The "other" conferences are pointing at the SEC's 8 game schedule, complaining about unfair advantage. The complaining is only going to get louder. Do you think the SEC will ever willingly adopt a 9 game conference schedule.
Not speaking for red, but yes. It'll be adopted. I suspect we'll see it in the next two years. I know it'll be a subject discussed at length at the next SEC meetings this summer. I don't know if a vote would be unanimous at this point, but there would be a majority in favor. If there is one thing the Ath. Dir's and Presidents habitually do is make moves for the betterment of the conference as a whole. It was one of the things Mizzou's and A&M's administration spoke glowingly about after their first SEC meeting. (That just as likely to be a statement about the mess the Big12 is in right now as well.)
Thanks, personally I think it's good for the fans, more good games. On a PAC note, there was some talk years ago about changing to an 8 game schedule, but it wouldn't work because most of the PAC can't fill their stands unless the ooc opponent is top notch. So we cried, "unfair", level the field.
2006. LSU went 6-2 in the SEC, Ark went to the SECCG after LSU hung a loss on them in the last game of the season.
C'mon Terry, you're smarter than that! Why do you think some of the other schools don't mind the perm. opp.? You think Vandy, OleMiss, Miss St want to give up the easy opp they have to face LSU, Bama, Fla and Ga? You can't tell me you haven't thought of that!!
Even when Tenn had really good teams in the 90's, Fla was better, how many SEC titles did Fla win vs. Tenn?
That was not the issue at hand. The issue is whether the permanent opponent disproportionally affects different contenders in the West Division race every year. No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that the bye games were individual schools making their own best schedules. It was a one-season fluke. Conversely, the permanent opponent scheme is the official SEC plan for scheduling. Planned. Inequitable. I'm speaking very clearly. Honestly? I don't give a rat's ass. I don't even look at an opponent's schedule for byes. I look for how we schedule byes to give a mid-season or late-season chance to recuperate. I figure other teams are doing the same thing and that is just football. There is no conspiracy. Bama has the exact same opportunity to schedule it's byes as everybody else does. Have you? Well, you should take that up with them. I haven't said that. I said that the system itself is inherently flawed and that it benefits Bama which is why they don't want to change the status quo. Wow! And what has Florida done in that timeframe? No comparison. Yes, Alabama and Tennessee had respectable programs in the 19th and 20th centuries, that is true. Irrelevant, of course to the current power structure. It's the second decade of the 21st century. That is the only valid reason I've heard so far. Well, we play five ranked teams this season including TCU, so our SoS won't suffer too badly. An extra SEC game costs us all that bill-paying 7th home game every other year.
Two big reasons for that. The strength of schedule inequity you already know. The other is that the "traditional rival" was a creation meant to preserve two rivalries, Bama/UT and Auburn/UGA. No other cross-division rival of any meaning to any other team in the SEC existed. Florida held no significance for LSU or its fans until the SEC suddenly decided they were our rivals.
I've looked at those teams, yes, and have to question why you chose to use the phrase "give up the easy opp they have..." Vandy and Ole Miss play each other each year. It's a series split evenly. 2002-2012 gives Vandy a one game edge at 6-5 if I recall correctly. Miss. State plays Kentucky each year and the W/L's are just alike. I realize this is going full circle but it brings me back to an earlier point regarding why I find this conversation interesting. With those four teams, in a series matching two teams of equal caliber, we don't hear complaints. When we take the four teams of UA, UT, AU, and UGA, the series has been favoring one of the teams. Yet, we don't hear those teams on the losing end saying they want the permanent opponent dropped. With LSU and Florida, a series with identical records of those first four teams mentioned? LSU is upset, Florida isn't voicing any issues. I'm sure you can see the conflicting facets to this discussion. If we were to take a group of people not associated with the SEC and ask them to look at these series which ones do you think they'd pick as the most likely teams to be upset with the current system? They'd undoubtedly pick AU and UT two teams in favor of continuing things as they are. On the same end, they would also say considering how evenly matched the other series have been over the last decade those should continue. I can clearly see both sides to this discussion. And, from that vantage point it intrigues me all the more. That group of people I just mentioned with an outside view would probably ask, "what separates LSU from those other teams with series records just like theirs?" (Set my allegiance aside. I don't want this to seem like one fan boasting over another because it is not the case.) The answer they'd likely get would be along the lines of "look what Alabama has done the last four years." Another facet that draws my interest is these last four year, or even going back eight, the series between LSU and Bama? Evenly split. One other small observation regarding UF and what that game has meant to LSU in competing for titles. 2003 and 2006 are two years mentioned where that game has carried weight. Those two years happen to coincide with a period where UT was winning, consistently, against Bama. (Looping another unrelated story into that last comment is there were a group of Bama fans crying about removing UT from the schedule back then. However, the reasons were found at the feet of some of the actions of Fulmer. It wasn't due to a losing streak—although I suspect that had some influence on their disdain for the Volunteer program.) Teams with a lot in common aren't found "in bed together." Teams that you would think would be the most vocal on one side are firmly planted on the other. So many different aspects to this...seriously, could you ask for a better story line in this soap opera we call college football? The more I look, the more fascinating it becomes.
