With all due respect, Corey, I'm not ignorant. I believe this particular discussion is relevant to what occurred in 2005 when the NCAA first allowed 12 reg. season games to be played in EVERY season. I'm pretty sure the SEC was a 12 team conference then. What happened in 1992 or 1933 is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Again, why should they? As I said, the 9 game conference schedule works well for the Pac-10 because of the number of member schools. Why would the SEC add just one more game? The only way it would make sense to add more games to the SEC slate is if you totally dissolved the divisional format and had each SEC school play 11 conference games. Otherwise, this argument is pointless. The Pac-10 chose to play 9 conf. games as a way of accurately determining a champion so that you don't have to second guess who would win if two teams go undefeated and don't play each other in conference (sort of like what has happened in the Big 10 at times). The SEC solves this same problem by having each team play each team within their division and if a team not on the regular slate (from the other division) goes undefeated or has a legit claim to the title, they get to decide it on the field in the championship game. I don't know how that can be any clearer. Thanks for the SEC history review though.
Corey I'll leave the scheduling of the SEC to they people making those decisions. Right now the SEC is bringing in more money than anyone else from TV contracts etc and I kind of imagine the powers that be don't want to mess with success. It's heartwarming that you suddenly are concerned about the teams in the SEC. But I doubt your proposal goes anywhere. If it was up to me I'd cancel the 12th game. But in the meantime the SEC will just have to muddle along.
With respect to the playing round robin in FBS a couple of questions. How many conferences have their teams play round robin shcedules? How many of them have 10 or more teams? How many conferences have more than an 8 game conference schedule?
We'll play another SEC West team, Corey. We can drop the West coast game. Is that what you want to happen? We can drop the UCLA game and take on Mississippi State. We already play Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, and every SEC East team this year.
Aquila/Bill- I would say you'd be hard pressed to say that your conference does not receive a major boost in the polls for having 2 conference members play a 9th game.. simply because it is marketed as the conference title game. It is constantly portrayed in the media, and on these boards, as some sort of risk or extra step that they take. Why not make it that in actuality? Aquila- I figured you knew the history, but what you guys continue to fail to see is that you chose to go to the 12 team format. Arkansas made some sense although they were a SWC team. They are a southern school and fit nicely. South Carolina was more of an ACC school and was not what many would consider a 'marquis' addition by any stretch. Tom- Somehow I doubt that your Vols would do that. Be it out west, or even up to Syracuse in the Northeast, you guys get out and play people..and you've done so historically. If you were to knock out the UCLA game, (using this season's schedule) that would leave you with Northern Illinois, UAB and Wyoming. You'd be taking your own chances by doing that.. at the same time, many of your conference brothers take that route regardless of how many noncons they have.. So could you do it? Sure. Would you do it? I doubt it. As far as 'what I want'... I want a playoff, but I am not getting that either As for your SEC West lineup, the only one of those you play annually is Alabama. The others rotate in and out. As I said, the West stands to gain more from this than the East does. Bill, Good point. I think a case could be made that the Big10 should play one more game. That still wouldn't give them a round robin but it would be replacing a team (usually a Mac school) with a conference opponent. As to who plays a round-robin: -Big East -Mountain West -Pac10 -Sun Belt -WAC In other words, every conference with 10 teams or fewer plays a round robin. The conferences with 11 or more all took the 12th game opportunity to go another direction... and for too many, that direction is a directional school.
But Corey, you missed my point... or I'm missing your point. It sounds to me that in one breath, you want SEC teams to play nine conference games but then in another, you want Florida to get out of its region. My point is that you can't have it both ways. Do you want us to play more within the confines of the SEC or would you like to see us travel more? Can't have it both ways. Occasionally, you have to fall off that fence one way or another.
Tom, I'm not ever going to get my way on the 'certain teams leaving their region' card. I might as well take the side that would lead to a guaranteed increase in SOS. If you replace that 4th noncon with a conference game, your SOS will have to be higher since many use that spot for a IAA or directional school now. I'm not missing your point. Bill, At the same time, they play every team they can. There is no other conference team to add.. You have that ability, you choose not to. You've also chosen to ignore the fact that I'm not singling you out. I think the Big10 should do it as well as the Super Conferences. I think of all the suggestions that we've had on the table, this is certainly the most feasible and all that is being asked is to simply drop a stiff and play a conference team that you aren't already playing. Again, you are trying to paint my proposal as unreasonable in a section that was created under the notion that having 3 conferences play TWO extra games (on top of the 12 total, 9 to 8 conference) that they already play just to bring it down to 1 team... What is the point of being a conference member if you don't want to play the teams in your conference?
Corey, you are an absolute master at changing, or attempting to change, the discussion to fit your agenda. Fistt after only the only SEC fan that had posted on this topic was MCG you painted all of us SEC fans with onl an SEC fan would think this is good. And not even MCG of the SEC fans said he thought this was good. Then you bring into the discussion round robin playing of all conference members as if that's the solution. The number nine conference games comes up and that becomes an issue. When questioned about how many conferences play round robin you give me a list. When asked how many of those conferences play a 9 game schedule you ignore the question and give me the above. So here's the list you gave me. -Big East -Mountain West -Pac10 -Sun Belt -WAC It's obvious as to why you didn't answer the question, that's because only the Pac 10 plays a nine game schedule. All the other conferences above consist of 9 teams or less, the Big East having only 8 teams. So to keep this post short, only the Pac 10 plays a 9 game conference schedule. Let me also tell you there is no issue on the table that is meaningful, including the one the author of this article proposed. For sure I don't think that the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 are going to look to the Pac 10 for guidance as to how to run their conference. And to answer your question about why have a conference if you aren't going to play the teams? You must be talking about some other conference as we play 6 SEC teams every year and in a five year period play the other 5 teams 4 times each. So we do play them all.
Uh...let's see. Alabama was the undisputed #1 ranked team in the nation at the end of the regular season....sporting an unblemished 12-0 record and with an express ticket punched to the BCS title game. But....they indeed had to "risk" it all by playing in the SEC...."beauty contest"....as you like to call it Corey and they had to "risk" it against a team from the SEC East that was a double digit favorite and actually covered!!! Good thing there is an SEC title game eh?
You're right there is a good thing there is a title game.... otherwise we would have had the 2 best teams in the SEC NOT playing each other. Bill, I answered it. I guess I didn't answer it the way you wanted me to answer it. I gave you the full context of WHY those others don't play 9... If you don't address the fact that they do play all of the other members in their conference, then the answer would be obtuse at best. FTR-We've had a 2 day debate here about why this GD proposal is actually a 'good' idea. I've gotta get these guys on this board. In case you were wondering.. the reason why they think it is a 'good' idea is because the 'lack of quality football' being played in those conferences..those teams should have to play it off to be considered with the SEC, Big12, ACC etc.. Somehow, I don't think their feelings are the same as yours...but may not be far from some other folks on this board.
Exactly. The Pac-10 plays each team in the conference to ensure that this doesn't happen. The SEC has each team play the teams in their division and then play the best team from the other division in a conference title game. Each conference has a different means of securing the same end, and that is having a legitimate champion. The Pac-10 HAS to have each team play each of the others to do this. The SEC doesn't and can't unless they limit themselves to one conference game per season. Case closed.
Aquila, I'm good with that. So back to the original topic.. Do you think this proposal is a bunch of crap? Or do you see some validity to it?
Two questions: #1 - The SECCG matches the two best teams from each division, arguably the two best teams in the conference, (in a single elimination, winner-take-all championship game) as the last conference game of the year. Does the Pac-10 have its two best teams as of the end of the season, play each other in the final conference game of the season? #2 - What team does the Pac-10 recognize as the football champ for the following seasons? 2007, 2006, 2002, 2000, 1997, 1995, 1993, 1992?
Another aspect of the SEC title game that I think is a truer test of deciding a conference champion that what you see in the PAC 10 is that the SEC title game...between the two best teams in the conference....is played on a neutral field....whereas the PAC 10 conference can definitely be influenced by which team happens to own home field that particular season.
Once again, I ask a question and it gets met with questions rather than answers. Gaterz- The 12th game was added in the 2006 season. So why would you cite 6 seasons that took place before that became a rule? The BCS itself started in 1998 and you cited 4 seasons prior to the start of the BCS.. Why not ask about 1959 as well? It would be just as relevant... In the seasons relevant to the parameters of college football today: 2007: Southern Cal, by virtue of their 44-24 win over Arizona State 2006: Southern Cal, by virtue of their 23-9 win over Cal. 2002: Washington State, by virtue of their 30-27 win over USC. That season USC went to the Orange Bowl and crushed Iowa as a BCS wildcard. The 2000 season really showed the need for the 12th game to the Pac10. You had Oregon, Oregon State and Washington all finished once beaten. Oregon beat Washington, who beat Oregon State, who beat Oregon...
Really?? 5 of the SEC championship games have featured a team playing in their home state. (Alabama 2-Georgia 3) (insert lame rebuttal about Atlanta being an ACC town and Birmingham not being a Tide city here)
Simple answer: I think it's a bunch of crap. However, if similar tournaments were enacted in each region, it would make for a great time of year to be a college football fan and would be a lot like a playoff, don't you think?