LSU's AD pissed off about scheduling

[Coach34]

@DellengerAdv 9m
#LSU AD Joe Alleva: "Very disappointed leaders of the SEC disregard competitive advantage that permanent partners award to certain schools."

?@DellengerAdv 8m
Joe Alleva continued: "It is definitely an advantage that should not exist in such a great league." #LSU

?@DellengerAdv 7m
More Alleva: "We share all the revenue and expenses yet we cannot have a balanced, fair, equitable schedule." #LSU

@DellengerAdv 7m
More Alleva: "LSU has played Florida and Georgia 19 times since 2000 and Bama has played them 8 times. Is that fair ?" #LSU

[biscuit]

and all the coonasses cried.

[BulldogBear]

He can whine all he wants. These things tend to even out over time. I frankly do not believe him. I think his real gripe is the mandatory "real" non-conference game. Oh, they like it when it suits them but they, along with Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee are histocially (last 30 years) the notorious offenders in the SEC when it comes to often pile up their entire nonconf slate with automatic on campus wins. They play real road games once every 5-10 years (Sorry Vols, Memphis doesn't count. Neither does a "road" game against WSU in Nashville). Sure Bama has played a "season opener" for 4-5 years now and LSU has played 2-3 and Tennessee a single (vs. NCSU - woohoo) and Auburn, zero. That's the last half decade. IF it starts not working out for them, Bama, for instance, would be back to MTSU, EKU, FAU, and North Texas in a heartbeat.

[Pollodawg]

Yes. Yes, that's fair, Joe.

[BeardoMSU]

Awe....poor babies....

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1356/02/1356029223039.gif

[dawgindothan]

May be whiny, but Alleva ain't wrong.

I just get sick of the AL favoritism. You've got Mark Womack who is exec assoc commissioner of the SEC and in charge of scheduling. Womack is originally from Ttown, is an AL grad, and used to work in the AL athletic dept. You've gone Steve Shaw who is SEC coordinator of officials. Shaw is an AL grad. So basically the two most powerful SEC officials outside of the commissioner are both AL grads. Does anyone think this is just coincidence?

Spurrier's quote from this morning is very telling...... ?We talked about not having a common opponent, but the commissioner [Mike Slive] wants Alabama and Tennessee to keep playing each other." So basically the interests of 2 teams (or 4 if you want to throw AU and GA in there) was put above the interests of the entire league. I know we have a good deal playing KY every year, but playing the other East teams only once or twice every several years sucks imo.

The SEC (and all of its members) has modernized and come a long way in the last 15-20 years, but in some ways it's still just as GOBish as it always was. The best thing for every SEC school not named AL would be for the SEC Office to move to Atlanta or Nashville or somewhere other than B'ham. And don't get me started about the SEC baseball tourney being in Hoover every single year. Hoover is a great host and the tourney should probably be played there most years, but having it in Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta area, etc. once or twice each decade isn't too much to ask.

[Dawgface]

Agree. LSU's AD has a good point.

[State82]

I really wish Alleva knew just how little I care.

[sleepy dawg]

I agree with him 100%... We get screwed all the time, and it hurts. I really don't give a shit that they are getting screwed over with the scheduling, but I certainly know how it feels.

[bluelightstar]

Uh, why are we agreeing with him? We are part of the reason he's complaining because we get to play Kentucky and Ole Miss gets to play Vandy. He specifically named us yesterday as part of people voting in their own self-interest.

[HoopsDawg]

What a bitch. The thing about LSU is they don't have to play LSU. Try being MSU or OM and talk about competitive advantage.

Also, they own the entire state of Louisiana. Again, trying splitting up a small state like MS with 2 SEC schools. Competitive advantage?, please, cry me a river.

[smootness]

Uh, why are we agreeing with him? We are part of the reason he's complaining because we get to play Kentucky and Ole Miss gets to play Vandy. He specifically named us yesterday as part of people voting in their own self-interest.

Because he's still right. The current system benefits us in some ways, but that doesn't mean it should.

[ShotgunDawg]

It doesn't matter how much this rule benefits Bama, it won't change unless us or Ole Miss wins the West. Then all he'll will break loose.

[Todd4State]

Uh, why are we agreeing with him? We are part of the reason he's complaining because we get to play Kentucky and Ole Miss gets to play Vandy. He specifically named us yesterday as part of people voting in their own self-interest.

Wait- Scott voted to play a BCS team every year OOC?

[Todd4State]

It doesn't matter how much this rule benefits Bama, it won't change unless us or Ole Miss wins the West. Then all he'll will break loose.

This is true. And us going to four straight bowls was the reason why I thought this was aimed at us, although this doesn't appear to be the case.

[Todd4State]

Because he's still right. The current system benefits us in some ways, but that doesn't mean it should.

I wish we had the benefits LSU does.

[bluelightstar]

Wait- Scott voted to play a BCS team every year OOC?

The vote was 10-4 in favor of this new proposal. Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, MSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt were 8 of the 10 (at least by implication from Alleva). And Scott didn't really have a choice. It was either (1) this new schedule that passed, (2) 9 conference games, or (3) 8 conference games w/ UT-AL, AU-UGA preserved and no permanent opponent for anyone else. Only way to keep Kentucky on our schedule and not play an extra SEC game.

[Dawg61]

Bama is just benefiting from a down Tennessee. Florida wasn't so hot last year either so LSU can shove it. Crybabies

[esplanade91]

Tennessee is playing Virginia Tech at Bristol Motor Speedway sometime in the near future. They play Oregon fairly often (and have their asses handed to them).

This really doesn't change anything for us or anyone. Everyone already schedules teams that qualify. Maybe not every year, but if I'm not crazy everyone last year played a major OOC game. Off the top of my head. Texas, Rutgers, Oklahoma State, Wake Forest, Florida State, Clemson, Wizzou...

The only thing this changes is years like this one we're about to have where we have USM (typically a hard OOC game, although that ship has sailed since we scheduled them) and 3 shitty teams. We'll continue to play 3 shitty teams and a (at the time we scheduled USM) USM-type AQ. Ala Wizzou. This hurts teams like USM more than it does anyone, because no one is going to be willing to schedule a more difficult than normal cupcake because of the major OOC game being a possible loss.

[BulldogBear]

What a bitch. The thing about LSU is they don't have to play LSU. Try being MSU or OM and talk about competitive advantage.

Also, they own the entire state of Louisiana. Again, trying splitting up a small state like MS with 2 SEC schools. Competitive advantage?, please, cry me a river.

Hear. Hear. Slow Clap.

[War Machine Dawg]

The vote was 10-4 in favor of this new proposal. Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, MSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt were 8 of the 10 (at least by implication from Alleva). And Scott didn't really have a choice. It was either (1) this new schedule that passed, (2) 9 conference games, or (3) 8 conference games w/ UT-AL, AU-UGA preserved and no permanent opponent for anyone else. Only way to keep Kentucky on our schedule and not play an extra SEC game.

It doesn't matter. If it's passing anyway, our AD should vote for MSU's best interests, not Bama's or the SEC's. There's no difference in something passing 10-4 or 9-5 except that Scott can rightfully tell his fan base he voted for our best interests. And our best interests include being able to play anyone the hell we want to OOC every season to increase our odds of going bowling. Being a consistent bowl team is the only way you build a program. Period. Voting for a measure that forces us to play a Texas, Oregon, Michigan, etc. every year isn't the way to put your program in a position to consistently go bowling.

I swear, Loafers really is LT 2.0. Loyalty to the SEC before loyalty to MSU.

[Todd4State]

The vote was 10-4 in favor of this new proposal. Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, MSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt were 8 of the 10 (at least by implication from Alleva). And Scott didn't really have a choice. It was either (1) this new schedule that passed, (2) 9 conference games, or (3) 8 conference games w/ UT-AL, AU-UGA preserved and no permanent opponent for anyone else. Only way to keep Kentucky on our schedule and not play an extra SEC game.

I would like to know who our two permanent conference games were going to be against. If it was Vandy and Kentucky- then Scott screwed that up.

Thanks for the insight though.

[Todd4State]

It doesn't matter. If it's passing anyway, our AD should vote for MSU's best interests, not Bama's or the SEC's. There's no difference in something passing 10-4 or 9-5 except that Scott can rightfully tell his fan base he voted for our best interests. And our best interests include being able to play anyone the hell we want to OOC every season to increase our odds of going bowling. Being a consistent bowl team is the only way you build a program. Period. Voting for a measure that forces us to play a Texas, Oregon, Michigan, etc. every year isn't the way to put your program in a position to consistently go bowling.

I swear, Loafers really is LT 2.0. Loyalty to the SEC before loyalty to MSU.

Or even Wake Forest, Kansas, Colorado, etc. You know the other BCS schools are going to gouge the hell out of us because they know we HAVE to play them. It's also going to cost us home football games. In other words- this decision has cost us millions. Same thing for the other schools too that don't have an ACC rival like Florida State or Georgia Tech.

And I still want to know what they are going to do if a team can't find another BCS team to play them?

I just can't believe that Mississippi State/Iowa State is going to draw more viewers than Mississippi State/Troy.

[Dawg61]

This is so they can put the SEC vs ACC/Pac12/B1G game on the SECNetwork and essentially black it out in those other states forcing those fan bases to get the SECNetwork added to their cable package. So the SEC will get more monthly subscribers paying for the SECNetwork. They'll position the games to be spread out too so that one can get "blacked out" for these other schools/conferences till everyone in the country that has cable will start paying a dollar extra each month for the SECNetwork. We rich biatch

[esplanade91]

Or even Wake Forest, Kansas, Colorado, etc. You know the other BCS schools are going to gouge the hell out of us because they know we HAVE to play them. It's also going to cost us home football games. In other words- this decision has cost us millions. Same thing for the other schools too that don't have an ACC rival like Florida State or Georgia Tech.

And I still want to know what they are going to do if a team can't find another BCS team to play them?

I just can't believe that Mississippi State/Iowa State is going to draw more viewers than Mississippi State/Troy.
Those ISU folks love football. Their turnout for the Liberty Bowl was very respectable.

It'll get more viewership and only because ISU actually has a fan base while Troy does not.

My point is that this is a good thing. Brings people to our town and gives our school exposure to people who think we're the Ole Miss Golden Eagles.

Continuing to beat UAB and Troy every single GD year is doing nothing for us. Absolutely nothing.

[Dawg61]

Those ISU folks love football. Their turnout for the Liberty Bowl was very respectable.

It'll get more viewership and only because ISU actually has a fan base while Troy does not.

My point is that this is a good thing. Brings people to our town and gives our school exposure to people who think we're the Ole Miss Golden Eagles.

Continuing to beat UAB and Troy every single GD year is doing nothing for us. Absolutely nothing.

It's also forcing people in Iowa to pay for the SECNetwork which you can just about guarantee our game will be on instead of ESPN. Every subscriber in Iowa that adds the SECNetwork will be giving the SEC money and the SEC will split that up evenly to the 14 Universities and themselves. So 1/15th of every monthly dollar per every single cable subscriber in every single state that has a SEC/ACC/B1G/Pac12/Big12 school will be going to MSU.

[PassInterference]

It's also forcing people in Iowa to pay for the SECNetwork which you can just about guarantee our game will be on instead of ESPN. Every subscriber in Iowa that adds the SECNetwork will be giving the SEC money and the SEC will split that up evenly to the 14 Universities and themselves. So 1/15th of every monthly dollar per every single cable subscriber in every single state that has a SEC/ACC/B1G/Pac12/Big12 school will be going to MSU.

This.

Folks, this is bigger than LT. It is about increasing market share for the Big 5 conferences. And the money and conference TV network gravitas that brings. Nothing else.

[esplanade91]

It's also forcing people in Iowa to pay for the SECNetwork which you can just about guarantee our game will be on instead of ESPN. Every subscriber in Iowa that adds the SECNetwork will be giving the SEC money and the SEC will split that up evenly to the 14 Universities and themselves. So 1/15th of every monthly dollar per every single cable subscriber in every single state that has a SEC/ACC/B1G/Pac12/Big12 school will be going to MSU.

Mississippi and Arkansas are the two smallest states with major college programs, so it's not just Iowa. It's everywhere else that has people with money. I can only imagine a couple thousand people (if that) said "YES! TROY HAS A NATIONALLY TELEVISED GAME THIS WEEKEND! LET'S WATCH IT!" this past year. Or any year. This 9th scheduled game guarantees that it's not only our fan bases and random bars that have left the TV on ESPN watching these games anymore.

The SEC is how it is now because of perception. That we have the best programs (recruits want to play for the best programs), that we have the best players (best recruits want to play with the best players), and that our fans care more than any other set of fans (recruits love fans). None of those things are necessarily true, but it's created this viscous cycle where it's almost come to a point where that's reality. It's still entirely perception. And you strengthen that perception by putting MSU in some yuppy's living room in Spokane, Washington and have them beat his big brother's alma mater down (I'm meaning WSU. Yes I know they're not in Spokane. Roll with it). Slive and his dogs are smart.

[Todd4State]

Those ISU folks love football. Their turnout for the Liberty Bowl was very respectable.

It'll get more viewership and only because ISU actually has a fan base while Troy does not.

My point is that this is a good thing. Brings people to our town and gives our school exposure to people who think we're the Ole Miss Golden Eagles.

Continuing to beat UAB and Troy every single GD year is doing nothing for us. Absolutely nothing.

Other than four consecutive bowl games for the first time in our schools history and help us get to two NYD bowl games the past four years. Playing West Virginia did nothing for us except get our brains beat in. Same with Oregon. Same this year with Oklahoma State. People are going to mix us up with Ole Miss no matter what we do and what logo we have. I'm not so sure that ESPN doesn't do it to get our fans to write in about how they screwed up to get a rise out of us. This is the same network that employs Skip Bayless.

We're always going to be a local university. We're never going to be Notre Dame. Just like Iowa State is never going to get a ton of Mississippi kids for football or anything else. The exposure argument is the biggest cop out from the AD's office going back to LT. Normally that's their excuse for doing something questionable. We haven't played Georgia or anyone from Georgia in years- and we still get roughly the same amount of players from there as we always have. And despite not having played there- we lead for the nation's top QB in the 2016 class at the moment.

We are selling out the stadium literally every time- except for the time that Scott decided that playing Kentucky on a Thursday during fall break was a good idea. We don't need to play someone to get their fans to come to Starkville. This is going to cause us to not do the 2 for 1 deals that we can do with Sun Belt teams, which is going to make it more difficult to schedule and more expensive. And on top of that more expensive to take the team on the road.

[Todd4State]

I haven't seen this discussed here, but according to Paul's board, if a team can't find a BCS opponent to play, the SEC will "assist".

Can't wait to see how the SEC assists Scott.** It won't be Wake Forest though.

I'm starting to wonder if we work out a deal with Arizona, will the SEC approve it or will they tell us to play someone else that they want us to play? The more I read, the less and less I like this.

It's going to be:

1. SWAC team
2. Sun Belt team
3. Sun Belt/C-USA team/American conference team
4. Arizona probably/hopefully, but I bet the SEC is going to want us to play some other land grant school/engineering type school like Oklahoma State/Georgia Tech/Kansas State

[BulldogBear]

It doesn't matter. If it's passing anyway, our AD should vote for MSU's best interests, not Bama's or the SEC's. There's no difference in something passing 10-4 or 9-5 except that Scott can rightfully tell his fan base he voted for our best interests. And our best interests include being able to play anyone the hell we want to OOC every season to increase our odds of going bowling. Being a consistent bowl team is the only way you build a program. Period. Voting for a measure that forces us to play a Texas, Oregon, Michigan, etc. every year on the road isn't the way to put your program in a position to consistently go bowling.

I swear, Loafers really is LT 2.0. Loyalty to the SEC before loyalty to MSU.

Fixed that for you.

[BulldogBear]

I haven't seen this discussed here, but according to Paul's board, if a team can't find a BCS opponent to play, the SEC will "assist".

Can't wait to see how the SEC assists Scott.**

As WMD said: "Texas, Oregon, Michigan, etc. every year" and as I added: "on the road"

[smootness]

It doesn't matter. If it's passing anyway, our AD should vote for MSU's best interests, not Bama's or the SEC's. There's no difference in something passing 10-4 or 9-5 except that Scott can rightfully tell his fan base he voted for our best interests. And our best interests include being able to play anyone the hell we want to OOC every season to increase our odds of going bowling. Being a consistent bowl team is the only way you build a program. Period. Voting for a measure that forces us to play a Texas, Oregon, Michigan, etc. every year isn't the way to put your program in a position to consistently go bowling.

I swear, Loafers really is LT 2.0. Loyalty to the SEC before loyalty to MSU.

A few things:

1) You either didn't actually read bluelightstar's post or you didn't understand what he was arguing. He is saying that this new proposal is in our best interest given the other options.

2) This does not force us to play a Texas, Oregon, or Michigan every year, and claiming that is simply a way to try to falsely frame the argument in your favor.

3) You're basically saying that the AD should lie to us to make us feel better. You claimed that Stricklin should vote for our best interests if he knows it's passing anyway so he can tell the fans he voted in our best interests...so make a meaningless public display in order to sell himself to the fans on a false premise. This is what you want our AD to do...and somehow you think him not doing that makes him LT 2.0?

If bluelightstar is correct that our 3 options were the new proposal, 9 conference games, or no permanent opponent, then it's at least a legitimate discussion as to what was our best option. You can't just say, 'He should have voted to keep the old system'; if an AD does that, knowing the system is changing, he's simply removing himself from the decision-making process.

[bluelightstar]

A few things:

1) You either didn't actually read bluelightstar's post or you didn't understand what he was arguing. He is saying that this new proposal is in our best interest given the other options.

2) This does not force us to play a Texas, Oregon, or Michigan every year, and claiming that is simply a way to try to falsely frame the argument in your favor.

3) You're basically saying that the AD should lie to us to make us feel better. You claimed that Stricklin should vote for our best interests if he knows it's passing anyway so he can tell the fans he voted in our best interests...so make a meaningless public display in order to sell himself to the fans on a false premise. This is what you want our AD to do...and somehow you think him not doing that makes him LT 2.0?

If bluelightstar is correct that our 3 options were the new proposal, 9 conference games, or no permanent opponent, then it's at least a legitimate discussion as to what was our best option. You can't just say, 'He should have voted to keep the old system'; if an AD does that, knowing the system is changing, he's simply removing himself from the decision-making process.

Joe Alleva, Spurrier, and Slive have all acknowledged that that is what the presidents/chancellors and ADs were deciding between: (1) the new schedule which gives us freedom to play any BCS opponent (not just the straw man Oklahoma people are setting up in this thread); (2) going to 9 conference games and keeping your OOC the same; or (3) Tennessee-Bama and UGA-Auburn as permanent opponents, with everyone else getting no permanent opponents (so 6-1-1 for those 4 schools and 6-2 for everybody else).

Somehow, I suspect Option 3 would have left us playing Georgia/South Carolina more than it would see us playing Kentucky. I think Scott did the right thing guaranteeing that at least one of our East games is an easy one.

[Jack Lambert]

@DellengerAdv 9m
#LSU AD Joe Alleva: "Very disappointed leaders of the SEC disregard competitive advantage that permanent partners award to certain schools."

?@DellengerAdv 8m
Joe Alleva continued: "It is definitely an advantage that should not exist in such a great league." #LSU

?@DellengerAdv 7m
More Alleva: "We share all the revenue and expenses yet we cannot have a balanced, fair, equitable schedule." #LSU

@DellengerAdv 7m
More Alleva: "LSU has played Florida and Georgia 19 times since 2000 and Bama has played them 8 times. Is that fair ?" #LSU

He failed to mention that no other school in the country much less the SEC has played Alabama more than Miss State. We have earned the right to play KY every year.

Side note:

If I was a fan of one of those bigger schools in one of the other big 5 I would not want to play Miss State right now. They are looking for the best path to the National Championship and why risked that with a team like MSU who could beat you and when it comes to one of the smaller schools in the conference they are just like us trying to get to a bowl so why would they risk playing MSU right now.

It's a lose situation for them right now. If they win they were suppose to win and if they lose, they lose a lot.

It is going to be a tall task to schedule that game as long as MSU is on a up swing. Just my opinion.

[War Machine Dawg]

Other than four consecutive bowl games for the first time in our schools history and help us get to two NYD bowl games the past four years. Playing West Virginia did nothing for us except get our brains beat in. Same with Oregon. Same this year with Oklahoma State. People are going to mix us up with Ole Miss no matter what we do and what logo we have. I'm not so sure that ESPN doesn't do it to get our fans to write in about how they screwed up to get a rise out of us. This is the same network that employs Skip Bayless.

We're always going to be a local university. We're never going to be Notre Dame. Just like Iowa State is never going to get a ton of Mississippi kids for football or anything else. The exposure argument is the biggest cop out from the AD's office going back to LT. Normally that's their excuse for doing something questionable. We haven't played Georgia or anyone from Georgia in years- and we still get roughly the same amount of players from there as we always have. And despite not having played there- we lead for the nation's top QB in the 2016 class at the moment.

We are selling out the stadium literally every time- except for the time that Scott decided that playing Kentucky on a Thursday during fall break was a good idea. We don't need to play someone to get their fans to come to Starkville. This is going to cause us to not do the 2 for 1 deals that we can do with Sun Belt teams, which is going to make it more difficult to schedule and more expensive. And on top of that more expensive to take the team on the road.

Standing Slow Clap, Todd. Nailed it.

[War Machine Dawg]

I haven't seen this discussed here, but according to Paul's board, if a team can't find a BCS opponent to play, the SEC will "assist".

Can't wait to see how the SEC assists Scott.** It won't be Wake Forest though.

I'm starting to wonder if we work out a deal with Arizona, will the SEC approve it or will they tell us to play someone else that they want us to play? The more I read, the less and less I like this.

It's going to be:

1. SWAC team
2. Sun Belt team
3. Sun Belt/C-USA team/American conference team
4. Arizona probably/hopefully, but I bet the SEC is going to want us to play some other land grant school/engineering type school like Oklahoma State/Georgia Tech/Kansas State

Yep, nobody "hepps" MSU like LT, who is in charge of scheduling for the SEC. There's no way he'd screw us.****

[Dawg61]

Other than four consecutive bowl games for the first time in our schools history and help us get to two NYD bowl games the past four years. Playing West Virginia did nothing for us except get our brains beat in. Same with Oregon. Same this year with Oklahoma State. People are going to mix us up with Ole Miss no matter what we do and what logo we have. I'm not so sure that ESPN doesn't do it to get our fans to write in about how they screwed up to get a rise out of us. This is the same network that employs Skip Bayless.

We're always going to be a local university. We're never going to be Notre Dame. Just like Iowa State is never going to get a ton of Mississippi kids for football or anything else. The exposure argument is the biggest cop out from the AD's office going back to LT. Normally that's their excuse for doing something questionable. We haven't played Georgia or anyone from Georgia in years- and we still get roughly the same amount of players from there as we always have. And despite not having played there- we lead for the nation's top QB in the 2016 class at the moment.

We are selling out the stadium literally every time- except for the time that Scott decided that playing Kentucky on a Thursday during fall break was a good idea. We don't need to play someone to get their fans to come to Starkville. This is going to cause us to not do the 2 for 1 deals that we can do with Sun Belt teams, which is going to make it more difficult to schedule and more expensive. And on top of that more expensive to take the team on the road.

How much is it worth to have 100 million more people subscribed to the SECNetwork outside of the SEC states? Every month those 100 million more people on top of the 50 million in the SEC states are paying money to the SEC and MSU. So let's do some really bad math here and say the SEC gets a .50$ cut from Comcast per subscriber each month. That's 75 million dollars per month that Comcast pays the SECNetwork. Which gets divided 15 ways. 14 for the universities and 1 for SECN. That's $5 million dollars PER MONTH to MSU. Or $60 million dollars PER YEAR for scheduling Iowa State/Maryland/WSU etc... I'd say it's worth it to drop the Troy's and UAB's of the world for $60 million dollars extra per year. Wouldn't you?

[BulldogBear]

Attention Mr. Alleva,

509

That is all.