No, isn't political. If you will, notice the phrase "like one team off each year." One team rotating off per year won't lead to an equitable schedule. The following applies to a western division teams' schedule: UF, @UGA, UK UGA, @UK, @MO MO, SC, @UT @SC, UT, @VU VU, @UF, UGA UF, @UGA, UK Do you see where the problem comes up? In this case scenario, UGA is going to be voting against this schedule. In fact, I dare say every team will be against it because it would apply across the board. What this leaves is the western division team playing UGA 6 times in 10 years and the rest of them only 4 times. And I don't think anyone will approve a situation where that western division team plays 4 of the 6 at home and only 2 on the road in the fifth and sixth years. ------ When I've ran through rotating three off it takes about a decade and a half for the schedule to get back to where it started: IE, same teams at home and away.
So what? Who really cares as long as the scheduling is equitable. Are you trying to suggest that there is no way to make a fair schedule? Random scheduling of opponents is fair. Rotating opponents regularly is fair. Locking into permanent opponents creates haves and have-nots. The math is simple.
I do. And I'm not alone. You don't. And I'm sure you're not alone. It's my belief that it taking a decade and a half for a schedule to rotate completely around will be an issue.
It never has been. In the days of 6 SEC games, teams rarely played certain other teams. LSU didn't play Auburn from 1942 to 1969 . . . 27 years . . . and the sky did not fall.
Using an era almost a half of a century ago as reason it won't be an issue now is something I can't agree with. Think about how drastically the game has changed over the last 20 years. Going back almost 50? Revenue. Recruiting. Being able to be featured as that prime time SEC game on a Saturday night. Outside of the name of the game, and the name of the schools participating, how many things are equal between now and then? Just using one of those examples; recruiting. Would it have a dramatic effect on LSU? On Alabama? No. Not in the least. Would it have an effect on a school like Arkansas, Kentucky, or one of the Mississippi schools? They want, and desperately need, as much exposure as they can get. Being featured in a game against the likes of a Florida just once every blue moon? I'm only guessing, but I can certainly imagine they'll have an issue.
Remember that LSU was meant to be Florida's easy game. Rivalries, parity, "marquee" matchups... None of that should be considered. The solution is rotation... plain and simple... and stick to an even number of games to ensure that all teams have an equal number of home games.
You're misinformed on this. The conference was split in half, with the top six and the bottom six. The top six were paired as were the bottom six. At the time this was being decided no one could forecast the run Florida would have in the '90's. At the time of the split the last forty years of the games between UF and LSU the series was one game shy of being split 50-50; 16-17-3.
Yet you insist that the "tradition" of the Tennessee game be preserved at LSU's expense. Indeed, Tennessee became a cupcake.
Now you're trying to draw an analogy between a half of a century and a half of a decade? And, in two completely different subjects? Come on now red. These are as related and comparable as saying Ole Miss never made it back from what they were in the '60's as evidence Tennessee won't make it back from a few bad hires in the last five years.
