Started By
Message
re: (Final Draft) Evidence Mounts of a Scandal in the SEC
Posted on 7/28/13 at 1:05 am to sarc
Posted on 7/28/13 at 1:05 am to sarc
quote:
Let's use LSU as an example:
2006: Tennessee, UK
2007: UK, USC
2008: USC, UGA
2009: UGA, Vandy
So in '12, with no expansion, LSU would've played UK and USC. We switched from a 5-1-2 format to a 6-1-1 format, meaning there's only room on the schedule for either UK or USC. If they were to play UK, then they would fail to play a different East opponent than they played in '11. This is not desirable when we're trying to rotate thru more teams while maintaining the same number of conference games. So, LSU dropped the 2nd half of it's home-and-home with UK and played USC which it had last played in '08.
Ok, now we've hit the central issue. You are correct that with the addition of A&M to the West, LSU had to drop one of the '12 rotating East opponents it was supposed to play had there been no expansion (UK or USC).
You say the desirable thing is to have LSU not complete the series w/ UK and play the "new team" from '07, USC, in order to get thru as many opponents as possible. On the surface this makes sense, but when you actually draw it up it ends up creating long gaps between inter-divisional opponents when teams had to drop a "due" opponent for one of the expansion teams.
In short, it would've made more sense for everyone to complete the series they started in '11, with expansion adjustments as needed. In that case, Bama in '12 trades out Vandy for Mizzou. No problem losing Vandy on the schedule since they just played them in '11. The method the SEC used trades out UGA for Mizzou - uh oh, big problem, Bama hasn't played them since '08 and may not play them until '14 or '15. The SEC method created these 6 and 7 year gaps for Bama-UGA and also UF-Ole Miss.
This is what they should have done in '12 (allowing all teams to complete the cross-division series they started in '11, plus making the expansion adjustments):
MSU - SC
OM - UGA
Aub - Van
Ark - Ten
Bama - Mizzou
LSU - UK
TAMU - UF
Again, Bama had to trade out Vandy but no problem since they just played in '11. And UF had to trade out Auburn but no problem since they just played in '11.
Then in '13 you play the team that was supposed to rotate on next:
MSU - Ten
OM - UF
Aub - Mizzou
Ark - UK
Bama - UGA
LSU - SC
TAMU - Van
This post was edited on 7/28/13 at 1:06 am
1
Posted on 7/28/13 at 8:34 am to sheek
If you're talking about license plates, where the frick would you expect people living in Bham to have their cars registered? Also, what % of those cars are owned by people with the authority to impact decision making?
Sorry pal. I'm afraid you're too accustomed to La. politics to realize that everybody isn't crooked.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 8:55 am to McManus
Without reading all of that, let me guess...
Posted on 7/28/13 at 8:58 am to sheek
I say put in on campus in BR, you'd still get beat and bitch about it.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 9:12 am to McManus
Any Alabama fan in this thread who has ridiculed the OP or denied the facts of the OP is in a state of denial.
An objective analysis of those schedules does indeed show that Alabama was given a weaker schedule in such a way that was inconsistent with the schedules given to other SEC schools. In that process, LSU was given a more difficult schedule. Overall, Alabama was given an advantage over LSU for the SEC West title by the SEC office.
There is NO way to argue otherwise.
I still want to know why the Texas AM vs Alabama game was shifted on the schedule. I presume it was because Alabama wanted to space out their most difficult SEC West opponents.
An objective analysis of those schedules does indeed show that Alabama was given a weaker schedule in such a way that was inconsistent with the schedules given to other SEC schools. In that process, LSU was given a more difficult schedule. Overall, Alabama was given an advantage over LSU for the SEC West title by the SEC office.
There is NO way to argue otherwise.
I still want to know why the Texas AM vs Alabama game was shifted on the schedule. I presume it was because Alabama wanted to space out their most difficult SEC West opponents.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 9:20 am to EST
Wait until you see what we have in store for you for the next three to four years. Scott Cochran gets a turn at making those schedules.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 10:10 am to EST
quote:
An objective analysis of those schedules does indeed show that Alabama was given a weaker schedule in such a way that was inconsistent with the schedules given to other SEC schools. In that process, LSU was given a more difficult schedule. Overall, Alabama was given an advantage over LSU for the SEC West title by the SEC office.
There is NO way to argue otherwise.
Wrong: Check out the 2nd post
An objective analysis of the schedules shows that there was, in fact, a consistent methodology used for all the SEC schools (yes, even Bama and LSU).
Posted on 7/28/13 at 10:28 am to RidiculousHype
quote:
The method the SEC used trades out UGA for Mizzou - uh oh, big problem, Bama hasn't played them since '08 and may not play them until '14 or '15. The SEC method created these 6 and 7 year gaps for Bama-UGA and also UF-Ole Miss.
That's true and that is a negative but there's no perfect system. Using the method you propose, 8 teams would fail to play a different cross-division opponent in '12 than the the ones they played the year before. That's not ideal either.
Also, consider that with your method we're going to run into the same gap issue in '14. Using your '13 schedule, A&M plays Vandy and Mizzou plays Auburn even though Auburn and Vandy are due to play one another. Meaning that there will be a 6+ year gap in that series.
Now, you might say that that can be addressed/corrected in the long term schedule that will start in '14 (hopefully) so that Auburn and Vandy play sooner rather than later. Well, the same can be done with Bama/UGA and Florida/Ole Miss. Also, consider that the original plan was for there to only be 1 bridge year ('12) with the long term schedule starting in '13 so it may well be that the schedule designers had planned on being able to address the skipped games a year earlier than how it actually turned out.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 10:56 am to GatorNation4Lyfe
quote:
Of course you can't predict who will be good and who will be bad 10 years from now but we have a good idea who will be this year and next.
This
Posted on 7/28/13 at 10:58 am to EST
quote:
Any Alabama fan in this thread who has ridiculed the OP or denied the facts of the OP is in a state of denial.
An objective analysis of those schedules does indeed show that Alabama was given a weaker schedule in such a way that was inconsistent with the schedules given to other SEC schools. In that process, LSU was given a more difficult schedule. Overall, Alabama was given an advantage over LSU for the SEC West title by the SEC office.
There is NO way to argue otherwise.
I still want to know why the Texas AM vs Alabama game was shifted on the schedule. I presume it was because Alabama wanted to space out their most difficult SEC West opponents.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 11:15 am to McManus
Posted on 7/28/13 at 11:19 am to justmebeno
UK was supposed to rotate onto our schedule in 2013. That's exactly what happened. The only thing that was out of the ordinary was dropping UGA for Mizzou in 2012 because the SEC wanted to give the new teams a marquee home opponent against one of the best teams in the opposite division. Mizzou got Bama, and Texas A&M got Florida.
Posted on 7/28/13 at 11:23 am to pvilleguru
quote:
UK was supposed to rotate onto our schedule in 2013. That's exactly what happened. The only thing that was out of the ordinary was dropping UGA for Mizzou in 2012 because the SEC wanted to give the new teams a marquee home opponent against one of the best teams in the opposite division. Mizzou got Bama, and Texas A&M got Florida.
Furthermore, LSU fans complain about being screwed by the bridge schedules but they play(ed) exactly who they were due to play
Posted on 7/28/13 at 12:14 pm to sarc
I get what you are saying but would it really matter. Last time in Athens we were up 31-0 at the half and last year we had 350 yds rushing on a defense that was loaded with NFL talent. I did not see anybody taking up for us when we had to play 6 teams with a bye the week before us. Ya'll said suck it up so YA'LL NEED TO SUCK IT UP !!!!!
Posted on 7/28/13 at 12:44 pm to Bigdaddy800
The thread that never dies!
At least we are talking about the schedule again. It kinda morphed into a Cam Newton discussion for a while.
At least we are talking about the schedule again. It kinda morphed into a Cam Newton discussion for a while.
Page 14 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News