SouthernBoiSB
- 190 comments
- 17 likes given
- 17 likes received
Bio not provided
Are the 4 already existing teams have to be included on that "open date"? Ga./Fla./SC all seem to have theirs the last game of the season. Ky. seems to be earlier in the year.
When I was little, I always waited to see which SEC team would be in the Rose Bowl & could never figure out why it was televised nationally along with the Rose Parade. That was until I learned about the conference tie-ins.
As discussed in many articles, you think the ACC would go after schools that are seperated by the SEC? Just try to imagine 4 schools "pulling a WV".
My opinion is that if the ACC wants to promote basketball more than fb, they should have taken the schools left over from the Big East & let those with fb go free. This way, you're getting more of what you want without expanding #'s. The SEC could have taken those schools & grew in size. So, now you have the whole South & Eastern part of the US covered by both conferences.
As I've read on other sites, should the SEC "pair up" with another conference for said game? Or should it be up to each school to pick somebody for that slot?
Does ANY conference talk about what the bottom group does? Or, like everybody else, they only praise the accomplishments & leaders?
You & I agree that we feel as if the SEC was waiting to react to the B1G.
My thought about reading on here & other articles was that the SEC did have additional teams lined up just waiting for another conference (B1G) to publicly announce they were going to 16 first. With the Maryland case & now the ACC's GOR, that put the brakes on everything for the time being.
To me, it just seemed like 4 16 teams conferences were going to be the norm & everybody was waiting for somebody else to pull the trigger first. Then when they announced the bridge schedule for 2012 & then again for 2013, that term "bridge" had the definition of "this is what we put together to hold us over giving us more time for a bigger setup". That gave the impression that it was 16 teams, 9 conf. games, or both. As I pointed out earlier, there were several articles against the 6-1-1 schedule & it just didn't make sense why you would commit to that for the 12 year cycle. When they announced TA&M & Mizz., I was under the impression that schedules HAD been created incorporating them - why think about that afterwards? Another oddity was why the repeat hosts in 2013? The statement was to have all 1 side to host in some years & the other in other years. However, not all were like that (I think UGA/Auburn didn't sync that pattern).
Yes, I know that the SEC Network was trying to be finalized & took a lot of work. But that also made me think that future teams/schedules had to be discussed & some kind of format around that figured out for when it does happen.
I may have been taking bits & pieces from here & there to form my own opinion. But we know that Slive doesn't show his cards & has 1 Hell of a poker face. & to me, it just seemed like a little teaser of what's to come.
"The current schedules were "bridge" schedules because no one knew what was coming next by way of realignment, not because the SEC believed it would be adding two more teams."
What exactly is the difference between adding teams & realignment? Aren't they the same if not very similar?
Of course, because Auburn & Tennessee were NEVER conference heavyweights. Just because they're having a down time lately doesn't mean they can't bounce back.
Remember when people used to think of SC being an easy win?
Not to defend Alabama completely here, but until we see what the future holds for everybody, it's a little unfair to say they're getting special treatment. Nobody was complaining about their schedule prior to going to 14 teams.
Scott,
How exactly could you work everybody else around those 2 games where it's fair for all? Are you saying that those 4 schools will take even LONGER to rotate through the other side than the other 10 schools?
True.....but there's still a lot of bewilderment as to why they didn't go to a 9 game schedule, pods, or SOMETHING when they added TA&M & Mizz.. I'm sure that as smart of people we have in the SEC (as well as everywhere else), they would have saw the huge drawback of a 6-1-1 idea for 14 teams.
Seems like they got caught in the middle of something & had to come up with a quick solution. Hince why I'm puzzled as to the 3 year schedule release from this month's meeting you discussed below.
Erika, if you read my posts on here, I think a lot of us were under the impression the SEC & other conferences were going to 16 (possibly more) teams & therefore requiring pod scheduling.
Also, I wonder if the Maryland case was a roadblock of making that occur sooner.
"On another note, I hope when the SEC does go to a nine-game schedule that people go to other websites and link to OUR various stories -- dating back to 2010 -- saying that the SEC would DEFINITELY go to a nine-game schedule. I keep seeing people come here and link to other sites who are now suggesting what we suggested months/years ago. A bit frustrating, to say the least."
My personal thought is that we were waiting for more teams to join & therefore adjust the schedule around that. Now that we're stationary @ 14, have to begin the schedule talks.
Like how 2012-2013 were listed as "bridge" schedules.
WHY are they going to produce a 3 year schedule? Seems like they're just throwing something together to hold over until something big happens.....like more conference shuffling?
On a side note, does anybody know when they're meeting in Florida this month?
I know the SEC tries to be on the cutting edge, but lately I've been going back over that 2@4 2@3 "Roommate Switch" pod setup idea.
Would that be a possibility they consider?
Or would that be our version of "Legends/Leaders" titles?
Are your thinking that to be sooner or later in your 5 year thinking?
@DaveinExile What's the Iron Bowl story? I couldn't find anything about it.
My thing against this is why punish the school for actions of an event ANYBODY with a ticket can attend? Now, if it were students only, that's 1 thing. But cough up the cash & you're in with everybody else.
Next, are we going to try to impose this on pro sports?
I like your comment about who draws the line as to somebody's looks? My 10 may be a -2 on your scale.
I also was about to mention what happens if alcohol's involved & how is that treated? Should we only sell juice, water, & soft drinks at these events?