re: LSU and Florida may discontinue playing each other every year

quote:

---

We will play Florida again, just not every year and we won;t replace them with only Vandy. In leui of playing Fla every year, we will play UGA, Tenn, and USCe along with UK and Vandy more often.

---

this.. i don't see whats so hard to understand...

quote:

---

Since when did Duke and Towson State join the SEC?
Why is it that so many can't make an argument with out resorting to exaggeration and idiocy?

---

I suspect that the only way we won't be playing UF every year is if cross-divisional rivalries are done away with.

quote:

---

I still think the best solution is to move Auburn to the East and Missouri to the West

Auburn UGA rivalry intact
Tenn and Bama can stay intact
Let Florida play A&M or Mizzou
Let LSU play whatever is left in East

---

And drop Alabama-Auburn? Good luck with that. Besides, what does moving Auburn to the East have to do with LSU playing Florida?

I do think it would be good if Alabama moved to the East and Florida moved to the West. Florida's traditional SEC rivals, before 1992, were LSU, Mississippi State, Georgia, Auburn and Kentucky. Move them to the West and let them have Georgia as a perennial cross-divisional rival (Auburn's could be Alabama). They would have all their traditional rivalries except Kentucky. We'd lose ours with Alabama, unfortunately, but we'd probably be facing each other almost every year in the SECCG for the next few years and maybe we could pick up Tennessee as a regular season perennial rival?

quote:

---

LSU and Florida may discontinue playing each other every year

---

Oh just lovely. We played a perennial juggernaut every year during their glory years while some rival schools in the SEC got an annual cupcake.

Now that they are on the verge of mediocrity/cellar dweller status in the SEC, we no longer play them annually.

Yay.

quote:

---

This would be bad for both schools. UF has traditionally been the top ranked team in the SECe. That's who I hope we keep playing.

---

Why is only having to meet the best program in the East once a year, as opposed to possibly twice, a bad thing? This is actually a good thing for both LSU and Florida in the long-run. Does it suck to not have them on the schedule every year, yeah, a little. But would I prefer to increase our chances of making it to Atlanta year in and year out? Without question.

It's inequitable to have teams vying for a shot at the SEC title have built-in easier roads. If a year happens, through a rotation, where a team gets lucky, so be it. But over the long-haul the only team with a viable option and instant recruiting base to compete with UF is UGA. Even with Tenn's history, history doesn't make Tenn a talent rich state and without the right hire, they're clouded by mediocrity and an uphill battle; whereas, UGA and UF aren't.

In 20 years, would you bet that UF is the better program to Tenn or is Tenn going to hold that mantle? The past might not be the best indication of the future, but all things considered, UF has the clear advantage in that situation. Thus, Alabama's road is that much easier over the long-run than LSU's, which isn't right. Same goes for Arkansas and any other directional SEC program.

I've always loved playing Florida. Great series, both fanbases dislike each other. I'm moving to Gainesville, and am really hoping the series continues.

quote:

---

UF and Jeremy Foley want this changed too. Do you think they're scared too? No, they're realistic.

---

Realistic about what? Obviously Alleva and Foley think there is some percieved competitive disadvantage to playing each other every year. I use the word percieved because we're talking about the two winningest SEC teams the last decade so I don't see how either team is really at a disadvantage. If we don't play UF then we'll have another good east team on the schedule. Having both Vandy and UK the same year would be rare.

quote:

---

I'm talking about the actual contenders.

---

Yes, and the contenders play each other every year yet they still contend. Look, the permanent opponent rule wasn't created in the spirit of fairness, it was created in the spirit of tradition which I agree with. If Bama has an easier road to Atlanta in a given year then so be it. It won't always be that way. Since we play in the same division, our schedules will be pretty even most of the time.

quote:

---

What?

---

If Mizzou moves to the west, Bama or Auburn will most likely move to the east. So if this happens and we do away with permanents then we would lose UF and probably AU off our current schedule. There are LSU fans that actually want this.

quote:

---

I want to win titles. Period. I could give a shite what teams we play to get there, as long as we do. We're in the SEC, we're going to play all these teams, so crying about it like you're doing doesn't make much sense to me.

---

I want to win titles too. But unlike you, I want to do it while preserving rivalries since that is one of the things that makes college football so special. If you want to call it crying then that's fine. I guess all these LSU fans and LSU administrators are "crying" that we have to play UF every year. Personally, I call it giving an opinion but you call it whatever you want.

quote:

---

Last year was a fluke, if you don't win the SEC you have virtually no shot at the BCS CG. If the current playoff being discussed become reality, you will have to win the SEC CG to play for the BCS CG.

---

While I see where you are coming from, I think you are wrong.

ESPN runs college football now. Conference championships mean nothing to teams like Bama, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.

Bama's win in 2011 will justify ESPN putting their tier 1 media darling in the title game from here on out without having to earn it.

Remember, Bama got in the game last year with the weakest resume in BCSNC history, and placing third in their conference. Losing a regular season game is now a luxury for Tier 1 media darlings.

We've gone down the slippery slope now in CFB.

frick that.