- 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
The SEC and Dealing From the Bottom of the Deck
Posted on 11/13/12 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 11/13/12 at 12:36 pm
Article about scheduling teams:
LINK
LINK
quote:
The SEC has 6 teams in the BCS top ten. SIX. And, I'd like to remind you, it's been popular to say that the SEC is down this year. Which begs the question, what the hell would happen if we were up?
The amazing this is that the top six teams have not lost a single game to any team other than each other. Also, it's a bit of a stroke of good fortune that the teams are balanced evenly between the two divisions: three in the East and three in the West. The SEC isn't just the dominant conference in college football, it also has balance. There's no one team padding their record against the Sisters of the Poor.
That said, there is a huge difference in the quality of schedules of the top teams. There are six elite SEC teams, divided equally between the two divisions. Given that the SEC only has two cross-divisional games, the most "elite level" games a team can play is four (two in the division, two cross-division). The least number of elite level games a team could play is two (two in the division, zero cross-division).
This post was edited on 11/13/12 at 2:10 pm
8
Posted on 11/13/12 at 12:39 pm to CalTiger53
Mo money, mo problems.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 12:41 pm to CalTiger53
Rules is rules?
Posted on 11/13/12 at 12:59 pm to CalTiger53
100% agree with him.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 1:21 pm to CalTiger53
The ravings of a lunatic. I am sure that there is absolutely no bias for or against any team when the schedules are rig..er, made. Specifically, there is no, I repeat no bias against LSU and certainly none in favor of 'Bama. 
Posted on 11/13/12 at 1:31 pm to CalTiger53
It is a bit odd that the scheduling for Georgia and Alabama for the past two years (2012 and 2011) was very different that that of LSU and Florida.
Not to be a homer or anything....but, it does seem rather lopsided, again. I have no problem playing Florida - I look forward to the game, but geez a little balance please. My issue with the scheduling is that it conceivable that we don't get to go to Colombia, MO for 11 years......come on man.
I like seeing KY, Vandy, TN, USC and the others every once in a while - not every decade.
Not to be a homer or anything....but, it does seem rather lopsided, again. I have no problem playing Florida - I look forward to the game, but geez a little balance please. My issue with the scheduling is that it conceivable that we don't get to go to Colombia, MO for 11 years......come on man.
I like seeing KY, Vandy, TN, USC and the others every once in a while - not every decade.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 1:46 pm to CalTiger53
It's one thing to point out the obviousness of how disjointed this silly permanent opponent deal makes the SEC schedule...the real question is why it's allowed to continue? A few short weeks ago, after the 2013 schedule was released and LSU fans saw it for what it was, Joe Alleva was forced to address it in one of his e-mails. He stated something to the effect that LSU was against the permanent opponent set-up.
Well, that's awesome.
But so what? Given the fact the whole deal was put in place to appease TENN and BAMA, and a lesser extent UGA and AU, wouldn't that mean there were 8 teams (now 10) that see no real benefit from this system? Can the 10 not dictate to the 4, or are there other programs outside of those 4 which really LIKE the permanent opponent deal and vote with the BAMA/UT group?
IF LSU is the only program that doesn't like this, than I imagine we're screwed and will have to learn to like it. Are we?
Well, that's awesome.
But so what? Given the fact the whole deal was put in place to appease TENN and BAMA, and a lesser extent UGA and AU, wouldn't that mean there were 8 teams (now 10) that see no real benefit from this system? Can the 10 not dictate to the 4, or are there other programs outside of those 4 which really LIKE the permanent opponent deal and vote with the BAMA/UT group?
IF LSU is the only program that doesn't like this, than I imagine we're screwed and will have to learn to like it. Are we?
Posted on 11/14/12 at 12:45 am to CalTiger53
I have absolutely no problem playing a Florida plus Georgia or whoever else any year. The tougher our schedule is the better chance we have of making it into the NC game. If we lose to a ranked team early in the year but play five more ranked teams we probably just have to win out.
Posted on 11/14/12 at 6:50 am to CalTiger53
I will never have respect for Bama. They haven't won shite in my opinion. Now if they could just get those pesky aggies off the schedule. I am sure they will find a way.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News