(10-10-2016 05:34 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 02:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 02:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 02:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I bet no P5 has ever canceled a game with a G5 or FCS, during the season.

Language often gets updated after the first time something happens ...

And I'll be willing to bet that the end of the year SEC OOC game just got a LOT more expensive.

And cancellation fees will go up.

Not necessarily. Remember, it's a matter of supply and demand. Schools like USA aren't necessarily in a position to dictate. If USA decides to demand $2m next year from an SEC team, that SEC team might just shop around for another FBS or FCS that is willing to do it for less.

I do think it pretty sure that for now on, buyout clauses will have escalation language in them that references the timing of the cancellation, with the amount being more if it occurs mid-season of the game. Hard to believe they haven't always had them.

If USA isn't asking for at least 2 million, they aren't trying. USA doesn't need the game as much as the SEC team does.

Yea..our schedule is FULL thru 2022. We only have 2 SEC payday games.

One with Ole Miss to start next year. If Ole Miss cancelled on us, they'd have to pay us and we'd have to get a replacement. No biggie.

The other is Tennessee in a couple of years. If Tenn wanted to cancel, they'd have to pay us AND we'd have no problem picking up a payday game.

Look, we WANT to play LSU.....on 11/19.

BTW, in the most likely fix of the schedule, Ga State has to play a home game on Thanksgiving weekend. No one wants to do that.

USA would have to move its homecoming.

Three SBC conference games would have to be moved.

---

We're willing to work with the SEC. But with mutual respect and consideration.

If the SEC went to the AAC and asked them to move conference games....they'd tell them to pound sand. We're willing to work with them, but it should be VERY costly for them to do so.

---

LSU loses the home game....they lose 9 million. LSU loses the game with USA, they might miss out on a bowl.

If LSU doesn't play UF, Tennessee might get screwed out of a CCG slot. How much is that worth?

---

To put it another way, why should we help the SEC make a ton of money at our expense? There's plenty of money at stake...USA doesn't need the SEC. If the SEC wants us to protect those assets, they're going to have to make it worth the reputational hit the Belt would take from agreeing to such a scheme.

(10-10-2016 05:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Crazy thing about this is that a TV network can move your game time on 6 days' notice and everyone just deals with it, but when there's a severe weather issue, and the SEC commissioner says, "We have to come together and get this game rescheduled," the teams just say, "Forget that, we'll just negotiate/bicker through our bloggers and beat writers," and the commissioner shrugs.

But they are only moving somewhere between 11am Central and 9pm Central on Saturday.

Tad different from you aren't playing on the road you are going to play at home and have to rebook your charter, your hotel, your busses, and change the drive dates for your equipment truck, and book in your people to park cars, staff the concession stands, and provide security.

(10-10-2016 03:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  Presbyterian has a game against Charleston Southern on the 22nd.

Florida just buys out Presbyterian and the game is not played.

(10-11-2016 11:47 AM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  

(10-10-2016 03:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  Presbyterian has a game against Charleston Southern on the 22nd.

Florida just buys out Presbyterian and the game is not played.

None of the above. This is exactly the wrong game for the Hurricane to interrupt. L.S.U. and Florida never wanted to play each other annually and never had prior to '92. Because it hit on this weekend both schools are making it impossible because they now have a platform from which to air a 24 year old grievance. Both feel it places them at a disadvantage in competing for their divisions. Whether that is so or not is inconsequential to their feelings about it.

IMO this is about two university's presidents and A.D.'s saying to Sankey, you are no Mike Slive, and this situation has gone on long enough! End this phony rivalry and let us rotate games normally. With Florida there may be more to the agenda, but that's for another discussion.

It could be the precursor to get the SEC to expand sooner rather than later because in our case expansion, if handled properly and involving the schools to the West could end all of this. Move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West with two additions to the West and L.S.U. and Florida is no longer an annual game. Alabama would be with Auburn and Tennessee. Tennessee would be with Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Kentucky, Georgia would be with Auburn and Florida, and everyone is a bit happier.

At this juncture even the Mississippi schools might find a fresh start if they were out from under Alabama and Auburn who have dominated both of them.

L.S.U. would be with closer rivals and away from Bama as well and that would make them happy too.

This is about everything but playing the danged game.

Or they could give flordia an annual game with Mississippi state and lsu a game with Kentucky from the other divisions

JR, would the SEC not be able to just remove the unnecessary permanent rivalries, and just have the necessary ones like the PAC 12 and Big 12 do? It seems to me the only ones that need to be protected are Alabama and Tennessee, the reason it was set up, and maybe Auburn vs. Georgia.

(10-11-2016 01:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, would the SEC not be able to just remove the unnecessary permanent rivalries, and just have the necessary ones like the PAC 12 and Big 12 do? It seems to me the only ones that need to be protected are Alabama and Tennessee, the reason it was set up, and maybe Auburn vs. Georgia.

But then Tennessee has to deal with Saban every year while their division opponents get to rotate through everyone in the west and only face Bama once every seven years or so.

Maybe that's why they went down this wrong road of permanent crossover games: Tennessee convinced the conference that if they're playing Bama every year, other traditional contenders should also have a difficult annual crossover game, thus the annual Florida-LSU game.

(10-11-2016 01:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, would the SEC not be able to just remove the unnecessary permanent rivalries, and just have the necessary ones like the PAC 12 and Big 12 do? It seems to me the only ones that need to be protected are Alabama and Tennessee, the reason it was set up, and maybe Auburn vs. Georgia.

That might be a step in the right direction but it still impedes the normal rotation. The only solution that satisfies the major rivalries would be an Eastern Division that included Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt.

Prior to '92 Auburn played Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama annually. The '92 alignment forced Auburn to the West against its wishes to appease Alabama over Tennessee. That in turn forced the Georgia set up as it was the oldest SEC rivalry dating back to 1892.

Alabama had loved the idea of the Western division because it placed Auburn in a much greater recruiting disadvantage. Prior to '92 and Saban coming to L.S.U. Alabama dominated everyone in the present West that was old SEC. Their closest series was with Auburn. Even the Tennessee series has been lopsided for Alabama (52-38-7). Auburn prior to '92 got about 35% of its recruits from Georgia. We are just 40 minutes from the Georgia State Line. We got about 10% a year from Southern Middle Tennessee, and about 15% from Florida. The rest came from in state. When Alabama forced Auburn to the West it severely curtailed our ability to compete for recruits in Georgia and Florida and we pretty much stopped recruiting Tennessee. Alabama had historically recruited all over but with emphasis in Mississippi and Louisiana. They loved the new divisional alignment and we didn't.

What the Gators and Bayou Tigers would argue is that their game with each other has been fiercely contested almost every year. The issue was silenced during Fulmer's time at Tennessee when the Vols played the Tide much more closely. It resurfaced with Tennessee's nosedive after the departure of Fulmer. Auburn felt the same way about their series with Georgia. Our series is only separated by 1 game after over a century of playing each other.

So the perception was that Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and L.S.U. were put at a statistical disadvantage to Alabama because of the permanent rivals assignment. Since South Carolina was last in with Arkansas they had to play each other. It was a long trip to play a school with no history with your program.

But, to specifically answer your question the only way to accomplish the ends that are needed would be to shift Auburn and Alabama east in a 16 school conference or to do away with divisions and build your schedule around 3 permanent rivals. Neither is perfect, but either IMO is better than what we have.

(10-11-2016 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  But then Tennessee has to deal with Saban every year while their division opponents get to rotate through everyone in the west and only face Bama once every seven years or so.

Maybe that's why they went down this wrong road of permanent crossover games: Tennessee convinced the conference that if they're playing Bama every year, other traditional contenders should also have a difficult annual crossover game, thus the annual Florida-LSU game.

24 SEC Championship Games --- in 21 of them, the East representative has been Florida, Georgia or Tennessee. In 20 of them, the West representative has been Alabama, Auburn or LSU.

If Georgia is playing Auburn annually, and ditto for Alabama and Tennessee --- Florida and LSU just makes sense from a "fairness" perspective.

I'm not an SEC historian, but I do think that's the genesis of Florida/LSU. Even before the split into divisions, we had a good sense for who was going to be the longer-term good teams in each division.

FWIW, it used to be that there were two cross-division permanent games. Florida played both Auburn and LSU annually then (Tennessee drew Arkansas and Georgia drew Ole Miss). Florida/Auburn made sense, that was an actual established rivalry. That was arguably unfair for Florida back then, but what could you do --- Auburn wasn't going to willingly give up that Georgia game either.

Well, how about adding Kansas for the West to go along with putting Missouri over there? Kansas is a very red state, and I would think fits well with SEC culture.

Of course, if you were looking for additions that could be added sooner rather than later (Big 12 GoR), you could always take two of Houston, SMU, Memphis, and Tulane.


Or a combination, it just would require waiting eight years:

SEC WEST - Kansas/Mizzou, Houston/TA&M, Ark/LSU, Miss/Miss St
SEC EAST - Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Florida, Tenn/Vandy, Kentucky/SC

(10-11-2016 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, would the SEC not be able to just remove the unnecessary permanent rivalries, and just have the necessary ones like the PAC 12 and Big 12 do? It seems to me the only ones that need to be protected are Alabama and Tennessee, the reason it was set up, and maybe Auburn vs. Georgia.

But then Tennessee has to deal with Saban every year while their division opponents get to rotate through everyone in the west and only face Bama once every seven years or so.

I thought it was TN and Alabama who specifically requested this? Of course it was back when Bama was down and TN was at the top, but still...

(10-11-2016 02:01 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  24 SEC Championship Games --- in 21 of them, the East representative has been Florida, Georgia or Tennessee. In 20 of them, the West representative has been Alabama, Auburn or LSU.

If Georgia is playing Auburn annually, and ditto for Alabama and Tennessee --- Florida and LSU just makes sense from a "fairness" perspective.

One thing that probably makes it stand out is, generally Florida and LSU have both been good at the same time, whereas Alabama & Tennessee and Georgia & Auburn have tended to have one up, and one down in recent times, so it didn't really appear they were in each others' way.

(10-11-2016 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, would the SEC not be able to just remove the unnecessary permanent rivalries, and just have the necessary ones like the PAC 12 and Big 12 do? It seems to me the only ones that need to be protected are Alabama and Tennessee, the reason it was set up, and maybe Auburn vs. Georgia.

But then Tennessee has to deal with Saban every year while their division opponents get to rotate through everyone in the west and only face Bama once every seven years or so.

I thought it was TN and Alabama who specifically requested this? Of course it was back when Bama was down and TN was at the top, but still...

Actually Alabama was on a short streak in '92. I said the Fulmer years were much closer. But the series record speaks for its self. I also see you didn't bother to address the larger issues of recruiting advantages in states where Alabama had historically recruited and where Auburn had to establish recruiting. Nor did you address Florida's issues with having to play L.S.U. or L.S.U.'s in having to play Florida.

Alabama Series Records against the West:
Mississippi State 78-18-3
Ole Miss 49-11-2
L.S.U. 50-25-5
Auburn 44-35-1
Arkansas 20-7
(Texas A&M) 6-2

Against Traditionally Strong East Teams:
Georgia 38-25-4
Florida 25-14
Tennessee 52-38-7
(Vanderbilt) 62-18-4
(Kentucky) 37-2-1
(South Carolina) 12-3
(Missouri) 3-2

Alabama demanded the West with games against foes it traditionally played and whipped. It got Auburn away from its home turf in recruiting. They avoided playing Georgia and Florida who have played them closer than Tennessee, but for Florida that is only true of games played since the 80's.

It was their use of power politics to set up their most favorable division and destabilize their main rival to claim a game with their 2nd rival that riled up L.S.U., Florida, Georgia, and Auburn. Just do the math. Before the addition of A&M Alabama was statistically favored to win all of their divisional games based on past records, and the one they played the closest series with had to pull up an almost century old recruiting structure and revamp it for Mississippi and Louisiana. It was pure politics.

Auburn is stuck with it because they (Alabama) have the law school and the majority of state representatives and senators because of it. L.S.U. is not stuck with it and they are tired of it. Florida is fed up as well and has that and some other issues.

But still by comparison the SEC has much less of this mess than the ACC has with North Carolina and the Big 12 has with Texas and the Big 10 has with Ohio State and Michigan.

The revenue sharing has gone a long way in reducing natural tensions. But Bama has an almost 7-1 advantage over Miss State, a 5-1 advantage over Ole Miss, a 2-1 advantage over L.S.U., a 3 to 1 advantage over Arkansas and a 9 game margin over us.

And their permanent rival from the East hasn't beaten them as often as Georgia and Florida (particularly the Florida of the last 30 years).

There are seven permanent pairs.
Auburn-UGA and Bama-Tenn have long historic reasons to be paired. Arkansas-Mizzou has no such history but it's good for both and it's a sop to Mizzou for being in the east.
The other four could go to rotation and few care (OK Ole Miss probably isn't itching to give up Vandy and UK and Miss St probably neither want to give up either). The way it works out, there probably aren't 8 votes to scrap the set-up.

There is of course a solution but I doubt anyone has the stomach for it. Only count intra-divisional games in the standings. The NCAA doesn't care as long as you play everyone in your division, the rules don't address it.

The nightmare of course is someone goes 6-0 intra-division and drops two inter-divisional games while someone else at 5-1 in division goes 7-1 against SEC competition and is out of the mix.

(10-07-2016 03:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  And they have the stadium, hotel rooms, sponsors and TV partners all lined up. Not going to happen even if the playoff committee would cooperate.

I have doubts UGA-South Carolina will be played either.

Went off without a hitch. 77k people in attendance. Weather was beautiful in the low 70s. State police were working relief near the coast but the city police did a great job.

I wonder if they're going to make a rule if they can't make it up this year....

if a team is 1/2 game behind or ahead in division, the team who won head to head would be declared the division champion...

So say Florida finishes 6-1, Tennessee 6-2, Tennessee would be champion.

or say LSU finishes 6-1, Alabama 7-1, LSU would be champion.

(10-11-2016 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, how about adding Kansas for the West to go along with putting Missouri over there? Kansas is a very red state, and I would think fits well with SEC culture.

Of course, if you were looking for additions that could be added sooner rather than later (Big 12 GoR), you could always take two of Houston, SMU, Memphis, and Tulane.


Or a combination, it just would require waiting eight years:

SEC WEST - Kansas/Mizzou, Houston/TA&M, Ark/LSU, Miss/Miss St
SEC EAST - Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Florida, Tenn/Vandy, Kentucky/SC

LOL at the SEC touching Tulane (who foolishly left on their own, even if it was a different era), SMU or even Kansas. KU has a stadium that barely seats 50K unless they've expanded recently. Even then, no way, no how.

Anyways, this whole situation is stupid, there's no reason that game couldn't have been played, even if just later in the day or the next day or two. Florida barely got touched (why does Miami always escape these hurricanes?). They cancelled the game way too soon. It could have been played late Saturday and we'd had no conversation about this.

Yes, Kansas football stadium capacity is about 50k. I don't think they'd add much in football. No more than Vanderbilt or Kentucky, anyway.

But great basketball, and great rivalry with Missouri.

Basketball is pretty much irrelevant, this isn't 1991. Unless KU becomes an affiliate somewhere and then joins the Big East for Olympics.

(10-11-2016 04:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 02:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, how about adding Kansas for the West to go along with putting Missouri over there? Kansas is a very red state, and I would think fits well with SEC culture.

Of course, if you were looking for additions that could be added sooner rather than later (Big 12 GoR), you could always take two of Houston, SMU, Memphis, and Tulane.


Or a combination, it just would require waiting eight years:

SEC WEST - Kansas/Mizzou, Houston/TA&M, Ark/LSU, Miss/Miss St
SEC EAST - Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Florida, Tenn/Vandy, Kentucky/SC

LOL at the SEC touching Tulane (who foolishly left on their own, even if it was a different era), SMU or even Kansas. KU has a stadium that barely seats 50K unless they've expanded recently. Even then, no way, no how.

Anyways, this whole situation is stupid, there's no reason that game couldn't have been played, even if just later in the day or the next day or two. Florida barely got touched (why does Miami always escape these hurricanes)? They cancelled the game way too soon. It could have been played late Saturday and we'd had no conversation about this.

You need to read the history of the SIAA and how it became the Southern Conference and how the Southern Conference gave birth to the SEC and then to the ACC in a second split. Tulane was simply with us as was Georgia Tech and the University of the South (Sewanee).

And while the game could have easily been played the bigger story is why Florida and L.S.U. have been so obstinate about it. That beef is 24 years old.