- 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: Possible scheduling format if the SEC goes to 16 teams
Posted on 12/4/12 at 12:03 am to ffishstik
Posted on 12/4/12 at 12:03 am to ffishstik
I was thinking this same thing. And in years when Bama/Tenn and UGA/AUB games aren't scheduled they can simply play each other as an OOC game.
I think it makes the division championships much more fair as every team will essentially play the same schedule). It also gets rid of rematches in the championship game.
I like.
I think it makes the division championships much more fair as every team will essentially play the same schedule). It also gets rid of rematches in the championship game.
I like.
0
Posted on 12/4/12 at 12:03 am to ffishstik
Bama will tell SEC to jump and the SEC will say how high. I thought I would never say this, but I would have no issue if LSU decides to leave the SEC. We along with the other member schools will never ever ever get a fair shot as long as the SEC office on Richard Arrington Blvd in downtown Bham with the top brass being gumps.
Posted on 12/4/12 at 7:44 am to sheek
Well, there's another plus for this plan. Going to 16 gives some strength in numbers to dilute the concentration of power in B'ham.
Adding Va Tech adds money by adding the Virginia and D/C TV market. Adding NC State gets you North Carolina and the Charlotte market.
If the plan makes things fairer for all and takes in more money for the SEC, it would be hard for the gumps to fight it.
Adding Va Tech adds money by adding the Virginia and D/C TV market. Adding NC State gets you North Carolina and the Charlotte market.
If the plan makes things fairer for all and takes in more money for the SEC, it would be hard for the gumps to fight it.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 4:35 pm to ffishstik
I think this would be a great idea but I doubt the SEC goes for it. For it to work we'll probably still need to keep one fixed oponent to keep a few rivalries in place and that can keep us at a 8 game schedule.
Likely:
UGA-UF
LSU-ARK
TAMU-MIZZOU
VT-NC State
Tennesse-Vandy
Ole Miss-Bama
M State-Auburn
When that team does happen to be in regular rotation would could each pick a team to play every other year, like us Florida. Maybe Georgia- South Carolina. It's still fairer than now with everyone playing the same schedule less one game out of 8 and lets you play 4 teams every year in the conference for more rivalries to take place.
Likely:
UGA-UF
LSU-ARK
TAMU-MIZZOU
VT-NC State
Tennesse-Vandy
Ole Miss-Bama
M State-Auburn
When that team does happen to be in regular rotation would could each pick a team to play every other year, like us Florida. Maybe Georgia- South Carolina. It's still fairer than now with everyone playing the same schedule less one game out of 8 and lets you play 4 teams every year in the conference for more rivalries to take place.
Posted on 12/5/12 at 11:29 pm to Lesfan
Perhaps. I don't think anyone would miss the LSU-Arkansas "boot". Funny, LSU - Bama has become the biggest game of the year in College football for the last few years, but I'll bet Alabama wouldn't fight to keep THAT game!
Posted on 12/5/12 at 11:45 pm to ffishstik
This actually looks like a great set up. I like it.
If the conference keeps expanding, something will have to change, and I think the permanent rival deal should be the clear short straw. Teams could schedule those rivals as an OOC game in the off years without impacting the structure you laid out.
If the conference keeps expanding, something will have to change, and I think the permanent rival deal should be the clear short straw. Teams could schedule those rivals as an OOC game in the off years without impacting the structure you laid out.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 12:49 am to ffishstik
I actually think this is a very good format if the conference were to expand. I think some tweaking would be needed for the pods, but overall not bad.
I personally think we should get rid of the cross division rivals now, but we have to keep them so Bama and Tennessee can have their rivalry game. I think they will have to do away with it eventually if they want to expand more.
I personally think we should get rid of the cross division rivals now, but we have to keep them so Bama and Tennessee can have their rivalry game. I think they will have to do away with it eventually if they want to expand more.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 4:43 am to GRTiger
quote:
This actually looks like a great set up. I like it.
I wonder why....
quote:
SEC WEST
LSU
TAMU- won one conference title in the last 20yrs,.500 conference record same period.
MISS St- less wins than any team in SEC. No SEC titles,ever.
Ole Miss- last won a conference title in 1963
quote:
SEC South
Alabama- 1st all-time wins in SEC, 1st SEC titles, 15 national titles
Tennessee-2nd most wins all-time,2nd most SEC titles, 2nd most national titles.
Georgia- 3rd most all-time wins in the SEC, 3rd most SEC titles
Auburn- 5th all-time wins, 6th most SEC titles
Posted on 12/6/12 at 8:20 am to ffishstik
quote:
SEC South:
Ole Miss
Alabama
Mississippi St
NC State
Posted on 12/6/12 at 8:29 am to Ghostfacedistiller
Switch Vandy anda Tenn for better balance. Good Idea. Makes too much since and therefore must be thrown out.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 10:11 am to ffishstik
SEC north too weak, and I don't think the members in the SEC south too strong
Posted on 12/6/12 at 10:59 am to LSU Jock 1970
The teams in the SEC South play each other every year already, for the most part. The majority of the bitching to maintain certain rivalry games was to keep Georgia - Auburn and Bama - Tennessee. So, looking at the schedule Bama was SUPPOSED to have next year, they would have played all three of these teams anyway, plus LSU, TAMU, Moo St. and Arkansas.
As for the West, not only does that division make sense geographically, but it maintains Miss St - Ole Miss (rival), LSU-Ole Miss (rival) and LSU-TAMU (rival).
All of that said, this format balances out any disparities in SOS because:
a.) To get to the SECCG, you have played the same schedule as everyone else that you are competing with for that slot
b.) In the suggested divisions, these teams would usually have played each other anyway
c.) The division that you are in only accounts for 3 of the 7 games conference games played (or 3 of 8 if there is an extra "floating" SEC game).
d.) With the 7 game SEC slate, ADs would have the flexibility with 5 OOC games to schedule tougher teams from other conferences in years where their pairing isn't as strong as they would like, or they can schedule down a little if they draw a tougher division.
Either way, team strength is cyclical for the most part. There have been years where the West was weaker and some where the East was weaker. This balances that out as well by not lumping the same 7-8 teams together every single year.
And, last but not least, this would eliminate any schedule gerrymandering to benefit one team or another.
As for the West, not only does that division make sense geographically, but it maintains Miss St - Ole Miss (rival), LSU-Ole Miss (rival) and LSU-TAMU (rival).
All of that said, this format balances out any disparities in SOS because:
a.) To get to the SECCG, you have played the same schedule as everyone else that you are competing with for that slot
b.) In the suggested divisions, these teams would usually have played each other anyway
c.) The division that you are in only accounts for 3 of the 7 games conference games played (or 3 of 8 if there is an extra "floating" SEC game).
d.) With the 7 game SEC slate, ADs would have the flexibility with 5 OOC games to schedule tougher teams from other conferences in years where their pairing isn't as strong as they would like, or they can schedule down a little if they draw a tougher division.
Either way, team strength is cyclical for the most part. There have been years where the West was weaker and some where the East was weaker. This balances that out as well by not lumping the same 7-8 teams together every single year.
And, last but not least, this would eliminate any schedule gerrymandering to benefit one team or another.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 5:51 pm to ffishstik
quote:
Also, with 7 SEC games, SEC teams will have the opportunity to schedule 5 OOC games, helping the SEC to avoid beating each other up too badly and opening the door to schedule stronger OOC opponents, which I would really enjoy as a college football fan.
The first year this was in place here is what the "interesting OOC Schedule" would be:
1) LSU's 5 non-conference games would be against:
-A new neutral site game in exotic Memphis against Wake Forest (this would be our marquee non-conference game)
-4 home games against Nicholls, Appalachian State, North Texas and Montana (Montana because Rice backed out of a game at the last minute)
2) Alabama's 5 non-conference games would be against:
-Minnesota Golden Gophers in a new neutral site game in Charlotte (this would be thier marquee neutral site game because both teams are "historical")
-4 home games against Western Carolina, Western Alabama, Western Kentucky and The Citadel
Yeah, I am sure going down to 7 SEC games will really cause the SEC to schedule more "interesting" OOC games.
Posted on 12/6/12 at 6:09 pm to ffishstik
Very well done 
Posted on 12/6/12 at 6:53 pm to LSU=Champions
SEC South
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
That way the ala-tenn is yearly and the aub-ga is also yearl. That should have been done this year. Should have moved ala & Aub to east this year.
Georgia
Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
That way the ala-tenn is yearly and the aub-ga is also yearl. That should have been done this year. Should have moved ala & Aub to east this year.
Posted on 12/7/12 at 1:18 pm to OldSarge38
You need to send this thread over to the SEC rant & get bama's consent, as they will have the final say on any new schedules.
Posted on 12/7/12 at 1:23 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Teams could schedule those rivals as an OOC game in the off years without impacting the structure you laid out.
Why would anyone ever want to schedule a team from the same conference as an OOC game in a year they werent playing them.
For example, if we didn't have UF on our SEC schedule in a given year, why in God's name would we add them to our OOC slate?
Posted on 12/7/12 at 1:32 pm to PurpleAndGold86
quote:
Why would anyone ever want to schedule a team from the same conference as an OOC game in a year they werent playing them.
For example, if we didn't have UF on our SEC schedule in a given year, why in God's name would we add them to our OOC slate?
Traditional Rivalries? That's the reason Alabama and others insist that we keep the permanent opponent system in place.
Posted on 12/7/12 at 1:52 pm to BasilBogomil
quote:
Traditional Rivalries? That's the reason Alabama and others insist that we keep the permanent opponent system in place.
We are talking about doing away with the permanent rivalry. The question I am asking is if they did away with permanent rivals then why in the hell would anyone add them to the schedule? They wouldn't. No one in the SEC would add another SEC team to their "OOC" schedule if they weren't included in their conference slate.
If the conference goes to 16 teams in 2014 and there are no more permanent rivalaries, and UF is not on our schedule, I can almost assure you that we will not try and add them to our schedule. Does that make sense now?
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News