(09-26-2013 11:15 AM)oliveandblue Wrote: [ -> ]When Katrina hit New Orleans, the city (and Tulane, for that matter) lost a whole lot. The billions of dollars in damages that took place are probably never going to be remedied (what a great first-world country we are). However, what did take place for a few years in the city (and still exists in some element today) was a re-commitment of individuals to their neighborhoods. People in the city were reminded of the fact that your number one support network consists of the people that are directly in front of your face - and not a distant federal body of governance. While New Orleans will continue to be ravaged by drugs in the bad sections of the city - drug issues are prevalent in many US cities for that matter - there were a number of communities that returned back to their tighter roots out of necessity. The idea of rebuilding New Orleans was never a federal setup - it was mostly devised by charity groups, community leaders, and the men and women in your neighborhood.
I miss that part of New Orleans. It taught me that your number one source of protection wasn't the law or welfare - it was the people that were the prize.
Thanks to New Orleans, I now believe that cultural protection is stronger than government protection.
I understand your point about the South's definition of "community" - even if I think of it from another perspective.
I remember a Bill Hicks stand-up piece where he said something along the lines of "you have your southern football team, even if you never went to school there - it's a family thing".
I totally agree. In the end it will up to each of us to save each other. On the Mississippi Gulf Coast the churches and charity groups were saving us while the Federal government was deciding how many hundreds of forms we should fill out to obtain assistance. Many many of those groups were from places like Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, etc. We had the NYPD controlling traffic where streetlights were gone. I will never see anything more awesome than a New York policeman, along with 75 other police departments patrolling our streets.... One of those power companies from ACC land, North Carolina Power, strung all new lines and got my power back on. I totally agree with Jr on this.
Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
(09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Oh...you had to go there. Wait for it....incoming wall of text from JR in 5.....4......3......2.......
16 or 20 work better for 4 pods per conference. But that isn't practical until conference playoffs, with semi-final games, are approved by the NCAA...
JR likes 18 because it allows a wild card team to come from one of three divisions so that you have three division winners and then a strong wildcard team that make up your four teams for a conference tournament.
It really is just a matter of opinion. Both routes are viable but for college I really like the idea of having to win your division to get into that tournament and not simply being the best second place team in a division. The corresponding response would be "what if the second best team in a division is better than one or more of the other division winners?". My response to that would be "So what?".
It isn't all just about potential. It is about what you do with that potential and if one team's route is more difficult than another team's...once again, so what? Life isn't fair, these college students might as well learn that now. I don't see why we need to protect any particular programs over others. That is all that the wild card system would be doing. It would mitigate any balancing affect that would come about by having only division winners make it.
18 is nice but have to agree with Bit, 16 or 20 works better. That is just my opinion of course and we have zero actual evidence to support either position. The NFL works just fine with Wild Cards. I want to see some of the methodology of the NFL introduced into College Football but not All of it.
(09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Eighteen works beautifully for several reasons. It permits geographical groupings of sufficient numbers to curtail travel expense excesses for the year, allows for the annual playing of virtually all regional rivals, and permits for a natural balancing of the divisions with the use of a wild card for the remaining team with the best overall conference record to have entry into the conference championship rounds.
The professionals use wild cards for one important reason. Having one energizes the fan bases of many more schools to remain actively interested late into a season when otherwise divisional races might already have been decided. It is a marketing bonanza more than anything else. But, it does add fairness to balancing the relative strengths of the 3 divisions. It also doesn't detract from playing all conference schools within a 3 year rotation. You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games. The following is a hypothetical for the SEC using Baylor and Oklahoma and N.C. State and Virignia Tech (I'm not saying they would come to the SEC but you will see how groups of 6 really help with geography.
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Va Tech
The 3 divisional champs and best remaining team play it off for the Conference Championship.
And for He1nous and Bit, in my opinion you get a truer divisional champ playing 5 divisional games than you do playing 3 or 4. More divisional games creates a greater distinction.
(09-28-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Eighteen works beautifully for several reasons. It permits geographical groupings of sufficient numbers to curtail travel expense excesses for the year, allows for the annual playing of virtually all regional rivals, and permits for a natural balancing of the divisions with the use of a wild card for the remaining team with the best overall conference record to have entry into the conference championship rounds.
The professionals use wild cards for one important reason. Having one energizes the fan bases of many more schools to remain actively interested late into a season when otherwise divisional races might already have been decided. It is a marketing bonanza more than anything else. But, it does add fairness to balancing the relative strengths of the 3 divisions. It also doesn't detract from playing all conference schools within a 3 year rotation. You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games. The following is a hypothetical for the SEC using Baylor and Oklahoma and N.C. State and Virignia Tech (I'm not saying they would come to the SEC but you will see how groups of 6 really help with geography.
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Va Tech
The 3 divisional champs and best remaining team play it off for the Conference Championship.
And for He1nous and Bit, in my opinion you get a truer divisional champ playing 5 divisional games than you do playing 3 or 4. More divisional games creates a greater distinction.
Perhaps. But smaller pods allows each team to play every conference member more often than otherwise. IMO the more you play all your conference members, the more cohesive the entire conference becomes...
But either method will work...
(09-28-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games.
Not fair, not fair... Teams in the same division are not matching up against the same OOD teams.
How do you balance strength of schedule in that case?
(09-28-2013 11:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Eighteen works beautifully for several reasons. It permits geographical groupings of sufficient numbers to curtail travel expense excesses for the year, allows for the annual playing of virtually all regional rivals, and permits for a natural balancing of the divisions with the use of a wild card for the remaining team with the best overall conference record to have entry into the conference championship rounds.
The professionals use wild cards for one important reason. Having one energizes the fan bases of many more schools to remain actively interested late into a season when otherwise divisional races might already have been decided. It is a marketing bonanza more than anything else. But, it does add fairness to balancing the relative strengths of the 3 divisions. It also doesn't detract from playing all conference schools within a 3 year rotation. You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games. The following is a hypothetical for the SEC using Baylor and Oklahoma and N.C. State and Virignia Tech (I'm not saying they would come to the SEC but you will see how groups of 6 really help with geography.
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Va Tech
The 3 divisional champs and best remaining team play it off for the Conference Championship.
And for He1nous and Bit, in my opinion you get a truer divisional champ playing 5 divisional games than you do playing 3 or 4. More divisional games creates a greater distinction.
Perhaps. But smaller pods allows each team to play every conference member more often than otherwise. IMO the more you play all your conference members, the more cohesive the entire conference becomes...
But either method will work...
No more often, and no less often either way. It still takes 3 years to play everyone.
(09-28-2013 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 11:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Eighteen works beautifully for several reasons. It permits geographical groupings of sufficient numbers to curtail travel expense excesses for the year, allows for the annual playing of virtually all regional rivals, and permits for a natural balancing of the divisions with the use of a wild card for the remaining team with the best overall conference record to have entry into the conference championship rounds.
The professionals use wild cards for one important reason. Having one energizes the fan bases of many more schools to remain actively interested late into a season when otherwise divisional races might already have been decided. It is a marketing bonanza more than anything else. But, it does add fairness to balancing the relative strengths of the 3 divisions. It also doesn't detract from playing all conference schools within a 3 year rotation. You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games. The following is a hypothetical for the SEC using Baylor and Oklahoma and N.C. State and Virignia Tech (I'm not saying they would come to the SEC but you will see how groups of 6 really help with geography.
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Va Tech
The 3 divisional champs and best remaining team play it off for the Conference Championship.
And for He1nous and Bit, in my opinion you get a truer divisional champ playing 5 divisional games than you do playing 3 or 4. More divisional games creates a greater distinction.
Perhaps. But smaller pods allows each team to play every conference member more often than otherwise. IMO the more you play all your conference members, the more cohesive the entire conference becomes...
But either method will work...
No more often, and no less often either way. It still takes 3 years to play everyone.
I am sure not happy with the current setup where we only see some SEC schools every six years...I hope if we stay at 14 for a while, we at least go to a nine game conference schedule. Maybe ESPN and the new SECN will push that along.
I think it's coming. Almost every other conference has gone to 9 conference games...
(09-29-2013 12:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 11:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2013 10:04 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: [ -> ]Does 18 work for a conference, or for practical reasons does it really need to be 16 or 20?
Eighteen works beautifully for several reasons. It permits geographical groupings of sufficient numbers to curtail travel expense excesses for the year, allows for the annual playing of virtually all regional rivals, and permits for a natural balancing of the divisions with the use of a wild card for the remaining team with the best overall conference record to have entry into the conference championship rounds.
The professionals use wild cards for one important reason. Having one energizes the fan bases of many more schools to remain actively interested late into a season when otherwise divisional races might already have been decided. It is a marketing bonanza more than anything else. But, it does add fairness to balancing the relative strengths of the 3 divisions. It also doesn't detract from playing all conference schools within a 3 year rotation. You play your 5 divisional games and rotate two teams from each of the other two divisions each year for a total of 9 conference games. The following is a hypothetical for the SEC using Baylor and Oklahoma and N.C. State and Virignia Tech (I'm not saying they would come to the SEC but you will see how groups of 6 really help with geography.
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Va Tech
The 3 divisional champs and best remaining team play it off for the Conference Championship.
And for He1nous and Bit, in my opinion you get a truer divisional champ playing 5 divisional games than you do playing 3 or 4. More divisional games creates a greater distinction.
Perhaps. But smaller pods allows each team to play every conference member more often than otherwise. IMO the more you play all your conference members, the more cohesive the entire conference becomes...
But either method will work...
No more often, and no less often either way. It still takes 3 years to play everyone.
I am sure not happy with the current setup where we only see some SEC schools every six years...I hope if we stay at 14 for a while, we at least go to a nine game conference schedule. Maybe ESPN and the new SECN will push that along.
It's already a done deal. That's why Alabama is dropping the Michigan State series in 2016 & 17.
correct me if Im wrong, but even if we went to 9 games it would still take 6 years to play everyone if we keep one as a permanent rival unless we went to non-repeating home and away
(09-29-2013 04:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]correct me if Im wrong, but even if we went to 9 games it would still take 6 years to play everyone if we keep one as a permanent rival unless we went to non-repeating home and away
Bingo! Home and away would alternate on each 3 year cycle of play instead of happening in consecutive years.
(09-29-2013 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2013 04:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]correct me if Im wrong, but even if we went to 9 games it would still take 6 years to play everyone if we keep one as a permanent rival unless we went to non-repeating home and away
Bingo! Home and away would alternate on each 3 year cycle of play instead of happening in consecutive years.
That makes the most sense.
This is another problem with expanding past 12 (even though I do think Missouri and Texas A&M are good adds): With each successive add, you see less and less of Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia.
The good news? The SEC isn't top-heavy. Missing Alabama still nets you SCar, UF, UGA, and UT in conference play - and that's still a nice little haul.
The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.
(09-30-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.
Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.
(09-30-2013 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.
Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.
As we have already been told, committee's have been meeting since August 8th in order to work out details by January. I think we will know much sooner than April of next year.
(09-30-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2013 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]The clock is ticking. Dodds showed us, once again, that lying to the public is no big deal for these folks. Mere weeks after saying he wasn't going to retire....he announces he is going to be retiring during that "Magical" month of August next year. Funny how so much is lining up to happen just before the start of the football season next year.
Yep, and all the details behind the scenes will have been worked out by April of next year whether they are announced that soon or not.
As we have already been told, committee's have been meeting since August 8th in order to work out details by January. I think we will know much sooner than April of next year.
I hope so He1nous, it's just that April starts the filing for change deadlines. And from that point on there are different deadlines leading up until August 15th. IMO April is the latest that we will know something definitive for that reason.