Crimson Red Sports

ESPN had an interesting discussion today following Spurrier's comments that participants in the SECCG should be decided by their divisional record, and not by their overall SEC record.  Clearly, this was a swipe at Georgia, which USCe beat last season and which played easier SEC west teams than USCe.  But Les Miles has jumped on the bandwagon too, with LSU's east rivalry being Florida, and also playing USCe this year.  (Bama plays TN and MO).  Given that the SEC has expanded and now there are only 2 cross-divisional games each year, the proposal seems to have more merit than it might in the past. Also, that is how the NFL decides things.  On the other side of the argument, with the current system every game counts.  Hence, the poll. 

Well shoot I think it should be the way it is right now. I hope I voted right. East bestest should meet West bestest. If we want to play in it we should win it. RTR!

I think the only way you would play in the SECCG with only the best divisional record, is if you only play games within your division. If you're going to play games with teams from the other division as well, IMO, the overall record has to matter.

I think this is right.  Coaches may gripe about their schedule, but suppose LSU had lost 2 games versus east opponents last year but squeaked out their win versus Bama.  You want the best teams in the SECCG, and that should be the teams with the best conference records.  Had USCe beaten the Barn last year, or Arkansas, they would have made it.

ricky, I think you may have voted for divisional winners!

I voted for divisional winners. I would not have done that in the past with 5 divisional games and 3 from the other side. Beginning this year it will be 6-2. You play the exact schedule as everyone else within the division. IMO it really does not matter which way it goes. Normally the best team wins either way.

Ah, yes I did and at the time I voted I did vote correctly to me. Like other said, if we have enough teams in our own Division to play each other then we don't need to have a big fit over USCe beating us or if Vandy slipped up and beat us. Gos, I hope I explained that right. RTR!

There are arguments both ways.  If/When the SEC expands again, I think it will happen.

Ham.

Until we know about # of conference games and the future size of the conference...  :dunno:

BTW, how about half credit for out-of-division SEC games and full credit for within-division games?  That way they all count.

I like things the way they are, especially now that we have 6 games in your division and 2 in the other.  South Carolina lost to Auburn 16-13 last year, while UGA beat the tar out of them 45-7.  The pitiful home loss to Auburn is what knocked them out of the game in Atlanta, not the loss to Arkansas.  The bottom line is SC did not handle their business against the easy teams from the West, where UGA did.  They did not have to win that Arkansas game at all if they had taken care of business.

Let's think this through for just a second.  If you beat everyone in your division, you can still afford one loss to the other division and still win because you would have the head to head tiebreaker over everyone else in your division.  You would need 2 losses to the other division to knock yourself out of contention, and even then there would have to be someone else in your division who won all of their games except for that head to head loss.  That is exactly what happened to South Carolina last year.

So, as it is right now, a loss to the other division already does not hurt as bad as a loss within your division.  If you beat everyone else in your division, you will always be able to afford at least one more loss to the other division than what your competitors have.  In other words, SC could have lost 2 games to the west, had UGA lost 1 game to the west.  SC could have lost all 3 games with the west, if UGA had lost 2 games to the west.  This current system still gives you an advantage if you beat everyone in your division, yet every game is still important.

In hindsight, I think UGA may have actually been the better team last year, especially by the end of the season.  SC caught UGA the week after a very disappointing loss to Boise State where they let the entire conference down, and SC barely beat them 45-42.  Later in the season SC was squeaking by Miss St. 14-12, losing to Auburn, and they only beat Tennessee 14-3.  Meanwhile UGA lost the first 2 and didn't lose again during the regular season, winning the next 10 in a row.

Good assessment, SC. I can't imagine an SEC game being considered meaningless.

It looks like Overall Record is winning this poll. To me that brings up another question. Should you do away with divisions like SEC Basketball did and let the two best teams play regardless of division? Last year LSU and Bama would have played in Atlanta and the winner would have beat the snot out of OK ST for the championship.

all this post season play needs to be stopped before a player gets hurt
or
make all the championship/playoff games flag or maybe touch only .

 :P :D ;D ???



 :popcorn2:

It's simple: no divisions and no conference championship game, like we had under Coach Bryant.

In Plain UNEDUCATED English. lets say a team(x) in one division, plays a team(o) in the other division and beats that team by 2 touchdowns, then plays a team(Y) in its own division, and on Y's home field and amid questionable officiating.....loses by 1 point in overtime....and then in the playoff /division championship game between Y and o, team Y wins by 1 point, or team o wins by 1 point....shouldn't x still have a chance?....we keep going and we are going to need divisional playoffs....does this make any sense?

I like it the way it is.  Last year Alabama and UGA had the same conference record, so it would have been up to some sort of tie breaker.

No matter how you shake it out, the SEC will still end up with a team outside looking in, due to the conf. championship prerequisite.  This is the reason for the rule,-- nothing to do with sorting out the 4 best teams. As I posted earlier with tongue sorta/kinda in cheek, this will not be the last of their qualifying factors. This is just the first step in trying to legislate their way back to relevance.

I have read all these reasoning's and I really enjoyed it. We have some great ideas, and I came understand why they don't pick at least two (2) of our board members to decide the championship games. God Bless everybody!! RTR!

Except for ALTideUp. LOL-- He seems convinced that losing (the NCG) for a couple of years would be beneficial.

Saban on the Brando show:



'Nuff said!

I agree with Spurrier, especially now that the SEC has 6 intradivisional games every year.  The advantage Georgia has gotten the last couple years not having to play Bama, LSU, nor Arky is huge.

Which hints at another scheduling issue.  Playing tougher opponents from the opposite side is definitely a disadvantage, like an east team playing Bama and LSU where another team might play Ole Miss and Miss State. 

The other scheduling issue is like when Bama played 5 or 6 SEC games in a row, and every team had a bye week before playing Bama.  This also was a scheduling disadvantage.  Saban's quote, that the problem is parity in schedules, is spot on.  But Spurrier's proposal only addresses one aspect of that lack of parity, diminishes the importance of SEC non-divisional games, and therefore is more akin to whining about USCe's schedule, something Saban avoided for the most part about Bama's schedule (letting the talking heads bring it up, and mostly addressing the matter behind the scenes rather than pubically complaining).

I don't think we can do away with divisions in football because they don't play as many games as basketball, for good reason.  Also, the SECCG is a huge money maker for SEC teams, and that isn't going away -- since the SEC started this game, other conferences have seen its benefit and are copying the SEC.  That's why the Big10 and PAC10 increased to 12 teams, and why the Big 12 is trying to keep 12 teams.

I think you are correct SC, Georgia ultimately was better than USCe last year.  They gave LSU a run for their money in the SECCG.  Georgia instituted a 3-4 defense, similar to Bama's, and it took a few games for the new system to gel.  After giving up points to BSU and USCe, Georgia's defense started looking better. Georgia should be better still this year, even under CMR. 

Great discussion in here.

I think maybe the solution is to come up with a better way to pair up the cross division games.  I think right now they rotate through.  I'm not sure what that better way would be though.

Maybe get the polls involved.  The two highest ranked team from the conference play in the game.

I just kind of believe if we can't beat the teams in our own division then we have a problem. Last year of course was an exception and it was proven so in the BCS NCG. I can also see the use of of the East opponents also. Like it has been stated if we played Georgia or USCe and somebody played Ole Miss or Kentucky. SOS should maybe play a part in this? What say ye? RTR!

I think it would have gone to the last tie breaker which is the highest ranked team. Bama would have played LSU.