Sweet Home Scheduling

Then why did you say "Who really cares" while quoting my comment about a team returning to an away location? By taking my comment, quoting it, it makes it the issue at hand: does it not?

Here's where I see that point missing the mark. The inequity in bye weeks was systematic for years. If we take 2010 as example, it was in the midst of the season, the SEC season, which is a schedule set by the league office. It was disproportionate in 2010, but the comparisons of the 14 teams with byes for Bama versus the 5 for LSU was a combination of four years, possibly five.

There's no disagreement with those schools not scheduling an OOC opponent the week before the game with Bama. Yet, that option was given to them by virtue of the way the SEC schedule was put in place.

If the situation were reversed you say "you don't give a rat's ass?" I have a hard time believing that. You're asking me to believe you wouldn't have an issue with six of the SEC teams LSU would have to face having a bye week before your game? I say I have a hard time because, knowing you, I understand you don't have as myopic of a viewpoint as some others. Even still, that's a tough pill for me to swallow.

Your last sentence simply isn't the case red, "Bama has the exact same opportunity to schedule it's byes as everybody else does." There were seven SEC games in a row during that stretch with the bye week taken after the fifth. It was the week left open by the SEC scheduling.

Again, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. And again, that point was brought up as a counter to those who claim a conspiracy in the SEC offices that favors one team over another.

Valid point on the bill-paying 7th game but I feel it carries little weight with the increased revenue that's being generated by the re-worked TV contracts along with the upcoming network. That's one of the main reasons I see it being instituted in the next two years—when the SECN is up and operating.

One last thought:

"Putting words in your mouth?" Come now. I'll readily admit if I've miscomprehended the intent of a comment of yours. But, I'll argue the assertion I'm that presumptuous in our conversations here.

 

You make my point. Do you think these teams would have won half their oppisite division games if instead of Ole Miss, Vandy would have rolled thru LSU, Bama, Au, Ark? How about Ole Miss, instead of Vandy, they'd have had games with Fla, SC, Ga?

Not when the option is instead of equal caliber, they have to play a superior team.

Not pubicly, but I have heard that in the SEC meetings, the Fla AD has complained. As for Muschamp, the LSU game hasn't cost him a trip to the SECCG or a BCS bowl yet, lets see what he says when it does, and he watches the other div. teams riding into those games with an easier schedule. Or, Muschamp is just to dumb, or still afraid to upset lil nicky.
I'm sure you can see the conflicting facets to this discussion.

But bama has this hard on for UT and WANTS to keep it going, as for saban, he could give two shits for bama fans thoughts on rivalries, (or if the truth be known, for bama fans in general, don't think he has this huge bama love anymore than he had for LSU, and that was nothing) to him, it's all about advantage in scheduling

 

We're delving into a hypothetical here and I'm sure they'd be crying foul if those other opponents were selected as their permanent opponents. They weren't because on one side you had the haven's, then the have not's. (Another thought here that just dawns on me. It's interesting to note that the two teams that have eclipsed the "haven't nots" are South Carolina and Arkansas—who happened to be permanent opponents.) That's a series that sways a little in the favor of one team...I'm thinking it's a 7-4 type record.

But it's not. Just as the case of LSU and Florida. There isn't a superior team found with either. The series is just as equal, in terms of wins and losses, as those mentioned.

I clearly see the 8-3 record for Bama vs UT over this same time frame. And, I clearly see the 3-7-1 mark over the previous period as well. LSU was 2-9 versus Florida during that period. Yet, this wasn't an issue then—at least not one voiced so loudly.

Can you see where the skepticism is coming from in this story?

There is a friend of mine who avidly follows UofSC and also hosts the local, drive-time sports radio show. He made the comment the a few weeks ago that to him it seems like this started last January and only got louder last November. I had no response, only shrugged. It was his perception. I can't fault him on it because it's his opinion much like I don't have any issues with yours because it's your opinion. I don't think he's necessarily right and I don't think you're necessarily right as well. I know both of you have a right to voice your opinion. Hell, that's what makes me love this sport, and discussions like this, as much as I do.

(I have to chuckle a bit at pubicly...always thought Foley was bit of a prick.)

I've not heard Jeremy Foley say such and haven't heard stories of him voicing his displeasure at SEC meetings. As loose-lipped as people are around the meetings I tend to think if he'd said those things in the meetings we'd be hearing about them publicly. He's never been one to shy away from commenting.

My opinion of what Saban thinks or feels is probably just as accurate as yours—both guessing or assuming. I'm not going to sit here and assume Miles wants this changed because he wants LSU to have an easier road. That would be asserting he's looking for the easiest way out and I don't picture him as that type of competitor. A statement saying Saban doesn't embrace the rivalries held dear to the fan base at Bama? I don't believe that is a fair assertion as well. I've seen far too many people that didn't grasp it until they were immersed in it.

It's my opinion that he loves the college game enough that he has a respect for the rivalries that have made the game what it is today.

You bring up a great point with Muschamp. I fully expect him to stick his foot in his mouth soon. It wouldn't surprise me if it's on this subject especially if the game this season has any hint of controversy coupled with a Florida loss.

 

JEEEZ. That's what happens when I type and try to carry on a conversation at the same time

For me, the reason it's a bigger deal now is that now LSU is playing for chances at championships, for a while, it was whether we went to the Indy bowl or peach bowl.

And why so loud? Because we're sitting here watching bama, in addition to playing a weak tenn, last year and this year, get another soft game (miz, kent) while we have to face SC last year, and ga. this year, in additon to the fla game, with no good explanation from the pricks at the sec office.

and i'm pretty sure we're not whining anymore than bama fans did over the bye week stuff. I read other boards too.

 

That was in response to the thought about the length of time it would take for a team to return to an away location. It's to that point I was making the comment that fans do care.

We may be speaking in semantics here. While there is a difference in fans complaining about not seeing a team, and fans wanting to see the team, it's still the same issue. Right?

We are jumping back and forth between subjects that are probably better off left for two separate threads. But, such is the case with a lot of discussions on message forums.

I don't believe my feelings on this are mine and mine alone. I didn't complain about not getting Georgia last year. I certainly was looking forward to the game with Georgia just as I'm hoping they come on our schedule again for 2014.

One thing I continue to try to point out is this is an issue now, today. It is an issue brought about by the addition of the two teams and through that addition the bridge scheduling. It's wasn't an issue in 2009, '10, or '11 because Bama was playing Georgia and Florida those years. I certainly don't see it becoming an issue in 2014 because I firmly believe one of those two teams, if not both, will fall back on the UA schedule.

The 2012 and 2013 schedules are certainly not ideal. Alabama does get a huge break. However, to make an analogy as best I can, it's like changing routes simply because there is a rough patch for a quarter of a mile. It won't remain the same.

Prove what? That is was systematic?

The SEC made their schedule in 10 year blocks up until the bridge schedule. You allude to that in your post.

As to the bye weeks, ESPN covered this as well as the Tuscaloosa News. A simple google search pulls this article as the most read.

According to a study done by The Tuscaloosa News, Alabama will have faced 16 opponents coming off a bye week over a four-year period at the end of the 2010 season. The next closest in the SEC would be LSU, who will have faced five teams coming off a bye week during that same span at the end of next season.

Given schedules were set years in advance, there was an inequity in bye weeks for a four year period, is that not systematic?

Yes, as I stated, the schedules were set years in advance. The dates for the SEC games are set. The times can be changed to accommodate TV, but where they fall on schedules aren't changed. The only game I can recall being changed was LSU and Auburn. Are there more?

Using the UA schedule as example, we've played Arkansas, Tennessee, and LSU in the same time period for the last decade.

You do hit on my point—give tired teams a break. The opposite is true as well. Tired teams aren't getting a break going into their next SEC contest.

If the SEC schedules five SEC games in a row for Alabama, where in those five weeks do they have an opportunity to schedule a bye week? Out of those five teams, if the SEC doesn't schedule a SEC game for them the week preceding their game with Alabama, how are the two alike?

I'm certainly not blaming the losses in 2010 squarely on the bye week issue. I do believe it was a contributing factor. There was a total of 32 games missed that season due to starters having injuries. I see that as the largest factor.

You're being very selective with what you choose to quote here red.

I didn't come close to calling you a liar. In fact, I made it a point in the same sentence to compliment your objectivity on subjects and closed with the statement "it was a hard pill to swallow" meaning it was accepted.

​

If the situation were reversed you say "you don't give a rat's ass?" I have a hard time believing that. You're asking me to believe you wouldn't have an issue with six of the SEC teams LSU would have to face having a bye week before your game? I say I have a hard time because, knowing you, I understand you don't have as myopic of a viewpoint as some others. Even still, that's a tough pill for me to swallow.​

 

I can see that. It's compounded by the point where those championship trophies ended up residing.

As I mentioned to red, I see this all as a fall out of the bridge scheduling. (And sadly, I'm reminded of a hike in California named "A Bridge to Nowhere" which is commonly called more of an obstacle course than a hike—fitting, isn't it?)

I don't know what could have been said that would make teams' fan bases feel better, but I do know there could have been more said than just letting it be known is was the luck of the draw. It's another situation where the truth could have been put other there far better than using the term "luck."

I don't believe you are either.

One of the points I tried to make among Bama fans is "while this situation is bad now, it's something we should have known about and dealt with accordingly when the schedule was first released."

Even with the appeal to the SEC offices for relief before the 2010 season I could not think "where was this observation years ago? You've known what the schedule was going to be like and you agreed to the way it was set forth."

 

Bama's a scripted joke with their fixed schedules every year. check out the L.A. times from last october

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/sports/la-sp-sn-sec-alabama-20121018

Ima go way out on a limb and say johnny football ain't gonna win squat & even less people will watch cfb after the fake "grudge match". doesn't matter if LSU wins or not, Bama will be in pasadena regardless. LSU won't get a fair game called there imo. no stopping this scripted 3 peat.

how many times can you reasonably expect people to watch a midget holding a crystal football surrounded by a team of very large black men in a random stadium full of white trash rednecks, with "sweet home alabama" playing too loudly in the background? about all they can do to help this annual carny show, is maybe prank saban. grease the crystal or have the sprinklers go off when he lifts the football.

 

Did you ever hear any expanation about how they came up with this? I'm really not a conspiacy theroist, but it's unbelievable that last year, bama gets as easy a road as you can get in the SEC, and their biggest threat the last several years gets the roughest? With a bama grad doing the schedules?

And where the F*** was Alleva? How come he wasn't screaming at the top of his lungs?

You know what Terry, luck of the draw MY ASS!

And once more, to your cyclical arguments, ever since the permanent opponent was named, Fla has been in the SECCG 10 times, and Tenn 5, so even when tenn has been good, year in and year out Fla is a better team. You guys got an easier draw, PEROID