Started By
Message
re: Being Discussed.. New Divisions...
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:06 pm to Tiger Authority
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:06 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:Why is that the issue? Are we going to start giving out conference championships based on decade performance?
But not over the long-term, which is the issue.
quote:Which is why the SEC has the traditional powers playing each other and the traditional doormats. It isn't arbitrary, it is designed toward scheduling equality more so than a 6-2 rotation.
But having some teams play shitty teams and others always playing non-shitty teams is not equal.
This post was edited on 5/31/12 at 4:09 pm
2
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:07 pm to WDE24
As long as we still play UGA and FSU every year, idgaf.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:08 pm to mgmbamafan
quote:
SEC EAST - Auburn, Alabama, UGA, Tenn, Florida, S. Carolina, Kentucky. WEST - TAMU, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole MIss, Miss State, Vandy
Switch UK & USCe and that would ok; but The East would be Tougher by a large margin.
I'm thinking that when the SEC goes to 16 teams there will be 4 divisions. So this all moot.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:08 pm to WDE24
WDE I get what you are trying to say, but I have to interject. You are trying to school someone on "inequity" and "arbitrary" while you are misusing the term "equality" when you actually mean "equity." Since, I'm a grammar nerd, I just wanted to see if we could clear that up. You think PDOs represent an attempt at equity. Equality would be everyone played the same schedule, which, unfortunately, cannot be done.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:08 pm to WDE24
quote:
Why is that the issue? Are we going to start giving out conference championships based on decade performance?
Because we don't know a given schedule under a 6-2 rotation. Sometimes it will work for you, sometimes it won't, but over time, everyone is playing everyone on the other side the same amount. The fact everyone is playing the same teams over the long-term in the other division is fair to all teams in that division. Unlike the structure now where it's inherently unequal on it's face.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:09 pm to therick711
quote:Point taken.
You are trying to school someone on "inequity" and "arbitrary" while you are misusing the term "equality" when you actually mean "equity."
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:10 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Why did LSU sign up to play Florida every year to begin with?
We didn't, we signed up for Florida and Kentucky, just like Bama signed up for UT and Vandy.
LSU has been playing Florida every year since the 1950s with the exception of about two years in 1969 and 1970. I love that we play Florida. I wish we could play them every year and still get to play the other East teams with reasonable frequency the way we have been since 2002. But the only way to do that would be to go to 9 games and it seems we aren't going to do that. So, the choice is either to play Florida every year and practically never play anyone else in the East, or play everyone in the East as often as possible, including Florida. For some reason, the latter is a sign of fear to some idiots.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:10 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
Switch UK & USCe and that would ok; but The East would be Tougher by a large margin.
I'm thinking that when the SEC goes to 16 teams there will be 4 divisions. So this all moot.
Y'all will be okay with UGA, AU, Tenn, and Bama in a four team division? It's the only way I see it working for everyone such that you keep your "rivalries" if we expand further.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:12 pm to WDE24
quote:
Simply because the schedule is more random doesn't mean it is more equitable
I agree with this.
If equity were the only goal, then you'd throw out the divisions and rivalries and just use the previous year's records to determine this year's schedule similar to how the NFL works.
Alabama and LSU would get the toughest conference schedule.
Ole Miss would get the easiest schedule.
That would be "fair".
I think we can all agree that will never EVER happen so we're just arguing over what level of inequity we can tolerate.
And it makes sense that the "Big 6" all play one another every year. Even if Tennessee isn't currently holding up their part of the bargain. But the UT/UA rivalry has always been streaky. Bama got rolled pretty regularly during the Fulmer years. Vols won't stay down forever. Any more than LSU did after 6 horrible years under Archer/Hallman.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:12 pm to crimsonsaint
quote:
Dude the OP's divisions are so fricking lopsided it ain't even funny.
So?
What's wrong with unbalanced divisions? Tradition is all that matters. Who cares if one division is easier than the other? Rivalries stay intact, so everything is fine.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:12 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:A 6-2 is not only still inherently unequal, it leads to greater disparity on an annual basis. Since season are played and Championships won on an annual basis, the point should be to attempt to come up with a system that is better on an annual basis.
Unlike the structure now where it's inherently unequal on it's face.
Is anyone really concerned that Ole Miss get s KY while AU has to play UGA? No.
This system now works much better than a 6-2 would work. Sure, LSU has had a slightly tougher schedule than Bama in conference with UT being down, but Ole Miss doesn't benefit because they have to play LSU while LSU gets to play Ole Miss.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:13 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
What's wrong with unbalanced divisions? Tradition is all that matters. Who cares if one division is easier than the other? Rivalries stay intact, so everything is fine.
Pretty clear they're all hypocrites.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:13 pm to WDE24
Holy crap, someone conceded a point on the internet.
You sir, are a gentleman.
You sir, are a gentleman.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:13 pm to Tiger Authority
Go back to 10 teams (give the boot to the 4 newest members). Everyone plays each other. Problem solved! 
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:15 pm to WDE24
quote:
Is anyone really concerned that Ole Miss get s KY while AU has to play UGA? No.
They get Vandy, and yes, it's bullshite.
quote:
A 6-2 is not only still inherently unequal, it leads to greater disparity on an annual basis. Since season are played and Championships won on an annual basis, the point should be to attempt to come up with a system that is better on an annual basis.
How so? You could just as easily have a year where you don't play those teams because it's a rotating basis. Over a 12 year period, every team would have played every team on the other side the same amount. That's fair.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:15 pm to USMC Gators
quote:We should probably keep Arkansas and boot LSU since they don't won't the tough schedule.
Go back to 10 teams (give the boot to the 4 newest members). Everyone plays each other. Problem solved!
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:15 pm to WDE24
quote:
We should probably keep Arkansas and boot LSU since they don't won't the tough schedule.
Good one dude.
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:16 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
We should probably keep Arkansas and boot LSU since they don't won't the tough schedule.
Good one dude.
:fakerivalry: :goldenboot:
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:16 pm to WDE24
quote:
We should probably keep Arkansas and boot LSU since they don't won't the tough schedule.
LSU Longhorn Network
Posted on 5/31/12 at 4:17 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:Who the frick cares what happens over a 12 year period?
Over a 12 year period
What happens annually is all that matters.
Even Auburn fans haven't been this arbitrary in arguing that its schedule over the last 12 years is harder than Bama's and we will use any kind of arbitrary date range to show superiority over Bama.
Page 8 of 27
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News