Rick, there are six teams in each SEC Division. Every team plays the other five in their division and three from the other division. Each team has one permanent opponent from the other division and play the other five teams on a rotating basis, two years in a row home and home. The Gators have LSU as their permanent opponent. Next season we play Arkansas in the 2nd year of the rotation and Miss State in the first year. Last year we played Auburn and Ole Miss. It is a set rotation, each year having a team that rotates on the schedule from the other division and one in the second year. Then of course the two teams that meet for the SEC Championship play a 9th conference game.
That doesn't quite sound like "9 is 9 no matter how you slice it", except of course for two out of the twelve teams, and then they actually play 13 games. At least Bama is UT's permanent opponent.
I didn't make the statement Rick but was answering your question. I will say this, that if the SEC is to put a team in the Championship game it will come from the winner of the SEC Championship and that team will have played 9 conference games. I personally like the SEC setup, but wouldn't get hung up on it if we could have a playoff. However I do believe that if we are to have playoff the two methods will have to be reconciled. And I doubt that it will be done if either side takes the position theirs is the only way.
And I appreciate your answering my question, not to mention answering it objectively. The salient point is, the only SEC teams that play a nine-game conference schedule are those that advance to the conference championship.
I agree about the salient point except that it's kind of incomplete. The other half that is salient is that the only SEC teams that have a realistic chance of advancing to the BCS Championship game will have played 9 conference games. With that addition I would agree with the point.
It's not incomplete with respect to the "nine is nine, no matter how you slice it" platitude. I realize you didn't write that, but nonetheless playing nine conference games in the SEC is not a given for every team.
If he truly believed it was a step up, then he would not have used the word 'probably' in terms of placing the winner of this game over the winners of the SEC, ACC and Big 12. I've been reading Dave's posts for a long time and if you can't see how loaded this statement is then I can't help you.. Note the qualifiers.. the probably and the IF.... He can't even guarantee that he'd back the winner of that proposal into the title game. In order to pull that off the winner would: -Win a round robin 9 game conference schedule -Win a 2 game playoff -Have played 14 games All that to qualify to even be considered against the winners of the SEC, Big12, ACC, Big East etc?!?!? Come on now. You guys played 14 games this year total... This kind of 'modest proposal' smacks of the arrogance that you still fail to see. You were the 4th SEC fan to post in the topic, but the 1st to say that outright you did not support this buffoonery.
Ok Corey let's take the posts in order. Dave posted the article in post 1. In post 2 Rick said something along the lines of no thanks. In post 3 this is what Dave said. Stop here for a second, I see Dave saying that in his opinion this is a step up over what the Big 12 and SEC does and it would probably give the winner into the title game if they are pretty clean, not unbeaten but pretty clean. So through three posts Dave posted the artice, Rick doesn't like the proposal and Dave says what I put above. Post 4 is Rick again posts saying he will stick with tradition. So far we have Dave twice and Rick twice and pretty civil the way I see it. Then we get to post 5 where you show up and end your remarks by making this statement. So like you do so often you paint all SEC fans with your broad brush of contempt when to that point only one SEC fan has posted, MCG. And in answer to your last post, no I don't think the winner of such a proposed game would automatically get the the championship game if they were pretty clean. If for no other reason than their might be two teams from the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, Big East and Notre Dame who might be completely clean. As to Dave's motives I do understand why you take them with a grain of salt, but if you just didn't have to lump all of us SEC fans with your contempt I wouldn't have made my post to you.
Ok, but I would again submit that when an SEC team makes it to the championship game that except for some really unusual circumstances they will have played 9 games. I know that in one case Oklahoma made it without winning the Conference Championship. But there has been enough backlash that it would only happen in very unusual circumstances. I guess we might speculate what might have happened if Missouri had upset Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship. It would have been Florida vs who? Texas would probably have been in the mix and may well have emerged.
Exactly my point, Bill. As Bill said, the only teams that are relevant to this discussion (gaining entry to the BCS championship game) will have played 9 SEC games before the season is over. With respect to the other 10 teams, does it really matter??
Too bad all 12 teams aren't relevant. The point remains - and I guess it bears repeating - the easiest way to insulate your team from losing to conference foes more familiar with you than non-conference teams might be is to minimize the number of games in which you face them. When the NCAA went to a 12-game schedule, why didn't the SEC add another conference game?
I guess just like weed is weed, except in Gainesville. Are you trying to devolve this discussion to the level of a Scout forum?
LOL ... just accurately paraphrashing that which has already been claimed by "some"!! ie - 9 Pac-10 conference games > 9 SEC and/or Big-12 conference games
I think the reasons for the Pac-10 adding the extra game and the SEC not adding an extra game are quite simple. There are 10 teams in the Pac-10, yes? OK, adding the ninth conference game gives you the round-robin format that you're so fond of. Adding a 9th game in the SEC reg. season doesn't make nearly as much sense. First of all, when the SEC was organized, there were 11 games allowed during most football seasons, right? OK, so the SEC, being a 12 team league chose to divide up the divisions into 6 teams each. Follow? This way, each team would play its 5 division foes plus a "rivalry" game from the other division and two games versus the opposite division rotating on a schedule. Now, how would it make any sense several years into the establishment of these parameters to add a 4th game versus the other division? It makes even less sense considering that a championship game makes a 4th game versus the other division. What makes the format even tougher is that the championship game could be played versus a team you've already met once during the reg. season making it even more difficult to navigate. It's happened over and over again in the era of the "super conference" that teams have gone undefeated or through the year with one loss only to be upset by a heavy underdog in the championship game. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but I think your fondness for the round-robin format and playing 9 conference games evolves from your belief that you feel this gives your conference a better way of determining a champion, right? If that is so, then the SEC champion also plays 9 conference games. So, in terms of determing a champion, 9=9 no matter how you slice it in either the Pac-10 or the SEC. Call it flawed logic if you like but I think navigating the SEC slate and the Pac-10 slate is, at the very least, just as difficult in either league, all things being equal. Now, I know the SEC gets overhyped by the media sometimes, I'll admit that. However, I also feel that the Pac-10 is a little bit more on the top-heavy side than the SEC (arguments for this particular past season notwithstanding). In most years, granted on the outside looking in, it's USC head and shoulders above everyone else and then a couple of teams like an Oregon or a Cal mixed in with a lot of mediocre teams. Let me be clear, I realize that the SEC has years like this too so I don't need to get into that argument, I see your point (especially for this past season). I just feel like, in most seasons, there are more dangerous SEC teams than Pac-10 teams. That's my opinion, nothing more. I don't think it's necessarily fact, it's just my opinion.
You make a lot of good points here Bill and this is one of them. Also...my intent of posting about the Western Playoff idea is to show how teams like USC can ensure that they have chance at a season ending rankings boost for the BCS title game should they not be unbeaten or ranked 1 or 2 etc. after playing UCLA.
No need to rationalize. A twelfth game was added. The SEC apparently didn't mandate that its teams add another conference game, and some schools elected to insulate themselves against any further risk by only scheduling one-way games from directional and lower division schools.
Point well taken, Rick. However, do you really think that the Pac-10 would have scheduled a 9th conference game if there were, say, 11 teams in the conference? I seriously doubt it. The reason for the Pac-10 adding that 9th game was because each team could play each member of the conference. It was reasonable to do so because there are 10 teams in the conference. Look no further than the Big 10/11 to see that adding a ninth conference game when it really serves no purpose doesn't make sense to most. However, it does serve a purpose in the Pac-10 and nothing was lost b/c there was still room for 3 nonconference games, just like always. The other leagues didn't have said motivation to change.
I imagine because the SEC felt that 8 regular season games were enough. How you can say all 12 teams aren't relevant is beyond me and doesn't make sense. The season starts with all 12 having a shot at the conference title with 8 games in the manner described before. A well defined tiebreaker is in place to use when necessary and has been several times. I think this whole nit picking discussion shows why a playoff could be a long way off. No one here seems to like the way the other guy does it and seems to think that their way is the best. So short of any system in place that would reconcile these differences I hope my conference sticks with exactly what we are doing as it seems to work pretty well for us.
Aquila, The SEC has not always been a 12 team conference. In 1933 it was a 13 team conference but the following members dropped out (years noted): Sewanee (TN) 1941 Georgia Tech 1964 Tulane 1966 From 1966 until 1992, the SEC was a 10 team league. They added 2 teams to go to the 'Super Conference' format. The hopes were that everyone would follow suit. The Big12 did in 1996. Others have around that same time frame. I think that Rick's question is a very good one. Why not have every SEC team play 9 conference games and then the 2 best play the 10th? They are already rewarded as if they play a 10th game that others in the country don't play... why not make that a reality? Personally, I think the teams in the SEC West would GREATLY benefit from an additional conference game. While the top might be better in the East, the West is deeper and has been for some time.. That will let East teams have to play the Alabama, LSU, Auburn's more regularly... This would also let those teams in the West get fat off the Kentucky/Vandy portion of the East.