Started By
Message
re: American Press: SEC Scheduling conspiracy?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:37 pm to thatguy1892
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:37 pm to thatguy1892
Well, to be fair, LSU observers know better than anyone the issues with the current format. We have the best view in the house of the SEC's scheduling inequities.
People can say whining, scared, babies...whatever they like, and the name-calling has some merit. But name-calling doesn't change the facts. And only an idiot - or someone that merely doesn't know and/or hasn't studied it - would claim that the current SEC scheduling format is fair.
There are solutions. The solutions might require some sacrifice. But any solution that is going to make the conference stronger and give it a stronger foundation in the longrun is worth it IMO.
People can say whining, scared, babies...whatever they like, and the name-calling has some merit. But name-calling doesn't change the facts. And only an idiot - or someone that merely doesn't know and/or hasn't studied it - would claim that the current SEC scheduling format is fair.
There are solutions. The solutions might require some sacrifice. But any solution that is going to make the conference stronger and give it a stronger foundation in the longrun is worth it IMO.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 3:41 pm
5
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:38 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
And only an idiot - or someone that merely doesn't know and/or hasn't studied it - would claim that the current SEC scheduling format is fair.
So you just want to change traditional rivalries every time a program fluctuates up or down? What happens in ten years when/if Florida sucks and Tennessee is back on top again?
Seems to me like these discussions are just an outlet for LSU frustrations over 2011 and 2012.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:41 pm to JPLSU1981
The relevant time period is since 2002, when the SEC dropped two permanent opponents. Since then, no matter how great anyone on here thinks UT is historically, they have been between middling to dumpster fire.
So the argument that football is cyclical, I get that to an extent, but the bottom line is Florida has been elite since 2002, UT hasn't. UT has no SEC titles in that time frame. In its two appearances in the SECCG, it has been ranked 14th and 15th.
So the argument that football is cyclical, I get that to an extent, but the bottom line is Florida has been elite since 2002, UT hasn't. UT has no SEC titles in that time frame. In its two appearances in the SECCG, it has been ranked 14th and 15th.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:42 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
Nah. A blanking in the title game and a soul crusher in your home stadium...shits going alright.
Blee dat.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
What happens in ten years when/if Florida sucks and Tennessee is back on top again?
In the last 25 years, Florida has been up. We keep hearing about this down period. I'm sure it will happen, right?
Also, people act like LSU hasn't made this argument since expansion in 1990. I don't understand TAMU fans to know that piece of history, but many people on this board that supposedly follow SEC football act like the schedule issues haven't been a problem since 1990. LSU has been quite consistent pointing out how this scheme is stupid.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:44 pm to therick711
So what exactly is it you want the conference to do? Have Alabama drop Tennessee for Georgia or South Carolina? Have LSU drop Florida in favor of someone else?
I'm just curious and not trying to be a smart arse.
I'm just curious and not trying to be a smart arse.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:45 pm to RollTide1987
Or maybe we should eliminate cross-division rivalries completely?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:45 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Second, Bama got Missouri in 2012, Vanderbilt and Florida, Florida and USC in 2010 and Kentucky and USC in 2009. Thow in playing Tennessee every year and Georgia in the title game last year, and that's all seven East teams with Kentucky being the most distant matchup. It is hardly without reason they are playing them this year. It's not like they played them in 2011 and are getting them again.
UGA was on bama's schedule in 2012 until expansion happened and they suddenly disappeared. one would reason they would show back up in 2013 but instead UGA went to LSU.
There is zero explanation for that.
And playing uGA in the championship game has zero bearing on scheduling. You are the second person to mention that. I almost hope that wasnt a serious point.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:46 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
So what exactly is it you want the conference to do? Have Alabama drop Tennessee for Georgia or South Carolina? Have LSU drop Florida in favor of someone else?
I'm just curious and not trying to be a smart arse.
I could give you plenty of suggestions. My favorite is do two divisions because we have to, an upper and lower league with relegation. Best teams play the best, based on previous year record. Not perfect, but better than the random hat we have going on now.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:48 pm to RollTide1987
There are multiple solutions (some of which better than others, some that can be used in conjunction with another on the list):
1. The Spurrier/Miles plan: Only division games count in the standings toward division championships
2. Do away with permanent opponents, make it completely rotational.
3. Add a 9th conference game
4. Change the divisional set up in the SEC
5. If Bama-UT and UGA-Auburn want to play annually, that is fine, but when it's not part of the roation then it is an OOC game.
plenty of others, but those are a few of the proposed changes.
1. The Spurrier/Miles plan: Only division games count in the standings toward division championships
2. Do away with permanent opponents, make it completely rotational.
3. Add a 9th conference game
4. Change the divisional set up in the SEC
5. If Bama-UT and UGA-Auburn want to play annually, that is fine, but when it's not part of the roation then it is an OOC game.
plenty of others, but those are a few of the proposed changes.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:48 pm to therick711
That will never happen because it would reduce the chances of an SEC team making it to the national championship. Best-on-best sounds good on paper but schools want that BCS money.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:49 pm to therick711
quote:
In the last 25 years, Florida has been up. We keep hearing about this down period. I'm sure it will happen, right?
8 of Florida's last 25 seasons ended with five or more losses. I know they've been strong, but you exaggerate. Meanwhile, from 1974 to 1998 7 of Tennessee's ended with five or more losses. I'm sure in 1998, Bama fans were asking when it was going to end.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:49 pm to JPLSU1981
Did you write what you linked?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:50 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That will never happen because it would reduce the chances of an SEC team making it to the national championship. Best-on-best sounds good on paper but schools want that BCS money.
That's fine, but doesn't that really mean Alabama is scared and a bunch of babies that don't think they can beat the best? J/K
That is what people say when LSU fans point out the schedule. How is you being opposed because it will be hard any different?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:50 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
1. The Spurrier/Miles plan: Only division games count in the standings toward division championships
I wouldn't mind seeing this but such a provision wouldn't have changed any of the results in 2011 or 2012.
quote:
2. Do away with permanent opponents, make it completely rotational.
Will never happen. Old money at Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, and Alabama would not allow it.
quote:
3. Add a 9th conference game
This will eventually happen anyway.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:51 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
8 of Florida's last 25 seasons ended with five or more losses. I know they've been strong, but you exaggerate. Meanwhile, from 1974 to 1998 7 of Tennessee's ended with five or more losses. I'm sure in 1998, Bama fans were asking when it was going to end.
do you have any idea of when the sec expanded to 12 teams?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I wouldn't mind seeing this but such a provision wouldn't have changed any of the results in 2011 or 2012.
It most certainly would have in 2011.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:52 pm to therick711
quote:
That is what people say when LSU fans point out the schedule. How is you being opposed because it will be hard any different?
I'm opposed to any plan that keeps Alabama from playing Tennessee every year. I'm pretty sure Tennessee, Georgia, and Auburn fans feel similarly.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:52 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
But any solution that is going to make the conference stronger and give it a stronger foundation in the longrun is worth it IMO.
Oh right it's about the conference.
Lots of mad in this thread. Hilarious imo.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:53 pm to therick711
quote:
Also, people act like LSU hasn't made this argument since expansion in 1990. I don't understand TAMU fans to know that piece of history, but many people on this board that supposedly follow SEC football act like the schedule issues haven't been a problem since 1990. LSU has been quite consistent pointing out how this scheme is stupid.
I don't know how long you've been complaining about it. What I do know is that you dropped A&M after the 1995 season because you were tired of an automatic loss in OOC play every year and to this day have refused to pay what you owe us. You'll have to forgive me for not taking the "woe is us" cry from you guys seriously. You base your opinions on current predicament and always have.
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News