- 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: SIAP: Mike Slive cowers down to status quo, changes South Carolina vs. Arkansas
Posted on 5/29/12 at 11:24 pm to omegaman66
Posted on 5/29/12 at 11:24 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Point it it is NOT a level playing field. It without a doubt give an easier road the SEC championship game to whoever plays the traditionally weaker teams in the conf
SEC records since 2000:
Fla. 71-29
Tenn. 55-44
Top 10 in polls since 2000:
Fla. 5 times
Tenn 1 time
SEC titles since 2000:
Fla. 3
Tenn. 0
Hell, if I was Bama I would was want to keep the Vols on my yearly schedule as well.
1
Posted on 5/29/12 at 11:24 pm to BoobieWatcher
I like 6 - 2 - 1 format as well. You can still schedule a nice non conference home and away each year you just have to have your home game in a given series the same year you are shorthanded on conference home games. This gaurantees at least 7 home games every year.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:17 am to Govt Tide
LSU and Fla have rarely reeled off many in a row vs the other foe, since the SOS era ended.
Time for a fair and balanced schedule, and with Tenn's in-state talent issues coupled to Saban residing in T-Town, that isn't gonna happen anytime soon in that "rivalry"..
Let fair and balanced divisional schedules pit the best in the East vs West in Atlanta, it's long overdue..
Those in favor of LSU-Fla staying intact think it's just sheer coincidence that the two powers have never squared-off in Atlanta some two decades later since the SECCG's inception? Wake Up!
1996 LSU loses to Fla & Bama., tying Tide at 6-2. UA to the SEC CG on the tie-breaker. A win over some other East foe, and LSU-UF Part Two happens.
2001, Florida loses to Tenn, blocking a LSU-UF Part Two in CG.
2005 Florida losses at LSU, finishes 1 game behind UGA, whom they beat..otherwise LSU-UF Part Two in Atl.
2007 Fla loses to LSU, finishing 1 game behind UGA & Tenn. They beat UT, but lost to UGA..unsure of tie-breaker that year?
A minimum of 3 or 4 times the LSU-UF rivalry greatly factored into the possibility of a LSU-Fla rematch in Atlanta, over 20 yrs.
And more importantly, LSU was utterly impotent for five of the 20 seasons('92,'93,'94,'98,'99) with no bowl chances, thus it has factored around once every five years for LSU-Fla(3 or 4 times in 15 seasons where both contended), around 20% of the time bare minimum.
The SECCG has featured a rematch of a regular season game a total of six times (1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010), none of which were amongst regular season permanent cross-rivals? 0-for-20 permanent cross-div foe rematches!? Is that stat correct? Hard to believe if true. Then again, maybe not!
The team who won the regular season game is 5-1 in the rematches, the lone exception being in 2001 when LSU defeated Tennessee in the championship game after losing to them in the regular season. Which stands to rationale, that if the regular season loss alone wasn't enough to deny a school a trip to Atlanta, beating them when you couldn't the first time, is rather daunting.
That, and the SEC having the Natty Champ emerge 10 of the last 20 yrs(Fla 3, Bama 3, LSU 2, Tenn 1, Aub 1)..means tough sledding to want play the powerhouse of the state of Fla, plus the toughest division in D-1, in LSU's case!
Time for a fair and balanced schedule, and with Tenn's in-state talent issues coupled to Saban residing in T-Town, that isn't gonna happen anytime soon in that "rivalry"..
Let fair and balanced divisional schedules pit the best in the East vs West in Atlanta, it's long overdue..
Those in favor of LSU-Fla staying intact think it's just sheer coincidence that the two powers have never squared-off in Atlanta some two decades later since the SECCG's inception? Wake Up!
1996 LSU loses to Fla & Bama., tying Tide at 6-2. UA to the SEC CG on the tie-breaker. A win over some other East foe, and LSU-UF Part Two happens.
2001, Florida loses to Tenn, blocking a LSU-UF Part Two in CG.
2005 Florida losses at LSU, finishes 1 game behind UGA, whom they beat..otherwise LSU-UF Part Two in Atl.
2007 Fla loses to LSU, finishing 1 game behind UGA & Tenn. They beat UT, but lost to UGA..unsure of tie-breaker that year?
A minimum of 3 or 4 times the LSU-UF rivalry greatly factored into the possibility of a LSU-Fla rematch in Atlanta, over 20 yrs.
And more importantly, LSU was utterly impotent for five of the 20 seasons('92,'93,'94,'98,'99) with no bowl chances, thus it has factored around once every five years for LSU-Fla(3 or 4 times in 15 seasons where both contended), around 20% of the time bare minimum.
The SECCG has featured a rematch of a regular season game a total of six times (1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2010), none of which were amongst regular season permanent cross-rivals? 0-for-20 permanent cross-div foe rematches!? Is that stat correct? Hard to believe if true. Then again, maybe not!
The team who won the regular season game is 5-1 in the rematches, the lone exception being in 2001 when LSU defeated Tennessee in the championship game after losing to them in the regular season. Which stands to rationale, that if the regular season loss alone wasn't enough to deny a school a trip to Atlanta, beating them when you couldn't the first time, is rather daunting.
That, and the SEC having the Natty Champ emerge 10 of the last 20 yrs(Fla 3, Bama 3, LSU 2, Tenn 1, Aub 1)..means tough sledding to want play the powerhouse of the state of Fla, plus the toughest division in D-1, in LSU's case!
This post was edited on 5/30/12 at 12:31 am
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:25 am to Govt Tide
Not responding to anyone in particular just some thoughts on some of the points mentioned...
Having one rotating slot from the other division is terrible. You go so far between games it's like some of the other teams aren't even in your conference.
Playing 9 conference games is even worse. Schedules will already be uneven between teams competing for a division championship, it will be worse if one has 5 home games and the other has 4. ETA: This also greatly affects the flexibility to schedule series against other BCS programs OOC.
Teams that play neutral site conference games are not forced to do so. If they want to give up a home game that's their decision.
The Big 12 didn't blow up because Nebraska and Oklahoma played two years and then were off two years. Playing twice every 4 years instead of every year didn't diminish the history between the schools nor the significance of the games when they did play.
The Big 12 melted down because of one school and their superiority complex.
Having one rotating slot from the other division is terrible. You go so far between games it's like some of the other teams aren't even in your conference.
Playing 9 conference games is even worse. Schedules will already be uneven between teams competing for a division championship, it will be worse if one has 5 home games and the other has 4. ETA: This also greatly affects the flexibility to schedule series against other BCS programs OOC.
Teams that play neutral site conference games are not forced to do so. If they want to give up a home game that's their decision.
The Big 12 didn't blow up because Nebraska and Oklahoma played two years and then were off two years. Playing twice every 4 years instead of every year didn't diminish the history between the schools nor the significance of the games when they did play.
The Big 12 melted down because of one school and their superiority complex.
This post was edited on 5/30/12 at 12:30 am
Posted on 5/30/12 at 6:30 am to MOT
Agree, cant believe any LSU fan wants to keep permanent opponents
Posted on 5/30/12 at 6:46 am to Tiger Authority
It's not so much for Bama and UT as it is for everyone.
Uga and AU is too good a rivalry to let go.
Same with us and UF.
Bama and UT is great.
Ole Miss and whoever they play....who cares, it's Ole Miss.
MSU vs who....UK? That's fine.
We shouldn't complain. UF has it harder than anyone.
They have to play FSU OOC every year. FSU will be good again.
Uga and AU is too good a rivalry to let go.
Same with us and UF.
Bama and UT is great.
Ole Miss and whoever they play....who cares, it's Ole Miss.
MSU vs who....UK? That's fine.
We shouldn't complain. UF has it harder than anyone.
They have to play FSU OOC every year. FSU will be good again.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 7:37 am to Tiger Authority
I think it is a savvy move, and will build interest in the SEC here in MO. The TV markets of St. Louis and KC were ultimately what the SEC wanted out of MU's addition - this will help that.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 8:03 am to dstone12
quote:
Uga and AU is too good a rivalry to let go
There will never be a change because of this mindset. No one has suggested these teams never play again. They would still play on a regular basis.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 8:14 am to MOT
quote:
There will never be a change because of this mindset. No one has suggested these teams never play again. They would still play on a regular basis.
AU-UGA have played every year since 1898 except for two small gaps caused by World Wars. It is the South's Oldest Rivalry. This is not some incidental rivalry.
LSU fans who don't want to play Florida are simply cowards. I ain't afraid of nobody.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 8:45 am to Baloo
Yeah, because if you think there is a better way to do things it means you are afraid of Florida. The competitive balance thing isn't a big deal to me because it does go in cycles. I'm glad we got to kick the shite out of Florida last year because it meant more than doing the same to Vanderbilt. We get Florida when they're on top and when they're slightly down so it evens out.
Is that really fair to other teams though? Arkansas won't play them often and what if they happen to get them while they are a juggernaut, while somebody like ole miss or A&M get them while they are down a little?
Is that really fair to other teams though? Arkansas won't play them often and what if they happen to get them while they are a juggernaut, while somebody like ole miss or A&M get them while they are down a little?
Posted on 5/30/12 at 8:56 am to MOT
Well, I’ve already made the argument, repeatedly, about how the permanent rival of each team matches up with the historic strength of the programs, so I don’t see the problem. It maintains tradition and competitive balance at the same time. The traditional best teams play each other, the middle class teams play each other, and the bottom feeders play each other. Sure, there’s some variance in quality (USCe is currently ascendant, Tennessee is on a low ebb), but not enough to be truly concerning.
Teams vary in quality from year to year. Some times you luck out, some times you don't. Trying to account for that variance is a fool's errand.
Teams vary in quality from year to year. Some times you luck out, some times you don't. Trying to account for that variance is a fool's errand.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:03 am to Topwater Trout
I like playing Fla. every year. Great game.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:16 am to Baloo
By rotating as often as possible it is much more likely everyone will catch other teams in their current cycle. Obviously it won't always happen, but it is much more likely. Programs normally don't succeed at a high level one year then fall completely off the map the next year.
If our schedules are going to be based on relative strength of the programs then we might as well put all the top teams in one division euro soccer style.
Then again, I'm just afraid of Florida because I would like to play other teams in our conference more than once a decade.
If our schedules are going to be based on relative strength of the programs then we might as well put all the top teams in one division euro soccer style.
Then again, I'm just afraid of Florida because I would like to play other teams in our conference more than once a decade.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:21 am to MOT
You are afraid of Florida and your previous arguments in this thread make it clear. It’s also this complete inflexibility towards your conference mates. Auburn-Georgia? Screw them. It’s a horrible, destructive attitude. The game has value and should be preserved.
Go to nine games. It solves all of the problems and makes the conference schedule cleaner. You’d play every team in a three year span and visit every campus in a six year span. And preserve old rivalries. You’re tilting at the wrong windmill. It’s not the permanent rivals which are a problem, it’s the 8 game schedule.
Go to nine games. It solves all of the problems and makes the conference schedule cleaner. You’d play every team in a three year span and visit every campus in a six year span. And preserve old rivalries. You’re tilting at the wrong windmill. It’s not the permanent rivals which are a problem, it’s the 8 game schedule.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:27 am to Baloo
I still think the best possible solution would be to make a move and jump to 16 teams and split the conference in 4. Rotate the divisions every year so that you will play every school at least once in three years. With the 12 game schedule that leave you with 7 conference games, and 5 open slots. If anyone wants to play another team in conference who they are not lined up to play that year(Ex: Bama wants to play UT) they can schedule them in one of their open slots and just call it a OOC game so that some teams don't have more conference games.
With the current 14 team conference no one is going to be happy with how the games get scheduled. UF/LSU don't want to play, Bama/UGA/UT/Aub want to keep their games, and OM/Vandy don't want to risk losing each other.
With the current 14 team conference no one is going to be happy with how the games get scheduled. UF/LSU don't want to play, Bama/UGA/UT/Aub want to keep their games, and OM/Vandy don't want to risk losing each other.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:38 am to MOT
Theywould still play on a regular basis.
------------------------------------------
No they wouldn't. That is why this thread was started in the first place.
------------------------------------------
No they wouldn't. That is why this thread was started in the first place.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:38 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
The best argument was some guy talking about the cost of tickets and liking the known commodity of UF every other year on the schedule. I can understand that. I disagree, but I think the argument is sound.
I brought up the cost of tickets and playing a known commodity, but I'm not opposed to having a rotating schedule. That comment was made toward someone who suggested that LSU have Vandy as their permanent opponent. I'm adamantly oppossed to that. Attending a Vandy/LSU game is just slightly better than attending a North Texas/LSU game.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:40 am to LoyalTiger
quote:
I brought up the cost of tickets and playing a known commodity
And LSU/TAF really don't care. They know people will buy the product no matter who they play against. Yeah UF sells out more, but Tiger Stadium will still be packed if UGA or USCe comes to town.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:45 am to CajunFootball
Not Vandy.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:46 am to CajunFootball
quote:
I still think the best possible solution would be to make a move and jump to 16 teams and split the conference in 4. Rotate the divisions every year so that you will play every school at least once in three years.
I actually love this idea and can't wait for it. Let the arguments over the pods begin.
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News