Started By
Message
re: Bridge Schedules explained
Posted on 5/29/13 at 8:22 pm to Nuts4LSU
Posted on 5/29/13 at 8:22 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
while LSU gets easily and by far the dominant program in the SEC East every year. Keep the permanent opponents and just count division records in the standings, and then it'll be fair, or at least less unfair.
Or let LSU (and any other team that chooses) drop its permanent cross-division game
0
Posted on 5/29/13 at 8:27 pm to sarc
quote:
Sure, after all, the only thing that matters apparently is UGA playing Bama. Doesn't matter how much the schedule gets contorted as long as that game is/was played.
You really think it was impossible to center the rotation around someone other than Alabama don't you? That if someone plays someone out of turn, it is perfectly fair for it to be LSU, not Alabama, don't you? You really don't think the SEC offices could have scheduled Alabama/Georgia this year? You really, truly, believe that wasn't an option, don't you?
Posted on 5/29/13 at 8:42 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
You really think it was impossible to center the rotation around someone other than Alabama don't you?
No but unlike you I recognize that there are other motives for selecting Bama to play Mizzou other than "Bama cheating"
quote:
That if someone plays someone out of turn, it is perfectly fair for it to be LSU, not Alabama, don't you
You do realize that not just Bama played someone out of turn, correct?
quote:
You really don't think the SEC offices could have scheduled Alabama/Georgia this year? You really, truly, believe that wasn't an option, don't you?
Go back and read the whole thread. I've stated it was an option. Keeping all the teams at the same point in the old rotation was also option and that's the one that was chosen.
Now it's my turn to ask you a question. You honestly believe that Bama manipulated the entire conference schedule as opposed to perfectly reasonable alternate possibilities that don't rely on paranoia?
Posted on 5/29/13 at 8:56 pm to sarc
quote:
Now it's my turn to ask you a question. You honestly believe that Bama manipulated the entire conference schedule as opposed to perfectly reasonable alternate possibilities that don't rely on paranoia?
Absolutely. And the alternative wasn't reasonable at all, no matter how many time you claim it. There was no reason Alabama had to play at Mizzou as some sort of "amazing cross division home opener". LSU, or preferably Arkansas could have done that, and you wouldn't have been given this ridiculous inequity, especially division home games, which is absolutely ludicrous, given the recent history of LSU/Alabama, the division tie breaker should have never had such a bias towards the Crimson Tide. Any reasonable person would know that LSU/Bama is more important than Alabama HAVING TO PLAY @ Mizzou. I think Alabama gladly offered to play at Mizzou once Alabama @ A&M and Georgia @ Mizzou was presented, and offered their own alternative. They didn't like the original plan, and would have had to play Georgia. Saban saw the schedule, knew UT was good to go, and with only one other SEC East slot up for grabs and wanted to play Mizzou instead of Georgia. Simple. As. That.
Again. You have no reasonable alternative. Alabama HAVING to play at Mizzou isn't reasonable. That is stupid. Absolutely stupid.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:29 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
There was no reason Alabama had to play at Mizzou as some sort of "amazing cross division home opener". LSU, or preferably Arkansas could have done that
We're going round and round. LSU or Arkansas would've been a perfectly good match, but Bama was the bigger, better match. The SEC Office chose to go with bigger and better over good.
quote:
you wouldn't have been given this ridiculous inequity, especially division home games, which is absolutely ludicrous
If it was such a ridiculous inequity as you claim, how come no one from any program complained about it to the SEC or tried to have it changed? You are the only one has a problem with it as far as I can tell.
quote:
I think Alabama gladly offered to play at Mizzou once Alabama @ A&M and Georgia @ Mizzou was presented, and offered their own alternative.
So you think Alabama offered and the SEC took Bama up on its offer, but it is completely unreasonable to think that the SEC came up with the idea on its own? Brilliant.
quote:
They didn't like the original plan, and would have had to play Georgia. Saban saw the schedule, knew UT was good to go, and with only one other SEC East slot up for grabs and wanted to play Mizzou instead of Georgia. Simple. As. That
It's great you believe this but since you are the one making allegations the burden is on you to provide some proof, any proof, to support it. And I'm sorry, but the fact that Bama benefited is not proof. If that's all you got, then you could make an equally strong case that Ole Miss is the one that suggested the schedule so they could avoid playing UF.
quote:
You have no reasonable alternative. Alabama HAVING to play at Mizzou isn't reasonable. That is stupid. Absolutely stupid
The SEC wanting Mizzou to play Bama isn't unreasonable. If you don't believe me, go back and read the post by your fellow A&M fan on the 1st page of this thread. It's what the SEC Office wanted, and big surprise, that's what the SEC Office did. Simple. As. That.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:37 pm to sarc
quote:
We're going round and round. LSU or Arkansas would've been a perfectly good match, but Bama was the bigger, better match. The SEC Office chose to go with bigger and better over good.
And Florida was chosen instead of Georgia or South Carolina? So "bigger, better" but only for Mizzou?
quote:
f it was such a ridiculous inequity as you claim, how come no one from any program complained about it to the SEC or tried to have it changed? You are the only one has a problem with it as far as I can tell.
How do you know they didn't?
quote:
So you think Alabama offered and the SEC took Bama up on its offer, but it is completely unreasonable to think that the SEC came up with the idea on its own? Brilliant.
Or it was masterminded in Alabama's favor straight from the beginning. I'm giving the SEC offices more credit than that.
quote:
It's great you believe this but since you are the one making allegations the burden is on you to provide some proof, any proof, to support it. And I'm sorry, but the fact that Bama benefited is not proof. If that's all you got, then you could make an equally strong case that Ole Miss is the one that suggested the schedule so they could avoid playing UF.
The fact that Alabama benefited? So you're finally admitting the schedule was unfair in Alabama, and only Alabama's favor?
quote:
The SEC wanting Mizzou to play Bama isn't unreasonable. If you don't believe me, go back and read the post by your fellow A&M fan on the 1st page of this thread. It's what the SEC Office wanted, and big surprise, that's what the SEC Office did. Simple. As. That.
It absolutely is, given what had to be done for it. It makes absolutely no sense. Alabama isn't the only historic program in the SEC. They were not the only option for Mizzou. It is asinine to believe so.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:47 pm to TeLeFaWx
I just want one practical reason for keeping a 6-1-1 schedule.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:52 pm to TeLeFaWx
FACT: Bama got preferential treatment with the bridge schedules.
You can argue why all you want, but you can't argue Bama could have picked softer bridge schedules if they were given the job to hand pick the schedules themselves for 2011 and 2012.
FACT: LSU got the toughest schedules possible.
You can argue why, but you can't argue Bama could have picked harder and tougher bridge schedules than what LSU got in both 2012 and 2013.
You can argue why all you want, but you can't argue Bama could have picked softer bridge schedules if they were given the job to hand pick the schedules themselves for 2011 and 2012.
FACT: LSU got the toughest schedules possible.
You can argue why, but you can't argue Bama could have picked harder and tougher bridge schedules than what LSU got in both 2012 and 2013.
This post was edited on 5/29/13 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:57 pm to Golfer
IMO Slive looks big picture. Assuming that he's in good shape. He has an SEC team in the NC every year and winning is even better. Where is the incentive to rock that boat? Only thing better is a 2011 scenario. Things may change in the future with either out of necessity or media scrutiny. Bama has been the fortunate and LSU has not, simple as that. LSU could easily have 1-2 more titles but the stars have aligned for Bama recently and they've taken advantage of it.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 9:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
And Florida was chosen instead of Georgia or South Carolina? So "bigger, better" but only for Mizzou?
UGA and USC were coming off better seasons, but the shine from UF's recent NC's hadn't worn off yet. Can you honestly tell me as a A&M fan that you would've been more excited to see UGA or USC on your schedule than UF going into the '12 season?
quote:
How do you know they didn't?
The same way you know that Bama had the schedule changed.
quote:
So you're finally admitting the schedule was unfair in Alabama, and only Alabama's favor?
How do you continually manage to read something into what people write that's not even close to what was written? I stated in the OP that Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss all benefited from A&M/Mizzou cross-division selections. But here's what you don't seem to understand; just because certain teams benefited doesn't mean that the schedules were unfair or there was some sort of collusion because no matter what teams were selected to play A&M & Mizzou; certain teams were going to benefit while others were going to have something to gripe about.
quote:
They were not the only option for Mizzou
I've never stated they were the only option. I've repeatedly stated they were the best option as deemed by the SEC.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:05 pm to Sheetbend
quote:
FACT: Bama got preferential treatment with the bridge schedules.
You can argue why all you want, but you can't argue Bama could have picked softer bridge schedules if they were given the job to hand pick the schedules themselves for 2011 and 2012.
FACT: LSU got the toughest schedules possible.
You can argue why, but you can't argue Bama could have picked harder and tougher bridge schedules than what LSU got in both 2011 and 2012.
Truth regardless of how or why.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:11 pm to TXGunslinger10
quote:
Hopefully things will work better with a 9 team schedule.
one can dream.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:16 pm to Sheetbend
quote:
You can argue why, but you can't argue Bama could have picked harder and tougher bridge schedules than what LSU got in both 2011 and 2012
Ok but if people are going to keep complaining about it, I feel it's worth noting that LSU is only playing the teams it was due to face using the old rotation.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:20 pm to sarc
quote:Just admit that to any reasonable person it certainly appears as if the schedule was changed for the benefit of Bama. Bama supposed to play UGA? How bout mizzou instead. Bama supposed to play USC? How about Uk instead. Just admit this at least will appear biased to any reasonable person
Ok but if people are going to keep complaining about it, I feel it's worth noting that LSU is only playing the teams it was due to face using the old rotation.
This post was edited on 5/29/13 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:23 pm to sarc
quote:
I feel it's worth noting that LSU is only playing the teams it was due to face using the old rotation.
@ UK in 2012
vs. UGA in 2013
@ USCe in 2013
Are all still missing from our schedule.
I still don't have an answer to the practicality behind a 6-1-1 schedule...
This post was edited on 5/29/13 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:26 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Just admit to any reasonable person it certainly appears as if the schedule was changed for the benefit of Bama.
I've admitted in the OP that Bama along with UGA and Ole Miss benefitted from the opponent selections for A&M and Mizzou. So was the schedule changed for the benefit of UGA and Ole Miss too or just Bama?
quote:
Bama supposed to play USC? How about Uk instead
Go back and read the OP. Bama was due to play UK starting in '13 and that is what is scheduled. Same with LSU and UGA. Using the same methodology Bama would add USC in '14 and LSU would add Vandy.
This post was edited on 5/29/13 at 10:30 pm
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:37 pm to sarc
quote:
Using the same methodology Bama would add USC in '14 and LSU would add Vandy.
And I shalt not cry about it.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:37 pm to sarc
Bama fans sound exactly like Obama defenders regarding the scandals in the last few weeks.
1. Opponents are crazy and paranoid or just stupid.
2. The only reason people have a problem is that they just hate/jealous of Bama/O-Bama/Hilary so much.
3. Even is something happened, it was likely deserved.
4. All of this happened "a long time ago"
5. "What does it even matter at this point"
6. Bama/O-Bama had zero involvement or knowledge of anything ongoing despite having fans/alums/appointees making all the key decisions
Not a flame, just interesting to see the parallels.
1. Opponents are crazy and paranoid or just stupid.
2. The only reason people have a problem is that they just hate/jealous of Bama/O-Bama/Hilary so much.
3. Even is something happened, it was likely deserved.
4. All of this happened "a long time ago"
5. "What does it even matter at this point"
6. Bama/O-Bama had zero involvement or knowledge of anything ongoing despite having fans/alums/appointees making all the key decisions
Not a flame, just interesting to see the parallels.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:48 pm to Vlad The Inhaler
quote:
Bama fans sound exactly like Obama defenders
Do you really want to go there? I read through that thread of yours that you linked, and there are a couple of pages that are really quite astounding; but I try not to stereotype an entire fanbase based on the delusions of a few.
Posted on 5/29/13 at 10:54 pm to sarc
quote:
Do you really want to go there?
I'm just saying the arguments are the similar. I'm not trying to get into politics.
Here's my bottom line--it's not a huge conspiracy but but Bama was helped, as was UGA.
Would it have really mattered? Who knows.
However, for the long-term sustainability of the conference, this issue should be addressed. Maybe it's "unfair" to LSU right now, but the shoe could easily be on the other foot at some point. It's a screwed up way to do business, and a shame that 46% of the conference opponents will visit a given stadium only once every 12 years.
Page 6 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News