare won league titles because of one more win than #2 eventhough they both had one loss. A 6-1 record is better than 5-1.
No. Wrong.
Only time this happened was in 1972. Bama went 7-1 and Auburn went 6-1. But also in that year Auburn played more games than LSU, UT, and VANDY. The previous year, MSST had the 8 SEC games and Bama had 7.
And in 1969, Bama played 6 SEC games and Auburn played 7. Coincidentally, UT won the SEC that year. UT went 5-1 and LSU went 4-1. UT named SEC champs.
However, one year the extra game actually cost Bama the SEC title. 1976, Bama went 5-2. UGA went 5-1. UGA named SEC champ.
1978 was the 1st season where every school had a set 6 game SEC schedule.
Basically, there was no conspiracy. Only thing there was were people trying to explain Bear's total domination over them with excuses.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:32 pm to wahoocs
quote:
Why would any SEC team outside of Auburn even consider wasting their bye week before Bama?
Well, let's see.
LSU did it in 2012.
Oh yes, and they did it in 2011.
Wait, wait! It gets better! They did it in 2010.
Well, they played a gut-wrenching game against Tulane the week before the Alabama game in 2009, so we have to give them credit there. A little 42-0 tuneup to get the tiger blood flowing.
Another game against a powerhouse Tulane team the week prior to 'Bama in '08.
I'm not going any further back. Your post is laughable.
BONUS: Guess who LSU has a bye week prior to playing this coming season for the fourth consecutive year?
This post was edited on 2/15/13 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:36 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:
However, one year the extra game actually cost Bama the SEC title. 1976, Bama went 5-2. UGA went 5-1. UGA named SEC champ
Off the topic of the thread, but I would say when teams share the same number of losses, there is a legitimate gripe, not in this case.
Obviously, there has been an evolution of scheduling and determining champions in all of college football over the years, and many legitimate arguments about fairness and equality.
The SEC is no different. But, with everything trending better on the national scene, it's tough to see the SEC take a step backwards.
It took them only one season to correct the bye issues for Bama, yet we still don't even have a schedule for 2014, after the atrocities of the bridge schedules for 2012 and 2013.
I've never liked playing Arkansas on the Friday after Thanksgiving, and was glad when the Iron Bowl was moved to that day. Well, guess what? Saban didn't like it either. How long did it take to fix that?
The SEC has lost me as a supporter. I will always be true to my alma mater, it's a family thing. I once felt that way about this conference, but I've defended it for the last time.
It's priorities have become so transparent that I can't ignore.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:38 pm to cyde
Reading comprehension.
Try it.
Your response should be embarrassing once you go back and read my entire response.
Try it.
Your response should be embarrassing once you go back and read my entire response.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:39 pm to wahoocs
quote:
I've never liked playing Arkansas on the Friday after Thanksgiving, and was glad when the Iron Bowl was moved to that day. Well, guess what? Saban didn't like it either. How long did it take to fix that?
it wasnt Saban, it was TV contracts, but go ahead and
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:40 pm to wahoocs
quote:
Your response should be embarrassing once you go back and read my entire response
I responded to the part I quoted.
One might even say I cherry picked your post and responded to the part I wanted to.
This post was edited on 2/15/13 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:42 pm to cyde
quote:
One might even say I cherry picked your post and responded to the part I wanted to.
Now that's a response I can share a drink to.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:44 pm to wahoocs
quote:
Now that's a response I can share a drink to.
Well, I'm just doing what everyone else has done with the facts ever since this stupid debate started months ago.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:49 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
it wasnt Saban, it was TV contracts, but go ahead and
The Iron Bowl is a better draw than LSU vs Arkansas.
The Friday after Thanksgiving game selection obviously can be determined by more than the network.
The network will ALWAYS choose the better draw.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 1:57 pm to cyde
quote:
Well, I'm just doing what everyone else has done with the facts ever since this stupid debate started months ago
I agree that's it's stupid.
It should have been blatantly obvious to everyone associated with its creation.
There is no debate. Everything I've responded to in this thread is purely a means for me to express why I've cancelled all travel associated with SEC football for next year.
I'm actually going to the Notre Dame vs. Michigan game instead.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:01 pm to wahoocs
quote:
after the atrocities of the bridge schedules for 2012 and 2013
All LSU had to do was beat Bama at home and then it would have been LSU playing ND for the BCSNC this year.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:01 pm to wahoocs
quote:
The Iron Bowl is a better draw than LSU vs Arkansas.
quite true
quote:
The Friday after Thanksgiving game selection obviously can be determined by more than the network.
quote:
The network will ALWAYS choose the better draw.
if the schools allow it. the contract was up, UA/AU decided not to renew because, get this..........
wait for it.......
soon......
Auburn and Alabama alumni voiced they did not want it, so the schools moved it back to saturday. not because of lil nicky
While we are talking about this weekend, the rest of the SEC bitched and moaned about the iron bowl being played before thanksgiving, so we were forced to move it because of the rest of the SEC, despite AU/UA's wishes. So I guess you can only blame yourselves for the iron bowl being played on the saturday after thanksgiving
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:03 pm to wahoocs
quote:
but I would say when teams share the same number of losses, there is a legitimate gripe, not in this case.
But, on the other hand, teams that played more games also had more opportunities to lose. And going 7-0 vs. going 6-0 was not any different in terms of winning the SEC back then. Only thing is the team with 7 games took 1 additional unnecessary risk of losing.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:05 pm to NYCAuburn
"why did they only go back to last year? hmmm, who did LSU play the years before that?"
I know Florida for sure, honestly who gives a shite. How many of these threads do we need to have. Have the schedules been un-even the last couple years, yes, will they be un-even next year, yes. It doesn't mean that Alabama would have lost a game or two had they played other East teams. Hell, they played Georgia last year and beat them. It does not matter who you play, if you win the games you need to and get to Atlanta you are in. It's simple, if you want to bitch about something you should start with Bama getting a rematch based on the "eye test." Schedules will even out after the bridge schedules and hopefully Tenn will find a pulse then all will be fair again.
I know Florida for sure, honestly who gives a shite. How many of these threads do we need to have. Have the schedules been un-even the last couple years, yes, will they be un-even next year, yes. It doesn't mean that Alabama would have lost a game or two had they played other East teams. Hell, they played Georgia last year and beat them. It does not matter who you play, if you win the games you need to and get to Atlanta you are in. It's simple, if you want to bitch about something you should start with Bama getting a rematch based on the "eye test." Schedules will even out after the bridge schedules and hopefully Tenn will find a pulse then all will be fair again.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:15 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:
All LSU had to do was beat Bama at home and then it would have been LSU playing ND for the BCSNC this year.
Probably. But that would not have meant that the scheduling was fair, just that we overcame a tougher schedule.
This post was edited on 2/15/13 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:19 pm to 167back
quote:
More than a few occassions the bare won league titles because of one more win than #2 eventhough they both had one loss. A 6-1 record is better than 5-1.
Of the 13 SEC titles Bryant won at Alabama, this only happened three times.
1961 - Alabama finished their SEC schedule with a 7-0 record while LSU finished with a 6-0 record. Alabama finished 11-0 and #1 so that trumps LSU (10-1, #3/#4).
1965 - Alabama finished their SEC schedule with a 6-1-1 record while Auburn finished with a 4-1-1 record. They lost to Alabama in a head-to-head match-up, however, and Alabama finished the season as AP national champions.
1972 - We already know about 1972. Alabama and Auburn finished with one loss in their SEC schedule, with Alabama losing the head-to-head with Auburn, but Alabama wins the SEC because they played one extra game.
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
1961 - Alabama finished their SEC schedule with a 7-0 record while LSU finished with a 6-0 record. Alabama finished 11-0 and #1 so that trumps LSU (10-1, #3/#4).
Actually Bama and LSU were co-SEC champions in 1961.
Like I said, the extra game in some cases meant the team with more games was simply taking on more risk than the team with less games due to the fact that going undefeated = SEC title anyways
Posted on 2/15/13 at 2:36 pm to FlukerFlakes
quote:
But, on the other hand, teams that played more games also had more opportunities to lose
And teams that play a tougher schedule stand to lose more.
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News