Started By
Message
re: Does the SEC need to address how it determines division winners?
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:20 pm to therick711
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:20 pm to therick711
quote:
1.) Using one example of unfairness to justify institutionalizing unfairness is neither a good idea nor intellectually honest
Who said anything about institutionalizing? Be honest, the main gripe here is Alabama's schedule this year and last year. Go back to 2010 though and alabama has carolina and florida on the schedule. Went to georgia in '08, were scheduled to play georgia this year as well. It's cyclical and fair. The ONLY thing anyone should be able to legitamately gripe about is the permanent opponent, and again the quality of that opponent between the top 3-4 in each division is cyclical
0
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:20 pm to Chicken
you da man chicken. of course the bammers are gonna call you a chicken. oh, wait... 
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:22 pm to JDM1992
quote:
It is what it is. Sometimes it sucks and doesn't exactly work out the way people think it should, but it just has to be like this.
uh-uh. it doesn't have to bud. y'all have skated 2 yrs in a row and you just don't want the favortism to end.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:23 pm to Chicken
How about this novel concept.. beat everyone else in your division and this won't be a problem for your school.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:24 pm to Rig
quote:
How about this novel concept.. beat everyone else in your division and this won't be a problem for your school.
Georgia is opposed because it can't beat USC.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:26 pm to LSU GrandDad
So 2 years it doesn't go your way and you want to revamp the whole model 
It's a cyclical league
It's a cyclical league
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:27 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
So 2 years it doesn't go your way and you want to revamp the whole model
It's a cyclical league
This has been an issue since expansion. Just because you picked back up with Bama football in 2009 sometime in November doesn't mean the rest of the football world stopped caring.
Just messing with you RUFTR, but LSU has been on this train forever. There is a reason you had TWO permanent opponents at the outset and that had to change.
You pretending it is a recent phenomenon does nothing to further the debate.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:30 pm to Bryant91092
quote:
s for the topic, I like the way things are decided now.
Of course you do. It's the easiest path.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:31 pm to Chicken
This won't be a problem when the SEC expands to 16.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:31 pm to Chicken
quote:
Against the SEC East teams:
Alabama was 2-0 with victories over Tennessee (5-7) and Missouri (5-7)
LSU was 1-1 with loss to Florida (11-1) and win over South Carolina (10-2)
Texas A&M was 1-1 with loss to Florida (11-1) and win over Missouri (5-7).
quote:This. Some years the easier wins may fall to LSU or A&M or maybe the Mississippi schools.
It isn't Alabama's fault that Tennessee, a historically strong program, is down right now.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:32 pm to therick711
At the time of the first expansion, tennessee was a top 5 program nationally and remained that way until the early 2000's, just like florida.
One day, as much as I hate to admit it, they'll be right back up there again. If we do away with permanent opponents, there will come a day when a powerhouse UT team plays LSU and lowly florida travels to tuscaloosa. It will always average out, always
One day, as much as I hate to admit it, they'll be right back up there again. If we do away with permanent opponents, there will come a day when a powerhouse UT team plays LSU and lowly florida travels to tuscaloosa. It will always average out, always
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:33 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
t's a cyclical league
No it's not.
It's a "Haves" and "Have Nots" League and has been for over 40 years. There is a reason why the term "Big Six" exists.
And............. One of those "Haves" is 16-4 over the other "Have" over the last 20 years and 7-0 over the last 7. Plus, the "Have" that is 4-16 against the other "Have" hasn't won a SEC title this century and won't for a very long time.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:35 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Same goes with the NFL. Name a sport where schedules are fair and balanced across the board
The NFL has a system so the teams within a division always play the same teams, and then they also play 2 other opponents based on where they placed within their division the previous year. Meaning if you do worse, you have a potentially easier schedule.
Even if you get stuck playing a tough division, so does the rest of YOUR division, still giving you an equal chance to win the division.
Much closer to "fair" .. Not quite 100% there, but the effort is definitely there.
ETA: Late response, just got here.
This post was edited on 12/3/12 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:38 pm to sarc
quote:hard to argue with Steve, considering they had best record against SEC East opponents and even beat UGA head to head...UGA also had easier OOD schedule.
Spurrier made the same arguement last year after USC was left out of the SECCG in the exact scenario you described.
quote:I appreciate that point, but using this system, the OOD games would have put Bama into the game this year.
I think the SEC decided against making a change because they want all conference games to be equally important and not effectively out of conference games.
In my scenario, all OOD games would have to be played before November, so that their importance aren't known at the time the game is played.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:39 pm to Tammany Tom
quote:
And............. One of those "Haves" is 16-4 over the other "Have" over the last 20 years
Which teams are you referring to? The main gripe here is that Alabama plays tennessee every year and Lsu plays florida.
Since the expansion and division split, Alabama is 10-10-1 against Tennessee
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:39 pm to jatebe
quote:
This. Some years the easier wins may fall to LSU or A&M or maybe the Mississippi schools.
2003 UF 8-5 E3 UGA (11-3) Won east two losses to LSU USC (5-7) E4
2005 UT 5-6 E5 (loss after Katrina) UF 10-3 E3 Vandy E4 5-6
2007 UF 9-4 Jesus Back as starter UK 8-5 E5 South Carolina 6-6
2011 entire SEC East abandoned for being terrible.
I guess 2011 is the one time LSU got to play a majority of teams with losing records from the East. We keep being told it is cyclical, but those cycles don't seem to be helping LSU any.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:42 pm to Tammany Tom
quote:
And............. One of those "Haves" is 16-4 over the other "Have" over the last 20 years
quote:
lus, the "Have" that is 4-16 against the other "Have" hasn't won a SEC title this century and won't for a very long time.
What the frick are you talking about?
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:42 pm to Chicken
This is exactly the way it should be.
Why does your record against teams not in your division effect your division ranking?
Why does your record against teams not in your division effect your division ranking?
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:43 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Which teams are you referring to?
Florida is 16-4 (over last 20) and 7-0 (last 7) against Tennessee.
Tennessee won't see another SEC Title for 20 years or longer. Florida will continue to be a major force for the next 50 years along with Bama, LSU, and UGA.
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:44 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
At the time of the first expansion, tennessee was a top 5 program nationally and remained that way until the early 2000's, just like florida.
Your other permanent opponent was Vandy
The reason two perms had to go was because Auburn was getting fricked. They had UF and UGA. You obviously aren't aware of this because the system has been setup to benefit Bama and its "rivalries." We are here to educate, not judge.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News