Sweet Home Scheduling

Did you even click the link? He said 8. And why would 9 games help huh?
Next year they get Tenn and Kentucky, if it was 9 games they could just add Missouri in there.
LSU gets Georgia and Florida next year, with some Bama home cooking scheduling we could be adding in South Carolina.

So yeah, whenever Bama is guaranteed 1 creampuff as part of their 3 Eastern teams, and LSU is guaranteed 1 strong opponent in their Eastern teams .... why should LSU have any faith that the Bama grads doing scheduling would not try to fuck us over by ensuring more creampuffs for Bama and more solid teams for LSU (you know like they've done the past 3 years counting next year?)

 

You speak in extremes. Since 2007 (Nick Saban era) we've played Georgia 3 times, Florida 4 times, South Carolina 2 times. For all the conspiracy theories flying around, nary a word for our buddies to the west, A&M, with no Georgia, no Florida, no South Carolina. But lots of Vandy and Mizzou. You know, you do compete against them this year as well? Georgia has been enjoying a favorable schedule, but little to no indignation for the last two seasons of, no Alabama, no LSU, no Texas A&M and no Arky, under BP. If the system is broke, why not speak of fixing the system, like a 9 game SEC schedule would contribute to? Otherwise, it sounds more like your not interested in Alabama winning 3 in a row.

 

It's not just the permanent opp but the entire 2012 and 2013 schedules.

It's not just the permanent opponent, but this "bridge" (LSU raping) schedule, that not only keeps a weak tenn for bama, but after having Mizzo last year, gets kentucky this year, and LSU in addition to fla, after SC last year, gets Ga this year.

When making the 2013 schedule, did the SEC office not take into account that we've played Ga more recently than Bama?

Did they not recognize that our 2013 permanent opp was going to be significantly stronger than bama's and consider that when the rotating opp was picked?

Did they not recongnize that bama got an easier schedule in 2012?

 

I have no fear of A&M, I think they are going to fall a bit with say Joekel gone. I do feel that the SEC is going to do everything in its power to push the team it thinks has the best chance to win ... in this case it will be Bama because you guys should be a solid team, and Bama grads are Bama fans who think they have a great chance any year Saban is there, so they will push whatever is best for Bama.

 

Well, we're still trying to figure out how to best them, so I hope A&M does fall off a bit. I think any conference hierarchy is rooting for their best teams to represent the league. If there is some bias, I truly hope they at least wait until the best teams manifest themselves, during the season. In 2010, I thought Auburn got more then the benefit of the doubt, but I think it was more the latter part of the schedule before the conference bent over backwards in keeping them eligible.

 

SEC coaches voted 13-1 to stay at 8 conference games. (Nick Saban)
SEC coaches voted 11-3 to stay with the permanent cross division rivalries. (TAMU, LSU, USCe)

 

I wonder if it is the messenger more than the message you have an issue with here.

We don't know how a committee is going to look at strength of schedule with the SEC playing eight versus nine games. All we can do is speculate on whether it would or would not have any bearing on teams being selected for the playoffs.

We do know that a nine game schedule would be stronger.

We also know that attendance is an issue right now. The Chattanooga paper did a study and found out that nine of the 14 schools in the SEC reported smaller attendance figures for 2012 versus previous years.

We, as a conference, can sit and rest on our laurels if we choose. We can look at the top schools and their numbers and feel proud that six of the top eleven schools in attendance numbers come from the SEC. However, we can't ignore the fact those numbers are dropping.

It's not an issue that is lost on the SEC offices or the schools. They've (SEC offices) created a group to handle some in-depth studies on how to make the games more attractive for fans. School administrators know it's going to take spending some money to improve the experience.

While you may go watch LSU play a high school team because you're a fan, you also don't represent the norm. Most fans, and I'm going to use LSU fans as example, if given the choice between going to a game like Towson or Kentucky are going to pick Kentucky.

Think about it in this way for a minute. If schools continue to schedule the Georgia Southern's, and fans have to drive an hour or more to attend the game versus staying at home and watching it on a 60"+ HDTV, the ability to pause the game to take a bathroom break, the ability to eat and drink what they want...how can schools assume fans will not choose the later?

They can't because fans are already making their decision and staying at home.

Much like our discussions about the schedules and how the addition of two teams have changed things the game and experience in itself has changed and changed dramatically.

One closing thought on strength of schedule.

I'm of the opinion eight games would not have an effect on a team that's ranked at the top. But, I'm also of the opinion if given the choice between a team that's playing nine conference games and an SEC team playing eight with the committee is deciding that fourth spot the SEC team is likely to get left out. Especially if the OOC schedule doesn't contain a team like TCU, or Va Tech.

 

One thing I believe we can agree on is Cowherd has never found himself lacking an opinion.

Here, it's your opinion and comment I'll bring to the forefront.

You can sit here and note a VT team that was 7-6 in 2012. However, it also has to be noted that same Va Tech program was 11-3 in 2011 which was a few months before the game was scheduled. It's a Va Tech team that has recorded eight seasons in a row prior to last year with 10 or more wins each season.

This isn't a bit different from LSU having on its schedule a 7-6 TCU team from last year. Oh wait! That game was scheduled when the Horned Frogs were coming off of an 11 win season as well, wasn't it?

There was nothing "faux" about where Michigan was ranked pre-season of 2012. Was it a higher rank than the team deserved? There's a valid argument. Ironically, it was a Michigan team coming off of an 11 win season as well. Should it be of note that the teams Michigan lost to last year were all teams with 10 or more wins on the season? Or, were all of those teams over-rated and records not worthy of noting?

I realize I could sit here and make the same type of comments about TCU. I won't because I believe it's hollow. 7-6 certainly isn't flattering. Yet, we can agree a lot of that was due to some of the quarterback issues TCU dealt with last season. But, here we are again talking about Michigan...a team who had QB issues with injuries in route to that 8-5 season you don't consider of note.

There are a lot of things that are of note here, eh?

 

Quite simply, the schedules will never be very fair due to ups and downs of all programs and because of teams getting the lesser programs rotating on and off the schedules. However, with the way the fixed opponent thing works it pretty much ensures some teams are going to have a harder schedule year in and year out and that should not be the case imo.

And that isn't directed solely at bama, I don't think Arkansas, OM or MSU should be given that advantage either. Rotating all teams at least makes it a random advantage instead of placing that on a couple of teams only.