- 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
0
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:46 am to therick711
quote:
I think the thought there is you have to have AU, Bama, UGA, and UT in the same division because RIVALRIES.
This
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:46 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Never be scared to play the best, bro.
that's not his point. he's not scared of playing anybody. the point is that some teams are getting a much easier road to the conference championship and therefore the national championship. it is inequitable. i would much rather play florida than kentucky or mizzouri but i want to win championships too. alabama and georgia have been skating on their schedule and have been reaping the rewards, esp georgia who was not challenged by a western opponent for the sec championship game for 2 years now; no lsu, no a&m, no alabama. it's bull shite and a more fair schedule needs to come about. i GUARANTEE you that if we had their schedule saban would "lobby" and get it changed. while it's ok for vandy, ole miss, kentucky and mz to skate it's ain't ok for the powers to. for example, if we played kentucky instead of florida this year, we'd be 9-1 instead of 10-2 and be squarly in the sec and nc hunt. ONE GAME is usually the difference.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:47 am to therick711
The "right" answer with the current 14 teams would be Missouri and Kentucky to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East. Maintains some geographic integrity and will foster regional rivalries. Also, with current power distribution, would make for more competitive SECCG. The schedule could then be 6-2 (with the 2 rotating on a home and home basis). And the Gumps would get their traditional game vs. Tennessee and the War Eagle Tiger Plainsmen their game with UGA.
All that said, the SEC will keep it as is until they add 2 more teams, then realign things
All that said, the SEC will keep it as is until they add 2 more teams, then realign things
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:49 am
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:49 am to therick711
I agree to an extent, but it wasn't long ago that Tennessee was a powerhouse and Alabama sucked. Success is not often sustained for a long period of time.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:51 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
I agree to an extent, but it wasn't long ago that Tennessee was a powerhouse and Alabama sucked. Success is not often sustained for a long period of time.
Which meant that UT got to skate because it didn't play AU, LSU, and State some years. The up and down argument doesn't fix it. How often is Florida down? Two years at a time every 10 or so?
This is about equity and a system that makes more sense. The point isn't that UT will never be good, just that permanent opponents institutionalize unfairness into the schedule.
Epilogue to respond to the benefit of the doubt crowd. LSU manhandled Oregon in the opener and went up exactly one spot (Oregon's spot) in the coaches poll from 4 to 3. Look at all that respect. Didn't pass Alabama or OU. Guess who they played? Kent State and Tulsa respectively. I'm not sure that really works anymore. I think Bama gets the same cred for pounding UT that it would get for pounding UGA.
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:59 am
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:55 am to lsuin92
quote:after a few minutes on the college football data warehouse, here's 1993:
Curley actually would have made the SEC title game one of the years he was here!
LSU 3-2
Bama 3-2 (LSU tiebreaker)
Ark 2-3
MSU 1-4
Ole Miss 1-4
Auburn - undefeated, ineligible
i did it quickly, so i could have made an error
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:00 am to therick711
The OP makes a good point. It makes a big difference in the current B(C)S system, but may have less of an impact with a playoff.
Why not have 'Bama and Auburn move to the east to be replaced by TAMU and Mizzu?
Why not have 'Bama and Auburn move to the east to be replaced by TAMU and Mizzu?
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:00 am to therick711
There is some validity to your argument but not your solution. Although you know who will be the best teams next year, relatively speaking, you don't know how they will be three years or five years from now.
I seem to recall us handling Florida quite nicely last year and they were not a good team. Both Tennessee and Arkansas, have historically been very good at football so exchanging them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Tennessee could make a comeback and be quite good in a few years. I believe we stand as an example of how quickly a good coach can change a program around and Tenn will surely have a new one next year.
I think the permanent opponent should be done away with and go with the luck of the draw for all involved. It could still work out that one team might have weak opponents and the other strong but it least it would be random luck.
I seem to recall us handling Florida quite nicely last year and they were not a good team. Both Tennessee and Arkansas, have historically been very good at football so exchanging them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Tennessee could make a comeback and be quite good in a few years. I believe we stand as an example of how quickly a good coach can change a program around and Tenn will surely have a new one next year.
I think the permanent opponent should be done away with and go with the luck of the draw for all involved. It could still work out that one team might have weak opponents and the other strong but it least it would be random luck.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:02 am to White Tiger
quote:
Why not have 'Bama and Auburn move to the east to be replaced by TAMU and Mizzu?
As much as I hate how every team's scheduling is essentially dictated by the desires of Alabama schools, apparently no matter the alignment we choose, this particular version would be particularly lame, in my mind, for the West Division.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:03 am to oilfieldtiger
quote:
after a few minutes on the college football data warehouse, here's 1993:
LSU 3-2
Bama 3-2 (LSU tiebreaker)
Ark 2-3
MSU 1-4
Ole Miss 1-4
Auburn - undefeated, ineligible
i did it quickly, so i could have made an error
makes you wonder if Curley would have held onto his job longer under this crazy scenario!
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 11:17 am
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:04 am to therick711
There is some validity to your argument but not your solution. Although you know who will be the best teams next year, relatively speaking, you don't know how they will be three years or five years from now.
I seem to recall us handling Florida quite nicely last year and they were not a good team. Both Tennessee and Arkansas, have historically been very good at football so exchanging them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Tennessee could make a comeback and be quite good in a few years. I believe we stand as an example of how quickly a good coach can change a program around and Tenn will surely have a new one next year.
I think the permanent opponent should be done away with and go with the luck of the draw for all involved. It could still work out that one team might have weak opponents and the other strong but it least it would be random luck.
I seem to recall us handling Florida quite nicely last year and they were not a good team. Both Tennessee and Arkansas, have historically been very good at football so exchanging them doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Tennessee could make a comeback and be quite good in a few years. I believe we stand as an example of how quickly a good coach can change a program around and Tenn will surely have a new one next year.
I think the permanent opponent should be done away with and go with the luck of the draw for all involved. It could still work out that one team might have weak opponents and the other strong but it least it would be random luck.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:04 am to Tom Bronco
quote:
There is some validity to your argument but not your solution.
There are actually a few solutions. Relegation for one. 6-2 with a better long term plan on the pairing of cross-div opponents. 6-3 with same. Or a schedule based on the previous years records (that would be a nightmare for skedding OOCO, though. If you move UT to the West, then you can do a 6-2 or 6-3 and make a move to equity.
If you want to move UF to what is called the West, I'm for that too!
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:04 am to White Tiger
quote:
Why not have 'Bama and Auburn move to the east to be replaced by TAMU and Mizzu?
Because aTm is already in the West?
Move Bama and Auburn to the East and move Vandy or Kentucky to the West..
You could even move South Carolina to the West since they don't have a rivalry vs any SEC East teams. I know if doesn't make geographic sense, but still...
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 11:06 am
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:11 am to therick711
quote:
As we all know, many LSU fans find it inequitable that the schedule in conference is done with one so-called permanent opponent.
This year, LSU has played SEC East teams that are 9-1 and 8-2. Neither team has lost out of conference.
it's happening on both sides. U.G.A. had ole miss and Au on the west. Florida had to beat lsu and aTm. South carolina had to beat lsu and Ark.
It came down, bama had to beat lsu, u.g.a. had to beat florida. on the reverse, lsu had to beat florida, usc, and bama. Florida had to beat lsu, usc, and uga.
i don't mind playing florida, just count the west record for the west champ and east record for the east champ. throw out the other division record.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:17 am to therick711
You're making us look like pusses.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:20 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
You're making us look like pusses.
:omg:
Other people might think something negative about anonymous fans on a message board! Stop the presses!
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:25 am to Choupique19
quote:
But we will never play the Kentuckys and Vanderbilts in the same year. Next year, Alabama will play Kentucky and Tennessee. Tennessee is currently on or below Vanderbilt's level based off of who won last year's game and who is likely to win this year's game.
We got Kentucky and Tennessee LAST year
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:30 am to JYD
quote:
Because aTm is already in the West?
Sorry, did not understand that TAMU was in the west as a permanent solution. It seems that there is a clear bias against LSU, or perhaps more accurately, in favor of AL. They get much benefit of the doubt.
Even though the SEC is much less likely to be in the NCG, I was glad to see the tide recede like a, well, you know...
I guess they will have to set to work getting the CFB universe back in order.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:31 am to Cap Crunch
quote:
We got Kentucky and Tennessee LAST year
Yeah along with playing Oregon, WV, Flo Rida, Gumps, etc...
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News