The hell with tradition and rivalry. You can't go from an 10 team conference pre 1990 to a 16 team conference today and keep your old rivalry games. What the is the point? Your conference competition is limited to basically the same teams every year? There are too many teams to play and a schoool should face as many different ones as they can year after year.
Isn't it ironic that the SEC can be in front of change with this College Football Playoff yet would be so stuck in their ways with this "rivalry game"?
Considering it was the luck of the draw to pull those games it's not being closed minded at all. Hey, as I've stated before, I clearly realize how favorable our schedule is right now. That said, I'm of the opinion if six of the SEC schools made no effort to work with Alabama in 2010 there is little reason to feel ashamed of the draw. If the situation were reversed, I've little doubt you'd feel the same.
Swap Fla for either Missou or Tenn (bama's east opp last year) and we're a pretty good bet to end up 11-1 in the Sugar. and playing the weakest isn't hurting bama from winning NC's
If it was simply luck of the draw. Let's see, Bama swaps out Missou for Kentucky. LSU gets to go to Ga. again (even though we went in 2009, more recent than bama) Then last year bama plays LSU and Texas A&M back to back and loses one, now they get Texas A&M in Sept and LSU in Nov. I hate conspiricy therorists, and hate sounding like one, but why doesn't the SEC office explain exactly how and why we took this massive fucking? And how and why bama (who needs no help) gets an incredibly favorable schedule 2 years in a row?
Let me ask question here. If Mizzou would have shown up as advertised, would the opinions be the same on last years schedule? I can understand your frustration. I looked skeptically at UGA's schedule the last two years but did so wondering if they were as good as their rankings made them out to be. I like A&M early next season for two reasons. One, it'll be a good measuring stick on how this team will handle Manzeil and a tough opponent early on. (I'm not expecting a lot out of opening with Va. Tech.) Two, it'll give Arkansas an opportunity to grow up under their new coaching staff. If I'm not mistaken, it'll be the first time they'll have an SEC game under their belt before facing the time since they joined the conference. As previously mentioned, I'd trade the UK game for UGA this year if given the opportunity. While UT and AU are the two teams I've traditionally cherished victories over, UGA ranks right up there with them. No mistake about it, the 2014 schedule for the conference is strange in several regards...teams playing others on the road for consecutive seasons is another story line.
Agreed. Is anyone completely sold on Muschamp? Will Jones have as much success in Knoxville as he did in Cincy? This statement may not hold true in two years.
Seems to me a conference that keeps trying to expand is not satisfied with the way things are. That being the case, why would you want to hang on to the old ways, like "traditional rivalries" that are only traditional to a select handful?
pu$$y. to be the best you beat the best period. Shut up and get your team prepared regardless of the opponent.
He has a valid point and you know it. You just don't like him. The SEC schedulign formula is not equitable, and the other ten teams in the league shouldn't be locked into it because of the Bama-UT UGA-Auburn rivalries. Go to a schedule where all cross divisional games rotate. Sometimes you catch hell sometimes you catch a break, but at least everyone runs the same chance. As it stands now we have a Bama grad making schedules and a Bama grad approving them. Isn't it funny that Bama catches all the big breaks?
