Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by TigerTap, Dec 25, 2012.
The LSU writer hasn't even had time to take the new 14 member league around the block for a decent test drive. Nor do we know what the new permanent schedule will look like. Nor has anyone in the SEC experienced the upcoming 4 team playoff, which will change SOS and perhaps permanent rivalries more definitively. A wildcard team will always be showing up. Bad case of premature rejectulation. It'd hard to see the old traditional rivalries hanging in there much longer. I give Tennessee a lot of credit though. Even after experiencing multiple beat downs in the past 6 years, they genuinely seem to want Alabama's attention in this annual showdown. They just keep talking about cycles and their turn.
No thanks We'll Pass on your magnanimous proposals! The Crown Jewel of the SEC will need to go eslewhere with its KKK hillbillies to suck blood.
LSU has experienced 40 years of Alabama & what you call your "test drive" What we have here is a metaphor which involves criminals in prison who are always innocent.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I am sure I didn't have any comments posted on this forum about the schedule in 2010. In fact, over the period when grad was running wild I didn't post anything here except a response to a column I had written on Al.com about our game in 2009.
The point was valid by those bringing it up. Alabama was looking at a four year stretch with half of the SEC opponents having a bye week before facing the Tide. The closest team to Bama was LSU with five opponents over the same four year period getting a bye before the game.
The point remains the same. These accusations of the SEC offices having a bias towards Alabama and giving them a break in scheduling don't hold water and that's proof.
I don't recall this being a point of contention until Miles brought up the permanent opponent argument in the SEC meetings. And, like I've posted earlier, I find it odd that Florida doesn't have an issue with playing LSU every year.
I don't disagree that UF has been better than UT over that period. UT is 5-16 versus Florida over that period. (LSU 7-14)
The story takes a different turn when you look at those two schools against SEC competition. UT is 190-63-1 since 1992 in SEC play with 23 of those loses coming in the last four years.
Over the same period UF is 138-40-1.
UT's SEC record has taken a downturn, no doubt. They will return to be a force in the SEC.
We are going full circle here in a sense. There were no complaints about permanent opponents, with Alabama being mentioned predominantly, when Tennessee was winning.
The end of the A&M game comes to mind as far as a meaningful penalty.
As to UGA.
Yes, they were supposed to fall back on our schedule this past season. But, with the addition of Mizzou in the East they took Georgia's spot. I agree we had the luck of the draw. That's what happens with expansions.
The funny thing is if we were to look at the SEC scheduling the team that has come out on top—in terms of luck—is Georgia. Where are the accusations of SEC bias towards the Bulldogs?
The funny thing about the number of flags thrown against Bama is what is glaringly absent. You don't see false starts and you don't see illegal formations. Is the mere suggestion that the difference in the number of penalties is due to not making stupid mistakes so far out of reason?
I know, I know, here comes holding. A penalty flagged so arbitrarily in football as a whole there is no clear definition of what is, or what isn't—no matter the team.
I didn't mean here, I read other boards, and on RTB you did complain (you really don't whine, I'll say) I would have too, my point is that don't make it sound like the bama athletic dept and fans just manned up and didn't complain, thats just a damn lie, bama fans are STILL whining about that.
Yeah, well lets look at who got those byes and when in 2010, shall we?
Ark Sept 25th-did a bye that early really help? The biggest thing a bye week does is give a rest, doubt it was much of a help bama played Duke the week before, that was damn near a bye.
LSU- Bama had their bye week also, a wash
Tenn-a mediocre team at best
Ole miss/Miss St.-are you kiddding? a 2 week bye wasn't going to help either one of these
Aub- bama played Ga. St., and on a thursday, please that's not advantage to Aub.
Why shouldn't Miles bring it up? Your major challenger and the coach you get compared to (often unfairly by Bama's biggest blowers, ESPN) gets an easier path and you should just take it?
Blah, Blah, Blah, You think the permanent opponent bullshit is a fair way to go?
No matter the team, but Bama never gets flagged for it. And don't give me the "saban's teams are so disciplined" saban worshipper bullshit, I watched his teams at LSU and we got flagged way more when little jesus was our coach.[/quote]
What most LSU officials don't get / understand is the level of ALA, AU, UF, UGA depravity.
This offering from a TideFanner even after the level of PSU's activities.
Auburn University Board of Trustees, Removal
Lowder began serving on the Auburn University Board of Trustees in 1983. In the Spring of 2011, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley re-appointed Lowder for another term on the Board. According to sources a civil lawsuit in the Lee County Circuit Court with claims that the appointment violated the state's Open Meetings Act. On Monday, May 16, 2011, Lowder contacted the Governor's Office asking his name, Robert "Bobby" Lowder, be withdrawn from consideration for reappointment.
Some claims suggest the Governor reappointed Lowder due to his wife's donation of $25,000 to the Bentley campaign on September 21, 2010.
Lowder's tenure on the Auburn University Board of Trustees ended on April 10, 2012, when the Alabama state senate voted to replace him with M. Clark Sahlie.
The Crown Jewel of the SEC
Oh, I'm not saying there were those how didn't take up that banner and tote it—and still are today. Hell, it's back on the forefront due to the Rabalais article. By no means and I saying I didn't have an opinion, and voice it, back then. I most certainly did.
Getting back to the point at hand. The SEC scheduling for that four year stretch flies in the face of those perpetuating this "SEC favors Bama in scheduling." 16 teams over a four year stretch with the closest to that number at five with opponents having off weeks and it's biased towards the team with the 16?
That's my point.
Again, 2010 serves as a great example against this so called biased.
Taking it on a game by game basis paints one picture. Taking it in its entire context paints another. We all can agree that maneuvering through the SEC schedule comes with its bumps and bruises. When a team has that week of rest, it helps. When you consider you've got six, SEC teams rested before facing them those bumps and bruises are compounded.
Therein lies the point. That was a hell of a tough year.
Fair? I don't see it as unfair. We had to endure our struggles against TN just like we've had an easier path the last few years when they've been down.
Now, if it's removed will it bother me? Yes, but that's due to the point I consider UT to be my biggest SEC rival game of the year. I don't want to lose it.
That said, there's nothing that would keep Bama from scheduling UT on a yearly basis if the permanent opponent clause was removed from SEC schedules.
Fact is, there are a lot of teams that want to maintain those rivalries. LSU just doesn't happen to be one of them.
I've never done the research, but over this next off-season I'll take the time and limit penalties down to categories. It will be interesting to see how they break down for each called: IE: holding, false start, pass interference, etc.
Separate names with a comma.