He claims that if we get rid of divisions in basketball we need to do the same in football as well. I obviously disagree. With football they're playing for the championship game instead of seeding. What does six-pack think?
I have had an argument with brianthedawg that I need opinions on
- Thread starter hatfieldms
- Start date
He claims that if we get rid of divisions in basketball we need to do the same in football as well. I obviously disagree. With football they're playing for the championship game instead of seeding. What does six-pack think?
G
Goat 4 Eva
Guest
I hate conference championship games in football. I hate conference tournaments in basketball and baseball. It should be more about the regular season.<div>
</div><div>My reasons are the not the same reasons that the stupid ******** coaches in the East basketball conference want. They don't realize that the **** is cyclical.</div>
</div><div>My reasons are the not the same reasons that the stupid ******** coaches in the East basketball conference want. They don't realize that the **** is cyclical.</div>
even though they can't win an SEC title, but still let the 6th best team actually PLAY FOR THE SEC TITLE? I don'tlike doing away with divisions for basketball, but I don't have a huge problem with it either. But it makes no sense at all to keep divisions in the other sports if it doesn't make sense to keep them in basketball. Hell, in some sports (tennis) the league plays an 11-game round-robin schedule but still splits into divisions. There's no reason to single basketball out. That said, Stans needs to quit bitching about it and move on.
G
Goat 4 Eva
Guest
basketball divisions are worthless- they are seeding for a Tourney- thats it.
Football divisions decide who plays for the right to go to the BCS
Football to basketball/baseball is apples to oranges
If The Recruiter finishes in the top 4 (because Dawgbreeze and crew keep telling us thats how good we been the last 10 years), then we will get a bye. It's really pretty simple.
Football divisions decide who plays for the right to go to the BCS
Football to basketball/baseball is apples to oranges
If The Recruiter finishes in the top 4 (because Dawgbreeze and crew keep telling us thats how good we been the last 10 years), then we will get a bye. It's really pretty simple.
This decision was about the SEC getting snubbed at the NCAA tournament. People of influence were writing off the West or the East completely and making it difficult for the SEC to get teams into high seeds. By removing the divisions we will have a better chance of putting more teams in the tournament because they won't just leave the West out.
As for football, we obviously don't need more clout in football. We WANT the SEC Championship Game, it is a huge chunk of our money. You will not see the football divisions go away.
As for football, we obviously don't need more clout in football. We WANT the SEC Championship Game, it is a huge chunk of our money. You will not see the football divisions go away.
In basketball is because the east has been so much better than the west lately. They didn't just all of a sudden have this bright idea, and change it so things would be fair and everybody gets to play each other two times. They did it because one division is so superior to the other.
So, if they're going to take this measure in one sport, why not just do it to all sports? Because afterall, the 6th best team in the conference played for the championship in football this past season. Now, do I really want the divisions gone in football? Of course not. I just think it's funny a bunch of media started bitching about how the SEC tourney wasn't fair because one side of the conference was better than the other for a few years, so it becomes an issue the sec officials take a vote on.
So, if they're going to take this measure in one sport, why not just do it to all sports? Because afterall, the 6th best team in the conference played for the championship in football this past season. Now, do I really want the divisions gone in football? Of course not. I just think it's funny a bunch of media started bitching about how the SEC tourney wasn't fair because one side of the conference was better than the other for a few years, so it becomes an issue the sec officials take a vote on.
G
Goat 4 Eva
Guest
there WILL come a time when it's the West that's superior. What will they do then?<div>
</div><div>Probably shake MSU down with some nice probation. 'Fairness' in the SEC is a joke. </div>
</div><div>Probably shake MSU down with some nice probation. 'Fairness' in the SEC is a joke. </div>
Or is it just for tournament seeding? Seems like they should keep the divisions but just give the best 4 a bye in the tournament.
a 10 or 11 game SEC schedule. That's why divisions in baseball make the least sense when one more weekend would have you play everyone equally in the regular season. In basketball I will be interested to see how the rotation works now with no divisions. Of course before we were playing intra-division teams twice and inter-division teams once. I have no idea how they will do it now. Without a 22 game SEC schedule (home and away with every team) there are going to be inequities in determining the regular season SEC champion. I know we have that now but at least with the status quo you can win a division championship on equal terms.
The SEC championship game makes a lot of moneyand you can't really have a championship game without 2 divisions. It also gives a 1 loss SEC team a second chance to make the BCS title game.
There is also the argument that you can't play against all of the remaining 11 teams. So you don't want to crown a champion based on an unbalanced schedule so to speak.
There is also the argument that you can't play against all of the remaining 11 teams. So you don't want to crown a champion based on an unbalanced schedule so to speak.
Football plays for a championship and there is no seeding for it. Neither is there seeding in post season bowl games. Bowl games are a complete popularity contest. BCS games are moderately, but not a lot, more objective - but those aren't seeded either.hatfieldms said:
Because no two teams in the West will consistently be better than UK and UF. And by consistently I mean more than 2 years, cause it ain't happening
Everyone has hated on the Big 10 and Pac 10 in the past for not having a Championship Game. One of the reasons they got Nebraska, Colorodo, and Utah respectively was so they could have a Championship game. So you want to abolish the championship game all around cfb when it is just getting started?
....since the bowls have an order they pick in. You will never see the second or third best team in the SEC playing in the Liberty Bowl
You can't see where in football it is a 2 team playoff with the division champs playing for the title. Where in baseball and basketball they are pretty much playing for a seeding in a tournament?
are doing this because one side has been a little better than the other for a few years. I told you we were arguing two different points and like I told you earlier, you were just arguing to argue. You were trying to say we did this because the other big conferences were going to this format, so we followed suit. That is ********. We did this because of bitching from the other side of the conference. Do I care that there will no longer be divisions? Not really. But I do think it's pretty ridiculous this got voted on in the first place.
I never said we were doing this because other conferences were. When said that if we didn't have divisions in basketball, we shouldn't have them in football. I said to you that we did it in football in large part because it gives the SEC an extra game, which equals a ton of money. You called ******** on that. I the said why do you think the PAC 10 and Big ten both just went to championship games in football if having one big division was the way to go
Since a round robin isn't plausible, and the SECCG brings in so much money, and lately has been a playin for the BCSNCG.<div>
</div><div>Every other sport with head-to-head games is already at a single/double/triple round robin or very close to it, so divisions aren't necessary if we complete the round robins:</div><div>
</div><div><div>Basketball - plays 16 game schedule, but could play 22</div><div>Baseball - plays 30 game schedule, could play 33</div><div>Tennis - plays 11 game schedule already</div><div>Soccer - plays 11 game schedule already</div><div>Volleyball - plays 20 game schedule already (full double RR since Vandy doesn't play)</div><div>Softball - plays a 28? game schedule, could play 30 (Vandy doesn't play)</div><div>
</div><div>Golf/Gymnastics/Swimming/Track - just have tournaments</div></div>
</div><div>Every other sport with head-to-head games is already at a single/double/triple round robin or very close to it, so divisions aren't necessary if we complete the round robins:</div><div>
</div><div><div>Basketball - plays 16 game schedule, but could play 22</div><div>Baseball - plays 30 game schedule, could play 33</div><div>Tennis - plays 11 game schedule already</div><div>Soccer - plays 11 game schedule already</div><div>Volleyball - plays 20 game schedule already (full double RR since Vandy doesn't play)</div><div>Softball - plays a 28? game schedule, could play 30 (Vandy doesn't play)</div><div>
</div><div>Golf/Gymnastics/Swimming/Track - just have tournaments</div></div>
in recent history? Yes, Stans needs to step up his game, but he does deserve some credit for his success at little ole MSU. Wehave avery soid recruiting class coming in and I believe that we are about to make a runof a few appearances in a row in the Big dance. Maybe that's not up to your standards, but consideringour entireathletic program's performance this decade, I would say that he is above the curve. If you want to blame it on a weak Western division, fine, but that's not our problem.Those teams havemore resources, they just need to step their game up. right? You make it sound like it is an easy task to be successful in the West, I guess that Ark, Aub, and LSU are just too incompetent to get the job done.
but its already unbalanced b/c not everyone is playing the same 3 teams from the other division. And oddly enough, this year, the teams that played the toughest schedules would have been the teams that finished 1,2, and 3.
Can you not just take the top 2 teams and let them play? Does the rule state you have to have divisions? I thought you just had to have 12 teams
Can you not just take the top 2 teams and let them play? Does the rule state you have to have divisions? I thought you just had to have 12 teams
We could have had the 6th best team in the conference playing in the Sugar Bowl last year and bumped a more deserving team out of a BCS bowl bid. That's a hell of a lot more important than giving the 6th best team in basketball a bye in a meaningless basketball tournament.
but to address the cyclical part, here's how the seeding would've gone since 1992had there been no divisions. The numbers in parentheses are the number of East-West teams.
1991-92: Ark, LSU, UK, AU (1-3)
1992-93: VU, UK, Ark, LSU (2-2)
1993-94: Ark, UF, UK, UA (2-2)
1994-95: UK, Ark, MSU, UA (1-3)
1995-96: UK, MSU, Ark, UA (1-3)
1996-97: USC, UK, UM, UGA (3-1)
1997-98: UK, UM, Ark, USC (2-2)
1998-99: AU, UT, UK, UF (3-1)
1999-00: UF, UK, LSU, UT (3-1)
2000-01: UF, UK, UM, Ark (2-2)
2001-02: UA, UF, UGA, UK (3-1)
2002-03: UK, UF, UGA, UT (4-0)
2003-04: MSU, UK, UF, VU (3-1)
2004-05: UK, UA, UF, LSU (2-2)
2005-06: LSU, UT, Ark, UA (1-3)
2006-07: UF, UT, VU, UK (4-0)
2007-08: UT, MSU, UK, VU (3-1)
2008-09: LSU, UT, USC, AU (2-2)
2009-10: UK, VU, UT, MSU (3-1)
2010-11: UF, AU, UK, VU (3-1)
The West would've had more teams seeded with a bye in 4 years, equal numbers in 6, and the East more in 10. Obviously the East has a big lead, but it's not entirely lopsided.
Had Bama not been spurned by the NCAA this past season, I wonder if we'd even be having this conversation.
1991-92: Ark, LSU, UK, AU (1-3)
1992-93: VU, UK, Ark, LSU (2-2)
1993-94: Ark, UF, UK, UA (2-2)
1994-95: UK, Ark, MSU, UA (1-3)
1995-96: UK, MSU, Ark, UA (1-3)
1996-97: USC, UK, UM, UGA (3-1)
1997-98: UK, UM, Ark, USC (2-2)
1998-99: AU, UT, UK, UF (3-1)
1999-00: UF, UK, LSU, UT (3-1)
2000-01: UF, UK, UM, Ark (2-2)
2001-02: UA, UF, UGA, UK (3-1)
2002-03: UK, UF, UGA, UT (4-0)
2003-04: MSU, UK, UF, VU (3-1)
2004-05: UK, UA, UF, LSU (2-2)
2005-06: LSU, UT, Ark, UA (1-3)
2006-07: UF, UT, VU, UK (4-0)
2007-08: UT, MSU, UK, VU (3-1)
2008-09: LSU, UT, USC, AU (2-2)
2009-10: UK, VU, UT, MSU (3-1)
2010-11: UF, AU, UK, VU (3-1)
The West would've had more teams seeded with a bye in 4 years, equal numbers in 6, and the East more in 10. Obviously the East has a big lead, but it's not entirely lopsided.
Had Bama not been spurned by the NCAA this past season, I wonder if we'd even be having this conversation.
if there aren't divisions and someone finishes #1, why play the championship game?
It's true that schedules aren't balanced, but everyone plays each other within their division.
and there were divisions. I don't think having AU play SC really made AU's title any more legit than if they hadn't played the game.
It would have been awesome to see Ark and AU go at it one more time on a neutral field. Far better than AU/SC.
It would have been awesome to see Ark and AU go at it one more time on a neutral field. Far better than AU/SC.
Most years, we all know who the best team is before the game is played, and that team rarely loses the title game. By my count, there have been 15 years where the two teams were not ranked near each other in the polls, and the favorite has won 12 of those games. There have been only 5 SEC title games where the2 teams were ranked close enough that there was a real need for a championship game. The ONLY reason we have a championship game is money. Which is a damn good reason. But we could just as easily have it with no divisions and actually take the top 2 teams rather than take an inferior team from a weaker division like we've done several times.
You play everyone in basketball, but you don't in football. That's not good enough?
The ACC already did it.
And since everyone agrees we have to have a championship game don't you have to have 2 champions to play in it?
The ACC already did it.
And since everyone agrees we have to have a championship game don't you have to have 2 champions to play in it?
or at least its arguable despite the fact you play everyone.
As for your second question, I don't think the championship game necessarily has to have teams that are labeled champions.
Like I said, isn't the whole reason to reward the teams that are really doing the best?
As for your second question, I don't think the championship game necessarily has to have teams that are labeled champions.
Like I said, isn't the whole reason to reward the teams that are really doing the best?