Bio not provided
@SouthernBoiSB there would be one out of division team you wouldn't get until 4 years with a 6-1-2. uga/auburn and alabama/tennessee the only games keeping this permanent rival thing alive in the first place. seems like those four are the few being kept happy while the other 10 teams are negatively impacted via permanently unbalanced scheduling.
1 year, 2 months ago on Slive Says SEC Will Have To Unravel A Knot And Make A Decision On Schedules
@SouthernBoiSB @AndrewMartin I'll take 6-3 with no permanent rivals. With this arrangement, those rivalry games people wax so nostalgic about (even though there are only really 2 or 3 that matter in the grand scheme of things) will still happen roughly every other year (OK, 3/7 = 43% but that's close enough to half for most of us). Plus, it will add frequency to some of the former rivalry games that have already been lost in the shuffle such as Florida/Auburn. Finally, it ensures that each team will face every team in the other division once every 3 years. It's wrong to have a "conference," no matter what size, where you can play for 4 years and still not play every team in the conference at least once. With this arrangement, in any given four year period, a school would face 5 of its other divisional opponents twice and the other two once. Much better than it is now IMO.
@meansonny Uh, no thanks. Your alignment would put 5 of the SEC's traditional 6 power programs (Bama, UF, Uga, UT, Auburn) in the East leaving just one (LSU) in the west. You're not Les Miles, by chance, are you?!
@rrrun What power conference is Nevada in? How about New Mexico State in? Because those two teams comprise 2/3 of UCLA's nonconference schedule for 2013. How about Rice and Houston? Those were 2/3 of UCLA's nonconference schedule in 2012. 2011 was Houston (who beat UCLA) and San Jose State. See a pattern? Even if not, it should be incredibly obvious that UCLA is not remotely close to having 3 (or even 2) power conference nonconference opponents on their schedule in most years, including the last three.
The March Madness methodology is seriously flawed without awarding additional points for NCAA tournament advancement - say 5 points per round of advancement in addition to the 5 points for making the tourney so that the sweet 16 is worth 15 points, elite 8 = 20, final 4 = 25, etc. This seems appropriate to conference titles being worth 25 and national championships 50. The success/failure of any college basketball season always comes down to March performance such that you can't possibly have a system that equates Florida's tourney run (advanced to elite 8) to Mizzou's (lost in first round).
IMO it would also be worth tiering the bowl games so that the outback, citrus and peach aren't worth the same point values as the bowl formerly known as the bbva compass bowl but somebody else can come up with that methodology.
1 year, 4 months ago on Which SEC Fans Had The Best 2012-13? We Rank ‘Em