(05-13-2017 11:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 01:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I agree with that.

Down year for the SEC with all the recent coaching changes trying to find a way to beat Saban.

Clemson won a deserved nail biter with Alabama. The rest is a divisional problem. When Mullen left Florida for Miss State Urban developed heart burn because he is no offensive guy. The same thing happened when his OC at OSU went to Houston.

Years of Richt squeaking by at Georgia added to the issues. Then Spurrier's slow demise at South Carolina just put the cherry on the top. There's nothing weak about the SEC West. But toss in Pinkel's cancer and voila the Eastern Division is a steaming hot pile of garbage. The issue isn't beating Saban. The issue is having South Carolina, Georgia and Florida all down at once. Throw in a strong Louisville program to play Kentucky every year and the perception swings not on our strength but on our weakness. Florida will be on the upturn and hopefully Georgia as well. If the South Carolina offense is stout then the whole thing will swing back.

Now tell me truthfully how was the last three minutes of that UNC tourney game?

Perception is important in sports and will remain so as long as people and computers (which are programmed by people) have a say in who plays for titles. Therefore I will never step aside for a moment of spin based upon limited data points.

What I agree with you about is coaching. We have some really crappy hires right now and some of them are in the West. Arkansas, Ole Miss, Auburn, and quite possibly L.S.U. now have suspect hires. That I don't like. With the recruits we get everyone of those schools should be performing at a much higher level. Glorified High School spreads are a crap offense to be running and Arkansas's experiment with a Big 10 like rushing attack has failed, and not due to lack of athletes, but to a lack of production. The size of the D lines and the lateral speed dooms that approach.

Clemson and Florida State are really strong, but how durable they would be facing the gauntlet of the SEC West would be interesting to see. The SEC West loses multiple players to injury during the grueling divisional schedule. The village idiot Malzahn and his inability to have a practiced and reasonable back up QB doomed what was a fairly effective Auburn offense last year. Losing Pettway before the UGA game and having a very pedestrian White at QB with a damaged throwing arm was a killer for the whole ending of the season.

But my point is to say this, that is exactly why Auburn and Alabama need to move East at this time and why we need to add two to the West. The East is just too weak. Missouri, Vandy and Kentucky have provided way too weak of a schedule in the East while there is no true break in the schedule in the West.

How much better would the SEC bowl pairings have been these past 5 years if L.S.U. had been the runner up to Alabama instead of Florida or Missouri? We need to address this issues soon.

Stuff happens JR. Circumstances change......don't worry the SEC will be back on top one day.

I'm not worried about being back on top. I've just not been happy since '91. Adding Missouri to the East really pissed me off. It's screwed up things even more. When Pinkel was there it was added balance, but since he left it has totally imbalanced the divisions.

I miss the games I loved for 30 plus years before '91.

Wasn't Missouri forced into the East by Alabama, Jr?

Yes. They made us leave our annual schedule with Tennessee, Florida and Georgia in '91. Georgia was retained. What people don't realize is that they killed our oldest rivalry in the early 60's when they cheap shotted a Georgia Tech QB injuring him and leading to Bobby Dodd taking the Jackets out of the conference. It was Auburn's longest played rivalry beginning in 1892. We picked up Georgia in 1894. The Jackets quit playing Auburn annually to accommodate the ACC when they joined them in 1978. Auburn had counted on moving to the East in 2012. Alabama blocked it and Missouri was placed there instead.

Their intent in '91 was to separate us from our natural and historical recruiting grounds in Southern Tennessee, the Panhandle of Florida and South Georgia. By forcing us to the West we had no natural areas to recruit and it set us back.

(05-13-2017 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Clemson won a deserved nail biter with Alabama. The rest is a divisional problem. When Mullen left Florida for Miss State Urban developed heart burn because he is no offensive guy. The same thing happened when his OC at OSU went to Houston.

Years of Richt squeaking by at Georgia added to the issues. Then Spurrier's slow demise at South Carolina just put the cherry on the top. There's nothing weak about the SEC West. But toss in Pinkel's cancer and voila the Eastern Division is a steaming hot pile of garbage. The issue isn't beating Saban. The issue is having South Carolina, Georgia and Florida all down at once. Throw in a strong Louisville program to play Kentucky every year and the perception swings not on our strength but on our weakness. Florida will be on the upturn and hopefully Georgia as well. If the South Carolina offense is stout then the whole thing will swing back.

Now tell me truthfully how was the last three minutes of that UNC tourney game?

Perception is important in sports and will remain so as long as people and computers (which are programmed by people) have a say in who plays for titles. Therefore I will never step aside for a moment of spin based upon limited data points.

What I agree with you about is coaching. We have some really crappy hires right now and some of them are in the West. Arkansas, Ole Miss, Auburn, and quite possibly L.S.U. now have suspect hires. That I don't like. With the recruits we get everyone of those schools should be performing at a much higher level. Glorified High School spreads are a crap offense to be running and Arkansas's experiment with a Big 10 like rushing attack has failed, and not due to lack of athletes, but to a lack of production. The size of the D lines and the lateral speed dooms that approach.

Clemson and Florida State are really strong, but how durable they would be facing the gauntlet of the SEC West would be interesting to see. The SEC West loses multiple players to injury during the grueling divisional schedule. The village idiot Malzahn and his inability to have a practiced and reasonable back up QB doomed what was a fairly effective Auburn offense last year. Losing Pettway before the UGA game and having a very pedestrian White at QB with a damaged throwing arm was a killer for the whole ending of the season.

But my point is to say this, that is exactly why Auburn and Alabama need to move East at this time and why we need to add two to the West. The East is just too weak. Missouri, Vandy and Kentucky have provided way too weak of a schedule in the East while there is no true break in the schedule in the West.

How much better would the SEC bowl pairings have been these past 5 years if L.S.U. had been the runner up to Alabama instead of Florida or Missouri? We need to address this issues soon.

Stuff happens JR. Circumstances change......don't worry the SEC will be back on top one day.

I'm not worried about being back on top. I've just not been happy since '91. Adding Missouri to the East really pissed me off. It's screwed up things even more. When Pinkel was there it was added balance, but since he left it has totally imbalanced the divisions.

I miss the games I loved for 30 plus years before '91.

Wasn't Missouri forced into the East by Alabama, Jr?

Yes. They made us leave our annual schedule with Tennessee, Florida and Georgia in '91. Georgia was retained. What people don't realize is that they killed our oldest rivalry in the early 60's when they cheap shotted a Georgia Tech QB injuring him and leading to Bobby Dodd taking the Jackets out of the conference. It was Auburn's longest played rivalry beginning in 1892. We picked up Georgia in 1894. The Jackets quit playing Auburn annually to accommodate the ACC when they joined them in 1978. Auburn had counted on moving to the East in 2012. Alabama blocked it and Missouri was placed there instead.

Their intent in '91 was to separate us from our natural and historical recruiting grounds in Southern Tennessee, the Panhandle of Florida and South Georgia. By forcing us to the West we had no natural areas to recruit and it set us back.

I remember Alabama being terrified of Auburn in the east and the recruiting opportunities. They went a little "Texas Longhorns" on the rest of the SEC. I remember Missouri just being happy to be in either division.

(05-13-2017 11:50 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 03:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  Stuff happens JR. Circumstances change......don't worry the SEC will be back on top one day.

I'm not worried about being back on top. I've just not been happy since '91. Adding Missouri to the East really pissed me off. It's screwed up things even more. When Pinkel was there it was added balance, but since he left it has totally imbalanced the divisions.

I miss the games I loved for 30 plus years before '91.

Wasn't Missouri forced into the East by Alabama, Jr?

Yes. They made us leave our annual schedule with Tennessee, Florida and Georgia in '91. Georgia was retained. What people don't realize is that they killed our oldest rivalry in the early 60's when they cheap shotted a Georgia Tech QB injuring him and leading to Bobby Dodd taking the Jackets out of the conference. It was Auburn's longest played rivalry beginning in 1892. We picked up Georgia in 1894. The Jackets quit playing Auburn annually to accommodate the ACC when they joined them in 1978. Auburn had counted on moving to the East in 2012. Alabama blocked it and Missouri was placed there instead.

Their intent in '91 was to separate us from our natural and historical recruiting grounds in Southern Tennessee, the Panhandle of Florida and South Georgia. By forcing us to the West we had no natural areas to recruit and it set us back.

I remember Alabama being terrified of Auburn in the east and the recruiting opportunities. They went a little "Texas Longhorns" on the rest of the SEC. I remember Missouri just being happy to be in either division.

That was the hold up on the votes from the rumors I read about.

It wasn't a vote against Missouri per se but a vote against losing rivalries and giving auburn a recruiting advantage over Alabama if they were in separate divisions.

If we move to have larger and larger conferences, scheduling will play a bigger role as a huge chunk of income still comes from season ticket holders who want an exciting schedule and their rivals on a yearly or often reoccurrences.

(05-14-2017 05:57 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:50 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:39 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm not worried about being back on top. I've just not been happy since '91. Adding Missouri to the East really pissed me off. It's screwed up things even more. When Pinkel was there it was added balance, but since he left it has totally imbalanced the divisions.

I miss the games I loved for 30 plus years before '91.

Wasn't Missouri forced into the East by Alabama, Jr?

Yes. They made us leave our annual schedule with Tennessee, Florida and Georgia in '91. Georgia was retained. What people don't realize is that they killed our oldest rivalry in the early 60's when they cheap shotted a Georgia Tech QB injuring him and leading to Bobby Dodd taking the Jackets out of the conference. It was Auburn's longest played rivalry beginning in 1892. We picked up Georgia in 1894. The Jackets quit playing Auburn annually to accommodate the ACC when they joined them in 1978. Auburn had counted on moving to the East in 2012. Alabama blocked it and Missouri was placed there instead.

Their intent in '91 was to separate us from our natural and historical recruiting grounds in Southern Tennessee, the Panhandle of Florida and South Georgia. By forcing us to the West we had no natural areas to recruit and it set us back.

I remember Alabama being terrified of Auburn in the east and the recruiting opportunities. They went a little "Texas Longhorns" on the rest of the SEC. I remember Missouri just being happy to be in either division.

That was the hold up on the votes from the rumors I read about.

It wasn't a vote against Missouri per se but a vote against losing rivalries and giving auburn a recruiting advantage over Alabama if they were in separate divisions.

If we move to have larger and larger conferences, scheduling will play a bigger role as a huge chunk of income still comes from season ticket holders who want an exciting schedule and their rivals on a yearly or often reoccurrences.

I knew it was nothing personal regarding Missouri. The new student has to sit in the open chair available. Saban brought the Tide to Columbia for our first conference game. He and Pinkel were pretty close, and had coaching history between them.

(05-14-2017 11:39 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I knew it was nothing personal regarding Missouri. The new student has to sit in the open chair available. Saban brought the Tide to Columbia for our first conference game. He and Pinkel were pretty close, and had coaching history between them.

They go way back to playing on the same Kent State teams under Don James.

(05-14-2017 12:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:39 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I knew it was nothing personal regarding Missouri. The new student has to sit in the open chair available. Saban brought the Tide to Columbia for our first conference game. He and Pinkel were pretty close, and had coaching history between them.

They go way back to playing on the same Kent State teams under Don James.

Wasn't there a third coach to come out of that group under James?

(05-14-2017 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 11:39 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I knew it was nothing personal regarding Missouri. The new student has to sit in the open chair available. Saban brought the Tide to Columbia for our first conference game. He and Pinkel were pretty close, and had coaching history between them.

They go way back to playing on the same Kent State teams under Don James.

Wasn't there a third coach to come out of that group under James?

Not sure. I'd have to look it up.

I've felt pretty good today and have had some time to think. I think this is how the SEC should end realignment:

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Central: Alabama, L.S.U. Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia


Why:
1. We have the best payout in the nation and I don't think that is going to change.
2. We don't need OSU if OU is with Texas. OU only needs a game OOC to schedule Bedlam.
3. Why leave Kansas on the table and Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas want each other anyway.
4. West Virginia or Iowa State. It works either way. Do we take an AAU school in a state of over 3 million that is not a cultural fit, or do we take the Eers and get a rabid group that lives for football? I chose the rabid group.
5. I think this gives us the benefits of 3 divisions with the best possible brand grouping.

I suggest 10 conference games. 5 in your division. 2 rotating from each of the other two divisions. 1 permanent rival.

(05-14-2017 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've felt pretty good today and have had some time to think. I think this is how the SEC should end realignment:

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Central: Alabama, L.S.U. Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia


Why:
1. We have the best payout in the nation and I don't think that is going to change.
2. We don't need OSU if OU is with Texas. OU only needs a game OOC to schedule Bedlam.
3. Why leave Kansas on the table and Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas want each other anyway.
4. West Virginia or Iowa State. It works either way. Do we take an AAU school in a state of over 3 million that is not a cultural fit, or do we take the Eers and get a rabid group that lives for football? I chose the rabid group.
5. I think this gives us the benefits of 3 divisions with the best possible brand grouping.

I suggest 10 conference games. 5 in your division. 2 rotating from each of the other two divisions. 1 permanent rival.

Love it.

My hogs get Texas and A&M yearly with OU.

Kansas adds basketball blue blood and reason to move SEC Tournament between multiple locations....and improve quality

3. Not fat added. Texas, OU, and Kansas add natural rivals to the conference. WVU does the same but on the eastern front with lots and I mean lots of New Jersey residents; went to my younger brother's "inauguration on incoming freshly"--can't remember proper wonders---NJ was second most populous state to send kids to WVU by far

How about this...

SEC adds Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and UConn

(05-14-2017 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've felt pretty good today and have had some time to think. I think this is how the SEC should end realignment:

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Central: Alabama, L.S.U. Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia


Why:
1. We have the best payout in the nation and I don't think that is going to change.
2. We don't need OSU if OU is with Texas. OU only needs a game OOC to schedule Bedlam.
3. Why leave Kansas on the table and Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas want each other anyway.
4. West Virginia or Iowa State. It works either way. Do we take an AAU school in a state of over 3 million that is not a cultural fit, or do we take the Eers and get a rabid group that lives for football? I chose the rabid group.
5. I think this gives us the benefits of 3 divisions with the best possible brand grouping.

I suggest 10 conference games. 5 in your division. 2 rotating from each of the other two divisions. 1 permanent rival.

I like more conference games, but I assume that the max is 9 until the schedule overall moves to 13 games.

How about 5 "permanent rivals" in a divisionless setting and then 4 others on a rotating basis every 3 years. Every upperclassman even if he leaves early will play every team, either their place or as a home game. The full rotation in six years means a redshirt freshman with an injury waiver could see every single stadium in the conference.

If Baylor is out for a period of time, this is what I would look for:

An extension of the lease arrangement with the PAC by ESPN and FOX.
Agreement from the PAC to buy out the interests of FOX and ESPN for tier 3 rights that they hold.
Movement of 6 Big 12 teams to the PAC to form the only 18 team league (Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Iowa State).
SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia. With scheduling guarantees for Bedlam and at least one Texas/SEC match-up per year.
B1G adds Kansas and UConn.
ACC adds Cincinnati only and waits expectantly for Notre Dame.

(05-15-2017 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Baylor is out for a period of time, this is what I would look for:

An extension of the lease arrangement with the PAC by ESPN and FOX.
Agreement from the PAC to buy out the interests of FOX and ESPN for tier 3 rights that they hold.
Movement of 6 Big 12 teams to the PAC to form the only 18 team league (Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Iowa State).
SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia. With scheduling guarantees for Bedlam and at least one Texas/SEC match-up per year.
B1G adds Kansas and UConn.
ACC adds Cincinnati only and waits expectantly for Notre Dame.

Is Our Lady with child, or is she still virginal? That's is the question. Expectant and Virginal now that's a contradiction in terms with regards to Notre Dame.

(05-15-2017 11:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Baylor is out for a period of time, this is what I would look for:

An extension of the lease arrangement with the PAC by ESPN and FOX.
Agreement from the PAC to buy out the interests of FOX and ESPN for tier 3 rights that they hold.
Movement of 6 Big 12 teams to the PAC to form the only 18 team league (Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Iowa State).
SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia. With scheduling guarantees for Bedlam and at least one Texas/SEC match-up per year.
B1G adds Kansas and UConn.
ACC adds Cincinnati only and waits expectantly for Notre Dame.

Is Our Lady with child, or is she still virginal? That's is the question. Expectant and Virginal now that's a contradiction in terms with regards to Notre Dame.

If we end up with a P4, we expect them to join.

(05-15-2017 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 11:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 11:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Baylor is out for a period of time, this is what I would look for:

An extension of the lease arrangement with the PAC by ESPN and FOX.
Agreement from the PAC to buy out the interests of FOX and ESPN for tier 3 rights that they hold.
Movement of 6 Big 12 teams to the PAC to form the only 18 team league (Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas State and Iowa State).
SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia. With scheduling guarantees for Bedlam and at least one Texas/SEC match-up per year.
B1G adds Kansas and UConn.
ACC adds Cincinnati only and waits expectantly for Notre Dame.

Is Our Lady with child, or is she still virginal? That's is the question. Expectant and Virginal now that's a contradiction in terms with regards to Notre Dame.

If we end up with a P4, we expect them to join.

So do I!