- 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 5/30/12 at 9:50 am to Baloo
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:50 am to Baloo
Obviously some people are incapable of having a real discussion on this issue. "Disagree with me and you're scared of Florida or you're trying to destroy all the tradition!!"
Nine game schedules would cause more inequalities than permanent opponents. In a conference where home field is such a big advantage, having some teams with 5 home games in any given year while others they are competing with for their division only have 4 is just a bad idea. I would rather play 8 and have a permanent opponent, it is a slightly less terrible option.
Playing less games, but still facing each other on a consistent basis, would not destroy any current rivalry. I don't want to speak for the fans of any of those 4 teams, but if asked independently outside of the scheduling discussion what makes those games special to them, I bet that it being an annual game wouldn't be one of the top answers.
There are other scheduling alternatives if they believe their programs would cease to exist in the few years they aren't part of the SEC schedule.
Nine game schedules would cause more inequalities than permanent opponents. In a conference where home field is such a big advantage, having some teams with 5 home games in any given year while others they are competing with for their division only have 4 is just a bad idea. I would rather play 8 and have a permanent opponent, it is a slightly less terrible option.
Playing less games, but still facing each other on a consistent basis, would not destroy any current rivalry. I don't want to speak for the fans of any of those 4 teams, but if asked independently outside of the scheduling discussion what makes those games special to them, I bet that it being an annual game wouldn't be one of the top answers.
There are other scheduling alternatives if they believe their programs would cease to exist in the few years they aren't part of the SEC schedule.
1
Posted on 5/30/12 at 9:53 am to Tiger Authority
quote:
Doesn't make it any less inequitable to our goal to win the conference when Alabama wants to keep a rivalry and Ole Miss likes playing that tough Vandy team.
Yeah but ole miss could play an ACC schedule (that counts as SEC play) and we would still have a better shot at the SECCG
Posted on 5/30/12 at 10:03 am to Lonnie4LSU
quote:
SEC records since 2000:
Fla. 71-29
Tenn. 55-44
Top 10 in polls since 2000:
Fla. 5 times
Tenn 1 time
SEC titles since 2000:
Fla. 3
Tenn. 0
Hell, if I was Bama I would was want to keep the Vols on my yearly schedule as well.
How many times has everyone said these run in cycles?
'80s
Florida 76-38-1 (.661)
Tenn. 77-38 (.700)
'90s
Florida (Great Ball Coach Years) 102-22 (.823)
Tennessee (Fat Phil Sucks Years) 99-22 (.818)
Posted on 5/30/12 at 10:07 am to Baloo
Would actually be pretty easy to make them once you know the other 2 teams.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 10:15 am to dstone12
quote:
No they wouldn't. That is why this thread was started in the first place.
If you wouldn't describe them as playing on a regular basis in a true rotating format, how would you describe the frequency in which we play non permanent teams in the East?
Posted on 5/30/12 at 10:29 am to MOT
Actually, if you’ll look at my arguments throughout this thread, I’ve responded logically and fairly to everyone. H-Town and I discussed this civilly and went through actual arguments pro and con. But when your argument is just “we can’t play Florida anymore” and disregard every other solution, especially when they better address the problem you pretend to care about, I then tell you what I honestly think: you are afraid of Florida.
If your real issue is playing everybody frequently, the 6-2-1 format works better than any other, as teams play everyone every three years. But you reject it out of hand because that doesn’t address your actual real issue – playing Florida every year.
And casually destroying an annual rivalry that dates back to the 19th Century as “no big deal” is remarkably callous. I even addressed the 5-4 home/away concern by suggesting an annual neutral site game for each team. But even without it, you’ve been advocating for the value of divisional records and how the other divisional games skew those results. Yet for the past 20 years, divisional records have had an uneven home/away split. Why no concern about that? Because it’s not convenient for your argument?
So, I’m cutting through the BS and getting to the core of your argument. Your offered solutions demonstrate what you truly care about: not playing Florida. And I don’t respect that position. Why should I lie and say I do?
If your real issue is playing everybody frequently, the 6-2-1 format works better than any other, as teams play everyone every three years. But you reject it out of hand because that doesn’t address your actual real issue – playing Florida every year.
And casually destroying an annual rivalry that dates back to the 19th Century as “no big deal” is remarkably callous. I even addressed the 5-4 home/away concern by suggesting an annual neutral site game for each team. But even without it, you’ve been advocating for the value of divisional records and how the other divisional games skew those results. Yet for the past 20 years, divisional records have had an uneven home/away split. Why no concern about that? Because it’s not convenient for your argument?
So, I’m cutting through the BS and getting to the core of your argument. Your offered solutions demonstrate what you truly care about: not playing Florida. And I don’t respect that position. Why should I lie and say I do?
Posted on 5/30/12 at 10:53 am to Baloo
Wow, I can't tell if you're getting me confused with someone earlier in the thread or if you're just making up a bunch of bullshite I never said to make it easy for you to argue against.
I never said I didn't want to play Florida any more. I didn't even mention Florida until you came along with the default "oh you're just scared" horse shite.
No one suggested destroying rivalries.
Ofcourse divisional home/away games have been uneven in the past...you play an odd number of games within the division. But everyone plays 4 at home and 4 on the road unless they choose otherwise. I even showed how scared I am of Florida by preferring permanent opponents to having a 9 game schedule. It also affects your flexibility in scheduling OOC games.
I never said I didn't want to play Florida any more. I didn't even mention Florida until you came along with the default "oh you're just scared" horse shite.
No one suggested destroying rivalries.
Ofcourse divisional home/away games have been uneven in the past...you play an odd number of games within the division. But everyone plays 4 at home and 4 on the road unless they choose otherwise. I even showed how scared I am of Florida by preferring permanent opponents to having a 9 game schedule. It also affects your flexibility in scheduling OOC games.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 11:02 am to MOT
There is no perfect answer with 14 teams. Someone is going to get screwed no matter what.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 11:06 am to Sev09
quote:FIFY
Mike Slive likes to suck Bama's d!ck whenever he can hands down.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 11:12 am to CajunFootball
To me it isn't about being screwed or not. If we have to have permanent opponents I hope we keep Florida [insert random scared of Florida comment/make believe nonsense to save others the trouble]. It's about a format that makes sense for the conference as a whole.
I like the expansion/pod idea, but I think it would still be difficult to maintain those annual games unless they're all in he same pod....in which case they would be the ones bitching about LSU and Florida having it too easy.
I like the expansion/pod idea, but I think it would still be difficult to maintain those annual games unless they're all in he same pod....in which case they would be the ones bitching about LSU and Florida having it too easy.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 11:41 am to MOT
quote:
No one suggested destroying rivalries.
You are. If teams don't play every year, the rivalry will wither and die. See Oklahoma-Nebraska.
It is about fairness. And what is fair is allowing teams to maintain rivalries predating 1992, especially Auburn who is being asked to play outside its geographic region. The East/West divide absolutely screwed Auburn out of its traditional rivals, and its hardly asking too much for the SEC to make a minor accommodation for them. That IS fairness, as the perm rivals all line up to historic quality. If Bama got to keep Vandy, then we could cry foul.
Your proposed solution isn't about fairness. It's why you reject the 9 game schedule which accomplishes your stated goal of more games against cross-divisional opponents.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 11:47 am to MOT
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 11:09 am
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:04 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
SIAP: Mike Slive cowers down to status quo, changes South Carolina vs. Arkansas
quote:
I like playing UF every year.
Doesn't make it any less inequitable to our goal to win the conference when Alabama wants to keep a rivalry and Ole Miss likes playing that tough Vandy team.
For ole miss bandy = florida to us
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:24 pm to Baloo
Rivalries are more than just playing annually or playing a bunch of times. Maybe those awful two year breaks played a role in their rivalry "dying", and I'll take your word that it's dead...I've never discussed it with a fan of either school, but the fact that it was no longer competitive probably also played a big part. In the final days of the Big 8, and early in the Big 12 era, Nebraska was dominating Oklahoma. OU hired Stoops, Osborne retired, Nebraska started a steady decline, and then Oklahoma began to dominate.
If rivalries were all about the annual game or number of times you play then we would have a serious feud with Mississippi State. But as it stands none of us really give a shite about them.
If rivalries were all about the annual game or number of times you play then we would have a serious feud with Mississippi State. But as it stands none of us really give a shite about them.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:47 pm to Baloo
quote:
It is about fairness. And what is fair is allowing teams to maintain rivalries
if the rivalries are important, the teams can continue to play every year, when the game isn't on the SEC schedule it would be considered an out of conference game...
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:49 pm to BoobieWatcher
quote:
Another reason for the extra game is for the brand and growth of the league through televised games.
considering the 9th game would probably come at the expense of good OOC opponents, it wouldn't really have any affect on the brand, IMO. Of course the conference could make a rule that everyone has to play a BCS opponent every year or their bowl share gets cut in half. (like that would ever happen)
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:50 pm to Baloo
quote:
You are. If teams don't play every year, the rivalry will wither and die. See Oklahoma-Nebraska.
It is about fairness. And what is fair is allowing teams to maintain rivalries predating 1992, especially Auburn who is being asked to play outside its geographic region. The East/West divide absolutely screwed Auburn out of its traditional rivals, and its hardly asking too much for the SEC to make a minor accommodation for them. That IS fairness, as the perm rivals all line up to historic quality. If Bama got to keep Vandy, then we could cry foul.
Why am I supposed to care about a rivalry that no one outside of Athens Georgia and Opelika Alabama cares about? Same with Knoxville and Tuscaloosa.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 12:56 pm to MOT
quote:
I like the expansion/pod idea, but I think it would still be difficult to maintain those annual games unless they're all in he same pod
Not really. The SEC would just have to allow teams to schedule other conference teams(if both want to play) as OOC games. LSU/UF could play every year with it only counting towards SEC record once every three years. You keep your yearly game, and the SEC office would have no problem scheduling around it. The pod system would allow more flexibility in scheduling and give you an extra home game each year for increased revenue.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 1:04 pm to CajunFootball
I've suggested the OOC games on here and the SECR several times before, because that can be used in the current situation even prior to further expansion, but they all have a shitfit when it is mentioned. 
Posted on 5/30/12 at 1:05 pm to MOT
I don't see what the problem is with it. You want to play a school that the conference says you're not going to play...just call them up and schedule them in an open spot.
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News