SEC staying with 8 conference game schedule

[keesler 5,928]

All the dang whining and complaining from LSU - Les Miles and AD Joe Alleva has gone on deaf ears. The permanent cross-division rivalries are staying put, period. The alternative to what Miles/Alleva want as a "fair" schedule is to go to a 9 game SEC schedule and only a couple of SEC programs wanted the 9 game alternative. So we are left with what we have, the permanent rivalries stay in tact and LSU can just suck it up and DWI.

[AUbritt 611]

The fact remains that the scheduling is unfair -- to Auburn, as well as to LIU.

[AUbritt 611]

LSU dang auto correct.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

The fact remains that the scheduling is unfair -- to Auburn, as well as to LIU.

The permanent cross-divisional opponent aspect of the scheduling system isn't unfair. It's the league bogus way of mixing and matching the rotational opponents in UAT's favor. That was the major injustice, but what Alleva and Miles are crying about is just chicken shat.

[AU64 10,122]

The fact remains that the scheduling is unfair -- to Auburn, as well as to LIU.

The permanent cross-divisional opponent aspect of the scheduling system isn't unfair. It's the league bogus way of mixing and matching the rotational opponents in UAT's favor. That was the major injustice, but what Alleva and Miles are crying about is just chicken shat.

And Auburn's too of course.

JJ and Gouge wanted to keep UGa as our permanent opponent...and why not...Georgia is a major recruiting source and playing UGa every year is a very valuable asset when recruiting Georgia kids IMO. Overall, in the long run nobody knows who will be good five years from now and which team will have the cream puff schedule. And LSU....Valley said it well enough. Maybe UF is the one that should be complaining considering how things have gone the last few years.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

UT will get better, they can't stay down for too long.....eventually it won't be seen as an easy game for them.

[AUbritt 611]

The fact remains that the scheduling is unfair -- to Auburn, as well as to LIU.

The permanent cross-divisional opponent aspect of the scheduling system isn't unfair. It's the league bogus way of mixing and matching the rotational opponents in UAT's favor. That was the major injustice, but what Alleva and Miles are crying about is just chicken shat.

I basically agree with this, or at least the claim that the rotational scheduling is the bigger injustice.

[AUbritt 611]

The fact remains that the scheduling is unfair -- to Auburn, as well as to LIU.

The permanent cross-divisional opponent aspect of the scheduling system isn't unfair. It's the league bogus way of mixing and matching the rotational opponents in UAT's favor. That was the major injustice, but what Alleva and Miles are crying about is just chicken shat.

Just to respond to all of what you said, VT ....

According to the quote from Alleva in this story,

We share all the revenue and expenses yet we cannot have a balanced, fair, equitable schedule. LSU has played Florida and Georgia 19 times since 2000, and Bama has played them eight times. Is that fair?

I went back through our schedules since 2000 and excluded the SEC Championship Games. If my count is right, we've played Georgia and Florida 20 times since 2000. Not sure when Alleva stopped counting, so I'm not going to claim that we've had it rougher than LSU. (For instance, I counted the UGA game from 2013, while Alleva may have made his claim before LSU played Florida in 2013.)

What I will claim, however, is that LSU and Auburn have had it rougher than Bama since 2000. It's just a fact, and I don't think you can argue it's chicken shat. I also don't think it's accidental.

I do agree that the biggest injustice has been in the rotational scheduling. I can see how a Bama fan might say -- well, look, it's not our fault that Tennessee has been down for so long, while Florida and Georgia have remained strong. (Actually, that sounds way too rational -- they'd probably just say 'RT, shut up' or something equally articulate.) But the fact remains that playing Florida and Georgia more than twice as often as Bama has made Auburn's and LSU's schedules tougher than Bama's since 2000.

Now, there are a few issues that ought to be addressed in scheduling. The most important, in my opinion, is the question of balance. But two other issues also deserve attention. One is whether keeping an 8-game schedule will hurt us with the Playoff Selection Committee. Stewart Mandel argues that it will.

Personally, I would have liked to see the league go to nine games if only because it would be better for the fans to see one more league game and one less FCS or Sun Belt game. I can't say I blame the SEC for standing pat. But mark my word, it will eventually cost one of its teams a playoff berth. I've said it here many times before: 14-team conferences create extremely unbalanced schedules. Eight league games can look very different depending on which five of the 13 other members are excluded from a slate. For instance, Alabama last season missed the four best teams from the SEC East (Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia and Vanderbilt). It beat 9-3 LSU, 8-4 Texas A&M, 7-5 Ole Miss ... and that's it. Most assume the Tide still would have made a four-team playoff field, but what if Stanford, which played a much tougher schedule, had gone 12-1 instead of 11-2? Or what if 11-1 Baylor had played a decent non-Big 12 team? The committee would have left out Alabama, in which case the South would have gone beserk. I believe that scenario will occur at some point in the new system, and the SEC will very quickly warm up to a nine-game schedule.

What's interesting about this argument for a 9-game schedule is that it places so much weight on unbalanced schedules. The claim is basically that unbalanced schedules will end up hurting teams (like Bama) that play weaker cross-division opponents. Adding another conference game would allow teams like Bama to avoid that issue by adding a game against Georgia or Florida.

Of course, whether we play an 8-game or 9-game schedule, we could still play a more-balanced schedule. But then the other important issue comes up: keeping the traditional rivalries (like Auburn-Georgia or Bama-Tennessee).

So, what we really need is a balanced schedule that keeps the traditional rivalries and could do both of those with either an 8-game or 9-game format (if it turns out that the 8-game format does in fact hurt us, as Mandel predicts). Well, look what I found. I can't believe I've never seen or heard of this before. Anyone else?

Here are some highlights of what the creator of this format is calling "The Roommate Switch."

• Preserves the major rivalry games ANNUALLY.
  
• Play all schools at least once every TWO years.
  
• HOST & VISIT the whole conference every FOUR years.
  
• Maintains 2 round-robin DIVISIONS for the SEC Championship Game under existing NCAA rules.
  
• Accomplishes all this is EITHER an 8 or 9 game schedule.
  
• Maximizes the quantity of marquee match-ups for fans and TV.
  
• Fosters greater rivalry, competition, history & cohesion between all SEC schools over the long run.
  

If that sounds as good to you as it does to me, y'all take a look. It's too complicated for me to explain all the details here, and the dude (or gal) who put together the Roommate Switch does a good enough job. I haven't found any flaws in the system. It's brilliant outside the box thinking, if you ask me. If anyone has any connections with any of the athletic departments, I sure wish they'd pass it along.

[AU64 10,122]

Personally, I would have liked to see the league go to nine games if only because it would be better for the fans to see one more league game and one less FCS or Sun Belt game. I can't say I blame the SEC for standing pat. But mark my word, it will eventually cost one of its teams a playoff berth. I've said it here many times before: 14-team conferences create extremely unbalanced schedules. Eight league games can look very different depending on which five of the 13 other members are excluded from a slate. For instance, Alabama last season missed the four best teams from the SEC East (Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia and Vanderbilt). It beat 9-3 LSU, 8-4 Texas A&M, 7-5 Ole Miss ... and that's it. Most assume the Tide still would have made a four-team playoff field, but what if Stanford, which played a much tougher schedule, had gone 12-1 instead of 11-2? Or what if 11-1 Baylor had played a decent non-Big 12 team? The committee would have left out Alabama, in which case the South would have gone beserk. I believe that scenario will occur at some point in the new system, and the SEC will very quickly warm up to a nine-game schedule.

Wait a minute....a bit ago someone ran a list of the PAC 12 teams and their W-Ls and rankings...and it was not much to crow about. So what good is a 9th PAC 12 game against Cal or Colorado? Other than the name, they might as well be playing Troy State as far as level of difficulty.

Folks outside of the SEC would probably like to see a 12 game schedule since that would increase the odds that no SEC team could come through that gauntlet undefeated. I just don't buy the argument that the 8 games plus a Big 5 conference game plus the championship game is not enough. The team in doubt is the one that loses the championship game perhaps...especially if that is their second loss of the season.....but wins over MSU, Kentucky or Vandy for example, is not going to make any difference.

There are too many reasons to stick with the 8 game plan...financial and personnel development being two of the big ones IMO.

[AUbritt 611]

Personally, I would have liked to see the league go to nine games if only because it would be better for the fans to see one more league game and one less FCS or Sun Belt game. I can't say I blame the SEC for standing pat. But mark my word, it will eventually cost one of its teams a playoff berth. I've said it here many times before: 14-team conferences create extremely unbalanced schedules. Eight league games can look very different depending on which five of the 13 other members are excluded from a slate. For instance, Alabama last season missed the four best teams from the SEC East (Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia and Vanderbilt). It beat 9-3 LSU, 8-4 Texas A&M, 7-5 Ole Miss ... and that's it. Most assume the Tide still would have made a four-team playoff field, but what if Stanford, which played a much tougher schedule, had gone 12-1 instead of 11-2? Or what if 11-1 Baylor had played a decent non-Big 12 team? The committee would have left out Alabama, in which case the South would have gone beserk. I believe that scenario will occur at some point in the new system, and the SEC will very quickly warm up to a nine-game schedule.

Wait a minute....a bit ago someone ran a list of the PAC 12 teams and their W-Ls and rankings...and it was not much to crow about. So what good is a 9th PAC 12 game against Cal or Colorado? Other than the name, they might as well be playing Troy State as far as level of difficulty.

Folks outside of the SEC would probably like to see a 12 game schedule since that would increase the odds that no SEC team could come through that gauntlet undefeated. I just don't buy the argument that the 8 games plus a Big 5 conference game plus the championship game is not enough. The team in doubt is the one that loses the championship game perhaps...especially if that is their second loss of the season.....but wins over MSU, Kentucky or Vandy for example, is not going to make any difference.

There are too many reasons to stick with the 8 game plan...financial and personnel development being two of the big ones IMO.

As long as the scheduling is equitable, I don't have much of an issue with the 8-game schedule.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Wait a minute....a bit ago someone ran a list of the PAC 12 teams and their W-Ls and rankings...and it was not much to crow about. So what good is a 9th PAC 12 game against Cal or Colorado? Other than the name, they might as well be playing Troy State as far as level of difficulty.

Folks outside of the SEC would probably like to see a 12 game schedule since that would increase the odds that no SEC team could come through that gauntlet undefeated. I just don't buy the argument that the 8 games plus a Big 5 conference game plus the championship game is not enough. The team in doubt is the one that loses the championship game perhaps...especially if that is their second loss of the season.....but wins over MSU, Kentucky or Vandy for example, is not going to make any difference.

There are too many reasons to stick with the 8 game plan...financial and personnel development being two of the big ones IMO.

But the SEC also plays FCS teams like Samford, Chattanooga, Furman, and Western Carolina. So even though Colorado may stink, playing them would still make a PAC 12 team's strength of schedule look better than playing an FCS team.

Remember, it's not computer rankings from the BCS anymore. It's a committee who will look at it now. So anyone who doesn't wear SEC colored glasses would see the SEC teams playing FCS teams while other conferences don't.

Stanford didn't play an FCS team last year or in 2012 or 2011. They do this year though, but I don't think the PAC 12 schedules as many FCS teams on a yearly basis than the SEC has.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Wonder what kind teams Jay will get out of the conference for home and home series starting in 2016.

[gilstein21 1]

Wonder what kind teams Jay will get out of the conference for home and home series starting in 2016.

at least one from the pac12, big 10, big 12, or ACC

[AU64 10,122]

Wonder what kind teams Jay will get out of the conference for home and home series starting in 2016.

at least one from the pac12, big 10, big 12, or ACC

Prescient....and for his next trick he will give you the lottery numbers for the next Powerball drawing

[gilstein21 1]

figured i'd answer an A4E question with an A4E answer

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Your very kind.

[BJ17 0]

For now at least. I have a feeling that the SECay have to move to 9 games rather they like it or not. I say this because the Playoff Selection Committee may use that against the SEC champion since the other conferences are playing 9 games.

[keesler 5,928]

For now at least. I have a feeling that the SECay have to move to 9 games rather they like it or not. I say this because the Playoff Selection Committee may use that against the SEC champion since the other conferences are playing 9 games.

This damn "selection committee" may force us to conform. And we will, just as soon as an SEC champion gets left out of the playoff.

I HATE that college football is now at the mercy of a few "selected" individuals - at least the BCS formula included unbiased computers.

[AUbritt 611]

ACC also staying with 8, which helps us.

[WarEagle84 0]

at least the BCS formula included unbiased computers.

... programmed by biased humans.

I'm not a huge fan of the selection committee either, but I'm willing to give them a chance to work before I condemn them. Since we were all used to the BCS, it would have been perfectly acceptable to almost everyone if we had kept their rankings to use with the 4-team playoff.

[McLoofus 35,182]

at least the BCS formula included unbiased computers.

... programmed by biased humans.

I'm not a huge fan of the selection committee either, but I'm willing to give them a chance to work before I condemn them. Since we were all used to the BCS, it would have been perfectly acceptable to almost everyone if we had kept their rankings to use with the 4-team playoff.

[BJ17 0]

For now at least. I have a feeling that the SECay have to move to 9 games rather they like it or not. I say this because the Playoff Selection Committee may use that against the SEC champion since the other conferences are playing 9 games.

This damn "selection committee" may force us to conform. And we will, just as soon as an SEC champion gets left out of the playoff.

I HATE that college football is now at the mercy of a few "selected" individuals - at least the BCS formula included unbiased computers.

Exactly. Also I really don't see why everyone is so opposed to adding another conference game. I know the SEC is tough but that is nothing AU and Gus can't handle. Kentucky or Vandy etc.. is always more appealing than a Sun Belt or CUSA opponent let alone any other SEC team.

[AUwent 3,768]

Wonder what kind teams Jay will get out of the conference for home and home series starting in 2016.

My hope is that from now on if we schedule home and home non conference series, that we do the traveling on odd years.

[gilstein21 1]

Wonder what kind teams Jay will get out of the conference for home and home series starting in 2016.

My hope is that from now on if we schedule home and home non conference series, that we do the traveling on odd years.

i think that's a given with UGA and Bama being away on the even years.

[Dom1ni0n 51]

Wait a minute....a bit ago someone ran a list of the PAC 12 teams and their W-Ls and rankings...and it was not much to crow about. So what good is a 9th PAC 12 game against Cal or Colorado? Other than the name, they might as well be playing Troy State as far as level of difficulty.

Folks outside of the SEC would probably like to see a 12 game schedule since that would increase the odds that no SEC team could come through that gauntlet undefeated. I just don't buy the argument that the 8 games plus a Big 5 conference game plus the championship game is not enough. The team in doubt is the one that loses the championship game perhaps...especially if that is their second loss of the season.....but wins over MSU, Kentucky or Vandy for example, is not going to make any difference.

There are too many reasons to stick with the 8 game plan...financial and personnel development being two of the big ones IMO.

But the SEC also plays FCS teams like Samford, Chattanooga, Furman, and Western Carolina. So even though Colorado may stink, playing them would still make a PAC 12 team's strength of schedule look better than playing an FCS team.

Remember, it's not computer rankings from the BCS anymore. It's a committee who will look at it now. So anyone who doesn't wear SEC colored glasses would see the SEC teams playing FCS teams while other conferences don't.

Stanford didn't play an FCS team last year or in 2012 or 2011. They do this year though, but I don't think the PAC 12 schedules as many FCS teams on a yearly basis than the SEC has.

I agree as to how the inception of the selection committee may have the AD's of the championship caliber SEC programs second guess scheduling those FCS layups. In the long haul this would be best for business, because those contests are typically one-sided scrimmages. I would be more inclined to watch games against competitive AAC, C-USA, MAC or Mountain West teams where that talent gap wouldn't be as wide as in comparison to sparring against the SoCon. I would like to believe the committee would view those games more favorably when determining playoff participants.

Consider this in regards to Pac-12 ADs and their scheduling. Most don't try to make a habit of scheduling FCS teams as they realize these games won't be well attended since most of their programs are situated in regions with professional sports, and/or large metropolises that have more to offer as alternatives. For example, USC is the winningest program with the most MNC's in that conference and rarely fills the Coliseum.