SEC non-conference slates are an absolute joke!

Search

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 1998
Messages
23,315
Tokens
I dont have the time or desire to read all the BS, but if someone in here is trying to say pac 10 schedules are harder than those in the sec, they are absolutely retarded. period.

best of luck betting. I wish we got to play washinton, wash st, notre, stanford, asu and arizona every year. yawn


It seems to me that the only people in here that don't get it are SEC homers.

Hey homer, I bet you didn't even bother to read the topic article on the first page. It was written by an SEC beat writer.

This might be hard for you... but your thoughts?
 

Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,905
Tokens
lol conan thinks we who disagree dont "get it"

please, agree to disagree

you claim youve had the same argument ad nauseum you must be bored with it
 

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 1998
Messages
23,315
Tokens
lol conan thinks we who disagree dont "get it"

please, agree to disagree

you claim youve had the same argument ad nauseum you must be bored with it

All true Romanowski. I am at least gratified to see that there are at least some SEC beatwriters that understand how their schedules appear to the rest of the country, for what they are.

Feel free to disagree, but I maintain that if the SEC played anywhere near as aggressive an out of conference schedule as everyone else, this subject would never be brought up and no one's feet would be held to the fire, nor their methods be held in question.

Call it compensation for a inordinately superhuman conference schedule, an unreasonable gauntlet that no one should have to face, something that deserves compensation to suit your interests... but playing 4 patsies is a cheap invitation to an undeserved bowl game to begin with and I don't see any kind of schedule that justifies that kind of compensation for anyone.

You hardly need to win any games in conference at all to be bowl eligible. Your risks are non-existent for fully 1/3 of the season and your rankings cannot come into question from that either.

To top it all off, who in the SEC even bothers to measure themselves vs the rest of the country? And how can you really judge one team vs another (where more than one conference is involved) on the whole and be accurate about it without that kind of information? That stuff is meant to be gotten mano e mano right on the playing field. Settled and final. Not in some people's minds and hopelessly frozen there forever because someone refuses to participate on a national scale for ANY reason.

The SEC scheduling is a completely self serving and selfish policy which is why these things will one day be regulated with some sort of standard.

Teams that "work the system" make it difficult for everyone to compete on a level playing field. But you are free to disagree and hold your conference schedule up as the reason why. I don't think it will gain much traction in a national forum because of the inequities you bring into it as your solution or "compensation" which you alone claim you deserve, irregardless of the inequities I've mentioned.

We can agree to disagree but I think neither you or me has heard the end of it.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,555
Tokens
well UT added Cincy to the 2011 schedule today after S'ern Miss asked for thier game to be put off to a future season

Cincy was in a BCS game last year, but since they are not 3k miles away i guess this is a cupcake game
 

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
341
Tokens
You still don't get it.

The 27% isn't from the entire schedule.

You were trying to use 27% of the OOC schedule only, with the 13 OOC ROAD games the SEC played last year.

Quite frankly, that sample you tried using with the 13 OOC ROAD games amounts to 6% of the entire SEC schedule of 48 OOC games, 96 conf. games and 1 CCG = 145 games total.

You don't give a convincing argument at all for the SEC's "tough OOC schedule" using all of 27% of their total OOC games.

Let me try another approach:

Option 1 - 25%-33% is significant: then analyzing the road OOC games with respect to all OOC games IS significant; just as analyzing the OOC games with respect to the total schedule IS significant.

Option 2 - 25%-33% is not significant: then analyzing the road OOC games with respect to all OOC games IS NOT significant; just as analyzing the OOC games with respect to the total schedule IS NOT significant.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the OOC schedule is important even though it constitutes 25% - 33% of the total schedule while saying that road OOC games are not important when evaluating the OOC schedule because it only constitutes 25% - 33% of the total OOC schedule.

For the record, I agree with Option 2. Focusing on the road-only was to show you an example of how ridiculous it was to over-emphasize the 25%-33%.

-ETC
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
140
Tokens
Let me try another approach:

Option 1 - 25%-33% is significant: then analyzing the road OOC games with respect to all OOC games IS significant; just as analyzing the OOC games with respect to the total schedule IS significant.

Option 2 - 25%-33% is not significant: then analyzing the road OOC games with respect to all OOC games IS NOT significant; just as analyzing the OOC games with respect to the total schedule IS NOT significant.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the OOC schedule is important even though it constitutes 25% - 33% of the total schedule while saying that road OOC games are not important when evaluating the OOC schedule because it only constitutes 25% - 33% of the total OOC schedule.

For the record, I agree with Option 2. Focusing on the road-only was to show you an example of how ridiculous it was to over-emphasize the 25%-33%.

-ETC

Let me try it this way:

The SEC plays 48 OOC games, 4 games per team.

The SEC played 13 of those 48 OOC games on the road, which equals 27% of the OOC schedule ONLY. 13 divided by 48 = .270 (27%).

Those 13 OOC ROAD games also equals 6% of the entire season's 144 TOTAL games played. 13 divided by 144 = .06 (6%).

I'm not wanting it both ways, all I'm saying is your sample of 27% of the 48 OOC games, as you tried to do, is too small and makes for a rather weak argument.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
11,263
Tokens
Texas tried to schedule Wisconsin but the Badgers wussed out.
Texas had scheduled quality opponents prior to this year (OhioSt, Arkansas, TCU) and maybe they realized their current NC schedule sucked so they tried to bring in a big10 school, but Wisky wouldnt play em.

CFB needs a conference vs conference challenge like they do in CBB.

Yes, to directly put in my .02 for the thread topic, SEC OOC games are scheduled cake-walks for the most part. And shooting from the hip, I would say that so are the majority of the other top 40/50 programs around the country.

That said, as we all know, competition is not the overriding factor behind scheduling. And working the system, as the term suggests, does "work."

And the press or the professional pundits of the RX calling them out makes damn fine reading material and stirs a thought-provoking debate, that's for sure. But I think it's a bit like the war on drugs situation - ie. direct confrontation is good for spreading the word that there's something rotten in Denmark, but calling on people to do the right thing is never going to bring about the change you want.

So the only solution is to provide a more attractive alternative. I think the best solution proposed in this thread (by sdf) was an annual conference challenge at the beginning of the year, like in basketball.

Of course, the limitations here would be geographic - ie. butts in the seats and area TV interests. If conferences with adjacent TV/fan bases paired, several great early season OOC matchups could be had yearly. ANd so long as there's money to be had, the conferences and schools would probably be willing to listen.

Thing about it is - would the projected extra money be enough to justify actually going through with it? The issue of "conference prestige" is central to this question, as well as the number of NFL recruits, which are the basis of the school to ensure future recruits and a quality program in the long-run.

The purses would have to be big enough for Apollo to step into the ring with the southpaw from Philly, you know?

Like any business deal, if the long-term risks outweigh the short term gains, the brass will stamp it no-go. (Ie. -cupcake OOC games allow offensive and defensive players to pad stats that translate into NFL draft status and therefore future recruiting, etc....)

However, I think that conference challenges that feature several games (ie. likely to balance in terms on W/Ls) the TV ratings said matchups could generate as well as hits of people on discussion forums at ESPN or whtever network and the ads said traffic supported... well, I think this is the only idea I've ever heard of that could spice up OOC games.

I guess I say this as I have little confidence that the BCS will alter itself in any way to encourage schools to schedule more challenging OOC games.

Anyway, once more week to go until it all begins again. Let's win some money this year everyone!
 

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
689
Tokens
I dont have the time or desire to read all the BS, but if someone in here is trying to say pac 10 schedules are harder than those in the sec, they are absolutely retarded. period.

best of luck betting. I wish we got to play washinton, wash st, notre, stanford, asu and arizona every year. yawn

samueljacksonread.gif
 

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
341
Tokens
I'm not wanting it both ways, all I'm saying is your sample of 27% of the 48 OOC games, as you tried to do, is too small and makes for a rather weak argument.

I think we both get the numbers involved, but to clarify, the reference to OOC road games was to evaluate the OOC games just as the OOC games are being used to evaluate a team's total schedule.

So the same percentages apply.

Presumably you would agree that it's a "rather weak argument" to try to use the OOC schedule to evaluate a team's total strength of schedule since the % is too small, yes? If so, we're on the same page. If not, I would love to see your explanation of the difference.

-ETC
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,120,945
Messages
13,589,067
Members
101,021
Latest member
bradduke112
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com