re: SIAP: Mike Slive cowers down to status quo, changes South Carolina vs. Arkansas

quote:

---

Fla has never reached the SECG in a yr they took an L to LSU and LSU has never reached the SEC title game in a yr they took an L to Fla.

---

Besides being wrong (2003 as already pointed out) this argument is silly. LSU has lost a regular season game every year we've played in the SEC-CG except 2011.

2001 THREE conference losses, Tennessee, Florida and Ole Miss(???)

2003 Florida

2005 Tennessee

2007 Kentucky, Arkansas

So, it's not that losing to Florida knocks us out, it's that it is demonstrably not fair for Ole Miss to get Vandy every year and we get Florida every year. I don't mind playing Tennessee, UGA or Florida for our share of games (somebody has to play them), but for crying out loud this isn't rocket science:

If we play Tennessee in the regular season and Florida is the best team in the East - we play Florida in the SEC-CG (and vice versa) if we win the West. If we don't win the West, it shouldn't be because we play Florida EVERY year and Ole Miss lucks up in a couple of games and has Vandy as an (almost) automatic win. I'm sure Florida feels the same and while not afraid to play LSU (or Bama, Auburn or Arky), but would like to rotate Ole Miss and Miss State a little more often.

quote:

---

What we did schedule wise when we had 10 or 12 teams needs to be changed now that we have 14.

---

I completely agree. We should play a 6 and 2, and you get every SEC-E team almost every 3 years - that's reasonable - every player who signs an LOI with a West school will most likely have the opportunity to play every East team and vice versa (that will not be sustainable at 16 teams, but will be at 14, with a 6-2. A 6-1-1 cuts the possible number down from 7 to 5).

quote:

---

I'm guessing Colorado Springs would like to register an objection at this point...

---

Sorry, since you are splitting hairs, they are the largest Senior Military Colleges.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.




ETA: I assume they are not larger than these two anyway....so, thanks for....well, nothing.

quote:

---

Arguing against the Florida game from a competition or fairness standpoint makes me sick. It's perfectly fair the SEC makes sure the historic top programs play each other. It's not like Alabama got to keep the Vanderbilt rivalry.* Teams ebb and flow in quality, but roughly speaking, Alabama, LSU, and Auburn are the top programs in the West and they are paired with Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia, the top programs in the East. Arkansas and Texas A&M are the "middle class" programs of the West and they are paired with South Carolina and Missouri, the East's middle class (this isn't meant a slight on these programs, but win a national title or at least contend for one and we'll re-evaluate). This leaves the weaker programs to pair off. This isn't a one-off season strength, but systemic quality of programs over a period of time. We're matched pretty fairly.Also, a loss to Florida cannot, has not, and will not ever prevent LSU from winning the West. If LSU loses to Florida and then wins out, it is impossible under SEC tiebreaker rules for LSU to not go to Atlanta. Think the Florida game is "too tough"? Fine. Win your other games and you still win the division. Hell, LSU won a national title in 2003, a season which included a loss to Florida.

But even if somehow a loss to Florida cost LSU the SEC West, here's the kicker: so what? In this scenario, LSU doesn't deserve the SEC title because Florida is the better team. Does it matter if we lose in October or in December? If it's about the SEC title, then Florida deserves it over LSU in a year in which they beat us. If you get a rematch in Atlanta, it's a gift. But you don't really deserve gifts, you just receive them and say "thank you".*

---

Pretty horrible argument.

Being a Floridian, I love being able to rub it in the Gator's faces when we beat their arse. But aside from that, if they go to a 4-team playoff and you aren't required to win your conference to make it, the difference between making the top 4 or not may come down to SOS. Whether LSU beats Florida or not, if they are on the bubble, I'd rather have a strong Florida team on our schedule than than a win against Vandy or Kentucky.

Well dumping the permanent cross-division rival is certainly the most logical and fair method of settling this it has one large problem in my book: we won't be playing Florida every year.

I like playing them. We don't have a true rival and they are closest thing we have to one and you want to dump them. We have a score to settle with them from the SOS years and you want to dump them just when it seems like we are getting the upper hand. I like that they hate having to play us every year. Those bastards fear us. I want to ruin about 10 more of their seasons and then they might have a score to settle with us and that is called a RIVALRY!

quote:

---

Ace completely read it wrong.

---

No, I certainly did not.

quote:

---

Yeah because look at the Pac10 and all the championships they got screwed out of because of a weak schedule. Or even bama last year. To bad they didn't play a tougher schedule! Not buying it.

Winning is more important that a slight bump in stength of schedule.

---

Of course winning is more important than strength fo schedule but in the BCS system, SOS can not be overstated. Do you think a 2 loss LSU makes it to the NC game ahead of other 2-loss teams (VT, Oklahoma, UGA, Mizzou, Southern Cal, WVU, Arizona State, BYU and Boise State 11-1 Kansas or 12-0 Hawaii without SOS in 2007? SOS and an SECCG win is what got LSU past USC in 2003 as well. It's what got Alabama in the NC game last year. Ask Boise State, TCU, Houston and Cincinnati if winning is everything.

quote:

---

Don't believe this one bit.


Also, if you were given season tickets for home and away games, which would you take?

---

I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Yes, I would much prefer to see LSU play Michigan, Nebraska or Miami(FL) in Tiger Stadium, from an entertainment standpoint than I would want to see Towson, Akron or Middle Tennessee.

However, "winning" is much more important than strength of schedule. What Bowl game does LSU (and for this example LSU is undefeated in conference, but loses the SEC-CG) get if they lose (in aclose and wonderfully entertaining game decided by a FG in OT) to Clemson and also lose on the road payback to, for example Oklahoma (ALL of that caliber team will require a home-and-home deal), and defeat North Texas in the third OOS game? This team is now 10-3, and will have a tough time getting the Sugar Bowl if the SEC Champ goes to the big game.

Just take one of the powerhouse teams from that schedule and replace them with Louisiana Tech or Tulane - boom - 11-2 and a significant upgrade (that's the dividing line between good and great right now - that 11th victory).

SO, West Virginia makes a better game, but with Florida, Alabama, Auburn and Arkansas on the schedule every year, regardless, we don't need the opponent to make our case, assuming we take care of business at the end, particularly the SEC-CG.

I know that wasn't the case in 2007, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Who were LSU's OOS opponents in 2003? It doesn't matter, because all we needed were wins in those games. Ditto for last year.

quote:

---

We have played Florida every year for the last 10 years, and we are still the most successful program in the NCAA over the last 10 years

---

We are talking competitive advantage in the SECW race given to our western brothers by LSU facing a Fla each yr and them facing a Vandy or Tenn or Kent each yr.

Cause we have been able to hold our own with Fla. since 2000, 6-6 or 4-3 since 05, that doesn't negate the fact that playing them each yr places us at a disadvantage in the SECW race when some of our western brothers are playing Vandy or Kent. or Tenn each yr.

It's got nothing to do with fear, its bout finding a way to level the SECW playing field. imo