- 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
re: SIAP: Mike Slive cowers down to status quo, changes South Carolina vs. Arkansas
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
Because it’s asking too much of Auburn. Auburn is an eastern school playing in the West, and we’re asking them to sever all historic ties prior to 1992. I hate Auburn, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to let them keep one of their historic rivals.
There are two fair systems, but one preserves old rivalries. I choose that one. I think one of the leading causes of the near demise of the Big 12 was the death of the OU-NU rivalry. It was unhealthy for the league to sever those ties and fostered instability. The permanent rival model worked far better, why should we adopt the model that failed?
And given the utter lack of support for LSU’s idea, I fail to see why Slive should overrule the consensus to do something the overwhelming majority of the conference does not want.
There are two fair systems, but one preserves old rivalries. I choose that one. I think one of the leading causes of the near demise of the Big 12 was the death of the OU-NU rivalry. It was unhealthy for the league to sever those ties and fostered instability. The permanent rival model worked far better, why should we adopt the model that failed?
And given the utter lack of support for LSU’s idea, I fail to see why Slive should overrule the consensus to do something the overwhelming majority of the conference does not want.
1
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:21 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
To be the best...you need to beat the best.
Unless you are UGA last year or this year. Then you can skip all of the SEC West teams with a pulse unless you make it to Atlanta.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:21 pm to Baloo
quote:
Because it’s asking too much of Auburn. Auburn is an eastern school playing in the West, and we’re asking them to sever all historic ties prior to 1992. I hate Auburn, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to let them keep one of their historic rivals.
Move them to the East and they get to keep one of them.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:22 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
To be the best...you need to beat the best.
It's called the SEC title game
You don't even have to PLAY in the SEC Title Game to be the "best".
Sincerely,
Bama
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:22 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
It's called the SEC title game.
You do realize that we could lose to Florida and still control our own destiny to the SEC title game. And in most years make it to the BCSNC game.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:23 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
That's not much considering you have 4 tickets.
Enough for me. I'm not your typical OT baller.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:24 pm to LoyalTiger
quote:
You do realize that we could lose to Florida and still control our own destiny to the SEC title game. And in most years make it to the BCSNC game.
If you are looking for an example of how the scheduling is inequitable, look no further than USC-e and Georgia from last year. USC-e went undefeated against its division and lost the East. UGA happened to miss the top three teams in the West. USC-e got one of them--it also happened to be their permanent opponent. It decided the East.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:26 pm to Tiger Authority
My bitch bout having to play Fla. every yr is not bout ducking anyone during the season. It's having to beat a good team twice to win the SEC and get a chance at the NC game. When the gators were on a roll, they were almost a lock for the SEC championship game, so if we were to win the west & advance, we had to beat them twice in the same yr ( see Alabama this past season as to how fair that is)
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:27 pm to therick711
quote:
Unless you are UGA last year or this year. Then you can skip all of the SEC West teams with a pulse unless you make it to Atlanta.
And what happened in Atlanta? Proved they didn't belong there. I would prefer LSU be battle tested prior to the championship game.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:27 pm to LoyalTiger
It's not about having to play Florida every year. It's about playing UGA, UT, USC Vandy, Mizzou, and UK only twice in an 11 year period.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:28 pm to therick711
Actually, to subvert my own argument since I believe in honesty in debate, look no further than Bama. Bama played for the national title yet did not have to play the two top teams in the East, who were far and away the best teams in the division.
But if conference title matter, had LSU lost to Florida, it still would have won the SEC West. How was LSU harmed – in the context of the conference title – by playing a tougher East schedule?
But if conference title matter, had LSU lost to Florida, it still would have won the SEC West. How was LSU harmed – in the context of the conference title – by playing a tougher East schedule?
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:28 pm to therick711
USC lost the east. because they shite the bed against Auburn. A team they should have beat.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:29 pm to LoyalTiger
quote:
And what happened in Atlanta? Proved they didn't belong there. I would prefer LSU be battle tested prior to the championship game.
Exactly. They got there because they had an easy road. USC-e choked, no doubt, but their permanent opponent was the number 3 team in the country at one point. UGA's permanent opponent should have considered not fielding a defense on the basis of ineptitude.
quote:
USC lost the east. because they shite the bed against Auburn. A team they should have beat.
If their permanent opponent were, say, Ole Miss, they would have won the East. They shite the bed against AU and got a tougher draw than anyone UGA faced. USC faced a systemic disadvantage last year, you can't deny that.
This post was edited on 5/29/12 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:30 pm to LoyalTiger
quote:
Proved they didn't belong there
Must not have watched the first half.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:31 pm to Choupique19
quote:
It's not about having to play Florida every year. It's about playing UGA, UT, USC Vandy, Mizzou, and UK only twice in an 11 year period.
Go to a nine game schedule. You’d play every team twice in a six year span. And if you delay the return games, you’d play every team at least once every three years. A nine-game schedule with a permanent rival actually works cleaner than an eight game schedule without a permanent rival.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
Baloo
Exactly
6-1-2 as its called. Delay the return home games until the next cycle and the players get to play everybody, even if the declare early.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:38 pm to Baloo
quote:
But if conference title matter, had LSU lost to Florida, it still would have won the SEC West. How was LSU harmed – in the context of the conference title – by playing a tougher East schedule?
Last year it would not have mattered about Florida. However,look no farther than 2006 season when LSU probably had it's best and most balenced team of all time and got royally screwed at Auburn that year (PI picked up) then had their worst game of the season at Florida (5 turnovers including fumble at half yard line) before turning it on all cylinders towards the end of the year and still not getting to play for anything.
Imagine for a minute instead of having to go to Gainesville like we did that we instead had Vandy that year and we play our worst game of the year against Vandy and still win easily and get the cobwebs out. We then could have won the SEC West (despite the Auburn loss) and probably win the Florida game in Atlanta since we were steamrolling by then. We are then the team that gets voted over Michegan and we then go on and take the NC by Tourching Ohio State like Florida did.
It's a streight up hypothetical for sure but it's not that big a stretch to imagine something like that taking place with the team we had that year. Of course that's how the cookie crumbles but I will always wonder about that 06 team and how we missed out on a great opportunity that year.
This post was edited on 5/29/12 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:40 pm to Baloo
quote:
Go to a nine game schedule. You’d play every team twice in a six year span
the only thing I don't like about the 9 game schedule is someons is playing 4 home games and some else 5. Obviously it rotates, but 4-4 is better.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:42 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
the only thing I don't like about the 9 game schedule is someons is playing 4 home games and some else 5. Obviously it rotates, but 4-4 is better.
As it stands now, there are teams that play neutral site conference games, so you have that problem no matter what.
Posted on 5/29/12 at 1:46 pm to CajunFootball
quote:
Must not have watched the first half.
Last I checked they play 2 halfs in college football. Unless Slive is trying to change that too.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News