1. Florida has been the best team in the east on many more occasions than any other team in that division. So all of the schools in the west want LSU to have to play the Gators every year.

2. LSU has been the best team in the west many times in the past decade, so the other teams in the east want Florida to have to play LSU every year.

3. The teams in the east don't want Alabama and LSU rotating onto their schedules more often so they want things to remain the same. The other teams in the west do not want Florida & UGA rotating onto their schedule more often so they don't want a change either.

4. Bama knows they have an advantage over LSU at this time so they don't want anything to change. And they also know that if UT comes back they can revisit the issue and get their way with the conference office.

Scheduling is not why LSU hasn't won 2 titles in the past 4 years.

It is very shitty O play calling. Very shity when it really mattered.


IMO, playing the harder East teams has made LSU better.


Terrible play calling lost us all 3 games last year. I do not know to many people who can say with a straight face we got beat on the field after watching the games....


3-out
3-out
3-out
Got the lead.


now sit on it and......


3-out

Repeat.


Yes, I have been drinking!

All I've seen reflects what I've heard. It was a draw with which teams would include the two newcomes in their schedule and the rest of the bridge schedule was worked out the same way.

To reiterate something I quickly touched on earlier it certainly could have, and should have, been explained in more detail. Anytime someone uses the phrase "luck of the draw" to explain something the only person happy with that explanation is the person who had luck on their side.

You bring up a valid question because all of schools' representatives signed off on the bridge schedule.

As to your comment on the cyclical nature of football. That's not lost on me. I get it. All I've been saying is there is more than one point that will be brought up next week—well, this week, right?

Points I've brought up here will be brought up in Destin. There are two sides to most issues and this is no different. There are multiple points to be made by both sides.

One thing I've noticed over the last few weeks is the weight the Florida game carries in the eyes of LSU fans and the weight it carries in some Alabama fans eyes. I've seen numerous Bama fans look at Florida over the last decade and see a team that is in the upper echelon of the SEC but also see a Florida that's won two of their last six games playing Alabama. That record gives them a different perspective on Florida.

I've countered that observation with the Florida of the '90's. And, in a cyclical nature, that's been countered with "if you take Florida in the '90's you have to take into account UT in the '90's."

It works out the way it works out. I love the annual UT game; always have. Growing up in N. Alabama they were my main rival as a kid and have continued to be. But, times change and the conference must adapt if need be.

A couple of notes to add:

We discussed Jeremy Foley earlier. I ran across this article earlier this morning. Note the comment by Foley.

So that's eight votes right there. And to that list add Florida, which is very happy playing LSU on a yearly basis. ​

​

"We're fine with it," said Florida AD Jeremy Foley. "I understand where Les Miles is coming [from] and I appreciate LSU's point of view. But we think it's a great game for us and a great game for college football. Yeah, it's a tough game but we've got a lot of tough games in the SEC." ​

​

And secondly, I took the time to put "pen to paper," as it were, and look at what a 6-0-3 schedule might look like.

Take any SECW team, with the numbers representing the years...

1. UF, @UGA, UK
2. UGA, @UK, @MO
3. MO, SC, @UT
4. @SC, UT, @VU
5. VU, @UF, UGA
6. UF, @UGA, UK

At a quick glance that looks good.

Then you see you would have that SECW playing UGA 6 times in 10 years and the rest of them only 4 times. And I don't think they are going to let an SECW team play 4 of the 6 at home and only 2 on the road in the fifth and sixth years.

It's a bit more complicated than those talking about it realize.

Now, the one other thought on that type of schedule is it may be an alternative for the permanent opponents if the SECW team were Auburn. They'd meet UGA six times over a 10 year period. But then again, we'd be talking about a definite home field advantage.

Again, I haven't looked at this in detail...but I have to wonder if the only way this works out (rotating eastern opponents) is going to be when—and if—the conference moves to 16?

Yes, it's rigged and unfair. The SEC office in Birmingham is mostly staffed by employees from the Birmingham area who have a great deal to say about things like scheduling, officiating and the like and you can't tell me this year's schedule is not rigged in favor of Alabama. These "rivalries" began way back before there was a SEC and fairness was not an issue, but if you're going to have a conference and a champion, fairness in choosing a champion should trump these archaic rivalries.

That's the way I see it but...

I like playing Florida. I like playing Georgia. They are GAMES!!! Matter of fact, I would like for Georgia to become a permanent rival. Let the gump fans snooze through Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt etc. , oh and of course Tennessee. while I'm watching some real football games. It also give us exposure in some good recruiting states.

This may backfire on the gumps. If we, or Texas A&M win the division this year, Alabama's whine of we should be in the BCSNCG because we're one of the top two teams in the nation may fall on deaf ears.

Tennessee is the second winningest team in SEC history. Only six years ago they enjoyed a seven year winning streak against the Tide. To suggest they have become Mississippi or Vandy is ridicules. They do have to get their head coach situation straightened out. Nothing has happened to Tennessee in the last few years that has not already happened to every team in the SEC, more then once. You have to have a good head coach. If Butch Jones is that man, they will recruit great athletes, period. Always have, always will. Scarbinsky, in the B'ham news article, calling this rivalry a guaranteed win, is just pontificating for a non-rival schedule. Tennessee's rich football history goes far deeper and wider then Georgia, Florida, LSU, Texas a&m, Auburn and a host of others.

If this thread is about the future of competitive college football, all things will be equal enough. If it's more about this year, and I think that is the fear of the SEC and other conferences, Bama is definitely on an historic roll. Along with A&M, Bama does enjoy the better west schedule this season. Georgia has made hay the past two years as well, but has nothing to show for it. Winning another NC is about talent and coaching and schedule, as it almost always has been and will be.

First I like playing UF and UGA or whoever. Doesn't matter to me. The better the team, the better the game.......


Though Bama holding on to this Tenn "history" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

College football is changing, time to grow up and accept that the SEC will likely go to 16 teams.

Its the future, accept it.


Until then, enjoy the "clearly obvious" advantage of playing a weaker east in route to 3 ina row.

History was thrown out the window as soon as the SEC took in two more teams. Time to build a new history. One that is clearly fair and balanced. Hell, ATM threw a much LARGER history out the window.

Stop trying to be bigger than the conference. You are not Texas, so don't act like those fuckheads.

Seems simple. But, it'll never get the votes. It wouldn't come close in my opinion.

Why? It goes back to the "haves and have not's." It would be putting five of the original six in one division leaving LSU as the only "have" in the West. (Does A&M qualify as a "have?" Probably, but it's certainly left to be determined.)

Your current eastern schools wouldn't have any part of such of a move.

One of the two to the east and Mizzou to the west? That might get some traction. I've heard Auburn officials mention the possibility more than once.

You're making an assumption this is all coming from Tuscaloosa. It's not.

If we divide the conference into those having more success than others, you'll find four (AU, UA, UT, and UGA) against the move. Four more, UK, MSU, UM, and VU are also in favor of it remaining as it is.

Then, you have other schools who may not be in favor of it to the same degree, never-the-less, they aren't calling for change. As quoted earlier, Jeremy Foley in on record stating he likes it as it is right now.

Based mainly upon the first 40 years in the conference.

Another way of saying that Bama is only six years removed from sucking.

Not yet anyway. Vandy never was good and Ole Miss only had a couple of decades of moderate success under Johnny Vaught.

History is all Tennessee has. Take a look at their conference winning percentage the first 40 years of the conference and compare it to the last 40. Then look at the 22 years since conference expansion and compare it to the 22 years before. Then do the same for Georgia and Florida. It is a downward spiral for the Vols.

Keep telling yourself that bullshit Forrest, but save your breath trying to convince us.

Just as Bama enjoyed last season and may very well be blessed in 2014.

How does that make Bama's cakewalk schedule okay?

I can't argue with that, other than to add luck. As in luck not having to play in a conference championship game, so your coach can go on the set of a nationally televised pregame show to plead his case for a chance at a mulligan.