(10-14-2019 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2019 03:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It seems to me the best solutions for the SEC are to :

Have Missouri and Auburn switch places and eliminate all cross division protected rivalries accept the Iron Bowl

OR

add two teams to the West when the Big 12 GOR expires, move Missouri West, and both Alabama schools East.

OR

Secede from the NCAA, invite all the big time programs South of the Mason Dixon to join them in their new mega conference, and toss stacks of money in the air like Scrooge McDuck because if you add Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida St, VT, and UNC they can pretty much fill in their desired amount on the tv rights check.

This is why if you don't know the SEC you shouldn't comment on it. Auburn and Missouri wanted the switch when Missouri joined. Tuscaloosa did not want it. Alabama's top 2 rivals are Tennessee and Auburn and if they were both in the East it is Alabama who needs 2 protected games to keep them. Therefore Auburn had to remain in the West even though they were promised that if further additions were made they wouldn't have to remain there, and Missouri had to sell their fans on going to the SEC East even though it would have been easier on their program's recruiting base to have moved to the West where they would have played A&M annually and had games with neighboring Arkansas, the Mississippi schools, and L.S.U. with Alabama being their farthest trip East.

As to adding Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson and Florida State and getting fat checks and being our own league? Sure, why not! Get Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Notre Dame to join and who the hell else is needed?

I'm thinking another school besides Alabama did not want the switch, but because Alabama is so successful and this other school is not quite that successful, it kinda gets glossed over: Florida. The Gators are not too keen on playing very competitive schools that are NOT located in recruiting hotbeds. Ever notice how rarely UF schedules a really good OOC opponent from outside the state of Florida?? And not whole lot of griping was heard on the Florida end when the Auburn rivalry was no longer a regular on the schedule. Plus, even though Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, and Tennessee catch a lot of flack from wanting to have permanent crossover games, I don't really see Florida leading everyone else to force them to go away either. Florida would prefer to have neither Auburn nor LSU and defensively not Alabama as a permanent opponent, IMO.

(10-17-2019 12:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we change the rules to permit conferences to determine how teams are selected for a championship game the logical solution to scheduling is to tell the ADs to schedule 3 maybe 4 conference games for the upcoming four years and the league in cooperation with TV will fill in the remaining 4-5 slots.

The current rules on championship games are ridiculous. Why should ACC and Big 10 be forced to use the same selection system?

Football is the only sport where the NCAA requires a conference to have more than the minimum number of schools to have a postseason championship. In other sports the NCAA mandates a league play either a full round robin or X number of conference games (basketball x=14).

For football full round robin or 8 makes sense.

Who plays in the title game is the league’s business. If they want to pit two highest ranked in the AP poll or best league record vs best APR so be it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Football is the only sport where you only play once a week and there is a physical reason for a very limited number of games.

There is a better argument for dropping ccgs than allowing leagues to choose who they want.

(10-17-2019 12:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Football is the only sport where the NCAA requires a conference to have more than the minimum number of schools to have a postseason championship.

This used to be true, but is no longer.

(10-13-2019 01:39 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 12:56 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-13-2019 08:38 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Any plan that doesn't maintain LSU-Florida sucks

OK, that's not so problematic from the Florida end, since their only real rival in the SEC is Georgia, but LSU is another story. If there were only 3 annual matchups to protect, would you keep Alabama and Ole Miss, but ditch A&M?

Maybe I would be out-voted by other LSU alums, but I would rather keep the Florida game over A&M

I feel like the "rivalries" with Arkansas, and then A&M have felt forced. The Arkansas game was the "Golden Boot" trophy game, and then A&M was kind of forced because of a historical rivalry, but LSU-Florida has always been a guaranteed big game with an authentic SEC feel to it

Let A&M and Arkansas be rivals...they are old SWC buddies

LSU felt for years that Arkansas was forced on them. I can corroborate that. LSU has felt different about A&M though. In fact, other than Arkansas, no team was happier that A&M joined than LSU.

(10-03-2019 08:18 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I made some changes to the SEC. I think this might be the more logical permanent rivalries:

Alabama - Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn - Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Arkansas - Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Florida - Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia - Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky - Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU - Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State - Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss
Missouri - Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Ole Miss - Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State
South Carolina - Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Tennessee - Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M - Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Vanderbilt - Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Here's how I would do the SEC (I'll address the other conferences later):

Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Texas A&M
Arkansas: LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State
Florida: Auburn, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee
Kentucky: Mississippi State, Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State: Auburn, Kentucky, Ole Miss, South Carolina
Missouri: Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Ole Miss: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Tennessee: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M: Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee

Unless you go to 5 unprotected games for the SEC, this is truly the best that can be done with eliminating the divisions. I wanted to give Auburn Tennessee for a permanent opponent and give LSU Florida for a permanent opponent, but unfortunately, Kentucky's old rivalry with Tennessee which many Kentucky fans JR's age will argue, trumps Auburn's rivalry with Tennessee. Therefore, as compensation, Auburn regained Florida, but LSU got to keep Alabama. Some games still don't make much sense, but considering what there was to work with, I don't think I did too bad. For South Carolina, it was either Texas A&M or Mississippi State. I figured South Carolina would prefer Mississippi State considering they do have some history between them, and Texas A&M would prefer to keep their rivalry with Alabama.

(10-07-2019 12:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 08:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 08:18 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I made some changes to the SEC. I think this might be the more logical permanent rivalries:

Alabama - Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn - Alabama, Florida, Georgia
Arkansas - Missouri, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Florida - Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia - Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky - Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU - Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Mississippi State - Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss
Missouri - Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Ole Miss - Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State
South Carolina - Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Tennessee - Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas A&M - Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Vanderbilt - Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Yep, that's better.

Vandy needs to play Ole Miss. So maybe Arkansas plays South Carolina.

South Carolina needs to be playing Clemson, NC State and Wake Forest.

South Carolina plays Clemson every year OOC. They have no desire to play Wake Forest any more in football; don't know about NC State.

(10-02-2019 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Staples: It’s time to fix SEC scheduling, and one solution stands above the rest

Quote:Auburn coach Gus Malzahn said something this week that drove home a point Florida coach Dan Mullen made last week.

“This will be my first time to ever go to Florida,” Malzahn said of the Tigers’ visit this Saturday to The Swamp. “I’ve been to every other place in our league but Florida. This will be a first. Looking forward to it. Yeah. That is pretty unique.”

Malzahn didn’t say this to point out anything about the SEC’s conference scheduling format, but Mullen did. He brought it up unprompted last week when discussing Florida’s schedule. “I think we should mix up the league schedule more, to be perfectly honest with you,” Mullen said during his Monday news conference. “If you look over the next six years, I think we play Miami three times, Florida State six times, South Florida three times, Mississippi State once. So who is the SEC team? I think it’s an injustice for the kids. We should mix those games up and play more teams from the West.”

The solution that Staples suggests is from the article below (which also contains proposals for the ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12):

https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/15/...pod-system

Quote:We researched this system, along with others in this post, in 2016. We found that the 14 conference schedules were close to even in difficulty, based on 10-year S&P+ ratings. If we did the same research in just about any other recent year instead, the schedules would grade out about the same. There’s also little difference in difficulty for anybody between even- and odd-numbered years.

Oh, and the SEC doesn’t have to give up its eight-game schedule.

Not only would Auburn fans not like that schedule, Kentucky and Tennessee fans wouldn't like it either. They would both protest that one very loudly.

Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

Also, the ACC would need an even number of protected opponents per team with an odd number of total teams.

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

I guess they already have plans for 4 protected opponents in the event of a deregulation of divisions and CCGs. Doesn't work great for 14 teams though, since with an 8-game schedule, you can't play your whole conference in 2 years like you can with 3 protected.

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

Ooh, are you guys going to take UNC off our hands?

(11-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

Ooh, are you guys going to take UNC off our hands?

He can't say. It's super secret special knowledge.

(11-13-2019 02:05 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

Ooh, are you guys going to take UNC off our hands?

He can't say. It's super secret special knowledge.

Don't tap the keg just yet...

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

What’s with the thinly veiled mystery scheduling knowledge? If it’s an expansion gambit into Big 12 territory and a new era of scheduling pods like the old WAC 16 please do elaborate

(11-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

Ooh, are you guys going to take UNC off our hands?

You're lucky to have a seat at our table.

(11-13-2019 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:13 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:03 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 12:41 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Also, why did they give the SEC & the Big Ten 3 permanent opponents, and the ACC 4??? Why not give all 3 conferences four?

...or just 3 for the ACC?

That article's rationale for giving the ACC 4 permanent opponents is that it allows the Heels to play the other 3 NC teams plus UVa every year, allows NCSU to play the other 3 NC teams plus Clemson, etc. The mistake in that article was including Notre Dame in the permanent-opponent rotation. Would make far more sense for each of Clemson/GT/FSU/Miami to play each other every year and have each add a different team for their 4th permanent opponent.

Having 3 and only 3 permanent opponents would make sense for the Pac-12 for obvious reasons.

No reason every conference would have to do it the same way.

JRSec and I are privy to some knowledge that you guys don't know about in regards to SEC scheduling. Trust me, four works best for the SEC with this knowledge in mind.

What’s with the thinly veiled mystery scheduling knowledge? If it’s an expansion gambit into Big 12 territory and a new era of scheduling pods like the old WAC 16 please do elaborate

But if he tells us, they'll break his thumbs!

Yup!! That's why I'm keeping my mouth shut.