Breaking: Vols’ schedule additions

#351
#351
Iam4utalways said:
It’s still about the 3 they don’t play
Click to expand...

Okay, let's talk about that. None of the schools play the rotating opponent they played last year (UT doesn't play MSU, Bama doesn't play USCe, etc), so it's really down to two that each team could have added and didn't. If you want to break that down I'd be interested in your take.
 
#352
#352
escapegoat2 said:
He’s the reason we got a good bowl game last year. But I don’t expect you to agree, considering you’re obvious bias
Click to expand...
Not sure where you're going with your silly comment, but it was written in several different publications that "other" SEC AD's thought Fulmer was in waay over his head. Im not sure of what "bias" you're speaking. Its Fulmers JOB to put our athletic teams in the best position for success. Is it not??
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#355
#355
bamawriter said:
Okay, let's talk about that. None of the schools play the rotating opponent they played last year (UT doesn't play MSU, Bama doesn't play USCe, etc), so it's really down to two that each team could have added and didn't. If you want to break that down I'd be interested in your take.
Click to expand...

Again, you're just accepting the SEC's decision as fair and going from there. Why eliminate the possibility of playing a cross divisional opponent in consecutive years? Is it really that important if it eliminates a lot of the options that would help produce a fair result?
 
#356
#356
roberthunter said:
Again, you're just accepting the SEC's decision as fair and going from there. Why eliminate the possibility of playing a cross divisional opponent in consecutive years? Is it really that important if it eliminates a lot of the options that would help produce a fair result?
Click to expand...

I don't actually know that it was decided that the previous opponent would be stricken. Perhaps it worked out that way by chance, but that seems really unlikely.
 
#357
#357
jeff1vol said:
Not sure where you're going with your silly comment, but it was written in several different publications that "other" SEC AD's thought Fulmer was in waay over his head. Im not sure of what "bias" you're speaking. Its Fulmers JOB to put our athletic teams in the best position for success. Is it not??
Click to expand...
Of Course, but sometimes it is what it is and you don't have a choice or any room for negotiation. The SEC have their pets, the one that gets away with murder is GA as they are always overrated and if not they just cannot deliver.
 
#358
#358
rjd970 said:
I don’t buy it. If fans aren’t going to be at games, then it is what it is. It’s clear that certain teams benefitted from steering away from the rotation and others got screwed by it. Plus the league said this was determined with a focus on schedule equity.

It’s not a huge stretch to think that Bama/Saban walked across the street to the SEC office and bitched about maybe having to play LSU, GA and FL in the same year and got what they wanted.
Click to expand...
It’s about 2 things: protect Bama in the west and GA in the East!
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74, Vfl2407 and ABINGDON VOL FAN
#359
#359
Do the Athletic directors for each school sign off on this ? I do not see how Fulmer could approve of Georgia’s two opponents and I do not see how any of the West Division coaches would be happy with the two games for Alabama. I know this was developed in the complete strength of opponents, has anyone examined this to see if the schedule strength is comparable for all the games played?
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74
#360
#360
I see Clay Travis is talking about the possibility of not having a season. Has something recently developed which has cast new doubt on the season?
 
#362
#362
Doctrippin said:
Vol fans just want the season to happen now, which is still in doubt. Finebaum said parents are weighing in now and the concerns about lawsuits loom over the schools. Posting a schedule means nothing. Good news is case counts are dropping and we are probably on the way out of this, but we have a media that wants doom and gloom. They are not reporting it.
Click to expand...
They will after the election
 
  • Like
Reactions: preacherwebb
#363
#363
bamawriter said:
I don't actually know that it was decided that the previous opponent would be stricken. Perhaps it worked out that way by chance, but that seems really unlikely.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a nice way to avoid the question. I'm not going to argue with you over whether it was just coincidence. You and I know it wasn't.

Your assumptions in this thread and other threads have been that the SEC acted fairly in:

1. Attempting to level or even the strength of schedule in the first place; and

2. Avoiding scheduling last years non-permanent cross division opponent.

I'm more interested in #1, so I'll again ask you why it is necessary to "level the playing field" when the point of a rotating schedule is to do that in the aggregate. Your answer earlier was essentially, "because covid." I don't agree. The SEC could have attempted to add a relatively balanced two teams to everyone's schedule, but they didn't. Covid didn't force them to skew the aggregate fairness of the schedules in the long run. They jumped at the opportunity to do so bc the scheduling stars alligned and they were able to do so under the guise of "fairness," when the opposite is true.

Again, Tennessee had Arkansas on it's schedule this year because we played tougher teams in years past. Our divisional rivals had this advantage in years past, and it was "our turn," so to speak. By punishing teams in this way the SEC is creating an unfair advantage to some teams for no real definible reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74, ABINGDON VOL FAN, rjd970 and 1 other person
#364
#364
roberthunter said:
I'm more interested in #1, so I'll again ask you why it is necessary to "level the playing field" when the point of a rotating schedule is to do that in the aggregate.
Click to expand...

The "aggregate" to which you are referring is a 12 year cycle with one new game each year, meaning everything roughly evens out every 12 years. If one simply takes that same schedule and tacks the next two games of the 12 year cycle on to this year, one is not speeding up the aggregation. One has created an entirely new formula and disrupted the previous one. The league wants to stay on the previous cycle if at all possible.
 
#365
#365
bamawriter said:
The "aggregate" to which you are referring is a 12 year cycle with one new game each year, meaning everything roughly evens out every 12 years. If one simply takes that same schedule and tacks the next two games of the 12 year cycle on to this year, one is not speeding up the aggregation. One has created an entirely new formula and disrupted the previous one. The league wants to stay on the previous cycle if at all possible.
Click to expand...

That's not what I suggested. You continue to avoid the question as to why it was necessary at all to intentionally adjust the schedule difficulty this year instead of making some attempt to keep the difficulty of the schedules about the same as they were.
 
#366
#366
roberthunter said:
That's not what I suggested. You continue to avoid the question as to why it was necessary at all to intentionally adjust the schedule difficulty this year instead of making some attempt to keep the difficulty of the schedules about the same as they were.
Click to expand...

That would be impossible. There was no way for Bama's to stay as strong because Bama already had two of the top 3 teams in the East. There was so way for Mizzou's to stay as weak because Mizzou had the worst 2 teams in the West. Want everything to stay the same? Don't add two games.
 
#368
#368
bamawriter said:
That would be impossible. There was no way for Bama's to stay as strong because Bama already had two of the top 3 teams in the East. There was so way for Mizzou's to stay as weak because Mizzou had the worst 2 teams in the West. Want everything to stay the same? Don't add two games.
Click to expand...

You're being willfully obtuse at this point because you have no real answer to the question.

I clearly wasn't saying that the resulting SOS would be exactly the same. I was suggesting, however, that the SEC could have made some attempt to give everyone a comparable set of teams. Essentially give everyone one good and one bad team, or two ok teams as an alternative. As far as keeping future schedules the same, there's no reason why this would affect them. If we're bringing up covid as an excuse for some things, I doubt the world will stop spinning if we play Miss St 2 years in a row.

Instead the SEC gave some teams 2 terrible teams and some teams 2 really good teams. Because they decided they wanted to "even things out this year." And no sound reason has been given by them or you as to why they need to "even things out" this year, which actually produces an unfair result in the aggregate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#369
#369
Considering the length of this thread, Auburn and TAM must be proud of the collective sharting of pants exhibited by Vol fans
 
  • Like
Reactions: CR-vol and Boca Vol
#371
#371
bamawriter said:
Or maybe you should ditch the common core and use real math. It's been posted multiple times.
Click to expand...
Calm down bama.. Just having a bit of fun and you'll get no argument from me on the common core garbage.
 
#372
#372
roberthunter said:
You're being willfully obtuse at this point because you have no real answer to the question.

I clearly wasn't saying that the resulting SOS would be exactly the same. I was suggesting, however, that the SEC could have made some attempt to give everyone a comparable set of teams. Essentially give everyone one good and one bad team, or two ok teams as an alternative. As far as keeping future schedules the same, there's no reason why this would affect them. If we're bringing up covid as an excuse for some things, I doubt the world will stop spinning if we play Miss St 2 years in a row.

Instead the SEC gave some teams 2 terrible teams and some teams 2 really good teams. Because they decided they wanted to "even things out this year." And no sound reason has been given by them or you as to why they need to "even things out" this year, which actually produces an unfair result in the aggregate.
Click to expand...

Are there enough teams in both divisions to make an equitable division of "good" and "bad"?

What you're calling "obtuse" is simply acknowledging reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boca Vol
#373
#373
bamawriter said:
Are there enough teams in both divisions to make an equitable division of "good" and "bad"?

What you're calling "obtuse" is simply acknowledging reality.
Click to expand...
Folks I took the 247 SEC rankings for 2020 and applied just a little math. If you were #1 then a score of 1 was put beside your school and if you were ranked #14 then a 14 was put by your school. Took everyone's schedule and added up the ranking scores. The higher the score the weaker the schedule. I will list from toughest first. 1. Ark. 63 ---2. Auburn 67,--- 3. Mo. 71,--- 4. U, MS. 72--- , 5-6-&-7 Tie Al., Tn., Vandy, 73--- 8. MSU 74,--- 9. S.C. 75--- 10-&-11. Tie Ky. & TAM 78--- 12. Fl. 82--- 13 & 14 Tie, Ga. and LSU 85 Last years division winters get the easiest schedule--go figure
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABINGDON VOL FAN and Purple Tiger
#375
#375
bamawriter said:
Are there enough teams in both divisions to make an equitable division of "good" and "bad"?

What you're calling "obtuse" is simply acknowledging reality.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question.

And to answer your question, yes, obviously the SEC could have divied teams in a way that led to a much more comparable and equal sets of teams being handed out instead of some teams getting Alabama and LSU and some teams getting Miss St and Arkansas.
What's the point of even debating that?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top