- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 9/1/11 at 11:19 am to The ChizMan Cometh
Divide the divisions however you want. It's the only way to fix the unbalanced schedule problem.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 11:23 am to winyahpercy
quote:
the only change I made was to switch USC permanent from UArk to MSU and MSU's to UK. nothing against UArk, but it's been a hard rivalry to get going. they have been a thorn in our sides when we've had good years. MSU was originally our permanent before they went to 2 rotators. and Missouri's boot heel is the only thing separating Kentucky & Arkansas.
I would have no problem with that. The drive trip from Fayetteville to Columbia is a bitch for both teams and there definitely is no rivalry whatsover between us. May as well just make travel easier for both schools and perhaps with close opponents things would spice up a bit.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 11:58 am to TheCheshireHog
The competitive balance thing is something to take with a grain of salt, when you consider divisions.
For those of you who have followed SEC baseball or basketball, or even those who remember the years when Florida/TN/Georgia were all top 10 teams with the biggest games of the year, you should recognize that there is an inherent danger in confusing the current status of programs with their future performance levels.
Things ebb and flow, when it comes to competition; right now, the West is way up with 3 teams mentioned as NC contenders or dark horse contenders-- whereas you get a lot of nods and agreement if you say the East champion is probably going to have 2 conference losses and will win on tiebreakers--- but in a couple of years, the opposite can just as easily be true.
That said, I believe the East/West format may be altered slightly, to preserve rivalries. A 16 team 4 division league doesn't work very well-- adding an extra game to the schedule will be a no-go with the NCAA, and having only 7 conference games before the 'divisional playoffs' begin doesn't allow for real separation to occur-- you'll end up seeing a lot more races determined by tie-breakers, to the point where it makes the muddle Big XII Circa 2008ish.
The division format I see as workable is something like this:
Arkansas (Perm USCe or new East)
LSU (Perm Auburn)
Texas A&M (Perm Georgia)
Ole Miss (Perm Kentucky)
Mississippi State (Perm Florida)
Tennessee (Perm Alabama)
Other Expansion School if NW of Alabama/Auburn- if E or SE, Kentucky in the 7th place. (Perm Vandy, or USCE if KY crosses over)
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
In the short term, it's pretty brutal, but preserves most of the key league rivalries as conference games.
Yes, it bunches a ton of great programs together, but when you're working with a 14 or 16 team SEC, and are working with the Alabama-Auburn, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia games all being pretty well set in stone, it's virtually impossible to not stack historically great programs on top of one another.
For those of you who have followed SEC baseball or basketball, or even those who remember the years when Florida/TN/Georgia were all top 10 teams with the biggest games of the year, you should recognize that there is an inherent danger in confusing the current status of programs with their future performance levels.
Things ebb and flow, when it comes to competition; right now, the West is way up with 3 teams mentioned as NC contenders or dark horse contenders-- whereas you get a lot of nods and agreement if you say the East champion is probably going to have 2 conference losses and will win on tiebreakers--- but in a couple of years, the opposite can just as easily be true.
That said, I believe the East/West format may be altered slightly, to preserve rivalries. A 16 team 4 division league doesn't work very well-- adding an extra game to the schedule will be a no-go with the NCAA, and having only 7 conference games before the 'divisional playoffs' begin doesn't allow for real separation to occur-- you'll end up seeing a lot more races determined by tie-breakers, to the point where it makes the muddle Big XII Circa 2008ish.
The division format I see as workable is something like this:
Arkansas (Perm USCe or new East)
LSU (Perm Auburn)
Texas A&M (Perm Georgia)
Ole Miss (Perm Kentucky)
Mississippi State (Perm Florida)
Tennessee (Perm Alabama)
Other Expansion School if NW of Alabama/Auburn- if E or SE, Kentucky in the 7th place. (Perm Vandy, or USCE if KY crosses over)
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
In the short term, it's pretty brutal, but preserves most of the key league rivalries as conference games.
Yes, it bunches a ton of great programs together, but when you're working with a 14 or 16 team SEC, and are working with the Alabama-Auburn, Auburn-Georgia, Alabama-Tennessee, Florida-Georgia games all being pretty well set in stone, it's virtually impossible to not stack historically great programs on top of one another.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 12:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
#1- We won't move to 9 conference games.
Disagree. With the Pac12, Big Ten, and Big XII all moving to 9 games, the SEC will have to as well. Its sounds ridiculous, but the media will attack our schools and make fun of our non con schedules even more if everyone goes to 9 games but us so that we can schedule cupcakes. Also, its a bad business model to have a conference where you only play 3 of the 7 teams in the opposite division.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 12:35 pm to BoardReader
quote:
A 16 team 4 division league doesn't work very well-- adding an extra game to the schedule will be a no-go with the NCAA,
Why would that be a no go with the NCAA? Once the SEC adds TAM, the arms race is on for conference expansion. As I pointed out before 14 teams creates many more problems than 16 teams. You really don't think 2 playoff games to get to a championship game is out of the question once the Pac12 SEC and The Big 10(12) all go to 16 teams?
Even if those other conferences didn't go to 16 teams, there is precedence for one league playing more games than other leagues. The Pac 12 just now added a championship game as did the big 10, and the Big12 doesn't even play a championship game now.
Conference expansion is about money. Adding a couple playoff games to get to Atlanta would be big $$$$
There is also plenty of room for separation to occur within divisions. All 7 conference games count as they do now. All 4 teams in a division play head to head, determining any tie breakers.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 12:56 pm to chilld28
quote:
He got a math analyst to look at the schedule and said next year would be impossible scheduling wise.
Siphering always confuses the ridge-runners.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 2:13 pm to winyahpercy
quote:
but if you speculate that VPI is #14, then it all stays the same w/ permanent out of division teams w/ A&M and VPI matched together.
UA (UT)
AU (UGA)
LSU (UF)
A&M (VPI)
OM (VU)
MSU (USC)
UArk (UK)
---------
UGA (AU)
UF (LSU)
USC (MSU)
UT (UA)
UK (UArk)
VPI (A&M)
VU (OM)
the only change I made was to switch USC permanent from UArk to MSU and MSU's to UK. nothing against UArk, but it's been a hard rivalry to get going. they have been a thorn in our sides when we've had good years. MSU was originally our permanent before they went to 2 rotators. and Missouri's boot heel is the only thing separating Kentucky & Arkansas.
this will allow for a 9 game conference schedule that will keep 2 rotating games or a 8 game schedule w/ 1 rotating game.
This makes BY FAR the most sense. I still don't understand the magic of 16 teams. If Va Tech or NC State were to join the SEC East and A&M to the SEC West then why is that a big problem?? Just go to a 9 game conference schedule and everyone loses 1 non-conference game.
The way teams get around losing the home game is scheduling the 1 high quality non-conference home and away opponent each school typically has at home in your heavier SEC road year. I'll use Alabama's 2012 and 2013 schedules as an example:
2012 Alabama HOME games: Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, 1 SEC East team, 2 non-conference opponents (7 home games)
2013 Alabama HOME games: Arkansas, LSU, 2 SEC East games, 3 non conference games
Alabama could still play a really nice non-conference opponent in 2013. They just have to pick 2013 as the year they host that game to give them 7 home games. Basically, it amounts to the same 7 homes games Alabama has had every year since Saban has been the coach so no home games are lost. If you can mathematically arrange the other 13 SEC schedules the same way and make it work then problem solved.
This post was edited on 9/1/11 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 9/1/11 at 2:22 pm to Draconian Sanctions
8 conference games
6 your own division
one permanent and one rotating from the East
4 OOC
pretty simple.
All this realignment bullcrap is never going to happen.
Just make aTm and the other new addition permanent rivals and everyone else keeps their current one.
6 your own division
one permanent and one rotating from the East
4 OOC
pretty simple.
All this realignment bullcrap is never going to happen.
Just make aTm and the other new addition permanent rivals and everyone else keeps their current one.
This post was edited on 9/1/11 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 9/1/11 at 2:38 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
this will allow for a 9 game conference schedule that will keep 2 rotating games or a 8 game schedule w/ 1 rotating game
Do you really want to play AU BAMA UF TENN UGA LSU S CAR and Arky all in one year just to reach the championship game? There are only so many OM's and Vandy's to go around.
Btw if you are AU you already play 6 of those teams this year. Throw in an OM/Miss a TAMU and Va Tech or Tenn and you see why playing a 9 game conference schedule is impossible.
Posted on 9/1/11 at 4:38 pm to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
Why would that be a no go with the NCAA? Once the SEC adds TAM, the arms race is on for conference expansion. As I pointed out before 14 teams creates many more problems than 16 teams. You really don't think 2 playoff games to get to a championship game is out of the question once the Pac12 SEC and The Big 10(12) all go to 16 teams?
14 teams is very, very, very simple. It doesn't create any problems at all, with the right alignment to maintain most rivalries. It doesn't expand the schedule, change the 8 game conference season format, and it doesn't put the NCAA and the SEC at odds over whether or not adding an additional game to the schedule is permissible; the NCAA has consistently resisted any push towards a +1 format or a playoff, so, to suddenly expect them to embrace a mini-playoff in the SEC is contrary to everything that we know about the NCAA.
This post was edited on 9/1/11 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 9/1/11 at 8:21 pm to BoardReader
Why cant teams like Bama schedule Tennessee and Auburn schedule UGA as out of conference games in years that they dont play each other in conference games if they want those games every year? Theres a solution if they look hard enough...
Posted on 9/2/11 at 10:02 am to Daigeaux
quote:
Why cant teams like Bama schedule Tennessee and Auburn schedule UGA as out of conference games in years that they dont play each other in conference games if they want those games every year? Theres a solution if they look hard enough...
Why should Auburn and/or Bama alone be forced to give up two of the SEC's most historic rivalry games when forced to the East just to accomodate new members?
Posted on 9/2/11 at 10:07 am to The ChizMan Cometh
quote:
Do you really want to play AU BAMA UF TENN UGA LSU S CAR and Arky all in one year just to reach the championship game? There are only so many OM's and Vandy's to go around.
Btw if you are AU you already play 6 of those teams this year. Throw in an OM/Miss a TAMU and Va Tech or Tenn and you see why playing a 9 game conference schedule is impossible.
Yes, I do. It beats the h### out of the alternative which is a stupid four 4 team divisional split within the conference that will obliterate normalcy and fairness in scheduling. Auburn and Alabama and every other SEC school is already playing a really tough schedule. What's the big deal about adding only 1 more tough team to the schedule?
Board Ruler eloquently pointed out how much easier schedules would be with 14 teams when a new member is added to the West and the East.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News