- 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 1:17 pm to Tiger Authority
Posted on 5/30/12 at 1:17 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
I want a 6-2 rotation.
This is my position as well.
2
Posted on 5/30/12 at 1:40 pm to Ace Midnight
The current system is unfair and unbalanced. The Florida AD has said he would like to see this system end and go to the 6-2 rotation as well.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 1:42 pm to Ace Midnight
It is simple. People that don't want a level playing field are stupid. So if you are one of them get use to it. How can you people argue against a level playing field? It is not freaking logical.
Hmmmm.... lets see we can rotate everyone and have the system be fair or we can make some cross div. opponents permanent and the system be unfair.
I have yet to hear one reason that is even close to making sense for the SEC to chose a system that doesn't provide a level playing field when we have that option!
This really isn't even worth talking about because you either use logic or you let bias in and want to keep screwing over certain teams. It really is that simple.
Hmmmm.... lets see we can rotate everyone and have the system be fair or we can make some cross div. opponents permanent and the system be unfair.
I have yet to hear one reason that is even close to making sense for the SEC to chose a system that doesn't provide a level playing field when we have that option!
This really isn't even worth talking about because you either use logic or you let bias in and want to keep screwing over certain teams. It really is that simple.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 2:31 pm to ForeLSU
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/26/13 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 5/30/12 at 2:45 pm to MOT
quote:
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?
Im sorry, but I have no clue what your question is, here.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 2:55 pm to dstone12
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/26/13 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:00 pm to BoobieWatcher
Understood,
If we are only going to play 8 SEC games, then just make it 6-1-1.
I understand that it will take a long time to see UGA, UT, USCe, ect in a cycle, but UF is too good of a game to see and it may be the reason we stay in the hunt if we ever lost a game, due to difficulty of schedule.
I also see his point of having it 6-2 instead of 6-1-1. Then we can play everyone in just six years due to home-and-home.
But if we stay with permanent inter-division rivals, then we still get to see other great matchups that will wax and wane over the years.
Bama still gets UT (UT will be good again, someday)
AU still gets UGA
we still get UF
Those are the best (traditionally) six teams in the conference and it is what makes the SEC so damn awesome.
USCe will have to give up the perennial game with Arky (which doesn't hurt my feelings) and will have a permanent Western opponent of ATM, while Arky will play a border-battle with Mizzou every year.
If we are only going to play 8 SEC games, then just make it 6-1-1.
I understand that it will take a long time to see UGA, UT, USCe, ect in a cycle, but UF is too good of a game to see and it may be the reason we stay in the hunt if we ever lost a game, due to difficulty of schedule.
I also see his point of having it 6-2 instead of 6-1-1. Then we can play everyone in just six years due to home-and-home.
But if we stay with permanent inter-division rivals, then we still get to see other great matchups that will wax and wane over the years.
Bama still gets UT (UT will be good again, someday)
AU still gets UGA
we still get UF
Those are the best (traditionally) six teams in the conference and it is what makes the SEC so damn awesome.
USCe will have to give up the perennial game with Arky (which doesn't hurt my feelings) and will have a permanent Western opponent of ATM, while Arky will play a border-battle with Mizzou every year.
This post was edited on 5/30/12 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:08 pm to dstone12
This debate will change sharply, soon anyway. The SEC, nor any other conference is done adding teams. So we may to 16 soon. You may kiss interdiv permanent opponents goodbye, if so.
If we add VT, then they will be paired with ATM if 16 teams allows that. They are both going to be matched due to their similar Military Schools (they are the two largest Military Colleges not in West Point or Annapolis).
But who the hell knows which teams will ever be added.
The Big Least will be shredded by the ACC and B10, leaving only 5 BCS conferences left. The mad grab is not over yet. I kinda wish they had gone to this playoff format before we ever started tearing these conferences apart. We might have avoided all of these changes, if so.
If we add VT, then they will be paired with ATM if 16 teams allows that. They are both going to be matched due to their similar Military Schools (they are the two largest Military Colleges not in West Point or Annapolis).
But who the hell knows which teams will ever be added.
The Big Least will be shredded by the ACC and B10, leaving only 5 BCS conferences left. The mad grab is not over yet. I kinda wish they had gone to this playoff format before we ever started tearing these conferences apart. We might have avoided all of these changes, if so.
This post was edited on 5/30/12 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:10 pm to dstone12
Uggg more of "these games are so freaking important!
If we have a stupid 6-1-1 schedule and and we play home then away that means it will be over a freaking decade before we play our non-division opponents again.
I have never heard anything so asinine as not playing teams in your conf. for over 10 years at a stretch. Why even call it the same conference?
If we have a stupid 6-1-1 schedule and and we play home then away that means it will be over a freaking decade before we play our non-division opponents again.
I have never heard anything so asinine as not playing teams in your conf. for over 10 years at a stretch. Why even call it the same conference?
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:16 pm to omegaman66
quote:
I have never heard anything so asinine as not playing teams in your conf. for over 10 years at a stretch. Why even call it the same conference?
Exactly. Anyone who supports this cannot be thinking logically. I like playing Florida, but I'd much rather give that up to see the other divisional teams more often.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:17 pm to dstone12
I said the rival teams would still play each other on a regular basis in a rotating format. You said "no they wouldn't".
I then asked if playing in a rotating format wasn't on a "regular basis" how would you describe the frequency in which we play the other teams from the East that aren't our permanent opponent.
If every few years isn't "regular", what would you call once or twice a decade?
I then asked if playing in a rotating format wasn't on a "regular basis" how would you describe the frequency in which we play the other teams from the East that aren't our permanent opponent.
If every few years isn't "regular", what would you call once or twice a decade?
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:26 pm to MOT
My bad.
I took, "Regular Basis" as meaning, 'yearly.'
But playing Florida twice every 6 years is not a regular basis, either.
Off the subject, but again: Had the NCAAF presidents trended to an 8 team playoff 4 or 5 years ago, conference expansion may not have happened.
I wish we could go back to the leagues of 12 teams. Take the 6 BCS winners, a Mid Major Winner[make the MWC/WAC/CUSA/SunBelt have a MidMajor c-ship to play-in to the playoff and scrap the MAC], and three more at large teams and have a 10 team playoff.
Or, one fine day we will have a 16 team playoff. The real answer lies there, competitively. It would end all arguments.
I took, "Regular Basis" as meaning, 'yearly.'
But playing Florida twice every 6 years is not a regular basis, either.
Off the subject, but again: Had the NCAAF presidents trended to an 8 team playoff 4 or 5 years ago, conference expansion may not have happened.
I wish we could go back to the leagues of 12 teams. Take the 6 BCS winners, a Mid Major Winner[make the MWC/WAC/CUSA/SunBelt have a MidMajor c-ship to play-in to the playoff and scrap the MAC], and three more at large teams and have a 10 team playoff.
Or, one fine day we will have a 16 team playoff. The real answer lies there, competitively. It would end all arguments.
This post was edited on 5/30/12 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 5/30/12 at 3:38 pm to BoobieWatcher
quote:
Certainly an extra Conference game will bring more money to the SEC. I can logically explain it to you but I don't think you are questioning that. You are questioning whether the brand would benefit from the extra game and I think it would from the following:
1)an extension of drama of who would win each division from more conference games. Starting earlier and greater scenarios of who needs who to win. Greater interest each game.
2)Continuing and building more rivalries (LSU vs. A&M, Missouri vs. A&M, A&M vs. Arkansas, Missouri vs. Kentucky, Missouri vs. Arkansas are 5 games that need to be televised not to mention the ones that would build from regular season drama) I think Alabama and A&M may become one in the future. Just my two cents.
3)Builds a familiarity amongst schools that otherwise would be stretched further through an extended time to play certain teams and allowing fans to travel. This is good for recruiting students and athletes and building a stronger, smarter university.
Give me more time and I could give you more. But those were just the 3 off the top of my head.
All good points, but one BIG negative by going to a 9 game conference schedule is that you pretty much eliminate all big games from other conferences. No more home-home with Washington, Arizona St., West Virginia, Virginia Tech, etc. We couldn't afford to give up the home games. Unless they can be scheduled at a neutral site like Dallas (Oregon '11) or Atlanta (North Carolina '10). And even in those instances, the school doesn't get as much revenue as playing a home game.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 4:53 pm to LoyalTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/25/13 at 11:08 am
Posted on 5/30/12 at 4:57 pm to BoobieWatcher
I think you missed the point. Not many big name programs will come to Tiger Stadium without a return visit to their place. Playing 9 conference games really throws a wrench in LSU traveling to an OOC site and giving up a home game. Too much of a reduction in revenue for LSU.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 5:24 pm to dstone12
quote:
but UF is too good of a game to see and it may be the reason we stay in the hunt if we ever lost a game
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.
quote:
permanent inter-division rivals
What we did schedule wise when we had 10 or 12 teams needs to be changed now that we have 14.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 5:30 pm to Lonnie4LSU
quote:
LSU has never reached the SEC title game in a yr they took an L to Fla.
2003
Posted on 5/30/12 at 5:43 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
LSU has never reached the SEC title game in a yr they took an L to Fla. 2003
My bad...I had knocked that game out of my memory banks.
That dang NS.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 6:05 pm to Lonnie4LSU
It doesn't matter what happened in the past or any of those things. What matters is having a fair system. If we have an unfair system (and we do) and it hasn't hurt us that doesn't make it right.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Posted on 5/30/12 at 6:14 pm to Alan Garner
quote:
this is ridiculous. it would be hard for me to believe that most of the fan bases on both sides (UF and LSU) wish to continue playing each other during the regular season. I for one wish to end it and most gators i've talked to want the same.
I understand why from an 'easy schedule' standpoint, but as a football fan, why the hell would you want the rivalry to end? Its one of the best games of the year, and nearly guaranteed national tv exposure. Ending it is fricking stupid.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News