- 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: Pat Forde argues for a nine-game SEC schedule
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:42 pm to thunderbird1100
Posted on 5/10/13 at 9:42 pm to thunderbird1100
While it is certainly true that the average SEC eight-team conference schedule compares favorably to a nine-gamer in any other conference, it won't always be so. Eventually the selection comittee may come to see our position as presumptuous and regard the lack of an extra conf game unfavorably. To boldy state "we don't need to do it how everyone else does, we're just that good" is going to come back to bite us in the rear.
And, it is entirely accurate to say that it is "gaming the system" by allowing an extra rent-a-win per team per season. If we play each other, that's seven more loses for the conf (assuming we were all going to beat our pansies. . .).
Increasing the overall number of wins for the season for the conf as a whole -> more teams bowl eligible -> more money for the conference teams to split and more practice time. Noone likes a greedy bastard.
Keeping eight games reeks of arrogance and manipulation, especially to those who already reek of envy themselves, and giving them legitimate gripes will eventually turn the tide of public opinion/perception from one of strength to one of sneaky conniving bottom dealers.
Having said all that, just about every argument against the nine team sched is also valid, at least in the forseeable future.
Pick your poison. Just get rid of the permanent cross div opponents, for the love of God!
And, it is entirely accurate to say that it is "gaming the system" by allowing an extra rent-a-win per team per season. If we play each other, that's seven more loses for the conf (assuming we were all going to beat our pansies. . .).
Increasing the overall number of wins for the season for the conf as a whole -> more teams bowl eligible -> more money for the conference teams to split and more practice time. Noone likes a greedy bastard.
Keeping eight games reeks of arrogance and manipulation, especially to those who already reek of envy themselves, and giving them legitimate gripes will eventually turn the tide of public opinion/perception from one of strength to one of sneaky conniving bottom dealers.
Having said all that, just about every argument against the nine team sched is also valid, at least in the forseeable future.
Pick your poison. Just get rid of the permanent cross div opponents, for the love of God!
This post was edited on 5/17/13 at 11:05 pm
0
Posted on 5/11/13 at 2:26 am to thunderbird1100
The SEC champion will get an invite every year, and that is all the SEC is entitled to.
The purpose of a 4-game playoff format is not to insure multiple SEC teams qualify for the national title.
In situations like we had in the 2011 season, a second SEC team could be included, but that will be rare in my opinion. I can't remember the last time a conference had the #1 and #2 rated teams at the end of the season. So, that situation should be rare in deed.
You have to remember that the NCAA is under pressure from the U.S. Congress to include non-BCS teams into the playoff system.
The purpose of a 4-game playoff format is not to insure multiple SEC teams qualify for the national title.
In situations like we had in the 2011 season, a second SEC team could be included, but that will be rare in my opinion. I can't remember the last time a conference had the #1 and #2 rated teams at the end of the season. So, that situation should be rare in deed.
You have to remember that the NCAA is under pressure from the U.S. Congress to include non-BCS teams into the playoff system.
Posted on 5/11/13 at 8:25 am to Sheetbend
Doesn't Congress have better things to do than worry about NCAA football? And a nine game SEC schedule is the only fair way to make sure the schedules are somewhat even. The difference in this years schedules are ridiculous. 
Posted on 5/11/13 at 8:30 am to bigpapamac
The Gumps would have a fit to have to play a tough schedule instead of the same cream puffs every year!!! 
Posted on 5/11/13 at 11:29 am to cajunjj
If you mean by tough schedule having to play Florida....naw, we really wouldn't worry about it. We don't view them as the end all be all. Back when Spurrier and Meyer were there they were formidable. Today, meh..not so much. We played UT when they were the 2nd best conference team for 75 years and Florida was winning one game. Never heard anybody say it wasn't fair that we got UT and LSU got to play..cough cough 1-10 or 5-6 Florida. We wouldn't today if Florida was 1-10 and UT was 11-1 every year. But we really didn't bother with what LSU was doing. We still mainly focus on the school across the state.
Posted on 5/11/13 at 11:32 am to Settingthestandard
quote:
Back when Spurrier and Meyer were there they were formidable. Today, meh..not so much.
Take that shite out of here. They just went to a BCS bowl, and are playing some damn fine football again. If Miles didn't think they were hard he wouldn't still be trying to get rid of them from the schedule.
Posted on 5/11/13 at 12:48 pm to CajunFootball
Round Robin like the PAC 12 only way to go. Tired of seeing the Bama's, GA's, or whoever else play a couple of tough games. The winner of the SEC could have 2 losses and still beat anyone in the country.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 7:19 am to PortCityTiger82
quote:
There is ten of them... Well, nine because we can't play ourselves
More like 4-5 because the other 5-6 are SEC teams.
Remember, "OOC top ten teams".
Posted on 5/12/13 at 9:17 am to TigerCard
quote:
The Pac-12 is doing it now. So is the 10-team Big 12
I'd like to see one team's schedule in the Pac 12/Big 12 that is more difficult than LSU's next year.
That said, I'm all for it (as long as we're adding Kentucky) but this complete fluff stuff is ridiculous - Penn State, Oregon, TCU, Clemson, Virginia Tech, hopefully Wisconsin (haven't read anything on updates to that) come to mind off the top of my head. Kind of difficult to argue adding a fluff game if you're comparing it to a fluff conference.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 11:57 am to lsutigers1992
It won't make a difference like lsutigers1992 said Bama will get a all the cupcake teams every year.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 12:37 pm to TheDoc
quote:
9 game schedule for sure with no permanent cross division opponents
Agree with this.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 3:52 pm to Billy Ray Valentine
A ninth SEC game means 7 extra losses for the conference, period. That's why the other conferences want the SEC to go to 9 games. When you play strong nonconference opponents and win, it's great because there's no one in the conference on the losing end. You replace an OOC game with conference game #9, that's 7 more automatic losses and no extra wins.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 7:42 pm to SLAP99
quote:
That's why the other conferences want the SEC to go to 9 games
So there's a conspiracy? I have'nt heard of this.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 7:50 pm to TigerCard
Who cares what Pat Forde has to say....
Posted on 5/12/13 at 9:19 pm to DArbonneDuke
Darbonne you're right, I agree there's not a lot of chatter regarding that right now, but the math is pretty powerful.
Larry Scott and Jim Delany may not be arranging secret slumber parties to force Mike Slive's hand but there's a reason the big 10 realigned their whole conference and added a ninth conference game, and it wasn't to see if they could put out a s***tier, less competitive product. Lets face it, the big 10 loses nothing by adding a ninth conference game because it was (and will be) Ohio st and everyone else. But they do (in their mind at least) find a way to put pressure on the SEC come CFB playoff committee selection time by arguing that there's a "less rigorous" conference schedule in the SEC. Now you and I and the neighbor's retarded dog know that's ridiculous, but it wouldn't be much of an argument if they didn't go to 9 games first.
In my mind the big 10 is doing the math and saying 7 more SEC losses a year is worth way more to the big 10 than the sacrifice of 6 or 7 losses within their own league.
Larry Scott and Jim Delany may not be arranging secret slumber parties to force Mike Slive's hand but there's a reason the big 10 realigned their whole conference and added a ninth conference game, and it wasn't to see if they could put out a s***tier, less competitive product. Lets face it, the big 10 loses nothing by adding a ninth conference game because it was (and will be) Ohio st and everyone else. But they do (in their mind at least) find a way to put pressure on the SEC come CFB playoff committee selection time by arguing that there's a "less rigorous" conference schedule in the SEC. Now you and I and the neighbor's retarded dog know that's ridiculous, but it wouldn't be much of an argument if they didn't go to 9 games first.
In my mind the big 10 is doing the math and saying 7 more SEC losses a year is worth way more to the big 10 than the sacrifice of 6 or 7 losses within their own league.
Posted on 5/12/13 at 9:40 pm to Settingthestandard
That's funny (cough cough) I remember Bama fans and little Nicky complaining about a coincidence that a couple of schools had a bye before playing Bama and how unfair that was. I guess it's all in your perspective.
This post was edited on 5/12/13 at 9:42 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News