CSNbbs

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...h-schedule

An ESPN Article..... makes sense.

I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

(05-29-2013 10:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

Even the conference schedules aren't equal. Saban is touting all the SEC teams in the top 10, but he doesn't mention that the conference schedule is fixed so that Alabama doesn't have to play any of the good eastern teams unless they meet one in the title game.

The Tide didn't play Florida or Georgia or South Carolina in the 2012 regular season and don't play any of them in 2013, either. Their eastern opponents are Tennessee (1-7 in the SEC last year) and Kentucky (0-8 in the SEC last year). LSU's eastern opponents are Georgia and Florida. In competing for the west division title, that's a ridiculously unfair schedule disparity.

(05-29-2013 10:41 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

Even the conference schedules aren't equal. Saban is touting all the SEC teams in the top 10, but he doesn't mention that the conference schedule is fixed so that Alabama doesn't have to play any of the good eastern teams unless they meet one in the title game.

The Tide didn't play Florida or Georgia or South Carolina in the 2012 regular season and don't play any of them in 2013, either. Their eastern opponents are Tennessee (1-7 in the SEC last year) and Kentucky (0-8 in the SEC last year). LSU's eastern opponents are Georgia and Florida. In competing for the west division title, that's a ridiculously unfair schedule disparity.

True, but Alabama cannot control another scheduled school's records. A few years ago Tennessee was competing for National Championships, and Auburn was a National Champion. South Carolina was at best a .500 team and Georgia wasn't much better. If Tennessee had been 8-3 and Kentucky a 7-5 team it would another discussion... In the end, Alabama had to play the best team from the east. I see your point but it will never be equal with 12 or more teams.

(05-29-2013 12:11 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:41 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

Even the conference schedules aren't equal. Saban is touting all the SEC teams in the top 10, but he doesn't mention that the conference schedule is fixed so that Alabama doesn't have to play any of the good eastern teams unless they meet one in the title game.

The Tide didn't play Florida or Georgia or South Carolina in the 2012 regular season and don't play any of them in 2013, either. Their eastern opponents are Tennessee (1-7 in the SEC last year) and Kentucky (0-8 in the SEC last year). LSU's eastern opponents are Georgia and Florida. In competing for the west division title, that's a ridiculously unfair schedule disparity.

True, but Alabama cannot control another scheduled school's records. A few years ago Tennessee was competing for National Championships, and Auburn was a National Champion. South Carolina was at best a .500 team and Georgia wasn't much better. If Tennessee had been 8-3 and Kentucky a 7-5 team it would another discussion... In the end, Alabama had to play the best team from the east. I see your point but it will never be equal with 12 or more teams.

Quite true. The last two season UGA had a cake western schedule due to Auburn going into the doldrums. Ultimately this is more about the 9 game conference sked and cross divisional rivalries.

(05-29-2013 12:11 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:41 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

Even the conference schedules aren't equal. Saban is touting all the SEC teams in the top 10, but he doesn't mention that the conference schedule is fixed so that Alabama doesn't have to play any of the good eastern teams unless they meet one in the title game.

The Tide didn't play Florida or Georgia or South Carolina in the 2012 regular season and don't play any of them in 2013, either. Their eastern opponents are Tennessee (1-7 in the SEC last year) and Kentucky (0-8 in the SEC last year). LSU's eastern opponents are Georgia and Florida. In competing for the west division title, that's a ridiculously unfair schedule disparity.

True, but Alabama cannot control another scheduled school's records. A few years ago Tennessee was competing for National Championships, and Auburn was a National Champion. South Carolina was at best a .500 team and Georgia wasn't much better. If Tennessee had been 8-3 and Kentucky a 7-5 team it would another discussion... In the end, Alabama had to play the best team from the east. I see your point but it will never be equal with 12 or more teams.

The SEC doesn't make the schedules that far in advance, though -- they haven't even finalized the '14 and '15 football opponents yet. So it's not as if the schedules were locked in 10 years ago when we had different expectations about how good each team is. At the time the '13 schedule was made last year, the SEC was well aware that giving Alabama games vs. Tennessee and Kentucky means they have a far easier schedule than LSU does with Florida and Georgia.

Maybe the politics of the SEC are brutal and LSU is stuck with Florida because no one else in the west wants Florida as their annual opponent and no one else in the east wants LSU as their annual opponent, but whatever the reason it's a gigantic every-year advantage for the Tide.

Could schools not have the option of having a permanent cross rival or just go to general rotation for all non-division games? I think Vandy - Ole Miss, Auburn - Georgia, and Alabama - Tennessee would keep their rivalry. Missouri and Arkansas would probably opt to start, as well. Everybody else would rotate two non-division schools each year.

By the way, I still think a 10 game conference schedule is the only way to make 14 an advantageous number. Move Auburn and Miss. State to the East and Missouri and Vandy to the West. Each conference plays 6 division games, one non-division permanent rival, and plays 3 of the remaining non-conference teams per year. They then play the other three the next year. Everyone plays at least once every two years, which is excellent. Permanent rivals are below:

Alabama - Auburn
Mississippi - Mississippi State
Mizzou - Kentucky (could play in St. Louis)
Vanderbilt - Tennessee
TAMU - Florida - (could play in New Orleans)
LSU - Georgia - (could rotate play in Atlanta and New Orleans)
Arkansas - South Carolina (could play in Nashville or Birmingham if they ever improve Legion Field)

With playing everyone in a two year cycle, I don't think Bama and UT could get too upset considering what all they are receiving in return. Tennessee gets its rivalry with Auburn back and Auburn gets the best of all worlds by playing Bama, Florida, and Georgia every year.

(05-29-2013 01:09 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 12:11 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:41 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 10:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say it depends on which SEC team's schedule you look at. Not all schedules are equal...

Even the conference schedules aren't equal. Saban is touting all the SEC teams in the top 10, but he doesn't mention that the conference schedule is fixed so that Alabama doesn't have to play any of the good eastern teams unless they meet one in the title game.

The Tide didn't play Florida or Georgia or South Carolina in the 2012 regular season and don't play any of them in 2013, either. Their eastern opponents are Tennessee (1-7 in the SEC last year) and Kentucky (0-8 in the SEC last year). LSU's eastern opponents are Georgia and Florida. In competing for the west division title, that's a ridiculously unfair schedule disparity.

True, but Alabama cannot control another scheduled school's records. A few years ago Tennessee was competing for National Championships, and Auburn was a National Champion. South Carolina was at best a .500 team and Georgia wasn't much better. If Tennessee had been 8-3 and Kentucky a 7-5 team it would another discussion... In the end, Alabama had to play the best team from the east. I see your point but it will never be equal with 12 or more teams.

The SEC doesn't make the schedules that far in advance, though -- they haven't even finalized the '14 and '15 football opponents yet. So it's not as if the schedules were locked in 10 years ago when we had different expectations about how good each team is. At the time the '13 schedule was made last year, the SEC was well aware that giving Alabama games vs. Tennessee and Kentucky means they have a far easier schedule than LSU does with Florida and Georgia.

Maybe the politics of the SEC are brutal and LSU is stuck with Florida because no one else in the west wants Florida as their annual opponent and no one else in the east wants LSU as their annual opponent, but whatever the reason it's a gigantic every-year advantage for the Tide.

The SEC schedules are being tweaked a lot right now because of the A&M/Missouri additions. Once this is all settled, the schedules will be made farther out I would imagine...

(05-29-2013 01:22 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote: [ -> ]Could schools not have the option of having a permanent cross rival or just go to general rotation for all non-division games? I think Vandy - Ole Miss, Auburn - Georgia, and Alabama - Tennessee would keep their rivalry. Missouri and Arkansas would probably opt to start, as well. Everybody else would rotate two non-division schools each year.

That was always my suggestion considering that only UT/'Bama and UGA/AU are the ones that are truly meaningful (I'll hold judgement on Mizzou/ARK), just let everyone else rotate around the other 4 schools.

Unfortunately, it appears as the protected rivalry issue is an all or nothing proposition.

Bama does benefit from UT being down and LSU suffers from UF being up...but it wasn't that long ago that the situation was reversed and LSU had the better end of that set up while Bama had the short end of the stick.

We're set to play USC annually now. That wouldn't have been so bad just a few years ago but now that means we face a Top 15 team every year in addition to all the tough teams in the West (and the reverse of that is true for SC regarding us).

(05-29-2013 04:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Bama does benefit from UT being down and LSU suffers from UF being up...but it wasn't that long ago that the situation was reversed and LSU had the better end of that set up while Bama had the short end of the stick.

We're set to play USC annually now. That wouldn't have been so bad just a few years ago but now that means we face a Top 15 team every year in addition to all the tough teams in the West (and the reverse of that is true for SC regarding us).

The situation wasn't reversed, 10th. When Tennessee was up, Florida was too. The Vols and Gators were usually fighting it out to see who won the SEC east, and the Gators usually won...

Have you forgotten Steve Spurrier's famous comment, "you can't spell Citrus without UT"?

(05-29-2013 05:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2013 04:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Bama does benefit from UT being down and LSU suffers from UF being up...but it wasn't that long ago that the situation was reversed and LSU had the better end of that set up while Bama had the short end of the stick.

We're set to play USC annually now. That wouldn't have been so bad just a few years ago but now that means we face a Top 15 team every year in addition to all the tough teams in the West (and the reverse of that is true for SC regarding us).

The situation wasn't reversed, 10th. When Tennessee was up, Florida was too. The Vols and Gators were usually fighting it out to see who won the SEC east, and the Gators usually won...

Have you forgotten Steve Spurrier's famous comment, "you can't spell Citrus without UT"?

Things were the same in the Big XII...when it actually was 12...

For Wedge: Prior to Missouri and A&M's entrance into the SEC the conference portion of the schedules were predetermined in perpetuity. Only in the last two years have they been up in the air. And yes, Alabama and Georgia both gained advantages in the temporary schedule, but it was because A&M and Missouri both wanted to play the top schools at home in their first few years to help with the excitement factor. While I understand their requests and the business aspects of it that is the reason the schedules have been altered as they have. Each year Florida, L.S.U. and Alabama can't give up a home game. But Alabama and Georgia both saw the opportunity to play Missouri on the road as a way of getting out of a conference loss and so willingly sacrificed the game with each other. Georgia so much so that they agreed to play Auburn on the road two years in a row to make it happen. In hindsight it worked. They did both make the championship game with 1 game advantages over rivals.

For History: Alabama has always sought advantages. When the conference expanded with Arkansas and South Carolina in 1992 each team was permitted two crossover rivals. Alabama chose Tennessee and Vanderbilt. Auburn got Florida and Georgia. Auburn lost several divisional championships to Alabama by 1 danged game.

As far as schedules being planned well in advance, the SEC is finalizing their 14 team schedule to run through 2026. May be finished this week. I am sure that schools will win championships and then win just 3-4 games later on...

It's actually worse than you guys make it look. Alabama managed to land both of its byes before the road games at Texas A&M and LSU. They play Chattanooga before playing at Auburn. The only road SEC game they don't have an advantage in is Mississippi State...all of 75 minutes away by bus. For a school that won't even play non-conference opponents without either SEC refs or a very fat paycheck, that is no accident.

(05-31-2013 12:01 PM)Freshy Wrote: [ -> ]It's actually worse than you guys make it look. Alabama managed to land both of its byes before the road games at Texas A&M and LSU. They play Chattanooga before playing at Auburn. The only road SEC game they don't have an advantage in is Mississippi State...all of 75 minutes away by bus. For a school that won't even play non-conference opponents without either SEC refs or a very fat paycheck, that is no accident.

Hey.... Chattanooga is a potential ACC P5 pick up!

(05-31-2013 12:08 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-31-2013 12:01 PM)Freshy Wrote: [ -> ]It's actually worse than you guys make it look. Alabama managed to land both of its byes before the road games at Texas A&M and LSU. They play Chattanooga before playing at Auburn. The only road SEC game they don't have an advantage in is Mississippi State...all of 75 minutes away by bus. For a school that won't even play non-conference opponents without either SEC refs or a very fat paycheck, that is no accident.

Hey.... Chattanooga is a potential ACC P5 pick up!

They'll get into a power conference before we get out of CUSA, but I digress.

(05-31-2013 12:31 PM)Freshy Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-31-2013 12:08 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-31-2013 12:01 PM)Freshy Wrote: [ -> ]It's actually worse than you guys make it look. Alabama managed to land both of its byes before the road games at Texas A&M and LSU. They play Chattanooga before playing at Auburn. The only road SEC game they don't have an advantage in is Mississippi State...all of 75 minutes away by bus. For a school that won't even play non-conference opponents without either SEC refs or a very fat paycheck, that is no accident.

Hey.... Chattanooga is a potential ACC P5 pick up!

They'll get into a power conference before we get out of CUSA, but I digress.

Hang in there... USM will get better again and move up...