re: we gotta stop this permanent rivalry shite

quote:

---

if its not in the conference's best interest.

---

Debatable.

We want the rivalry to remain regardless. I'm just saying it isn't our fault that the conference as a whole sides with us.

quote:

---

IF WE GO TO 16 TEAMS, 4 PODS, ALL THESE COULD STAY IN PLACE

---

Not without a perm x div game and that shite needs to go away. You cannot satisfy all 5 teams (AL, AU, FL, GA, and TN) that insist on playing a subset of each other with a 4 team grouping. One would have to give something up.

quote:

---

the voice of reason. now if we can just get some of these gumps to repeat remedial math they would at least feel better about it.

---

herp derp. You need to get your own head around the remedial math before you start calling others out.

9 conference games are coming and you need to get used to the idea. With an 8 game schedule you will be able to play every other team in their division, but only 2 games against teams in the other division.* Without 9 conference games, it is going to take 7 years for a team in the west to have a home and home with every team in the east. Here, I broke it down for you. Teams A, B, C, D, E, F, and G represent the seven teams in the opposite division. If you only play two teams in the opposite division each year--due to playing an 8 game schedule--then this is how it would break down:

Year 1
Team A
Team B

Year 2
Team B
Team C

Year 3
Team C
Team D

Year 4
Team D
Team E

Year 5
Team E
Team F

Year 6
Team F
Team G

Year 7
Team G
Team A

It would take 7 years to complete the cycle of teams. Now, let's take a look at a 9 game schedule (6 intra-divisional games and 3 inter-divisional games):

Year 1
Team A
Team B
Team C

Year 2
Team B
Team C
Team D

Year 3
Team D
Team E
Team F

Year 4
Team E
Team F
Team G

Year 5
Team G
Team A
Team B

5 years! Now let's look at an 8 game schedule with one permanent rival, Team A.

Year 1
Team A
Team B (Home)

Year 2
Team A
Team B (Away)

Year 3
Team A
Team C

And so on. I think we can all agree that a 14 team conference with 1 permanent cross-division rival and an 8 game schedule is untenable. Let's look at one final situation: 9 game schedule with 1 permanent cross division rival (Team A).

Year 1
Team A
Team B
Team C

Year 2
Team A
Team C
Team D

Year 3
Team A
Team D
Team E

Year 4
Team A
Team E
Team F

Year 5
Team A
Team F
Team G

Year 6
Team A
Team G
Team B

As we see here, with a 9 game schedule, you can maintain a permanent cross-division rival, and play every other team in the other division within 6 years. Or, you can get rid of the permanent cross-division rival and play every other team in the other division within 5 years. Both of these scenarios allow you to play every other team in the opposite division quicker than you could with an 8 game schedule, even if you remove the permanent cross-division rival (7 years).

So, your stated reason for doing away with the permanent cross-division rival in order to expedite playing every team in the other division is incompatible with your aversion to moving to a 9 game schedule.

quote:

---

You do realize that it isn't just Bama and UT don't you? If Auburn moves to the east when Mizzou comes in, there will still be a desire to have the IB every year. If Auburn stays in the west, either because Mizzou goes east or #14 is from the east, there will still be a desire for the AU/UGA game to continue. So depending on how talks are going about who goes in and where certain schools land, you could have Bama, UT, AU and UGA holding tight to the permanent cross division games.

---

Watch yourself PJ. You'll be called a stupid gump for defending the permanent cross divisional game. Besides, it isn't like the Iron Bowl is worth saving either. I'm glad the leaders in other conferences don't have the mindset of this board as the Michigan/Ohio State, Texas/OU, Iron Bowl, etc games would be eliminated if they had their way. After all, THEY don't care about these silly rivalries which don't really add anything or make college football special in any way.

quote:

---

I'm just saying it isn't our fault that the conference as a whole sides with us.

---

I think for a long time things were just accepted. Now that the status quo has been shaken up a bit, people are realizing traditions and rules aren't set in stone or as rigid as once believed. Getting rid of the permanent cross divisional rivalries would be best for the conference overall. It creates a fairer balance and more natural rotation between cross divisional foes.

quote:

---

You do realize that it isn't just Bama and UT don't you?

---

The majority of us here realize that the cross divisional rivalries only benefit Bama, AU, Tenn, and GA. That's 4 teams out of 13 now? I just think it hasn't been addressed because no one has thought it an issue. I can tell you, I think it asinine that we get stuck playing Fla every year while someone gets Vandy. All to appease 4 teams. I know you all want to try to pull the "you guys are just scared" card, but that has little to do with it. We play in the toughest division in college football, there's no team we're afraid to play. It's just the principle.

quote:

---

If LSU is so concerned about avoiding Florida then why not simply pick between Kentucky and Vandy and be done with it.

---

It doesn't work that way. We were given Florida. We can't just choose. That's the whole point of them being permanent cross divisional rivalries. I guess, the reason we aren't as passionate about keeping such rivalries is complete and utter ambivalence, up to the point where it could conceivably have adverse effects on our title hopes. Let's face it, Tenn isn't Fla. So, with all things pretty much being even with Bama and LSU, one of the biggest factors that could determine who represents our division in Atlanta could be a loss to that cross divisional rival. Now, sure there's are going to be other factors, but the the cross divisional factor is a constant, and when that representative is chosen by the best SEC record it becomes a much larger factor. Not to mention it's a constant thats in place to pacify just 4 schools. When you placate 4 schools at the expense of the other 9, that is a little unfair.

quote:

---

any block of 4 schools can pretty much handcuff the conference

---

Yea, we've seen how well that's worked in other conferences.

We've seen what happens when the will of few overrides the whole. What I'm saying, is that if this whole permanent cross division deal becomes a hot topic (which it isn't yet), then the attitude you display is no different than the attitude exuded by our delightful burnt orange neighbor to the West.

A few years ago who would've thought the Big 12 would have crumbled to what it is now?

But the thing is, in the Big 12 it is Texas and only Texas that is pulling the strings/being the bully. In the case of the SEC and perm cross division games you have at least three or four schools against it, possibly more than that.