Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 57

Thread: SEC rumored to be going to pods for football

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,325
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve View Post
    Pod 1: State, OM, A&M, LSU

    Pod 2: Texas, OU, Arky, Mizzou

    Pod 3: Auburn, Bama, UT, Vandy

    Pod 4: Florida, USCe, Georgia, UK


    A&M will not let UT be in the same pod as them. I feel like this will be a concession the SEC will give them. I still think A&M and Texas will play I just think it will be every two years instead of every year.

    Vandy is obviously the team that gets screwed in all of this, but it is either going to be them or UK that ends up in the pod with Bama, Auburn, and UT. And the other pod with Florida and UGA is not much better.

    As others have stated I think you take the top two teams in football and that is your SEC championship. For baseball I think you will see the regular 30 game SEC conference weekend schedule with 3 two game midweek series thrown in for a 36 game conference schedule. Basketball you just play all the teams in your pod twice and then play everyone else one time.
    Why does A&M get a concession though? Their vote wasn't needed for this to happen and the SEC has done a lot more for them than they've done for the SEC. Texas and Texas A&M should play every year. Period. If either of them don't like it, too damn bad. Nut up and play.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,227
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverCityDawg View Post
    Why does A&M get a concession though? Their vote wasn't needed for this to happen and the SEC has done a lot more for them than they've done for the SEC. Texas and Texas A&M should play every year. Period. If either of them don't like it, too damn bad. Nut up and play.
    I don't think it's a concession for A&M but for OU and UT. OU and UT are going to want to keep their rivalry. If you put OU, UT, and A&M in a pod, that's by name and reputation (and money) the biggest pod. Obviously UT hasn't been good lately and it's questionable how OU would stack up against SEC competition, so it's won't necessarily be out of balance as far as actual competition, but OU and UT are going to be treated like Bama and UGA as far as protecting the brand.

    I think OU, UT, Mizzou, and Arkansas is a reasonably likely pod. Have old Big 12/Southwest connections and it gives OU and UT as soft of a base to their schedule as you can reasonably have in the SEC.

  3. #23
    Senior Member StarkVegasSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,979
    vCash
    98074
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverCityDawg View Post
    Why does A&M get a concession though? Their vote wasn't needed for this to happen and the SEC has done a lot more for them than they've done for the SEC. Texas and Texas A&M should play every year. Period. If either of them don't like it, too damn bad. Nut up and play.
    Why do they have to play every year? They have all this hate pent up, more on the A&M side than the Texas side. I think it would be great if they only played every two to three years. I think it makes the game more interesting. Kind of like how Bama/Florida was a big game back in the late 2000s. Oklahoma will always be Texas' real rival and that's the only team they have to absolutely play every year. I also think Arky/Texas is going to be a great rivalry once Texas joins. Arky fans HATE Texas way worse than A&M or Oklahoma does.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Tater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    633
    vCash
    3000
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    I think the problem with your approach is that it makes it almost impossible to maintain balanced schedules. You are going to have imbalanced schedules regardless, but the pods make it easier to balance them the best you can based on traditional strength.

    But at the least, you can't preserve say, Ole Miss v. Vandy. Can't give them LSU, State, and Vandy each year without them having a pretty big advantage. Similarly, you probably can't preserve Bama, UGA, and Florida for Auburn. Just guarantees they are going to have a harder schedule on average.
    The conference can't operate with that thought in mind. You have to treat each school equally. Schools will cycle even if it doesn't feel like it. 15 years ago you'd look at that and say State has the easiest 3. Because Bama was floundering, UK was a joke, and OM is meh.

    I opted for games that should be played every year. There are some room for tweaks but I don't see any major game losses on here.

    By team, their next pick:
    Bama - LSU
    Auburn - LSU
    Georgia - Tennessee
    Tennessee - Florida
    Florida - Tennessee
    State - LSU
    OM - Bama
    LSU - State or Bama
    Texas - Mizzou
    OU - A&M
    A&M - OU
    Mizzou - Texas
    Kentucky - Vandy
    Vandy - Kentucky
    SCar - Kentucky
    Ark - LSU

    Not many games you lose with this one. LSU is the hardest to deal with because they are everyone's 4th / 5th rival.
    "I'm not doing this for your entertainment. I'm doing this for my entertainment. You just happen to be here."

  5. #25
    Bennie Brown Know-It-All
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,215
    vCash
    3138
    Texas A&M and Texas will 100 % be in the same POD. That's going to happen. We will be in a pod with Ole Miss, LSU and probably Arkansas (but maybe someone else). TV isn't going to allow traditional rivalries like state/om, bama/au, or A&M/Texas not happen, no matter what anyone wants or doesn't want.

  6. #26
    Bennie Brown Know-It-All
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,215
    vCash
    3138
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    I don't think it's a concession for A&M but for OU and UT. OU and UT are going to want to keep their rivalry. If you put OU, UT, and A&M in a pod, that's by name and reputation (and money) the biggest pod. Obviously UT hasn't been good lately and it's questionable how OU would stack up against SEC competition, so it's won't necessarily be out of balance as far as actual competition, but OU and UT are going to be treated like Bama and UGA as far as protecting the brand.

    I think OU, UT, Mizzou, and Arkansas is a reasonably likely pod. Have old Big 12/Southwest connections and it gives OU and UT as soft of a base to their schedule as you can reasonably have in the SEC.

    I don't have a lot of money but I'd bet most of it OU, UT, and A&M are all 3 in a pod together.

  7. #27
    Senior Member bulldawg28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,807
    vCash
    3700
    I'd rather play Texas than A&M. Texas sucks in football.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    36,438
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve View Post
    Pod 1: State, OM, A&M, LSU

    Pod 2: Texas, OU, Arky, Mizzou

    Pod 3: Auburn, Bama, UT, Vandy

    Pod 4: Florida, USCe, Georgia, UK


    A&M will not let UT be in the same pod as them. I feel like this will be a concession the SEC will give them. I still think A&M and Texas will play I just think it will be every two years instead of every year.

    Vandy is obviously the team that gets screwed in all of this, but it is either going to be them or UK that ends up in the pod with Bama, Auburn, and UT. And the other pod with Florida and UGA is not much better.

    As others have stated I think you take the top two teams in football and that is your SEC championship. For baseball I think you will see the regular 30 game SEC conference weekend schedule with 3 two game midweek series thrown in for a 36 game conference schedule. Basketball you just play all the teams in your pod twice and then play everyone else one time.
    I would love for the SEC to have midweek conference games. Would be great for TV because you would have Tues/Weds series and then the Thurs/Fri/Sat series and then the Fri/Sat/Sun series. Monday would be the only day without a conference game.

    I'd even be cool with a 40 game SEC schedule for baseball. 30 on the weekend and then 10 midweek series against the other five teams.

  9. #29
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,252
    vCash
    30229710
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd4State View Post
    I would love for the SEC to have midweek conference games. Would be great for TV because you would have Tues/Weds series and then the Thurs/Fri/Sat series and then the Fri/Sat/Sun series. Monday would be the only day without a conference game.

    I'd even be cool with a 40 game SEC schedule for baseball. 30 on the weekend and then 10 midweek series against the other five teams.
    I support that too, but we need larger scholarship limits so that we can have 5 SEC quality starting pitchers

  10. #30
    Senior Member Saltydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,884
    vCash
    3706
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldawg28 View Post
    I'd rather play Texas than A&M. Texas sucks in football.
    Not sure that trend will hold true for the long haul......
    "The QB and the receiver weren't on the same page there, but hey its only week eleven". (Jack Cristil)

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    7,681
    vCash
    1003100
    I would bet money it is

    1: Texas-A&M-Arky-OU
    2: State-OM-LSU-Bama
    3:Auburn-UGA-UF-SC
    4-UT-UK-VU-MZ

  12. #32
    Bennie Brown Know-It-All
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    3,215
    vCash
    3138
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckyIsAB**** View Post
    I would bet money it is

    1: Texas-A&M-Arky-OU
    2: State-OM-LSU-Bama
    3:Auburn-UGA-UF-SC
    4-UT-UK-VU-MZ
    Auburn and Alabama are going to be in the same
    Pod.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    1,243
    vCash
    3000
    That seems like a really easy Pod for UK as long as Stoops stays there. I think that would cause too big of a backlash.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,325
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    I don't think it's a concession for A&M but for OU and UT. OU and UT are going to want to keep their rivalry. If you put OU, UT, and A&M in a pod, that's by name and reputation (and money) the biggest pod. Obviously UT hasn't been good lately and it's questionable how OU would stack up against SEC competition, so it's won't necessarily be out of balance as far as actual competition, but OU and UT are going to be treated like Bama and UGA as far as protecting the brand.

    I think OU, UT, Mizzou, and Arkansas is a reasonably likely pod. Have old Big 12/Southwest connections and it gives OU and UT as soft of a base to their schedule as you can reasonably have in the SEC.
    First of all, Texas and OU came to us, they don't get concessions either.

    But that aside, what you describe is just another reason why there shouldn't be pods. It would be very easy to have Texas play both OU and A&M AND maintain competitive balance if you just assign three permanent opponents instead of forcing this pod idea.

    I've yet to see one credible argument for pods over three permanents. It's literally the same as pods except with flexibility to keep more traditional matchups and maintain more competitive balance.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,325
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve View Post
    Why do they have to play every year? They have all this hate pent up, more on the A&M side than the Texas side. I think it would be great if they only played every two to three years. I think it makes the game more interesting. Kind of like how Bama/Florida was a big game back in the late 2000s. Oklahoma will always be Texas' real rival and that's the only team they have to absolutely play every year. I also think Arky/Texas is going to be a great rivalry once Texas joins. Arky fans HATE Texas way worse than A&M or Oklahoma does.
    What? Playing annually does not reduce the hate or interest in the game, it increases it. That's why rivalry games are so highly anticipated each year. Those schools' fans want it, but more than that people across the country want it. They'll tune into Texas vs A&M long before they will Texas vs Missouri or A&M vs Arkansas. The rivalry games get big numbers and those teams should do their part in playing those games.

    I agree with your thoughts on Texas and Arkansas. I'd like to see them play every year too.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Dawgtini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,259
    vCash
    4075
    Quote Originally Posted by Cooterpoot View Post
    It's not just a rumor. It's going to happen. But I'm sure we'll get screwed with AL or OK along with LSU.
    We should get ARK, LSU, and TSUN screw what Aggie wants. Arkansas been in SEC a lot longer and they don't want the big12/SWC pod stink either. Put OK, Tex, ATM, and MZ in a pod and make them like it.

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,227
    vCash
    3400
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverCityDawg View Post
    First of all, Texas and OU came to us, they don't get concessions either.

    But that aside, what you describe is just another reason why there shouldn't be pods. It would be very easy to have Texas play both OU and A&M AND maintain competitive balance if you just assign three permanent opponents instead of forcing this pod idea.

    I've yet to see one credible argument for pods over three permanents. It's literally the same as pods except with flexibility to keep more traditional matchups and maintain more competitive balance.
    You can do three permanents, but most people you see listing rivalries they want to maintain are big names. Nobody gives a shit who Vandy plays. And they really don't give that much of a shit who State or Ole Miss plays. So if you find permanent rivals for Vandy, Mizzou, UK, etc., and you try to make schedules reasonably balanced, you end up with something that will look a lot like the pods. There is some additional flexibility with the permanent opponents approach, I'm just not sure it's going to be as different from the pod approach as people imagine.

    You're just not going to keep for example, Bama having Auburn, UT, and LSU as permanents. You're going to pick the two most important and then you're going to have to spread out the teams that don't have rivalries people care about so that everybody has three permanents.

    I mean, I'd love it if the TV partners convinced the SEC that they would pay more if they would make Bama play UGA, Auburn, and LSU as permanents and let us have Ole Miss, UK, and Vandy as permanents, but I think the big name schools are going to resist loading up their schedule. But I could be wrong. They basically matched up strengths with the prior permanent opponents, with Ole getting Vandy, us getting UK, Ark getting USCe (prior to expansion). I'm just not sure they're going to want three blue blood matchups every year plus a reasonable chance of drawing a fourth or even fifth from the remaining teams.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Coach34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    26,066
    vCash
    2610
    The SEC is going to do whats best for the money makers in the conference. Bama, Georgia, LSU, Fla, Tenn, A&M, Texas, and OU will get the biggest bennies

    My prediction:

    OU, Texas, Mizzou, UPig
    Fla, Georgia, SC, Vandy
    Bama, Auburn, Tenn, Kentucky
    LSU, State, Mississippi, A&M
    Walk like the King or walk like you don't care who the King is

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,325
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnson85 View Post
    You can do three permanents, but most people you see listing rivalries they want to maintain are big names. Nobody gives a shit who Vandy plays. And they really don't give that much of a shit who State or Ole Miss plays. So if you find permanent rivals for Vandy, Mizzou, UK, etc., and you try to make schedules reasonably balanced, you end up with something that will look a lot like the pods. There is some additional flexibility with the permanent opponents approach, I'm just not sure it's going to be as different from the pod approach as people imagine.

    You're just not going to keep for example, Bama having Auburn, UT, and LSU as permanents. You're going to pick the two most important and then you're going to have to spread out the teams that don't have rivalries people care about so that everybody has three permanents.

    I mean, I'd love it if the TV partners convinced the SEC that they would pay more if they would make Bama play UGA, Auburn, and LSU as permanents and let us have Ole Miss, UK, and Vandy as permanents, but I think the big name schools are going to resist loading up their schedule. But I could be wrong. They basically matched up strengths with the prior permanent opponents, with Ole getting Vandy, us getting UK, Ark getting USCe (prior to expansion). I'm just not sure they're going to want three blue blood matchups every year plus a reasonable chance of drawing a fourth or even fifth from the remaining teams.
    Even if you only pick two rivalries for each team that most care about, the three permanent approach is still better than pods.

    No system is going to make everyone happy, but the rigidity of pods is going to make fewer people happy than if you just assigned sensible permanent opponents.

    If it ends up close to being pods fine, but giving up several classic matchups and having a little less competitive balance just for the sake of doing this media trendy thing called "pods" doesn't make any sense.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,150
    vCash
    3000
    First, the closest thing to a rival for Vandy is Ole Miss, not Tennessee. And actually UT-Knox and UK aren?t a strong rivalry. Knoxville considers Bama and Flarda their rivals.

    Second, with the Pod system, you cannot split Bama and Auburn, but no way with Oklahoma and Texas coming can you still have some sort of East-West thing having UMO in the East and both Bama and Auburn on the West side. Keep the East-West format, put Bama and Auburn in the East so they can play Flarda and Jawja every year, and have Okla, Tex, and Missouri in the West.

    I am also concerned about the POD system but there are some historical matchups that just aren?t that important and don?t have to be played every year. Everybody should get a shot at Vandy every 2 years though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.