SEC schedule discrepancies explained in facts

Before anyone goes "not this shite again" or the "they're just crying" folks. This is simply a thread showing the cold hard facts of the SEC schedules (specifically cross-divisional games) recently, and how the SEC has essentially made sure things are more unequal than ever before. This is something the SEC MUST fix as this is simply a travesty comparing some teams schedules now. No, no one here is blaming the schedules for any extra loss or anything, just point out some facts, once again.

Before I begin with the breakdown, many folks main argument is "one year one team will benefit from a schedule, the other will suffer and it could be the opposite the next year, so that makes up for it". This is a poor argument, and here is why..You dont wrong a wrong to make it right. Simply seeing 1 team playing 2 ranked teams in the other division 1 year to the next them playing 0 ranked teams in the other division and saying the first year it "sucks" to the next saying "benefitted". It should be somewhat even across ALL teams EVERY year. Sure, adding an extra conference game wont solve the entire problem, but it certainly helps, a great deal. As you will see.

This will be a comparison of the two competing teams in the SEC West recently: LSU and Alabama, since this is who it is affecting on our side of things.

2011
Alabama - (5-7) Tennessee, (7-6) Florida, (6-7) Vanderbilt
LSU - (5-7) Kentucky, (7-6) Florida, (5-7) Tennessee

Verdict = Pretty much even, the teams played the same 2 teams and a third team that were close to each other (within 1 win)...neither had a ranked team...this was also the last year of playing 3 cross-divisional games, oh wait, you see there? Schedules that don't lend massive help one way or the other.


2012
Alabama - (5-7) Tennessee, (5-7) Missouri
LSU - (11-1) Florida, (10-2) South Carolina

Verdict = This is awful and shouldn't happen. One team gets to play 2 mediocre teams and the other 2 Top 10 teams...HUGE discrepancy. What say you would have happened if the 3rd game was added? Well, Alabama was going to play UGA, an 11-1 Top 10 team while LSU was to play Kentucky, a 3-9 team. Now, there's only 1 game of (ranked team) discrepancy, which most folks could at least live with and isn't totally terrible.


2013
Alabama - Tennessee, Kentucky
LSU - Georgia, Florida

Verdict - Now not trying to come to hasty conclusions. But I think MOST would agree you see two ranked teams there for LSU, and likely two unranked teams for Bama. Once again, something that looks at least similar to 2012. Bama was once again also scheduled to play UGA, so once again we see schedules get MORE evened out with an extra game. I honestly forgot who LSU was scheduled to play before expansion, but at least we know Bama was going to play a team we play anyways.


So over a 3 year span, you see LSU playing what looks to be 4 ranked teams out of a possible 7 (2 out of 5 for sure). Alabama plays what looks to be 0 ranked out of a possible 7 (0 out of for 5 for sure). While as a composite that looks bad, that's not what really counts. What really counts is each individual year and in 2011, things were basically even. In 2012, things were terribly different. In 2013, things LOOK to be terribly different once again...but with the extra game added, things would be evened out a bit in both 2012 and 2013.

So in conclusion, the SEC needs to get on the talks of adding a 9th conference game (again), and quick. For whatever reason, they lolly-gagged around on the issue initially and dropped the ball for at least 2 years here...and we have these stupid schedule discrepancies which never should have happened in the first place. This simply should not have happened, and shouldn't conitnue to happen. Down the road, say in 2014, if LSU plays 2 unranked teams, and Bama plays 2 ranked teams cross-divisional...that's also obviously equally unfair and doesn't "make up" for anything. Just once again wrongs a wrong.


And I know, TL;DR