At first I thought the 12th game was a good idea. Now I do not. When the Gators started scheduling another patsy a lot of Gator fans were up in the air and I know that I don't really want to pay for that 12th game with the kind of opponets we are scheduling. However if one looks deeper and we were to schedule OSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, S. Cal or other top schools they would have to be either the opener, before Georgia or before FSU. I think most open minded fans can see that's bad idea. I think what killed the good iner conference game were super conferences, conference playoffs and 8 or 9 game conference schedules and adding the 12th game won't change that. But it is a good analysis and the SEC sure does travel the least.
well <t>you are speaking towards Georgia and Florida's particular situation. On the graphic table given with that piece, the SEC has 7 of the worst 8. I think the 12th game was a good idea as it allowed those who weren't whoring themselves out to play a full round robin schedule.<br/> <br/> The game in JAX is one of those situations in which you can't really penalize either UGa or UG for choosing to give up a home game, at the same time, why reward them or put them above criticism?<br/> <br/> The Pac10 takes a lot, and I mean a LOT, of shots for not having a conference title game in the media. They don't need one because they play a round robin, but the media never lets the facts get in the way of a good story... That aside, the #1 criticism I see for condemning the Pac10 for not having a title game is that they CHOSE NOT TO.. They could have one, but they chose not to.. UF and UGa could play at home..but they choose not to.. I dont see why one takes heat, while the other escapes it..<br/> <br/> But even putting UGa and UF aside, you still have the other 5... They dont have that JAX game. What excuse could they have?</t>
I am with Bill on this one. Florida's schedule is plenty hard every year and even if Oklahoma or USC wanted to engage UF in a home-and-home series why should Florida have played say.....at Oklahoma sandwiched in between games this year at Kentucky and then Georgia in Jax? Why is that fair to Florida when some teams I won't mention make it to the national title game without playing anybody of note even in their own conference?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That is hilarious....we schedule home/home series with the nation's elite teams on an annual basis and have been for ever. Last year in Austin at defending national champion Texas, next year in LA at SC. Future schedules have VaTech, Cal, Oklahoma and Miami. We went out to Seattle to play the Huskies this year - traditionally one of the toughest places to play in the country. Who knew 15 years ago when the contract was signed that the program would be struggling this year. Give me a freakin' break. Your comment is ridiculous....travel somewhere and then come back and talk to me about schedules. As it relates to our conference, we played the best teams in the conference and came up short one time to a team heading to a BCS bowl....the SEC conference champion lost twice both times to unranked teams. You must be kidding....
wow <t>keep on defending the Gators when the list is damning to an entire conference.<br/> <br/> I will say that when I first started bringing up this subject years ago. UGa/UF (well mostly UF) fans said that they couldn't play that heavyweight noncon game because of the game in JAX...<br/> <br/> Then the addition of the 12th game came along... and now you are justifying not playing anyone of worth in a home and home because 'its just not fair that you schedule tough people.'<br/> <br/> Wow. just wow.<br/> <br/> There is always the chance that you schedule a heavyweight (ala ND) and they suck.. So you pick up a brand name win, you make tons more money (as does the community) for hosting an ND (or whoever) then you would with these 'lesser' games..<br/> <br/> The addition of the 12th game did expose thee fibbers for who they are. So, so many folks talked it up that a 12th game is needed to create more competitive schedules...and instead, all many did was schedule a noncon at home against a weak team.</t>
I think the SEC would be well served to go to 9 conference games instead of 8 to tell you the truth. I think they are hurt also by scheduling big conference games in Sept. The B10 doesn't really get started into conference play until Oct and they certainly don't schedule a game as big as say Tenn and FLa in Sept. If they don't go to a 9th confernce game then they should rework the schedule so that there is space in sept for a couple of patsies and a good intersectional game. Terry
The SEC Champion has to navigate a conference title game to make it to the BCS title game. That is just another tough game on the schedule. With respect to OSU at UW.....yes you are right that at one time it could have been a tough non-conference opponent much the same as UF playing FSU this year at many times in the past would have been against a top 5 opponent. I don't see anything new in this debate. The Big Ten offers up untested teams in the bowl games when their non-conference opponents don't pan out because the regular conference schedule itself isn't that much of a test and they have no title game. In all manner of schedule strength rankings teams from the SEC have generally highly ranked schedules and especially the University of Florida who by the way in 2007 traveled 4500 miles roundtrip to play a Big Ten team for the national title in front of mostly hostile fans. That worked out pretty good for the Gators.... 8).
Every trip that Hawaii takes is 5000 miles so that will account for alot of this, and every one of Notre Dames away games is counted (since they are not in a conference). I am not arguing your point but mileage is not the measuring stick you are looking for I don't think.
:lol: :lol: :lol: ....ancient history pal and now "irrelevant". This year you're a 3 loss division also-ran conference wannabe travelling in your own backyard to play a 4 loss conference also ran in a second tier bowl. Beignets? Scheduling? There is no news in that analysis...it has been and will continue to be a joke.
Well at least Ohio State is upgrading from this season's joke of a schedule so that's a good thing. :lol:
Schedules are what they are...even in the NFL not all teams play the same degree of toughness. Those of us in the AFC South have a much tougher schedule this year than the teams in the AFC East. Just beat the teams you play it's all you can do...the rest sorts itself out.
As long as the BCS exists there will be no increase in intersectional play. There is too much risk, with no reward. It's one of the big reasons I'm in favor of a playoff. Basketball fans have really benefitted from the tournament. Look at all the great games you see in the OOC season. Teams are building resumes to get in, and/or get a good seed. That would have a lesser effect in football, but you'd be much more likely to see good match ups than you are now. Corey, I haven't seen squat written about the PAC needing a champ game since you went to the 9 conf games. (Of course I don't read that much about the left coast). I would like to see the PAC12 with a champ game, but only because it gets us one step closer to a playoff.
I would love to see the B12 dump Iowa State and Baylor and go to a 9 game conference schedule and dump that stupid championship game. That way we could get back to annual rivalries, like Neb/OU and some new ones like Neb/Texas. I think the way to go is the 10 team conference, it's better for football and basketball. Terry
2 things <r><QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> This is the weakest case made by the apologists for the super conferences. Not picking on the SEC, insert any of the super conferences here.<br/> <br/> Scott,<br/> <br/> The reason you don't hear about a Pac10 title game is that there is no need for one. Since going to the 9 game conference schedule (and Terry, I agree with you that the SEC should follow suit), everyone in the Pac10 plays everyone else. There is NO NEED for a title game since all matters have already been settled on the field. If there is a tie between 1 or 2 loss teams, then you have head to head as a tie-breaker. All the hand wringing and belitting of the Pac10 by CBS I saw made no sense to me. They wondered earlier in the year 'how are they going to 'separate that mess?' when there was a log jam of 1 and 2 loss teams. I don't think they realized that its settled on the field head to head. The way it should be.<br/> <br/> Playing a conference title game is a cash grab and nothing more. There should be no reward for it, because your reward is financial. That is what the conferences who have one did to themselves. More important, they should <B><s></s>not be given weight over those conferences who found a way to actually settle it on the field.<e></e></B><br/> <br/> The super conference is a shame. Is there anyone here (aside from MCG) who can look me straight in the face and tell me that Georgia couldn't beat LSU this year? There isn't because we don't know. They never played.</r>
Actually, with a 12-game schedule, each 12-team conference and the Big10 could drop all but one or two of their lesser non-conference opponents and play a true round robin, thus eliminating the need for conference championship games. But it won't happen........ever.
We have not "upgraded" anything....the schedules are set a decade in advance and we have continued to follow a policy of scheduling home-home with the nations elite in games planned to be the best of intersectional match-ups generating great national attention. We have followed this policy for generations.....the SEC - with a few notable exceptions, Tenn being one, Bama, Auburn and Ark occasionaly step out - the other SEC teams have followed a policy that is shall we say somewhat in contrast to producing quality inter-sectional matchups...hence the humor and the report, both of which are well-deserved imho.
Corey, You and I are on the same page... I thought you were saying most of the media was still harping on the PAC even after they realized there was no need for a champ game. Terry, I'd be OK with dropping back to 10 teams and killing the champ game, but it won't happen due to the money. One drawback I see: Assuming the BCS is still around I see even LESS incentive to play tough insterctional games when you now have to run the gauntlet of a toughened conference sched (Longer, and missing at least one traditional patsy) to get to a BCS game...
MCG, I'm just going to say for the record that Ohio State historically plays tough out of conference games, Texas and Notre Dame to name a couple. I don't have any problem with their schedule. I also think it's not fair to pile on a team for a poor schedule when at the time the schedules were made the schedules were representative. Corey, your hammering the SEC for their schedule is nothing new. As long as we've had this forum you go on that tirade from time to time. I'm not going to defend the whole SEC, but I will address several schools, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. In fact I'm not going to say much about Tennessee because I think it's obvious to everyone they play a number of teams outside the conference that are very good teams. California and Notre Dame to name a few. However several things get lost in this kind of discussion in this kind of forum and it applies to both Georgia and Florida. In addition to an 8 game SEC schedule both teams have traditional in state rivalries that go back years, Georgia Tech and FSU sepecifically. With an 8 game SEC schedule and those two games it doesn't leave a lot of room for other strong teams. One other factor is just how close together our schools are in our conference. I know before I even post this you are not going to agree. So be it. But I will tell you that I am willing to live with the fact that some posters on BB's may not agree with how the SEC does their business that's just the way life goes. But whatever team makes it through the SEC as Champion will almost always be a major factor in the rankings. And rightfully so.