9 game conference schedule coming?

[AUwent 3,768]

2 minutes ago, Rednilla said:

Well, you see, some of us don't feel like facing murderer's row every single season. The SEC is tough enough as it is. There's plenty of intrigue with Auburn vs. Mississippi State, which was the third permanent opponent I suggested. I think it's pretty pathetic that you are trying to shame those of us who have sense, as if somehow the work is less hard when not going up against 3 of the top 20 programs in the history of the sport every single year. Good grief.

And again, we’re going to be facing Baylor in a few years. Miami as well further down the road. Even UCLA may finally be onto something under Chip.

Edited August 21, 2022 by AUwent

[aubearcat 2,138]

8 minutes ago, Rednilla said:

Well, you see, some of us don't feel like facing murderer's row every single season. The SEC is tough enough as it is. There's plenty of intrigue with Auburn vs. Mississippi State, which was the third permanent opponent I suggested. I think it's pretty pathetic that you are trying to shame those of us who have sense, as if somehow the work is less hard when not going up against 3 of the top 20 programs in the history of the sport every single year. Good grief.

I’m not trying to shame anyone. Auburn, bammer, and LSU were the original 3 of the big dogs of the west. UF, UT, and uga were the original big dogs of the east. To me, an old school rivalry is much more fun and intriguing than a yearly game against an also ran. It is what it is. If some prefer an almost guaranteed win against one of the lower tiered conference teams, that’s okay. However, I prefer the game against a more interesting opponent that has more history and cache. 

[Rednilla 5,397]

2 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I’m not trying to shame anyone. Auburn, bammer, and LSU were the original 3 of the big dogs of the west. UF, UT, and uga were the original big dogs of the east. To me, an old school rivalry is much more fun and intriguing than a yearly game against an also ran. It is what it is. If some prefer an almost guaranteed win against one of the lower tiered conference teams, that’s okay. However, I prefer the game against a more interesting opponent that has more history and cache. 

It's NOT an almost guaranteed win. It's still an SEC opponent. It's just against a team that is less likely to be in the midst of a dynasty. It's an opponent that we should do better than break even with over the years, but it's not like we're playing Samford as an annual rival.

[aubearcat 2,138]

2 minutes ago, Rednilla said:

It's NOT an almost guaranteed win. It's still an SEC opponent. It's just against a team that is less likely to be in the midst of a dynasty. It's an opponent that we should do better than break even with over the years, but it's not like we're playing Samford as an annual rival.

AUburn should almost assuredly beat the MS schools every year as well as beating a usc, mizzou, or vandy. To me, it’s similar to the arguments made against Ohio ST or Clemson. Many SEC fans will complain that those teams only played 1 or 2 good conference games a year. Well, that’s what having a lower tier SEC opponent would be for AUburn. 2 good games a year and maybe 1 good ooc opponent with 9 games of meh. Play bammer, uga, UF, and 2-3 mid game ooc opponents with the other conference games and that’s a good schedule. Nobody is saying play uga, bammer, and UF 3 weeks in a row. 

[IronMan70 3,277]

2 hours ago, AUght2win said:

It’s not the reality at all. The reality is TV dollars.

I know some like to picture Alabama and UGA as wielding the influence of some underworld mob boss that WILL have their way, but that’s silly. The conference, those two included, will do what makes money. For better or worse. Nothing would be better for ratings right now that those two in the same pod.

So even if Alabama or UGA or Auburn would vehemently be against it (for the record, they wouldn’t be), it would happen anyway.

Also, I understand a bit of thinking Alabama has an outsized influence, with the size of their brand and dating back to the days when the Bear literally ran the conference. But what on earth makes you think UGA has any more power than us? LMAO UGA just won their first title in 40 years. They’ve got about the exact same resume as us, with a recent small window of success.

Nobody said UGa has more power than us. I said that bama and UGa would never agree to being in the same yearly pod. They would exert their combined influence to make sure it didn't happen.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,731]

1 hour ago, aubearcat said:

Yeah, a yearly game against mizzou, usc, vandy, .. etc is meh. I never thought there would be AUburn fans that would shy away from games because those games would be tough and because AUburn had and will play difficult games. As a fan you’d rather watch a game of AU v mizzou rather than AU v UF because bammer and uga was already on the schedule and AU may lose one of those games? I’d rather AUburn be at level to compete with all those teams and watch all those games instead of AUburn being at level of needing a lower tier conference team on the schedule to compete. You know, all that work , hard work stuff…JMO. 

The dominance of UGA and UA on a playoff level has definitely pressed alot of Auburn fans to view football as playoff or bust (and really, that's where the sport is going into as a whole). I would personally feel worse if we played some patsy schedule, only beat UGA/UA and maybe some other decent SEC team, and got to the first round of the playoff

[AUwent 3,768]

1 hour ago, aubearcat said:

I’m not trying to shame anyone. Auburn, bammer, and LSU were the original 3 of the big dogs of the west. UF, UT, and uga were the original big dogs of the east. To me, an old school rivalry is much more fun and intriguing than a yearly game against an also ran. It is what it is. If some prefer an almost guaranteed win against one of the lower tiered conference teams, that’s okay. However, I prefer the game against a more interesting opponent that has more history and cache. 

If it makes you feel any better, if I truly had it my way I'd kick out all six non-charter members and have all ten teams play each other in a round robin.

Edited August 22, 2022 by AUwent

[Auburn06 76]

I always assumed Auburn would get Ole Miss if Alabama gets Mississippi State. I have seen different forums say that Auburn may get Florida as the 3rd. 

[AUwent 3,768]

3 minutes ago, Auburn06 said:

I always assumed Auburn would get Ole Miss if Alabama gets Mississippi State. I have seen different forums say that Auburn may get Florida as the 3rd. 

The most recent word from someone who seems to be in the know (Dellenger) was that everyone would get at least one "lower" team. Pretty sure anything since then on opponents themselves has been pure spec.

[Rednilla 5,397]

2 hours ago, aubearcat said:

AUburn should almost assuredly beat the MS schools every year as well as beating a usc, mizzou, or vandy. To me, it’s similar to the arguments made against Ohio ST or Clemson. Many SEC fans will complain that those teams only played 1 or 2 good conference games a year. Well, that’s what having a lower tier SEC opponent would be for AUburn. 2 good games a year and maybe 1 good ooc opponent with 9 games of meh. Play bammer, uga, UF, and 2-3 mid game ooc opponents with the other conference games and that’s a good schedule. Nobody is saying play uga, bammer, and UF 3 weeks in a row. 

First of all, "should beat" is not the same as "almost guaranteed". All time, Auburn has won slightly more than 70% of the games vs. Mississippi State. 70% is 7 out of 10, which means 3 times out of 10, they win. It's also worth noting that the only team we have played more times than Mississippi State is Georgia, so it's not like there's no history to back it up.

Beyond that, if you *really* think the "average" SEC teams are of the same quality as those of the B1G and the ACC, then you need to get a clue. There's a reason why there have been the same number of different national champions from the SEC alone as there have been from every other conference combined in the last quarter century, and it's not because the conference is weak... especially considering that one third of the non-SEC national champions are working on moving into the SEC as we type.

So no, you don't get to say that the arguments are synonymous. It doesn't matter that you aren't saying to play them three weeks in a row. It's that you think we should play all three of them every year, along with the rotating schedule that would bring the other marquee SEC opponents in at intervals. Hey, we might even wind up with more games against those teams who've won it all than we have against those other weaklings who aren't worthy of our attention. That's the dream, right? Make things as absolutely impossibly difficult as they can possibly be, so that in the infinitesimally small chance that we make it through that hell unscathed, no one can say that we didn't earn it.

If you really need the game to be against Florida, Tennessee, or LSU to be interested in it, then you're the one who needs to be checking your fanhood at the door. As much as I want to see Auburn play the best, I also want to see Auburn win more than 2/3 of the time, and it's hard to do that when you're playing nothing but the best of the best.

[aubearcat 2,138]

41 minutes ago, Rednilla said:

First of all, "should beat" is not the same as "almost guaranteed". All time, Auburn has won slightly more than 70% of the games vs. Mississippi State. 70% is 7 out of 10, which means 3 times out of 10, they win. It's also worth noting that the only team we have played more times than Mississippi State is Georgia, so it's not like there's no history to back it up.

Beyond that, if you *really* think the "average" SEC teams are of the same quality as those of the B1G and the ACC, then you need to get a clue. There's a reason why there have been the same number of different national champions from the SEC alone as there have been from every other conference combined in the last quarter century, and it's not because the conference is weak... especially considering that one third of the non-SEC national champions are working on moving into the SEC as we type.

So no, you don't get to say that the arguments are synonymous. It doesn't matter that you aren't saying to play them three weeks in a row. It's that you think we should play all three of them every year, along with the rotating schedule that would bring the other marquee SEC opponents in at intervals. Hey, we might even wind up with more games against those teams who've won it all than we have against those other weaklings who aren't worthy of our attention. That's the dream, right? Make things as absolutely impossibly difficult as they can possibly be, so that in the infinitesimally small chance that we make it through that hell unscathed, no one can say that we didn't earn it.

If you really need the game to be against Florida, Tennessee, or LSU to be interested in it, then you're the one who needs to be checking your fanhood at the door. As much as I want to see Auburn play the best, I also want to see Auburn win more than 2/3 of the time, and it's hard to do that when you're playing nothing but the best of the best.

Okay. Agree to disagree.  I would like to see a a renewal of the UF rivalry and you prefer a lesser opponent. It’s all good and we’re on the same team. WDE always at the end of the day. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by aubearcat

[AUght2win 6,873]

15 hours ago, AUwent said:

OK, but you’re going to have to live with never losing fewer than four games every year, something that many of us (myself included, but now thinking I might’ve been in the wrong) hated on Gus for.

If we get LSU or Florida as our third, here is what our regular season goals should be: >=6-6 100% of the time, >=7-5 75% of the time, >=8-4 50%, and 9-3 25%. Honestly even that might be unrealistic.

Let’s just join the Sun Belt then. I mean  being run out of our own conference to avoid our rivals is no less shameless  than what you’re advocating.

[AUght2win 6,873]

14 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

Nobody said UGa has more power than us. I said that bama and UGa would never agree to being in the same yearly pod. They would exert their combined influence to make sure it didn't happen.

And it would still happen regardless if it was financially beneficial to the SEC. Remember that UGA didn’t want to move their game with us. The conference isn’t run by any one team.

[AUght2win 6,873]

11 hours ago, Rednilla said:

First of all, "should beat" is not the same as "almost guaranteed". All time, Auburn has won slightly more than 70% of the games vs. Mississippi State. 70% is 7 out of 10, which means 3 times out of 10, they win. It's also worth noting that the only team we have played more times than Mississippi State is Georgia, so it's not like there's no history to back it up.

Beyond that, if you *really* think the "average" SEC teams are of the same quality as those of the B1G and the ACC, then you need to get a clue. There's a reason why there have been the same number of different national champions from the SEC alone as there have been from every other conference combined in the last quarter century, and it's not because the conference is weak... especially considering that one third of the non-SEC national champions are working on moving into the SEC as we type.

So no, you don't get to say that the arguments are synonymous. It doesn't matter that you aren't saying to play them three weeks in a row. It's that you think we should play all three of them every year, along with the rotating schedule that would bring the other marquee SEC opponents in at intervals. Hey, we might even wind up with more games against those teams who've won it all than we have against those other weaklings who aren't worthy of our attention. That's the dream, right? Make things as absolutely impossibly difficult as they can possibly be, so that in the infinitesimally small chance that we make it through that hell unscathed, no one can say that we didn't earn it.

If you really need the game to be against Florida, Tennessee, or LSU to be interested in it, then you're the one who needs to be checking your fanhood at the door. As much as I want to see Auburn play the best, I also want to see Auburn win more than 2/3 of the time, and it's hard to do that when you're playing nothing but the best of the best.

I laugh at the fact you’re framing the desire to continue to play our historic rivalry games as some masochistic dream. I don’t care how successful these teams temporarily are, I don’t want to lose our rivals. It’s unthinkable. Why even play the game if you’re not playing teams like Alabama and UGA?

[Rednilla 5,397]

29 minutes ago, AUght2win said:

I laugh at the fact you’re framing the desire to continue to play our historic rivalry games as some masochistic dream. I don’t care how successful these teams temporarily are, I don’t want to lose our rivals. It’s unthinkable. Why even play the game if you’re not playing teams like Alabama and UGA?

Okay, again, I don't want to lose those two rivalries. At no point have I even hinted at such a thing. My argument is for not renewing rivalries that have already been left behind. The fact that you misrepresent what I'm saying in order to laugh at it is pretty telling.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

18 hours ago, DAG said:

UGA wasn’t what they were 5 years ago let alone 20. Alabama hasn’t always been on top either . Things happen in cycles. 

 

You know that UGA has whipped AU's butt for the past 20 years, right?. AU's been 5-15 in the deep south's oldest rivalry during that time (2-8 the last 10) and the distance between the two programs is about as big now as it's ever been...and not likely to close anytime soon. 

I'm not arguing to do away with the UGA game just because of the history, but I'm 100% in agreement with the notion that we need a fair and balanced schedule, and that doesn't include having 3 perennial superpowers as our permanent games every year.  

 

Fact is AU football just isn't good enough on a year to year basis for it. We are never a basement dweller, but we also have never reached the consistent heights and talent that BAMA and UGA have had recently, and we're not exactly on a obvious path to getting there now. 

 

It's not "running away" from anything. It's being realistic about the talent level and capabilities of the team we support and wanting them to be put in the best situation for them to compete successfully while also giving the fans an entertaining schedule to watch. 

[aubaseball 2,648]

16 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Yeah, a yearly game against mizzou, usc, vandy, .. etc is meh. I never thought there would be AUburn fans that would shy away from games because those games would be tough and because AUburn had and will play difficult games. As a fan you’d rather watch a game of AU v mizzou rather than AU v UF because bammer and uga was already on the schedule and AU may lose one of those games? I’d rather AUburn be at level to compete with all those teams and watch all those games instead of AUburn being at level of needing a lower tier conference team on the schedule to compete. You know, all that work , hard work stuff…JMO. 

What everyone is not getting is that Auburn will play those teams every other year.   I don’t think anyone is saying to stop playing Alabama.   But why play Alabama, Georgia and LSU every year?  

[aubearcat 2,138]

9 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

What everyone is not getting is that Auburn will play those teams every other year.   I don’t think anyone is saying to stop playing Alabama.   But why play Alabama, Georgia and LSU every year?  

More intriguing and more fun games. I’m more interested in watching those games than watching the JP game of the week 11:30 kickoff  type teams. 

[DAG 34,016]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

You know that UGA has whipped AU's butt for the past 20 years, right?. AU's been 5-15 in the deep south's oldest rivalry during that time (2-8 the last 10) and the distance between the two programs is about as big now as it's ever been...and not likely to close anytime soon. 

I'm not arguing to do away with the UGA game just because of the history, but I'm 100% in agreement with the notion that we need a fair and balanced schedule, and that doesn't include having 3 perennial superpowers as our permanent games every year.  

 

Fact is AU football just isn't good enough on a year to year basis for it. We are never a basement dweller, but we also have never reached the consistent heights and talent that BAMA and UGA have had recently, and we're not exactly on a obvious path to getting there now. 

 

It's not "running away" from anything. It's being realistic about the talent level and capabilities of the team we support and wanting them to be put in the best situation for them to compete successfully while also giving the fans an entertaining schedule to watch. 

 No I didn’t know that. Thank you for telling me that ( HEAVY SARCASM). What the hell does that got to do with the point I was making ? Blame that on the last coach that some of you guys worship. He loss to some above average UGA teams, all of them definitely were not national title contenders. 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by DAG

[aubaseball 2,648]

1 hour ago, aubearcat said:

More intriguing and more fun games. I’m more interested in watching those games than watching the JP game of the week 11:30 kickoff  type teams. 

Sorry man, but you lost me.   What SEC team is JP game of the week?   I thought we were talking about SEC schedule.  You obviously think that the SEC is a crappy conference, therefore the Jefferson Pilot reference.   To voluntarily schedule three of the best teams in the conference just because “you” want to see a good game, in my opinion, is stupid.   Auburn will no doubt keep Alabama and probably Georgia on a permanent basis.   To add another team like say, Vandy, South Carolina or Miss State is not a sign of weakness 

[DAG 34,016]

People don’t want a third “tough” game .

Okay that’s fine 

But people running from both Alabama and UGA, our two main rivals.

Yeah , you are weak and your bloodline is weak haha. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by DAG

[aubearcat 2,138]

11 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Sorry man, but you lost me.   What SEC team is JP game of the week?   I thought we were talking about SEC schedule.  You obviously think that the SEC is a crappy conference, therefore the Jefferson Pilot reference.   To voluntarily schedule three of the best teams in the conference just because “you” want to see a good game, in my opinion, is stupid.   Auburn will no doubt keep Alabama and probably Georgia on a permanent basis.   To add another team like say, Vandy, South Carolina or Miss State is not a sign of weakness 

JP regularly, before the ESPN dominance, had the less intriguing games. Yeah, I do want to see good teams play instead of watching AUburn play subpar opponents.

UF is an old rivalry that has great history. The whole notion of not wanting to play UF yearly makes it sound as if you don’t think AUburn can be good enough to compete with the best of the best week in and week out.

Also, I don’t think the lower tier of the conference is very good. Right now, the SEC is very top heavy with a couple of good but not great teams in between. So again, I think AUburn has the resources and ability to be an elite program and doesn’t need to schedule a lower-tiered team (vandy, mizzou, historically uk)because scheduling a historical rival along with the other two (bammer and uga) might be too difficult. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by aubearcat

[bigbird 60,580]

31 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

What SEC team is JP game of the week?

I believe he means Jefferson Pilot 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

53 minutes ago, DAG said:

People don’t want a third “tough” game .

Okay that’s fine 

But people running from both Alabama and UGA, our two main rivals.

Yeah , you are weak and your bloodline is weak haha. 

I'm fine with playing them every year if they play each other too. Put us in a pod with them, fine. Us playing Georgia every year while Bama draws Tennessee, not such a good deal. Give Bama their due; they've been a monster. They don't need a schedule advantage too.  With NIL, Texas and the Aggies look to be monsters going forward too, so nobody's schedule is getting any easier.

[cbo 7,917]

1 hour ago, DAG said:

People don’t want a third “tough” game .

Okay that’s fine 

But people running from both Alabama and UGA, our two main rivals.

Yeah , you are weak and your bloodline is weak haha. 

Agree. We have to play Bama and UGA every year. Would just feel wrong otherwise. Besides, with the eventual expansion of the playoffs, it could benefit AU to play both each year. 

I will take a third much easier game, though.