re: The bigger injustice is the scheduling

quote:

---

Since 2000, Alabama has played UGA and UF in one season. LSU has played UGA and UF in six seasons.

---

Boom. This is the whole point. Its not that Bama never has to play a good team from the east. Its that they never have to play 2 good teams from the east in the same season, which LSU does frequently.

quote:

---

From that 1988-1999 stretch when UF was kicking our teeth in

---

people keep bringing up this stretch as proof.
but 8 of those 12 years, we were fricking terrible.

we went 6-6 against goddamn Kentucky!

does anyone really think it mattered who the hell out annual rival was during that decade?

oooooh, we could have been 3-8 if only we could have played Vandy instead of Florida in ‘92


guess how many 10 win seasons we have during that stretch if we play Vandy instead and give us a win in that slot.
1

the year we won 10 games anyway.

guess how many losing seasons we still would have had.
5

quote:

---

I’m sure we will find out there’s a historical rivalry between Bama and Vandy no one knew about and that will be their second permanent opponent

---

The proposed change is to add another rotational opponent, not a permanent opponent. However, Vandy was our other original East permanent opponent. I think we've played Vandy more than any other East team not named Tennessee.

quote:

---

1) Let division champs be decided by division only records. That way each SEC West team is judged based of the exact same schedule

---

I'd agree with that.

quote:

---

2) Don't hold all teams hostage to manufactured cross division rivalries just because Bama/Tennessee want their game. Let them keep it if they want, but allow all other SEC teams to rotate each other.

---

I just wonder which teams would willingly give up their other game to potentially get 2 of Alabama, Auburn, and LSU in the same year.

OK ding dong

Alabama and Tennessee are clear #1 and #2

Its probably only me but I still see Florida as a bunch of weenies

quote:

---

hat's the most cherry picked way to look at this. What about a longer look?

From that 1988-1999 stretch when UF was kicking our teeth in, BAMA went 6-5-1 with Tennessee. Oh, the series was streaky, with BAMA winning 5 straight at first, then a tie, then another win in 1994. Then TENN took the next 5.

Since 2000? They've had 19 games, with BAMA going 14-5. This includes the current TWELVE GAME win streak, and 13 out of 14.

Since 1988, BAMA has gone 30-10-1 against their cross division opponent. In that same time frame, LSU has gone 10-21 against ours.

But streaks are besides the point. Streaks can and do happen, which is why you don't WANT permanent opponents. And in the case of the SEC, it's actually a gigantic pain in the arse to even make this work, and by doing so you get situations where teams sometimes don't play each other for years and years, and some great players never play everyone in the league.

Once again, this is an accommodation that is mostly made to keep the Tide happy, regardless of what it means for the larger conference.

There was a time before Nebraska bolted for the Big 10 where they, for the good of the conference, moved divisions and lost their traditionally end of season game with Oklahoma. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good...

---

I don't think anyone is denying that Tennessee being Bama's permanent opponent wasn't done purposefully by the league. Same for UGA and Auburn.

Even before the split, UT and Bama had played every year since 1928. Why would they want to break that rivalry up? Plus, if Bama truly wanted an "easy" cross-division permanent rival, don't you think they would have picked someone besides the second winningest program in league history?

Likewise, Auburn and Georgia have played every year since 1898. I suspect their programs also didn't want to break up that rivalry with the split

Clearly, when the split took place Bama/UT wanted to continue their series. Same for UGA/Auburn.

LSU didn't really have a long time East "rival", though Kentucky and Florida were probably the closest to being considered such.

In 1992, when the split occurred, Bama/UT and Aub./UGA kept their games in tact AGAINST their best interest, if their best interest were the easiest paths to SEC titles. LSU fans are always screaming now to break up the Bama/UT game because Tenn. sucks. That's a completely recent occurrence (i.e over the last 10 years). In 1992 when this all went down do you think ANYONE envisioned Tennessee falling off a cliff 16 years later? If Tennessee had remained the same caliber program it had been in the 75 years PRIOR to 2008, then NO ONE would be having this discussion.

Yes, it seems unfair NOW because Tennessee sucks, but no one envisioned that in 1992 or even 2007.

If you want to get rid of permanent cross-rivals then I'm completely ok with that. But I also am logical enough to understand Bama and Auburn wanting keep Tenn. and UGA for tradition purposes.

quote:

---

But the greater pattern of injustice is the cross division scheduling.

---

I agree that the SEC needs to change the scheduling format and do away with the cross-division rivalry game. But for the 90's and early 2000's, Tennessee and Florida went back and forth for 1st and 2nd in the SEC-E. Don't think it was Bama bias that got them Tennessee every year...but now I can see why Bama would fight to keep the current format with Tennessee sucking for the past 10 years and showing no signs of changing.

quote:

---

If you want to get rid of permanent cross-rivals then I'm completely ok with that. But I also am logical enough to understand Bama and Auburn wanting keep Tenn. and UGA for tradition purposes

---

My personal favorite solution is to go back to no divisions. Take the Big 12 route of having the top 2 teams play in the conference championship game. Scheduling format would be 3 annual rivals, then play 5 other teams one year and the other 5 the following year. Every school would play every other school at least once every 2 years. Alabama could still keep annual rivalry games vs Tennessee, Auburn and LSU.

quote:

---

My personal favorite solution is to go back to no divisions.

---

I've been advocating going back to 10 teams and play everyone.

quote:

---

I'm not saying you don't have a legit complaint and I understand it, but changes like these require a vote by the members, and it'll be hard to get enough people on your side.

---

Probably not though. I've only seen it come up as an option to keep all cross division permanents, or do away with all cross division rivalries.

If you put it to a vote of allowing schools some autonomy to decide to keep them or drop them, I have a feeling most would jump on that.