SEC Pods and Semifinal Play-In

[DAG 33,979]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

LOL.  Not assumption.  Also used to live in the Midwest (Michigan).  Had to beg bars every week to get the Auburn game on.  Speaking from experience man.

So a purely blanketed statement from your own subjective view once again. Your experience is not everyone else’s has been my point lol. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 minutes ago, DAG said:

if the pac 12 is far more interesting , why would it matter if the east coast teams games are done? It shouldn’t. So how can someone make that argument?

Because people have stuff to wake up for on Sunday. Also, people have been rooting for their own teams their entire lives. They're not going to choose to stay up to watch two teams in which they have no emotional investment* even if the football is objectively more interesting. Hell, a huge percentage of SEC fans don't even watch the NFL, which is objectively better than college ball. (Fantasy is changing that, but still hasn't flipped everyone.) 

12 minutes ago, DAG said:

There were plenty of better games than the Auburn and LSU game.

But only a very few with better ratings, and a couple with better ratings were absolutely terrible football games. Like uga-arky. 

The musical preference thing is much more objectively measured by data IMO, because it is not an either or proposition. It doesn't require that one choose to consume it at a specific time. You don't have to choose Kendrick Lamar over listening to Drake (or over going to bed). You can listen to both on your own time and decide. And while I'm sure a lot of people are either Team Drake or Team Kendrick and might not listen to their music objectively, I doubt it's comparable to sports fandom*. (In both cases we have the media or the music industry or whatever shoving certain things down our throats for their own reasons, but if we go too far down that rabbit hole we'll be talking about Fox vs CNN or some crazy ish.)

At the end of the day it really seems to be a semantic debate. Which I LOVE to make an unnecessarily big deal out of.

*Emotional investment is a huge part of the conversation that we haven't really even touched on. What was the most entertaining game to us week 1? The Auburn game. Did it entertain literally anyone but Auburn fans? Nope.

 

 

[DAG 33,979]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Because people have stuff to wake up for on Sunday. Also, people have been rooting for their own teams their entire lives. They're not going to choose to stay up to watch two teams in which they have no emotional investment* even if the football is objectively more interesting. Hell, a huge percentage of SEC fans don't even watch the NFL, which is objectively better than college ball. (Fantasy is changing that, but still hasn't flipped everyone.) 

But only a very few with better ratings, and a couple with better ratings were absolutely terrible football games. Like uga-arky. 

The musical preference thing is much more objectively measured by data IMO, because it is not an either or proposition. It doesn't require that one choose to consume it at a specific time. You don't have to choose Kendrick Lamar over listening to Drake (or over going to bed). You can listen to both on your own time and decide. And while I'm sure a lot of people are either Team Drake or Team Kendrick and might not listen to their music objectively, I doubt it's comparable to sports fandom*. (In both cases we have the media or the music industry or whatever shoving certain things down our throats for their own reasons, but if we go too far down that rabbit hole we'll be talking about Fox vs CNN or some crazy ish.)

At the end of the day it really seems to be a semantic debate. Which I LOVE to make an unnecessarily big deal out of.

*Emotional investment is a huge part of the conversation that we haven't really even touched on. What was the most entertaining game to us week 1? The Auburn game. Did it entertain literally anyone but Auburn fans? Nope.

 

 

Mcloofus, I am not arguing strictly for Auburn fans. I am not arguing strictly for me. So what does week 1 have to do with anything ? Serious question . You guys are arguing from your POV. I am taking in the general consensus based on the numbers. I don’t even know why you would make that point.

let me ask you this, Oregon / Stanford 2:30. Bama/ ole miss. Literally around the same time. You guys have said there is no parity in the SEC. so why would an overwhelming amount of viewers watch Alabama blow out ole miss versus Oregon, the number 3 team in the nation, get upsetted in an overtime game ( a better game)? 

Mind you this same guy arguing against no parity just knew ole miss would beat Bama.

Edited October 8, 2021 by DAG

[DAG 33,979]

16 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

But only a very few with better ratings, and a couple with better ratings were absolutely terrible football games. Like uga-arky.

Correct, because Better does not mean more entertaining. The Arkansas - UGA game was at 11 am mind you too. I would argue the CINCY/ND game was better than the UGA/ARK game, yet the viewership was comparable (Arkansas game was slightly higher in viewership).  And the Cincy/ND was at 2:30. So how would you explain that one? 

Edited October 8, 2021 by DAG

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, DAG said:

Better does not mean more entertaining.

Yeah. It's a semantic debate. 

If there are words that will bridge this divide, I don't have them. 

[DAG 33,979]

We are going down a rabbit hole. Sorry guys. I am for the SEC Pods. I do NOT think we will go to a ten game conference schedules for the reasons I have said in the previous post. The ACC/BIG TEN/PAC 12 will still want to get that revenue and viewership from facing the SEC for a very obvious reason. Look no further than the Penn State/auburn game in week 2, which btw, came in second to the UF/BAMA game.

[AUwent 3,748]

9 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

If we're going to NFL-ize college football, then none of these half measures with pods and s***...

Two divisions, 8 teams each.

14 game schedule. One nonconference game, 13 conference. Everyone plays 7 home, 7 away.

Set up the nonconference game to be a home game when you have the 6 home, 7 away split, and a road game when you have the 7 home, 6 away split.

Play 6 of the 8 in the other division, and 4 of those are permanent...establish a rotation for the others.

East: AU, FL, GA, SC, TN, KY, VU, AL

West: TAMU, UT, ARK, LSU, MO, MSU, OM, OU

I guess since this is Arkansas' 30th season in the SEC, you can call them a "long-term" member now, and the West would have 4 "old hands." 

In this hypothetical, I'd be good with keeping LSU and Arkansas, and adding TAMU and Missouri on an annual basis. Add in a rotation of MSU and Texas, Ole Miss and Oklahoma and let 'er rip.

* As an aside, I think the way the original Big XII (1996-2010) handled football scheduling was a mistake. There were no cross-division permanent opponents, and that was the beginning of the end of OU-Nebraska. There should have been at least one permanent cross-division opponent to establish at least a little continuity with the four SWC schools that were blended in.

HELL NO to cross permanent opponents, please. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by AUwent

[AU9377 4,926]

On 10/7/2021 at 7:48 PM, AUwent said:

One thing I've been trained to assume from many years of being a fan of things (not just Auburn but in general) is that the most profitable option for the PTB is the exact opposite of what I want. 😂

(UAT and UGA are also the SEC's big cash cows and I figured they'd just give them whatever they wanted.)

I'm not sure in what way those two programs are more financially important than Texas A&M, UF, AU or LSU.  Being ranked doesn't bring the conference more cash.

[Randman5000 4,226]

On 10/7/2021 at 11:03 AM, DAG said:

No and that is not how that works unless you like watching games at 11 pm and midnight.

Pac-12 after dark is the best!!!🤘

[AUwent 3,748]

Looking at this model, it really doesn’t make sense—how would there be just two rounds when all 16 teams are seeded?

[AUwent 3,748]

Bumping this thread because it sounds like the "Red River twins" really are joining starting in '23, and because I just read a comment on the WDE subreddit bemoaning that we have to play the top three recruiting teams every year...so I figured now would be as good a time as any to revive spec on how the realignment will look. God I hope it's the format that SEC Network put out--our schedule would still be very tough but everyone's schedule would now be very tough too.

The two very worst (and highly unlikely...right?) scenarios would be this and this.

Edited December 18, 2021 by AUwent

[AUpreacherman22 3,885]

I have always thought that N, S, E, W model made the most sense.   It works geographically and it evens the competition pretty well.  The “SEC playoff” adding 2 extra games is serious $$$, but also makes it tougher for teams to survive an already daunting schedule.   

[W.E.D 11,070]

1 hour ago, AUpreacherman22 said:

I have always thought that N, S, E, W model made the most sense.   It works geographically and it evens the competition pretty well.  The “SEC playoff” adding 2 extra games is serious $$$, but also makes it tougher for teams to survive an already daunting schedule.   

Going to 15 games is also really tough on these kids 

[W.E.D 11,070]

17 hours ago, AUwent said:

Bumping this thread because it sounds like the "Red River twins" really are joining starting in '23, and because I just read a comment on the WDE subreddit bemoaning that we have to play the top three recruiting teams every year...so I figured now would be as good a time as any to revive spec on how the realignment will look. God I hope it's the format that SEC Network put out--our schedule would still be very tough but everyone's schedule would now be very tough too.

The two very worst (and highly unlikely...right?) scenarios would be this and this.

Your first link makes the most sense.

Go to 9 games and do whatever rotation is deemed best to cycle through all teams as fast as possible. I don't want to drop UGA, but would there still be cross pod rivals?

[AUwent 3,748]

4 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Your first link makes the most sense.

Go to 9 games and do whatever rotation is deemed best to cycle through all teams as fast as possible. I don't want to drop UGA, but would there still be cross pod rivals?

I assume we'd alternate between them and the lizards.

Edited December 18, 2021 by AUwent

[IronMan70 3,277]

4 divisions (pods)

3 + 6,  9 game SEC schedule (2 year rotation through the conference) 

4 division champs (best SEC record in the division)

2 semifinal game division winners decide the teams for SEC championship game 

Keep it simple, let the SEC records determine the outcomes. No need to complicate it with things like seedings.  

[AUwent 3,748]

On 12/18/2021 at 7:11 PM, IronMan70 said:

4 divisions (pods)

3 + 6,  9 game SEC schedule (2 year rotation through the conference) 

4 division champs (best SEC record in the division)

2 semifinal game division winners decide the teams for SEC championship game 

Keep it simple, let the SEC records determine the outcomes. No need to complicate it with things like seedings.  

You know, in last 24 years (start of BCS), 26 of the 48 participants in the NCG are either current SEC members, Oklahoma or Texas. I wouldn't be opposed to the SECC being a play-in for the NC (the SECC final could even be one of the NY6 bowls).

(The prospect of too many games is the only potential drawback of the SECN plan, so I was just trying to think of a way to fix that.)

Edited January 4, 2022 by AUwent

[AUwent 3,748]

Now that the CFB season is finally over, I really hope talk about this subject picks back up. As was discussed in the QB transfer thread, our schedule as is is completely and utterly unfair. The stakes for how the realignment cookie crumbles are incredibly high for us.

Edited January 11, 2022 by AUwent

[W.E.D 11,070]

2 hours ago, AUwent said:

Now that the CFB season is finally over, I really hope talk about this subject picks back up. As was discussed in the QB transfer thread, our schedule as is is completely and utterly unfair. The stakes for how the realignment cookie crumbles are incredibly high for us.

UGA and Bama aren't keeping us from being good. Running from our rivals isn't good for college football 

[AUwent 3,748]

2 hours ago, W.E.D said:

UGA and Bama aren't keeping us from being good. Running from our rivals isn't good for college football 

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as we're unique in having to play them we have the toughest schedule in the country each year.

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

1 hour ago, AUwent said:

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as we're unique in having to play them we have the toughest schedule in the country each year.

Tennessee laughs 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

2 hours ago, ClaytonAU said:

Tennessee laughs 

Tennessee needs to check themselves then. Their schedule is easier the way its set up now. Pods would even things out for everybody if its set up correctly. 

Auburn, bama, Tennessee, Vandy or Kentucky

Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina, Vandy or Kentucky 

A&M, LSU, Miss st., Ole Miss

Ark., Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

I hope this is the model.

 

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

8 hours ago, AUwent said:

Respectfully, I disagree. As long as we're unique in having to play them we have the toughest schedule in the country each year.

And when we're actually good, we beat them and they don't hold us back. 2010/2013/2017 etc.  There hasn't been a year in the last decade when we were actually good that playing UGA/Bama in the regular season negated our championship aspirations. 

[AUinMS9528 1,086]

1 hour ago, W.E.D said:

And when we're actually good, we beat them and they don't hold us back. 2010/2013/2017 etc.  There hasn't been a year in the last decade when we were actually good that playing UGA/Bama in the regular season negated our championship aspirations. 

#truth

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

35 minutes ago, AUinMS9528 said:

#truth

 

Alabama nor UGA are stopping us from being great.  Ourselves are the only road block.

If we can get out of our own way and on the same page, we're good.  That just rarely seems possible for Auburn to accomplish.