Breaking: Vols’ schedule additions

#377
#377
Redleg68 said:
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
Click to expand...
Glad someone did this. We are middle of the pack but both Florida and Georgia have an easier schedule.
 
#378
#378
roberthunter said:
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?
Click to expand...

That you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean an answer wasn't provided.

I will agree that it doesn't seem fair that Mizzou got LSU and Bama. But, in truth, they started out with the 6th and 7th place teams in the West. It doesn't seen fair that UGA got MSU and Arkansas, but they started out with Bama and Auburn.

The league began with the constraints of the current schedule. The only way to build from the ground up would have been to 86 that schedule. But surely you won't pretend that the immediate complaint wouldn't be "Bama is ducking UGA!!!"
 
#379
#379
The only way to "balance" the schedule would've been to do away with Divisions. The E and W aren't balanced. There is no way to get equality across the board. I don't think UT got that bad of a draw. At some point UT has to beat teams they are comparable to....not named S. Carolina & UK. UT beat Auburn at Auburn 2 seasons ago and there's no reason they can't do it again. Had they not turned it over 2000 times at aTm in '16 they would've won easily. Nut up and play!
 
  • Like
Reactions: preacherwebb and bamawriter
#381
#381
swampfoxfan said:
Don't expect favoritism ,BUT I do expect fair. Expect it in how the game is called by refs, currently any close all is given to the SEC darlings.
Click to expand...
So let me ask you this: Why should Tennessee be given any "close calls?" We haven't been relevant in 20 years and we bring nothing to the table nationally. Why would you give a team that really doesn't make the conference better, the benefit of the doubt? Also, comparing the schedule decision to ref's calling a game isn't the same. You obviously expect fairness from officials during a game, but scheduling is never fair and isn't life a meritocracy? Asking for "fairness" makes you sound like a snowflake.
 
#382
#382
There are 2 parts to the SEC. The top and the bottom. Any top team should play all but 1 of the the other top teams and not play 2 bottom teams.

We don’t play LSU(1 Top) and Miss St and Ole Miss(2 Bottom).


Alabama’s schedule works out the same way. 1 top and 2 bottom teams that they don’t play.

LSU has 2 top teams and just 1 bottom team that they don’t play.

When I google the schedule of other teams like Ga, it shows what’s been canceled but not their full schedule.

Bottom teams are Vandy, Ky and Mo. Some might say SC is a middle team and possibly KY. I consider all 4 as bottom teams. Ar, Ole Miss, Miss St are bottom teams with A&M as a middle team.

The East (4) have more bottom teams than the West (3).

I don’t know any other team’s schedule so I don’t know who they don’t play to say if it’s “fair” or not.
 
#383
#383
rjd970 said:
At the end of the day @99gator and @bamawriter can justify the fairness all they want. But the only truly fair way to do it was to hold to the rotation and keep the next opponents. Everybody is then scheduled by the same standard. It is what it is at that point.

The way it was done smells of leveling things out for the playoff hopefuls. If I were the ARK AD I would be raising holy hell.
Click to expand...
Of course it was done to level things out for the playoff hopefuls. Why should Tennessee be given an easier road than Georgia or Bama? Those teams have a chance to win it all, and before the pandemic ceiling for Tennessee was 8 wins. Sorry friend but sports are a meritocracy and as in life, those at the top get the breaks. Pick yourself up by the bootstraps and all.....
 
#384
#384
bamawriter said:
That you don't agree with the answer doesn't mean an answer wasn't provided.

I will agree that it doesn't seem fair that Mizzou got LSU and Bama. But, in truth, they started out with the 6th and 7th place teams in the West. It doesn't seen fair that UGA got MSU and Arkansas, but they started out with Bama and Auburn.

The league began with the constraints of the current schedule. The only way to build from the ground up would have been to 86 that schedule. But surely you won't pretend that the immediate complaint wouldn't be "Bama is ducking UGA!!!"
Click to expand...

Again, the question I'm asking you to answer is why did the schedule need balancing or evening out at all.

Again, you seem to be taking the SEC's opinion that it did need balancing as a fair and reasonable thing. My point, which I've made multiple times and you have ignored, is that "balancing" the schedule in the way the SEC did is an unfair and unnecessary step which could have been avoided.

I don't care what teams some teams "started out" with. My entire point is that the "starting" cross divisional teams should have been ignored. They started out with those teams bc of the rotating schedule which provides balance and fairness in the aggregate. It's not fair to adjust the schedule based on what teams they "started out" with this year but not others. It randomly punishes the teams that drew teams like Arkansas this year when they deserved no punishment.

If you have addressed those issues, please point me to where you did.
 
#387
#387
A&M is not really ahead of us. Nearly same W-L Last year and 4-4 in SEC vs our 5-3. So it ain’t so bad. And Pruitt best Gus with a much inferior team 2 seasons ago. We gonna be fine. I’d have loved to get Ole Miss and one of these, but this isn’t that bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, preacherwebb and Boca Vol
#389
#389
Pointing out the SEC's bs here doesn't mean you're scared to play aTm or Aub. We can beat both those teams and I hope we do. Pointing out the SEC's bs just means you're fed up with it. It is particularly frustrating to me that they did this under the guise of "fairness."
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc and onevol74
#390
#390
roberthunter said:
Pointing out the SEC's bs here doesn't mean you're scared to play aTm or Aub. We can beat both those teams and I hope we do. Pointing out the SEC's bs just means you're fed up with it. It is particularly frustrating to me that they did this under the guise of "fairness."
Click to expand...

The problem is the W is better top to bottom than the E. UGA already had Bama and Auburn. Should they have been given Ole Miss and LSU or aTm?
 
#392
#392
roberthunter said:
Again, the question I'm asking you to answer is why did the schedule need balancing or evening out at all.

Again, you seem to be taking the SEC's opinion that it did need balancing as a fair and reasonable thing. My point, which I've made multiple times and you have ignored, is that "balancing" the schedule in the way the SEC did is an unfair and unnecessary step which could have been avoided.

I don't care what teams some teams "started out" with. My entire point is that the "starting" cross divisional teams should have been ignored. They started out with those teams bc of the rotating schedule which provides balance and fairness in the aggregate. It's not fair to adjust the schedule based on what teams they "started out" with this year but not others. It randomly punishes the teams that drew teams like Arkansas this year when they deserved no punishment.

If you have addressed those issues, please point me to where you did.
Click to expand...

Okay. You win. It's not fair unless Bama plays Florida.
 
#393
#393
volsack said:
So let me ask you this: Why should Tennessee be given any "close calls?" We haven't been relevant in 20 years and we bring nothing to the table nationally. Why would you give a team that really doesn't make the conference better, the benefit of the doubt? Also, comparing the schedule decision to ref's calling a game isn't the same. You obviously expect fairness from officials during a game, but scheduling is never fair and isn't life a meritocracy? Asking for "fairness" makes you sound like a snowflake.
Click to expand...
Shove your snowflake where the sun don't shine. Didn't ask for fair, demand it.
 
#395
#395
bamawriter said:
Okay. You win. It's not fair unless Bama plays Florida.
Click to expand...

I've barely even discussed Bama or Florida. I'm fine with Florida's additions. They got a good team and a bad team, which is what the SEC should have been attempting to do with everyone.

I'm talking about the general fairness of the concept of randomly "balancing" the schedule just this year.

And it is very telling that you just absolutely refuse to discuss this.
 
#397
#397
roberthunter said:
I've barely even discussed Bama or Florida. I'm fine with Florida's additions. They got a good team and a bad team, which is what the SEC should have been attempting to do with everyone.

I'm talking about the general fairness of the concept of randomly "balancing" the schedule just this year.

And it is very telling that you just absolutely refuse to discuss this.
Click to expand...

I have done nothing but discuss it. Your position is that you're right any any disagreement doesn't qualify as discussion.
 
#398
#398
Boca Vol said:
Then what would you have done? UT doesn't have it that bad. Bama & Ark (1 & 7) and Auburn & aTm (3-5).
Click to expand...

Man, I've typed too many words already discussing this with bamawriter, so I'll ask you to scan the thread for my detailed answer.

In general though, my position is that the rotating cross divisional opponent provides balance and fairness in the aggregate over the years.

When the SEC tries to "balance" things just this year and not others, they are effectively punishing those teams that had "easier" draws bc they played the tougher teams in previous years or are about to play them.

I think the SEC should have ignored the current cross divisional games and tried to add a set of comparable teams to everyone. Essentially pick a good team and a bad team, or in the alternative 2 mediocre teams, for every school.
 
#399
#399
bamawriter said:
I have done nothing but discuss it. Your position is that you're right any any disagreement doesn't qualify as discussion.
Click to expand...

You're full of it. Show me where you have discussed the SEC's decision to "balance" things out this year and whether that decision is a fundamentally fair or unfair one.
 
#400
#400
bamawriter said:
It needed to level out this year because this year is an outlier that isn't part of the aggregate.

You can disagree with the league's decision to go this route. But this was their decision, and all-in-all they did okay with executing the plan. There was no way to be perfect.
Click to expand...

That's the closest you came to discussing it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top