Started By
Message
re: Mullen proposes 9 game SEC schedule with 4 home and away with 1 neutral site game
Posted on 5/31/19 at 12:31 pm to NocaHomas Teepee
Posted on 5/31/19 at 12:31 pm to NocaHomas Teepee
If the SEC were to play a 9 game conference schedule, I'd rather see the conference expand to 16 teams, and have four 4 team divisions.
Each team would play the 3 other teams in their division each year.
3 games
Each team would play a permanent rival in each division.
3 games
Each team would rotate play of one non-rival from each division.
3 games
Then even have the SEC Championship be a 4 team mini playoff with the winners from each division.
The SEC started the Football Conference Championship Game, why not start the Football Conference Tournament? I'd see the SEC getting 2 Playoff bids each year if it were to begin right now. After the national playoffs expand beyond 4 teams you'd see the SEC getting 3 or maybe 4 teams in.
Each team would play the 3 other teams in their division each year.
3 games
Each team would play a permanent rival in each division.
3 games
Each team would rotate play of one non-rival from each division.
3 games
Then even have the SEC Championship be a 4 team mini playoff with the winners from each division.
The SEC started the Football Conference Championship Game, why not start the Football Conference Tournament? I'd see the SEC getting 2 Playoff bids each year if it were to begin right now. After the national playoffs expand beyond 4 teams you'd see the SEC getting 3 or maybe 4 teams in.
This post was edited on 5/31/19 at 12:32 pm
2
Posted on 5/31/19 at 12:32 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Notre Dame
Notre Dame is not a tough team to beat. They haven't won anything in over 30 years. This isn't 1977 anymore. It's 2019. Playing and beating ND is not a big deal to anyone not named Georgia apparently.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 12:40 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Does it though?
So if the SEC schedules a 9 game conference schedule one of the other conferences you listed will take our place in the playoffs?
What kind of logic is that? The SEC winner is in the playoffs barring a Conference Championship Game fluke where a 3 or 4 loss team wins.
Your OOC opponent is Georgia Tech for christ sakes. They might as well not even have a program anymore they lost to South Fla last year. Lets not pretend like they are a credible opponent.
You seem very worried and scared about a 9 game SEC Schedule. I say bring it on. It will be good for everyone that ins't afraid of competition.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 12:52 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
Notre Dame is not a tough team to beat. They haven't won anything in over 30 years. This isn't 1977 anymore. It's 2019. Playing and beating ND is not a big deal to anyone not named Georgia apparently.
You trot this out every time and look like a big goober every time... One day maybe you'll figure it out. There are 2 reasons why playing ND as an SEC team helps...
1) Regardless of your personal bias against them, the media still fellates them at every opportunity. It's a quality game OOC no matter how you slice it.
2) Perhaps more importantly, if they don't play a higher quality SEC team, you end up with years like 2012 or 2018 where they go undefeated in the regular season... regardless of how flawed they are and they eat up a spot that should be occupied by a better team. They should have lost to Vandy last year... If Alabama or another higher caliber SEC team had played them, highly unlikely they were even in the playoffs last year.
But let's ignore that for now... So in the last 5 years they've played LSU twice - pretty clearly the #2/3 team in the SEC West from a talent standpoint - and won both times. But yeah, definitely not a quality opponent.
In the 9 game proposed schedule, you're asking me to take this blend: 2 quality SECw teams in Alabama/LSU rotating more frequently for likely lower quality opponents in Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, and a probably roughly equivalent Texas A&M... (Auburn already permanent)
So yes, I get to play Alabama and LSU more often, which is good... but I also have to play Arkansas, Miss St, Ole Miss more often... already a 3-2 tradeoff for the worse before I decide where to put Texas A&M.
From a historical standpoint:
Half of the teams in the SEC *haven't* even played them (based on a quick glance at least)...
Notre Dame record against current SEC teams:
Alabama 5 2 0 71.4 18.0 18.3
Florida 1 0 0 100.0 39.0 28.0
Georgia 0 2 0 0.0 14.5 18.5
LSU 7 5 0 58.3 19.3 20.4
Mississippi 1 1 0 50.0 25.0 17.0
Tennessee 4 4 0 50.0 25.9 27.3
Vanderbilt 3 0 0 100.0 25.7 8.0
Of teams in the SEC with more than 4 matchups against them, Alabama has the lowest winning percentage...
Perhaps it's a bigger deal than you'd like to admit.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 1:00 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
So if the SEC schedules a 9 game conference schedule one of the other conferences you listed will take our place in the playoffs?
Did I say that? You said it's working out well for them. I specifically provided evidence to the contrary you fricking goof.
Their 9 game schedules aren't improving their odds of ending up in the playoffs... as a matter of fact, an extra OOC against GOOD P5 schools is more likely to help define who goes. It's more data points that will help to determine conference "superiority" when it comes to playoff time.
When Ohio State made it in over the B1G champion, why did that happen? Not because of a 9th conference game... It happened because they beat Oklahoma OOC.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 1:03 pm to East Coast Band
I'll take Bama vs UT in Fiji... maybe Ireland...
Those are neutral
Those are neutral
Posted on 5/31/19 at 2:09 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Perhaps it's a bigger deal than you'd like to admit.
Because we played them when they were actually relevant
How do you not understand this? Current day Notre Dame is like Mickey Mantle stumbling around out in the outfield in 1968.
You can't be this tone deaf can you? Beating or playing Notre Dame in 2019 isn't a big deal unless you have such a mediocre history like Georgia does I guess? Same goes for playing Oklahoma, UCLA, Southern Cal, etc. We were playing those teams a long time ago you finally getting around to scheduling them in 2019 isn't a big deal. Just shows how pitiful you have been scheduling all these years. I mean you went from like 1965 all the way to the 2000's without playing an away game out of the Southeast that wasn't a bowl game
Now you want to pat yourself on the back for scheduling these teams? Finally?
Posted on 5/31/19 at 3:51 pm to Jake_LaMotta
quote:
How do you not understand this
The entire board asks themselves this about approximately 93% of your posts...
Current day Notre Dame is better than the current day second best program in the SEC west...
If that's meaningless then both of our conference schedules are completely meaningless and therefore a 9 game conference schedule would also be completely meaningless... I've had more intelligent conversations with autistic children Jake... please try harder or just sit on the keyboard and fart... the results would probably not differ significantly.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 3:53 pm to fibonaccisquared
I think for Auburn, the game that would make the most sense for the neutral site would be UGA. Could do it in Atlanta. however, they have Florida so that would be out.
None of the other west teams really have great neutral site options.
None of the other west teams really have great neutral site options.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 3:57 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Yeah, it's one of those nice in theory ideas that when you look at the realities, it just doesn't make sense. Hell... even the Jax game is starting to come under fire (I think it's $$ posturing, but still the threat is there that it leaves neutral site anyways).
If we were to move that game to home/home, I wouldn't want to replace it with another neutral site game that has no reason to be that...
If we were to move that game to home/home, I wouldn't want to replace it with another neutral site game that has no reason to be that...
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:01 pm to fibonaccisquared
Yep. Neutral site for the sake of neutral site is just stupid.
Jacksonville at least made some sense. I get why it was done and it made a very unique addition to a rivalry. Make that game a home and home though, who else is Florida going to be able to have a reasonable neutral site game with?
Jacksonville at least made some sense. I get why it was done and it made a very unique addition to a rivalry. Make that game a home and home though, who else is Florida going to be able to have a reasonable neutral site game with?
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:15 pm to NocaHomas Teepee
Once again, you're losing TSIO or the IB moving Aub. east.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:19 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
with 1 neutral site game
No, no, NO
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:28 pm to fibonaccisquared
I agree that I don't like their groupings as well.
I prefer the 4x4 pods because it gives the opportunity to keep annual rivalries with teams not in your paired pods & they WON'T be played as non-conf. games.
Ex.: UGA can be in a pod with UF or AU & the other in another pod...to which DSOR & TWLOCP will still be scheduled/played annually.
Say UGA was in Pod A:
Pod A - UF
Pod B - Aub. (paired rival)
Pod C - Tn. (paired rival)
Pod D - Miss. (paired rival)
So, when AB are joined, we'ld play Tn. Game 8 & Miss. Game 9. AC joined, Aub. Game 8 & Miss. Game 9. AD joined, Aub. Game 8 & Tn. Game 9.
I prefer the 4x4 pods because it gives the opportunity to keep annual rivalries with teams not in your paired pods & they WON'T be played as non-conf. games.
Ex.: UGA can be in a pod with UF or AU & the other in another pod...to which DSOR & TWLOCP will still be scheduled/played annually.
Say UGA was in Pod A:
Pod A - UF
Pod B - Aub. (paired rival)
Pod C - Tn. (paired rival)
Pod D - Miss. (paired rival)
So, when AB are joined, we'ld play Tn. Game 8 & Miss. Game 9. AC joined, Aub. Game 8 & Miss. Game 9. AD joined, Aub. Game 8 & Tn. Game 9.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:31 pm to NocaHomas Teepee
No mini playoffs just to get an SEC champ. Pair 2 pods annually & that winner is in the SECCG against the winner of the other paired pods.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:34 pm to East Coast Band
Why the frick would we want a neutral site game with a conference opponent? Florida and UGA can do their thing but if we wanted the sites neutral we'd schedule them that way. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing it right now.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:37 pm to tossedoff
quote:
State should play Kentucky on a rotation
100 years ago, UK was an all male A&M with strong ag roots. While the city of Lexington has grown I like an ag game played in Starkville and a move to Nashville would diminish this.
As for Memphis I remember high school games just after integration in Memphis and West Memphis so that seems a good spot for Arkansas and Ole Miss to meet more than Cats and State.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:43 pm to southernboisb
It's just not necessary. I've seen multiple iterations of the Roommate switch model and we keep AU and UF in all of them that I would consider "realistic"... it's not difficult to keep the majority of the important games played each year, and instead of a 6 year rotation to get complete home/home, it's a 4 year...
Why the hell do we care about Mississippi for example. Other than Florida and Auburn, I don't care who we play regularly. Tennessee and South Carolina would be the next most likely, but given that UF/AU are "big 6" schools, it wouldn't make a ton of sense for UT to be the 3rd locked in game... rather USC or Vandy/Kentucky likely get included from a balancing standpoint.
Why the hell do we care about Mississippi for example. Other than Florida and Auburn, I don't care who we play regularly. Tennessee and South Carolina would be the next most likely, but given that UF/AU are "big 6" schools, it wouldn't make a ton of sense for UT to be the 3rd locked in game... rather USC or Vandy/Kentucky likely get included from a balancing standpoint.
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:44 pm to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
If the SEC were to play a 9 game conference schedule, I'd rather see the conference expand to 16 teams, and have four 4 team divisions.
Each team would play the 3 other teams in their division each year.
3 games
Each team would play a permanent rival in each division.
3 games
Each team would rotate play of one non-rival from each division.
3 games
Then even have the SEC Championship be a 4 team mini playoff with the winners from each division.
No thanks.
Avg % of balance between the schedules of 2 divisional teams: 5/9 = 56%
Avg % of balance between the schedules of 2 cross-divisional teams: 5.5/9 = 61%
Your conference is literally better off having no divisions at all than to do what you suggest: 60%
If you want semis and divisions in your hypothetical, why not just take the top two teams from each of two divisions? (81%)
Posted on 5/31/19 at 4:59 pm to fibonaccisquared
I was just throwing those teams out as an example of how you could set up a schedule with teams not in you pod.
Look at these chains & tell me where you would put teams (based off rivalries & # times played...I researched this years ago):
Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Aub. - UGA - UF
&
Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Tenn. - Vandy
How would you keep those chains annually? 4×4 pods would be easier (IMHO).
Look at these chains & tell me where you would put teams (based off rivalries & # times played...I researched this years ago):
Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Aub. - UGA - UF
&
Miss. - MSU - Ala. - Tenn. - Vandy
How would you keep those chains annually? 4×4 pods would be easier (IMHO).
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News