Started By
Message
re: Bridge Schedules explained
Posted on 5/31/13 at 1:20 am to skrayper
Posted on 5/31/13 at 1:20 am to skrayper
No, you're right - it's our fault.
Our magical powers deduced that two mediocre teams of 2011 would be powerhouses in 2012. We immediately set upon calling upon the dark powers of Cthulu to alter the schedule, knowing full well the course of events needed to grant us access to the National Championship.
Here's a question:
Why aren't Texas A&M fans being asked to defend their 2013 easy schedule? A joke of an OOC schedule and Vandy and Mizzou from the East. Bye weeks before LSU and Ole Miss. Surely they must also be padding the wallets of the SEC home office as well, if the logic of many posters here is to be followed.
Our magical powers deduced that two mediocre teams of 2011 would be powerhouses in 2012. We immediately set upon calling upon the dark powers of Cthulu to alter the schedule, knowing full well the course of events needed to grant us access to the National Championship.
Here's a question:
Why aren't Texas A&M fans being asked to defend their 2013 easy schedule? A joke of an OOC schedule and Vandy and Mizzou from the East. Bye weeks before LSU and Ole Miss. Surely they must also be padding the wallets of the SEC home office as well, if the logic of many posters here is to be followed.
1
Posted on 5/31/13 at 1:50 am to skrayper
quote:
Why aren't Texas A&M fans being asked to defend their 2013 easy schedule?
Even though TAM beat Bama, they didn't win the SEC West due to Bama's easy non-divisional opponents in 2012--Tennessee and Missouri.
TAM has already paid their initiation dues to Bama--an SEC West title, a chance at an SEC Championship, and BCS Championship.
Furthermore, TAM voted against the permanent opponent rule and resulting 6-1-1 schedule.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 3:47 am to sarc
quote:
That's exactly what I'm talking about. An adult doesn't feel the need to constantly misrepresent someone else's argument. NEVER once claimed Bama HAD to play Mizzou. I've acknowledged several times there were other options but the SEC chose that option.
How old are you?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 4:17 am to Sheetbend
quote:
Even though TAM beat Bama, they didn't win the SEC West due to Bama's easy non-divisional opponents in 2012--Tennessee and Missouri.
You do realize that they had to go by the previous year, correct? It amazes me how often people point to the results of 2012 as evidence, when it would take a wizard to know how the season would end up.
Florida was 3-5 in SEC play in 2011, while Tennessee was 1-7. In their head-to-head match-up, it was decided by 10 points (and again in 2012). Neither team was considered a great team. Everyone knew UF had a good defense, but their offense was perceived as being downright horrible - and therefore not much of a threat to any balanced team.
The simple fact of the matter is that A&M lost out because they blew leads against both those teams. Beat just one, either of them, and they are in the SECCG.
Considering A&M is the reason the bridge schedules existed in the first place, the answer is no - they do not have a right to get a free pass.
That said, I can only imagine the meltdown on this board if Alabama played Florida, South Carolina, and then UGA in the SECCG and finished with an undefeated record. I'm sure the tinfoil hat crowd would crow about some other absurdity, like how the SEC Offices in Birmingham alters the gravitational constant on the planet, causing players wearing crimson to automatically run faster and hit harder.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 7:50 am to skrayper
OP - This may explain HOW they did the scheduling , but not WHY. there is absolutley no reason not to have put in place a balanced schedule this year.
Something like:
WEST
AU - UT, UGA
BAMA - UGA, UT
OM - MIZZ, VANDY
LSU - UK, UF
MSU - UF, UK
ARKY - VANDY, USC
TAMU - USC, MIZZ
EAST
UGA - AU, BAMA
UT - BAMA, AU
VANDY - OM, ARKY
UF - LSU, MSU
UK - MSU, LSU
USC - ARKY, TAMU
MIZZ - TAMU, OM
Something like:
WEST
AU - UT, UGA
BAMA - UGA, UT
OM - MIZZ, VANDY
LSU - UK, UF
MSU - UF, UK
ARKY - VANDY, USC
TAMU - USC, MIZZ
EAST
UGA - AU, BAMA
UT - BAMA, AU
VANDY - OM, ARKY
UF - LSU, MSU
UK - MSU, LSU
USC - ARKY, TAMU
MIZZ - TAMU, OM
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 7:54 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 8:11 am to skrayper
quote:
The simple fact of the matter is that A&M lost out because they blew leads against both those teams. Beat just one, either of them, and they are in the SECCG.
But they had to PLAY both of those teams. They beat just as many top six teams in the regular season as Alabama did. They just had to play more of them.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:35 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
OP - This may explain HOW they did the scheduling , but not WHY. there is absolutley no reason not to have put in place a balanced schedule this year.
So instead of sticking with the previous rotation as much as possible, you'd rather the SEC throw out the previous rotation, disregard how recently teams played each other, and create a schedule based around how good the SEC rates each team?
It's an idea that sounds good in theory but would be a nightmare in practice.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:38 am to sarc
I'm still looking for a practical reason to keep the 6-1-1 schedule...
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:39 am to sarc
All the bullshite is over Bama dropping Georgia. This is the gas on the fire. The ripple affect that was created is what the uproar is mostly about.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:41 am to sarc
quote:
It's an idea that sounds good in theory but would be a nightmare in practice.
Sarc, I respect your effort, but you will never get them to understand that we don't cheat.
If I had my heart ripped out like we ripped out theirs, I would cry too, not on the rant, but I would for sure be crying.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:42 am to LukeSidewalker
quote:
If I had my heart ripped out like we ripped out theirs, I would cry too, not on the rant, but I would for sure be crying.
there it is
the typical Alabama football fan response
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:48 am to sarc
No, I think they say they tried to stay close to original rotation . My question would be so why wasn't te rotation just moved back a year , why remove the game entirely?
Example. UGA was supposed to play OM & Bama last year, but MIZZ came on. We were supposed to play bama & LSU this year. but instead of doing what they did last year, postponing bama , which was rotating on, they just slipped it. Would have made more since to go to one game series, Bama this year, LSU next.
Example. UGA was supposed to play OM & Bama last year, but MIZZ came on. We were supposed to play bama & LSU this year. but instead of doing what they did last year, postponing bama , which was rotating on, they just slipped it. Would have made more since to go to one game series, Bama this year, LSU next.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:52 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
We were supposed to play bama & LSU this year. but instead of doing what they did last year, postponing bama , which was rotating on, they just slipped it. Would have made more since to go to one game series, Bama this year, LSU next.
nailed it
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:53 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
But they had to PLAY both of those teams. They beat just as many top six teams in the regular season as Alabama did. They just had to play more of them.
Weird. I keep looking for this "Top 6" designation on the SEC website, but nothing comes up.
Maybe I should try the NCAA official site... hmmm...
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:57 am to 3rddownonthe8
This was discussed earlier and I agree with you. My best guess is that they wanted to keep every team at the same point in the rotation instead of some teams at 1 point in the rotation and other teams at a different point. They were consistent with it as the UF-Ole Miss game that got bumped for UF-A&M was also dropped instead of shifted to '13
This post was edited on 5/31/13 at 10:10 am
Posted on 5/31/13 at 9:59 am to Golfer
quote:
I'm still looking for a practical reason to keep the 6-1-1 schedule...
:crickets:
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:05 am to Golfer
I think 6-2-1 will come before 6-2 ever does
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:07 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
I think 6-2-1
Does that mean we get Florida back as an annual rival?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:08 am to Golfer
There are about 20 threads debating schedule format and the merits of maintaining cross division rivalries. If that's what you want to discuss then I suggest you ask your question in one of those threads
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:09 am to 3rddownonthe8
1.8% of the SEC's schedule is the reasoning behind this format, pathetic. Let them play OOC if they aren't on the rotation.
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News