Started By
Message
re: Bridge Schedules explained
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:09 am to sarc
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:09 am to sarc
quote:
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
The only reason the bridge schedule is in place is because of the 6-1-1 format.
1
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:12 am to Golfer
Um no it's not. There would be a bridge no matter which format was picked. But like I said, no need to hijack this thread when there are many others on the exact topic you want to discuss
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:16 am to sarc
Maybe,
As a UGA fan I really don't care, it's pick your poison for us LSU/UA. doesn't matter. But I will say this, same as anything else that looks fishy, If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably ain't a cow.
The thing is if your the scheduling guys, why open yourself up for questions, you say it's a bridge schedule and then put out a schedule that's competitive and say we will have a published rotating schedule for 2014-???? And no one questions it , they just live with it.
As a UGA fan I really don't care, it's pick your poison for us LSU/UA. doesn't matter. But I will say this, same as anything else that looks fishy, If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably ain't a cow.
The thing is if your the scheduling guys, why open yourself up for questions, you say it's a bridge schedule and then put out a schedule that's competitive and say we will have a published rotating schedule for 2014-???? And no one questions it , they just live with it.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:24 am to 3rddownonthe8
Ironically, I think they were trying to minimize the appearance of bias by sticking with the old rotation as much as possible. If picking 3 of the 7 match ups (the minimum possible when adding 2 teams) generates this much criticism, you can see why they decided not to pick all 7 even if it would've produced a more balanced schedule.
And I agree; absolutely should've had a long term schedule by now
And I agree; absolutely should've had a long term schedule by now
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:24 am to NYCAuburn
I'm not ever sure which 1 is which , I meant 2 rotating
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:26 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
I'm not ever sure which 1 is which , I meant 2 rotating
:sadbanana:
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:30 am to sarc
quote:
Um no it's not. There would be a bridge no matter which format was picked.
False. 6-2 with a home/home rotation as was done with the two rotating games in the 5-2-1 would not require any bridge. Simply a reset of the opponents as close as possible to what existed in 2011.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:32 am to Golfer
quote:
5-2-1
Are you suggesting this? because if so, it's not possible. sorry I havent followed along with this thread
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:33 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Are you suggesting this? because if so, it's not possible. sorry I havent followed along with this thread
No. The OP is insinuating a bridge schedule would still be needed if we were going with a 6-2 format. I'm telling him we wouldn't need any bridge. It could be a set rotation of home/home with your cross-division opponents as was done with your rotating cross-division opponents in the former 5-2-1 schedule.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:37 am to Golfer
Ah, I see.
FWIW I think the bridge going on three years has two causes, one the 2013 bridge. The changed the venues for series(ie UGA at AU 2 years in a row) and I think they need one more year to rectify that. it was a big mistake on their part. two, waiting for conference allignment to settle down. 7 team divisions with 12 game schedules are hard. They want another two teams but arent sure if it will happen.
FWIW I think the bridge going on three years has two causes, one the 2013 bridge. The changed the venues for series(ie UGA at AU 2 years in a row) and I think they need one more year to rectify that. it was a big mistake on their part. two, waiting for conference allignment to settle down. 7 team divisions with 12 game schedules are hard. They want another two teams but arent sure if it will happen.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:41 am to NYCAuburn
Oh, I know all the causes. The SEC got caught up in all the hoopla of conference expansion in 2010 and 2011 and didn't think through it.
Now we are all paying for this terrible excuse for scheduling and format.
Now we are all paying for this terrible excuse for scheduling and format.
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:50 am to Golfer
quote:
False. 6-2 with a home/home rotation as was done with the two rotating games in the 5-2-1 would not require any bridge. Simply a reset of the opponents as close as possible to what existed in 2011.
I still don't see the difference. Who would A&M and Mizzou have played from the opposite division?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:52 am to sarc
quote:
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.
We should have UGA at home if they are so obsessed with keeping the rotation. What gives? Why give us an even tougher game when they have already given us an obvious competitive disadvantage in the race to reach atlanta?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 10:54 am to sarc
quote:
I still don't see the difference. Who would A&M and Mizzou have played from the opposite division?
You reset the rotations, like they did in 1992. There isn't a bridge with that. Just a new schedule.
Everyone plays two cross-division opponents, they rotate home and home, then those two fall off and the next two come on. If you wanted to do it where you weren't playing the same two teams for two years play A & B in year 1, then B & C in year 2, with A coming back on the schedule in year 6
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:05 am to Golfer
quote:
You reset the rotations, like they did in 1992. There isn't a bridge with that. Just a new schedule.
Yeah, they could've done that with a 6-1-1 too and not had a bridge. So I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been a bridge with the 6-2
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:07 am to skrayper
quote:
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.
Sounds a lot like LSU's 2011 team that went undefeated during the regular season--good defense, but limited offense.
If you don't see any difference in overall talent levels between Florida and Tennessee, you have to be kidding--right?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:14 am to Sheetbend
quote:
Sounds a lot like LSU's 2011 team that went undefeated during the regular season--good defense, but limited offense.
If you don't see any difference in overall talent levels between Florida and Tennessee, you have to be kidding--right?
I didn't make the schedule.
Did you expect the SEC to call up Tennessee and say, "Sorry, you can't play Alabama anymore until you stop sucking?"
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:14 am to sarc
quote:
Yeah, they could've done that with a 6-1-1 too and not had a bridge. So I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been a bridge with the 6-2
Fair enough. Let me ask you this: do you agree with the bridge schedule now going at least 4 years?
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:27 am to Golfer
quote:
Fair enough. Let me ask you this: do you agree with the bridge schedule now going at least 4 years?
No, 1 year is understandable. Two is pushing it. Should've had long term schedule in place for '14 at the latest. They may have to change it in a couple years but that's better than going year to year with bridges
Posted on 5/31/13 at 11:27 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
NYCAuburn
quote:
Does that mean we get Florida back as an annual rival?
^^^^^ Folks, this is a fanbase that is unafraid.^^^
Page 9 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News