Started By
Message
re: American Press: SEC Scheduling conspiracy?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:53 pm to therick711
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:53 pm to therick711
quote:
It most certainly would have in 2011.
How? LSU would have still gone to the SEC Championship, crushed Georgia, and would have played Alabama in the BCS National Championship. Division record would not have been factored into the BCS standings.
1
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:53 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
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.
Well that's great. I'm sure if they are polling individuals on deal breakers we can never find a schedule that works. Thankfully that isn't how it happens.
The other plan would be to move arkansas to the east and move UT to the west. Tell Auburn and Georgia to stick it.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:53 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
How? LSU would have still gone to the SEC Championship, crushed Georgia, and would have played Alabama in the BCS National Championship. Division record would not have been factored into the BCS standings.
Because LSU would have played USCe, which is the whole point of the plan, el hombre grande.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:54 pm to therick711
quote:
Because LSU would have played USCe, which is the whole point of the plan, el hombre grande.
Oh…I had forgotten that Georgia lost to South Carolina. I don't know why because it happens every year.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:55 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
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.
So don't post in the thread. Its obvious you don't know anything about it, and if you don't think you can add anything, hit the bricks. We won't miss you.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:55 pm to JPLSU1981
Yeah, it's a conspiracy against LSU who got to play Kentucky in 2007. How'd that game go?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:56 pm to therick711
right. its proven he doesnt know what he's talking about so he just changes topics to the lsu/a&m scheduling debate.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:56 pm to therick711
quote:
Well that's great. I'm sure if they are polling individuals on deal breakers we can never find a schedule that works. Thankfully that isn't how it happens.
But there are a lot of people in positions of power who feel the exact same way. Officials at Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, and Alabama would do anything they could to keep those two rivalries. Perhaps you could switch around the teams in the divisions. That's about it.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:57 pm to PepaSpray
quote:
Yeah, it's a conspiracy against LSU who got to play Kentucky in 2007. How'd that game go?
To be fair, Kentucky was actually semi-decent in 2007.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:57 pm to bbap
quote:
do you have any idea of when the sec expanded to 12 teams?
1991, why does it matter? The principle behind my post is unchanged. I'm sure LSU fans will point t the timelines and say Tennessee's good run didnt effect Bama as much as Florida's has them, but then that just reinforces my point now doesnt it?
The point is that LSU fans are picking and choosing things to suit their argument, likely because they are butthurt over Bama's success the last two years.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:57 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
To be fair, Kentucky was actually semi-decent in 2007.
LSU doesn't want to play Kentucky. We don't have a very good record in Lexington.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
1991, why does it matter? The principle behind my post is unchanged. I'm sure LSU fans will point t the timelines and say Tennessee's good run didnt effect Bama as much as Florida's has them, but then that just reinforces my point now doesnt it?
The point is that LSU fans are picking and choosing things to suit their argument, likely because they are butthurt over Bama's success the last two years.
No the point is you didn't follow it and you don't understand it. We had two permanent opponents in up until 2002. Your argument is a waste of time to even respond to. Seriously, you don't know anything about it, why are you in this thread?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The point is that LSU fans are picking and choosing things to suit their argument, likely because they are butthurt over Bama's success the last two years.
winner!
Posted on 2/13/13 at 3:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
1991, why does it matter?
it matters because you just compared two 25 year stretches to each other under completely different scheduling formats. thats why it matters.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
Bama just played the Gators in 2010 and 2011. It just so happened Florida was a dumpster fire those two years. Thems the breaks.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:01 pm to therick711
quote:
No the point is you didn't follow it and you don't understand it. We had two permanent opponents in up until 2002. Your argument is a waste of time to even respond to. Seriously, you don't know anything about it, why are you in this thread?
i will never go try and speak intelligently on the scheduling habits of the big 12 over the past 25 years because well... i know i would end up saying something to show my ignorance on the topic.
clearly this guy does not have that same feeling.
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:01 pm to bbap
quote:
it matters because you just compared two 25 year stretches to each other under completely different scheduling formats. thats why it matters.
B, can you go start a Sirr Parker thread so he will have something to do and quit posting irrelevant things in this one?
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
you are also failing to grasp that the last two years were not part of a rotation. they were bridge schedules. to make them that one sided in both years cannot be explained by anyone on here. you cant.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:04 pm to therick711
quote:
No the point is you didn't follow it and you don't understand it. We had two permanent opponents in up until 2002. Your argument is a waste of time to even respond to. Seriously, you don't know anything about it, why are you in this thread?
He didnt ask when you went to one common opponent, he asked when the SEC expanded to 12 teams. Had he asked when you went to one opponent, I would have responded accordingly and still insisted it doesnt matter.
Do try and keep up.
This post was edited on 2/13/13 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 2/13/13 at 4:05 pm to Roger Klarvin
you are right. you actually compared 3 separate scheduling formats between each 25 year period. makes it even worse.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News