Rivalries are in the eye of the beholder.

Lester’s still got a bee in his bonnet about those cross-division rivalries.  But now he wants to make you feel guilty about it if you disagree with him.

“I trust they will recognize with the upcoming playoff, and with the BCS bowls being so important, everyone should shoulder the burden of playing the better teams,” Miles said. “Everybody.”

I’m supposed to give up support of the oldest rivalry in the South because Miles’ fair play fee-fees are hurt?  Screw you, Les.

But I do have a suggestion to calm the man’s troubled soul.  I’ve said most of it before – move the two Alabama schools to the East and switch Missouri to the West.  That solves the bulk of the cross-division problems.  My new candidate for the last transfer is South Carolina, since the ‘Cocks are backing LSU’s play.  If longstanding rivalries don’t matter to the folks in Columbia, then not having Georgia and Florida on the schedule every year shouldn’t bother them in the least.

About these ads

31 Comments

Filed under SEC Football, Wit And Wisdom From The Hat

31 responses to “Rivalries are in the eye of the beholder.

  1. Dawg with no fleas

    To go even further why even have divisions? Lets play it like the nfl. Only have one or two yearly rivals, and randomize the schedule. Don’t even have to play home and home (outside of the rivals that are kept) as long as every team gets 4 home and 4 away games. Let the top 2 teams play for the sec title. If there are 3 or more teams tied for the best league record use rules based on what we have for the divisions now. I mean the scheduling experts that did such a good job with what we have now couldn’t possibly mess that up… Right????

  2. Ptc dawg

    More and more Miles is a pansy to me

  3. Mayor of Dawgtown

    Senator….That’s kind of mismatched trade don’tchathink? Switching the two teams that combined to win the last four BCSNCs for two alltime also-rans!! The only team for LSU to beat in the West would be aTm whereas the East would be a free for all top to bottom, at least until you get to UK.

    • Isn’t SC ranked in the top ten?

      UT after UK?

      Auburn = Alabama?

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        (1) South Carolina is a temporary top 10 at best. USCe has never won an SEC Championship and in its entire existence only won 1 conference championship–the ACC back in the late 60s. Look for the Dicks…er…Cocks to fall back to earth when Spurrier hangs it up in the next couple of years. (2) UT is tied with the Cats at best. (3) Auburn does not equal Bama but Auburn historically has a winning percentage that is only about 5% below Bama, is on a par with Georgia and Florida, and is substantially higher than Mizzou or South Carolina.

        • (1) That’s what people were saying about the Gators when Spurrier was hired at UF. (2) Agreed. My point was that the East isn’t as fearsome even after the changes as ND suggests. (3) Again, Miles couldn’t care less about Auburn’s history. The reality is that with the exception of Cam’s year, the program has been in a steady decline since 2004.

          • Mayor of Dawgtown

            Another way to accomplish a major shake-up in the SEC would be to move UGA to the West. FU could be our cross-division game. But who would get shifted to the East from the West? LSU? That would make for an interesting dynamic. LSU would play FU every year as a division game and probably keep Ole Miss as the cross-division rival game. They could dodge Bama that way.

  4. Bright Idea

    Brando on this big today. He says forget tradition. I don’t care how good or bad they are, playing Missouri yearly and Auburn occasionally would be a dumb new tradition. If they switched Auburn and Missouri, Bama would be screaming to play Auburn yearly and one regular crossover could be preserved cause Bama said so. Let Miles and Spurrier hand pick their crossover and the rest draw out of a hat and be done with it.

  5. Nat Dawg

    Those division swaps would also make Lester happy from the standpoint that his division is losing 2 first-tier programs and gaining none.*

    * looking at the entirety of the programs here – history, recent history, future potential, resources, fan base, etc – not just the last 2 year’s results

    • I bet LM would disagree with you.

      Take Cam’s season out of the mix and Auburn’s been on a pretty steady downward trajectory for a few years now.

      • Nat Dawg

        I disagree entirely. You’re only looking at the last few years and things can turn very quickly.

        The current and future evaluation of a program is about much more than just the last few years.

      • Nat Dawg

        Now if you want to reconfigure divisions every 3-4 years, then yeah, looking at only the last few years and making determinations based off that will work just fine. But if you want the divisional assignments to be more permanent, then more needs to be taken in account.

        • There’s no way you can have absolute fairness in scheduling unless you play a round robin schedule… and that ain’t happening.

          Love to know who you think can fairly evaluate the future of a program.

          • Nat Dawg

            I understand there’s no absolute fairness in scheduling and never suggested anything of the sort.

            When they created the divisions in 92, the top 6 programs in the conference were considered to be Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee (in no particular order). Arkansas and South Carolina were second tier. It just so happened that these programs split up perfectly geographically and allowed a natural divisional alignment.

            I think you’d have a hard time convincing the majority of people that those 6 programs aren’t still the 6 elite ones. Sure, A&M and South Carolina are making strides. Arkansas has had its moments at times. Mizzou had some flashes in the Big 12. Things can change, and are changing, but to put Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee (5 of the blue bloods of college football) in the same division, while the other has LSU, A&M, Arkansas, SC, and Missouri (1 or 2 blue bloods and 2 or 3 wannabes depending on how you look at it)…well, those matchups just aren’t equal.

            You can disagree. That’s cool. But I disagree with you. And I think the majority of folks would too.

            • My fairness comment was directed at Miles. It’s a fool’s errand.

              I think you’re trying to have it both ways with your elite status argument, though. Auburn enjoyed middlin’ success until the 80’s. Florida didn’t win a legitimate conference title until Spurrier’s arrival. If you didn’t need much of a track record in ’92 to be considered elite, why do you need more of one now?

              • Nat Dawg

                Well, if chasing scheduling fairness is a fool’s errand, then why start changing divisional assignments just to try and quiet Lester’s cries about scheduling unfairness?

                Auburn and Florida were considered elite in 92 b/c their history, recent history, resources, location, recruiting base, etc were better than Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and Arkansas.

                • Well, if chasing scheduling fairness is a fool’s errand, then why start changing divisional assignments just to try and quiet Lester’s cries about scheduling unfairness?

                  The conference did that a season ago with expansion.

                  b/c their history, recent history, resources, location, recruiting base, etc

                  Les isn’t complaining about any of that. He’s upset with the here and now.

                  • Nat Dawg

                    Huh? Who changed divisions a season ago?

                    And I don’t care what Les is upset about. I was explaining to you why some programs are 1st tier and why it was/is best to balance them out between the 2 divisions.

                    • Mayor of Dawgtown

                      +1. Right, Nat. The proposed alignment would be a disaster. But then, the Senator is just pulling everybody’s leg.

                    • Hey, I was only being semi-tongue in cheek! ;)

                    • The divisions changed with the new additions. The conference obviously doesn’t find anything sacred about the original six-team configurations at this point.

                      As for Miles, that’s what the post was about… and you brought Miles up again in the comment I responded to. You’ve got your subjective opinion about what’s important and so does he. ;)

          • Round Robin works in tennis. Always a clear winner.

  6. Hank

    If you’re scared, say you’re scared.
    It’s always such a treat when our brothers from up North come down South and let us in on how to do it right.

  7. Go Dawgs!

    lol… actually, not having UGA and Florida on the schedule probably WOULDN’T bother South Carolina in the least.

  8. Would not make Steve happy. He has an agenda.

  9. Hogbody Spradlin

    On the other topic in the linked piece, anybody wanna bet against Jeremy Hill being on the roster, in mid-season shape, for the game in Athens?

  10. I wanna Red Cup

    The strengths of teams vary over time. I suspect it evens out over the years. Les ought to quit crying like a baby. He should have more pride. I and sick and tired of all the pussy coaches complaining and whining.

  11. dawgfanwill

    Senator, just a thought but, the “quote of the day” has been “the quote of the day” for some time now. Maybe you should think of changing it to “the quote of the day until there’s another quote worth titling the quote of the day” or something of the sorts.