- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU's new permanent East opponent: South Carolina?
Posted on 10/17/11 at 9:24 pm to Daigeaux
Posted on 10/17/11 at 9:24 pm to Daigeaux
wtf is wrong with just keeping it like it is? What happens if bama gets vandy, UK, and USC in a year and we have ut, uf, and missouri ? Then people would complain about that.
really not that hard, add mu to the east as arkys perm and a&m have USC
really not that hard, add mu to the east as arkys perm and a&m have USC
0
Posted on 10/17/11 at 10:14 pm to Daigeaux
quote:
I've been saying this all along. If the rivalry means that much to Alabama and Tennessee, then schedule each other as OOC when the game is not scheduled as conference games. Fla does it with FSU, UGA does it with Ga Tech, So Carolina does it with Clemson, Ky does it with UL and aTm will do it with UT if UT has any balls. This isn't rocket science, gump.
I'd prefer that to not playing at all, but that would certainly cheapen the rivalry. It would be one thing if they were in different conferences, but them doing it while being in the same conference makes it seem like a televised practice.
Posted on 10/17/11 at 10:39 pm to JPLSU1981
First things first...I have always enjoyed the UF matchup and will miss it if it goes away...that being said...I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would favor BOTH an 8 game conference slate AND a permanent opponent. Is there any point to being in the same conference with 6 teams whom you will only meet in the regular season twice in 12 years?
I mean I understand the argument about the unbalanced number of home/away SEC games, but it evens out over time. It isn't like it's unfair to anyone. I don't know how many people realize this, but in the 80s LSU was playing a 2-4 setup in SEC games. 80-82-84-86, we played TWO home SEC games. From 88-91, there were 7 SEC games, meaning an unbalanced split. The world did not end in either case.
I've brought the following scenario up before...if the rivalry games are the be all end all and a 9 game conference slate is out of the question...do the following assuming 14 teams:
No divisions
3 permananent opponents (it's up to the schools to hash all that out...some (Bama-UT) will be obvious...the others will have to be worked out.
Rotate 5 and 5 every two years
Top two teams play for the SEC title
You have the rivalry games, the 8 game schedule, and within a 4 year period, you've played every team in the conference...plus you get the true top two teams playing for the conference title, instead of a possible unbeaten team from one division playing a 3 loss team from the other.
I mean I understand the argument about the unbalanced number of home/away SEC games, but it evens out over time. It isn't like it's unfair to anyone. I don't know how many people realize this, but in the 80s LSU was playing a 2-4 setup in SEC games. 80-82-84-86, we played TWO home SEC games. From 88-91, there were 7 SEC games, meaning an unbalanced split. The world did not end in either case.
I've brought the following scenario up before...if the rivalry games are the be all end all and a 9 game conference slate is out of the question...do the following assuming 14 teams:
No divisions
3 permananent opponents (it's up to the schools to hash all that out...some (Bama-UT) will be obvious...the others will have to be worked out.
Rotate 5 and 5 every two years
Top two teams play for the SEC title
You have the rivalry games, the 8 game schedule, and within a 4 year period, you've played every team in the conference...plus you get the true top two teams playing for the conference title, instead of a possible unbeaten team from one division playing a 3 loss team from the other.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:25 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
The Bama posters on here are a bunch of self-righteous bitches.
They do what is best for "Bama"...and expect everyone else to go along. Then they hide behind "history"...as though anyone other than them gives a crap about UT vs Bama.
Rest of SEC should vote to kick their arse out of the league.
They can join up with Texas and take turns trying to screw each other in the Big 12.
Buck Fama
They do what is best for "Bama"...and expect everyone else to go along. Then they hide behind "history"...as though anyone other than them gives a crap about UT vs Bama.
Rest of SEC should vote to kick their arse out of the league.
They can join up with Texas and take turns trying to screw each other in the Big 12.
Buck Fama
Posted on 10/18/11 at 12:29 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
Except it's NCAA rule you have to have 2 divisions to have a title game. Unless they'll grant permanent special permission which I doubt
Posted on 10/18/11 at 2:37 am to ohiovol
quote:
Unfortunately, the fact that the most recent game was completely one-sided in our favor makes me want to keep them around a couple of years so that we can enact payback for the Spurrier years, where that fricker would run the score up to 55-3 because he was so butthurt about Archer getting the job over him in '87.
Then shouldn't you be happy about getting South Carolina?
He's got a point...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 2:46 am to Monticello
quote:
parity so that you don't have odd years where for instance Bama plays USC, UK, and Vandy while LSU plays Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee
quote:
I can only imagine how much LSU fans would bitch about Birmingham if that happened.
I would be first in line to bitch...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 2:55 am to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
Hell, either one of us will kick your arse, so what's the difference?
This made me laugh...
Posted on 10/18/11 at 2:56 am to ACT
quote:
would LSU fans then bitch about having Bama as their permanent rival?
What's wrong with Florida?
Posted on 10/18/11 at 5:17 am to GumBro Jackson
A problem I have with moving AU to the East is balance. Such a move puts 6 SEC charter members in the east leaving only 4 in the west. Plus the west would get stuck with the two new guys. Influence on the day to day business operations of the conference would probably tilt slightly eastward. Mizzou needs to go east for the time being.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 6:51 am to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:apparently lsu fans don't want to play them anymore.
What's wrong with Florida?
Posted on 10/18/11 at 8:49 am to ACT
Not at all man. Good rivalry and the possiblity of playing each other in the SECCG is even better!
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:21 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
Holdouts are Tennessee and Alabama who want to maintain their permanent cross-division rivalry.
Screw them.
I'm sick of Bama holding the rest of the SEC hostage.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:30 am to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
Screw them.
I'm sick of Bama holding the rest of the SEC hostage.
How is Bama holding the SEC hostage? I'm pretty sure the SEC can add a team without the approval of Bama.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:44 am to ohiovol
quote:
How is Bama holding the SEC hostage? I'm pretty sure the SEC can add a team without the approval of Bama.
Bama wants Mizzou in the SEC East so it can keep it's traditional rivalry with Tennessee. It appears that Mizzou would prefer to be in the West because geographically it makes the most sense (Missouri is directly above Arkansas).
Bama knows that if Mizzou joins the SEC West, then Auburn will likely move to the East. Bama doesn't want that because they are worried that Auburn could gain a recruiting advantage that way.
Also, both LSU and Florida are apparently interested in ending their relationship as each other's permanent opponents.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:54 am to LouisianaLonghorn
Idgaf what happens to the rest as long as we get Mizzou and on turkey day weekend, and the lsu game is moved to Fayetteville.
And why does no one want south carolina?
And why does no one want south carolina?
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:56 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would favor BOTH an 8 game conference slate AND a permanent opponent. Is there any point to being in the same conference with 6 teams whom you will only meet in the regular season twice in 12 years?
What? You don't think GA and TN playing in Tiger Stadium FIVE times in SIXTY YEARS is enough? Or GA and FL playing at AL? etc...
It's downright stupid, especially for the sake of a matchup I don't ever remember seeing. I remember Ohio State/Mich for years, Texas/Ok for years, GA/FL for years, and even GA/AU, but I don't remember AL/TN. Oh, I probably watched a game or two in the 90s, which is the only time in the last 35yrs the matchup lived up to the myth, and that was only over 6 yrs.
I think the problem is that the SEC historically was never really a conference in any meaningful sense. Teams played who they wanted and even decided how many games they would play. Back in the decade of the 60's we had the following:
o we played AU once (after not playing them for 26 yrs)
o didn't play GA (we were in the middle of a 24 yr period of not playing)
o we didn't play Vandy (we only played once in a 24 yr period),
o we played TN twice.
What kind of fricking conference was that? And why do people want to return to it? We didn't start having a sensible rotation and the start of a real conference until the mid eighties. The two div didn't really work either until we dropped the second perm x div opponent.
You should rotate thru the entire conference within 5 yrs and 4 would be better. I don't like the single div with so many teams because who you play becomes a larger factor in who the "true" top teams are. However, to achieve that with 2 div and 14 teams you have to play 9 games.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 9:58 am to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
Bama wants Mizzou in the SEC East so it can keep it's traditional rivalry with Tennessee. It appears that Mizzou would prefer to be in the West because geographically it makes the most sense (Missouri is directly above Arkansas).
Bama knows that if Mizzou joins the SEC West, then Auburn will likely move to the East. Bama doesn't want that because they are worried that Auburn could gain a recruiting advantage that way.
Also, both LSU and Florida are apparently interested in ending their relationship as each other's permanent opponents.
I'm aware of all this. I just don't understand how Bama is holding everyone hostage. The SEC doesn't need Bama to vote Missouri in.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:32 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
These are up for debate if Missouri is slotted to the SEC East:
LSU-Florida
Arkansas-South Carolina
Texas A&M-Missouri
Florida and LSU want new permanents and will get them.
I would be OK with doing away with permanent cross-divisional opponents, but if we're going to have them, I would rather keep Florida than pick up South Carolina. Yes, I know Florida would usually be a tougher game, and it might cost us another division title like it did in 2006 (and has cost Florida multiple times), but I just don't think LSU-USC would be able to match the intensity and excitement that LSU-UF has.
Posted on 10/18/11 at 10:35 am to ohiovol
quote:
I just don't understand how Bama is holding everyone hostage. The SEC doesn't need Bama to vote Missouri in
Well, first of all, it's not just Bama, but Bama and Tennessee, so there's two votes right off the bat. Also, I've heard that Vanderbilt is opposed to expansion altogether and will vote against inviting any more teams under any circumstances, so that's three. Technically, the remaining nine would be enough, but Slive has indicated that he wants more than just the bare-bones minimum votes required before we add another team.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News