Started By
Message
re: Will Alabama continue to fight against the 9 game schedule?
Posted on 3/11/24 at 4:50 pm to DawginSC
Posted on 3/11/24 at 4:50 pm to DawginSC
A - it wasn't my list, but they based the split over the last 10 years (I believe).
B - due to A, MSU & Tenn. are lower 1/2 (which Ala. being on the upper part) can ONLY play 1.
Unless you know of a better breakdown in choosing perms?
B - due to A, MSU & Tenn. are lower 1/2 (which Ala. being on the upper part) can ONLY play 1.
Unless you know of a better breakdown in choosing perms?
1
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:38 pm to southernboisb
quote:
A - it wasn't my list, but they based the split over the last 10 years (I believe).
B - due to A, MSU & Tenn. are lower 1/2 (which Ala. being on the upper part) can ONLY play 1.
Unless you know of a better breakdown in choosing perms?
Based on the last 10 years both Auburn and Tennessee are in the bottom 8 of winning percentage. Those rules simply wouldn't work without ending one of Bama's two biggest rivalries and ending one of Auburn's biggest rivalries (as they'd be in the bottom and both UGA and Bama are in the top).
So they won't use those rules as they'd fail to accomplish the goal of preserving the biggest SEC rivalries.
Maybe they'll select the top 8 by most recent conference championships. That would be a top 8 of:
Texas
Bama
UGA
OU
LSU
Auburn
Florida
and Tennessee (they get the tie over A&M due to winning the national title in addition to their conference in 1998)
Also known as the old big six plus OU and Texas.
UGA would play UF and Auburn (SC)
Bama plays AU and Tennessee (MSU)
Auburn plays UGA and Bama (Arkansas)
OU plays Texas and Florida (Mizzou)
Texas plays OU and Tennessee (A&M)
Tennessee plays Bama and Texas (Vandy)
UF plays UGA and LSU (UK)
LSU plays UF and OU (OM)
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:47 pm to 3down10
quote:
8 game schedule, keep 2 or 3 permanent rival games and rotate the rest.
They aren’t going to do this and not have Oklahoma visit the Swamp for many years. The networks want these type of games to happen regularly.
They also want to keep LSU-Alabama as an annual game.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Saban was on record saying he didn’t want to play LSU, Auburn, and Tennessee every year
Saban was the first to go on record in support of a 9 game schedule. He just didn’t want an uneven one. But you know that and are just shitposting because all the Husky Harsin stuff it disappearing like a fart in the wind since Bama recruiting is picking up. Find better material limp wrist.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:51 pm to DawginSC
You’re sort of illustrating there’s 9 resource rich schools for 8 slots. In your solution you’ve got Texas playing 3 big schools per year instead of Bama. Don’t you think they’ll fight that for the same reason? You’re also giving aggy a built in advantage but it’s aggy so 
Y’all are still discounting the networks get a say, and they want LSU-Alabama regardless of what the gumps on here cry about.
Y’all are still discounting the networks get a say, and they want LSU-Alabama regardless of what the gumps on here cry about.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:51 pm to Crimson K
quote:
He just didn’t want an uneven one.
But there was no problem when it was uneven in his favor.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 5:52 pm to 3down10
quote:
You guys who want 9 game schedules don't understand basic math and why it's bad for the league as a whole.
It’s not a 4 team playoff world anymore
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Yes it’s been reported on extensively, the divide was originally between the big schools like LSU and Alabama, who wanted 9 games whereas the smaller schools wanted to stay at 8 because they were worried about staying bowl eligible.
horseshite.
Link or it didn't happen.
I know, for a fact, that SC was fine with 9 games, even preferred 9 games, as long as the Tennessee, Georgia and Florida games remained on the schedule, along with the sheep humping sister bangers.
They completely fricked everyone with this nonsensical 8 game schedule they came up with not honoring old time games with natural rivals.
SC and UGA have played some 70+ games if I remember correctly ... and BHam didn't honor that.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
You’re sort of illustrating there’s 9 resource rich schools for 8 slots. In your solution you’ve got Texas playing 3 big schools per year instead of Bama. Don’t you think they’ll fight that for the same reason? You’re also giving aggy a built in advantage but it’s aggy so
You can create a much more balanced schedule by ignoring a "top" and "bottom" designation and just making sensible 3 team selections based on historical rivalries and geography.
The last 10 years results creates more problems due to Auburn and Tennessee both being in the bottom half. The top 10 teams over the last 10 years are Bama, UGA, LSU, OU, Florida, Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Texas.
If you start in 2013 (when Mizzou and A&M joined) you get Bama, UGA, OU, LSU, A&M, Auburn, Ole Miss...and Mizzou (no Texas or UF).
If you start in 1992 (when Arkansas and SC joined the SEC) you get UGA, Bama, OU, Florida, LSU, Texas, AU and Tennessee (Big 6 plus Texas/OU).
If you start in 1933 (when the SEC was formed) you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.
If you start with the beginning of time... you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.
If you take the most recent conference champs, you get the Big 6 plus OU/Texas.
if you're dead set of making a top and bottom half... you should end up with the big 6 plus OU/Texas in the top.
quote:
Y’all are still discounting the networks get a say, and they want LSU-Alabama regardless of what the gumps on here cry about.
I don't think ESPN cares that much.
LSU vs Florida, OU, Texas or A&M are all just as valuable network wise as LSU/Bama. People just think of it as mattering as it's been important for figuring out the West since Saban went to Bama.
But that's just recency bias. The same thought makes people think Tennessee vs Florida matters when the reality is that it is a game with little history and it only mattered when Spurrier and Fulmer were the coaches.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:30 pm to DawginSC
quote:
I don't think ESPN cares that much.
You’d be wrong
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:37 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
You’d be wrong
We'll see.
When the SEC goes to 9 games, Bama/LSU will be played 2 out of every 4 years rather than every year. They aren't giving any team (particularly Bama) 3 permanent opponents from the big 6.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:40 pm to DawginSC
quote:
When the SEC goes to 9 games, Bama/LSU will be played 2 out of every 4 years
Nope
quote:
permanent opponents from the big 6.
No such thing anymore, that y'all have such a hard time with this is baffling.
And the idea that they networks don’t care about what matchups are annual is hilarious.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:41 pm to DawginSC
quote:
When the SEC goes to 9 games, Bama/LSU will be played 2 out of every 4 years rather than every year. They aren't giving any team (particularly Bama) 3 permanent opponents from the big 6.
As it is, Bama has 2 from the “big 6.” Same with LSU. Auburn is pretty bad and as of yet has shown no signs of getting better. I think Freeze has 2 years left until they part ways.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:57 pm to TN Tygah
OU plays LSU OLE MISS TEXAS MIZERY BAMA TENN all ranked highly... you add another game you add another ranked team. Is the committee going to reward a team for beating ranked teams over beating scrubs from another conference? How many ranked losses equals losing 1-2 games in weaker conference. Until those things are assured I dont think many sec teams will be jumping in for more games.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 7:04 pm to TN Tygah
“I’d much rather play Tennessee and Auburn than Ole Miss and A&M.”
Give when ole miss and A&M last won national titles. Hell, when did they win the sec? Hell, When did they play for a conference title? Thank you.
Give when ole miss and A&M last won national titles. Hell, when did they win the sec? Hell, When did they play for a conference title? Thank you.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 7:12 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
And the idea that they networks don’t care about what matchups are annual is hilarious
It’s not that they don’t want good matchups (at least by name), it’s the fact that the amount of good matchups has greatly increased with UTx and OU as choices. You think they don’t want UTx-LSU games or OU-Bama? Or UGA-Bama more regularly? With Saban gone, the Bama-LSU game is not going to be quite what it has been.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 7:25 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
But there was no problem when it was uneven in his favor
You see, when we had an East and a west, this was not the same issue that it is about to be. Do you not get that when there are no longer divisions, that it will just be the top 2 in the SECCG? Schedule imbalances will sometimes decide who goes. There is almost no avoiding that with 16 teams, even if we do go to 9 because year to year some teams will rise and fall. And schedules will be harder or weaker than anticipated. But any team would be crazy to accept making it more likely that they will face a harder schedule annually than other perceived contenders.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 7:33 pm to Crimson K
The funny thing is how different the narrative is suddenly. If the situation were reversed the entire board would be coming down hard on LSU for being scared of competing instead You’ve got DawginSC white knighting for Bama on this. Comical.
Maybe but regardless it will be a big game nationally for awhile. People around the country are just used to it being a marquee matchup. Entertainment executives look at what’s the proven entities and that’s what the push for.
I don’t know why you’d fight it so much considering you sing about us when we aren’t even in the stadium.
quote:
With Saban gone, the Bama-LSU game is not going to be quite what it has been.
Maybe but regardless it will be a big game nationally for awhile. People around the country are just used to it being a marquee matchup. Entertainment executives look at what’s the proven entities and that’s what the push for.
I don’t know why you’d fight it so much considering you sing about us when we aren’t even in the stadium.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 7:35 pm to Crimson K
quote:
You see, when we had an East and a west, this was not the same issue that it is about to be.
It absolutely was and it was actually worse considering how wildly unbalanced the schedule was. Didn’t Missouri just make it to Kyle Field this year or something ridiculous like that?
quote:
But any team would be crazy to accept making it more likely that they will face a harder schedule annually than other perceived contenders.
Again Auburn and Tennessee are borderline top tier as it is going forward. It’s really not that bad.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 3/11/24 at 9:23 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Saban was on record saying he didn’t want to play LSU, Auburn, and Tennessee every year.
Sorry pal, y'all are good and I get not wanting to play you every year right now. But MSU and OM are closer geographically and more relevant over the limited history of our schools, other than the Bear beating y'all like a drum in BDS-West. LSU is only relevant because of Saban and even that is declining.
I'd also easily trade Florida or UGA long term as a permanent because of the SEC CG battles.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News