From Saturday down South:need to swap A&M and Missouri
[img width=500 height=291.998]https://i.imgur.com/qLu5hwM.png[/img]
From Saturday down South:
(https://i.imgur.com/qLu5hwM.png)
How do you think the 12 team playoff would affect this? I'm sure the SEC will try to place 3-6 teams in there every year. Which would make it easier, pods or divisions?
I like it except the part where LSU gets a bye into the league semi finals every year. I suspect if we have a pod system, that there will be a four team playoff for league championship.So that pretty much guarantees some rematches in the semis and final, doesn't it? Potentially all three games could be rematches in some unlucky years?
The biggest missing rivalry would be Alabama-LSU. It would be a tragedy not to play that game every year. I remember when the Texas-Texas A&M and Oklahoma - Nebraska games were staples of college football. Every change imo makes things worse.Agree, I would choose to save and/or reengage all old traditional college football rivalries, if I were the King of College Football.
The biggest missing rivalry would be Alabama-LSU. It would be a tragedy not to play that game every year. I remember when the Texas-Texas A&M and Oklahoma - Nebraska games were staples of college football. Every change imo makes things worse.If we went to pods then you’d at least play twice in every four years. It’s not like you would do now and play like every 6 years or something.
It's not a big deal to me, but UGA-Auburn is the "Oldest Series in the Deep South", something "they" play up each time they play. That is why they have been linked to date.Cool, then moving Auburn to the same division as UGA makes that an annual divisional game, no need to use up a x-div slot on it.
Maybe we should swap Bama and Arkansas.
Agree, I would choose to save and/or reengage all old traditional college football rivalries, if I were the King of College Football.See, what this looks like is randomly throwing 7 games together just because you want the one at the top to happen.
So if there were divisions instead of pods and Alabama-LSU became a permanent x-div rivalry (like Alabama - Tennessee is currently), what other x-div rivalries would need to be preserved if the divisions looked like this? I've put each team next to a x-div perma-rival but don't know if the OG SEC ones make any sense other than Alabama-LSU as you pointed out, and this is assuming going to a 9-game conference schedule, but I think most pod suggestions assume the same.
East West
Alabama LSU
Auburn Ole Miss
Georgia Miss State
Florida Texas A&M
Kentucky Arkansas
Vanderbilt Missouri
Tennessee Texas
South Carolina Oklahoma
See, what this looks like is randomly throwing 7 games together just because you want the one at the top to happen.
There’s already been lots of rematches in the CCG through the years. 2001 ( or 2002) Texas vs Colorado comes to mind. I know OU has had several rematches although I can’t remember any specifics. Probably because the 2nd game went about like the first. I’m sure the SEC has had some rematches as well.
Why should rematches concern anyone? The problem with the pod scenario would be ties within a pod. I guess that would add another layer of playoffs.I can't speak for anyone else. They concern me because I don't like them, no more nor less than that.
I know about Alabama-Tennessee, what other SEC rivalries would look to be preserved? I'd assume:Auburn-UGA is the ONLY one that is an absolute must. They have played EVERY year in which both fielded a football team. EVER since both started playing football. IOW, using an old Danny Ford triple negative, they ain't never not played.
Florida-Georgia
Ole Miss-MSU
Auburn-Alabama
Tennessee - Vanderbilt
is LSU-Ole Miss still one that the schools care about? Any others that are currently protected x-div games?
why couldnt you use pods to schedule reg season games but at the end of the season pick the two top teams from their record using tie breaker rules if neededI've been repeatedly told that the best 2 teams can't be from the same division, much less the same pod.
and yes that might mean the two top teams are from the same pod so what
I aways thought Bama Auburn was the top rivalryIt is. UGA-AU is the 'other' rivalry that held the SEC hostage back in 1992. It's the longest-standing game in the south. They're 2 programs that while haven't had many NC peaks, they're almost always very good. The lack of "hate" between them is probably due to the interesting dynamic that Auburn's best HC from the past 50 years went to UGA (Dye) and UGA's best HC of the past 50 years went to Auburn (Dooley).
I used to feel the same way. I am still uneasy that a team can get a 2nd bite at the apple. I was very opposed the CFP. Then I realized that I'm really enjoying the football and I don't miss arguing about who is #1.I get your point.
On surlyhorns, most Longhorn fans, for obvious reasons, have a preference for a pod with Texas-OU-Arkansas-Texas A&M.That was my original request as well
They're calling it "The Hate Pod." :)
LSU would push to be in a pod with Texas A&M.I would personally prefer to be in the same pod as LSU. I like the interstate rivalry and I think A&M is a much better match with LSU both historically and culturally.
Which is almost a sure sign something like the LSU/OleMiss/MSU/Mizzou pod is what you'd actually get. Adjust other pods accordingly.
Is Arkansas considered a former helmet? They haven’t been that good since I’ve been a CFb fan starting in the mid 90’s.30 years ago, Arkansas was what Stewart Mandel would call a "Baron"--in the echelon just below the "Kings." Now Arkansas is probably a "Knight," or perhaps just a "Peasant."
Texas under Darrell Royal was very good. They won three NCs and 11 SWC championships under Royal. They were also pretty good when Earl Campbell was running the ball. I think that are a genuine blue blood.Its too bad we cant just throw our helmet out onto the field and the other team just go home
Texas under Darrell Royal was very good. They won three NCs and 11 SWC championships under Royal. They were also pretty good when Earl Campbell was running the ball. I think that are a genuine blue blood.Top 10 in wins and win% are the blue bloods, the helmets. It's about more than one time period of success. That's why Miami and Florida State are no more blue blooded than Minnesota.
Top 10 in wins and win% are the blue bloods, the helmets. It's about more than one time period of success. That's why Miami and Florida State are no more blue blooded than Minnesota.
Do we really have to keep Tennessee as a blue blood?I have been assured they are just a slumbering giant.
Top 10 in wins:
964 - Michigan
931 - Ohio State
929 - Alabama
923 - Texas
918 - Notre Dame
917 - Oklahoma
905 - Nebraska
902 - Penn State
857 - Tennessee
852 - USC
Top 10 in winning percentage:
.730 - Ohio State
.729 - Alabama
.729 - Notre Dame
.727 - Michigan
.726 - Oklahoma
.704 - Texas
.699 - USC
.688 - Nebraska
.688 - Penn State
.669 - Tennessee
Same 10 programs. Georgia and LSU are #11 and #12 on both lists.
You know nothing.
Valar Conferenceghulis.A Longhorn always pays his debts.
A Longhorn always pays his debts.
Equating UT and Lannisters is something I'd probably have thought more to put on Gumps, what with the incest and all, but the filthy-rich thing.....yeah, I can see it.
Except when it comes to Title IX stuff.
After thinking about it, LSU is definitely the (Jon) Snow of the league. He tries to do the right thing,
OU will be House Targaryen. A legit dominant past with a claim to greatness, but while they demand others bend the knee, nobody's listening and nobody wants them in power again.
You can always frame the contest as "Who serves the worst?"
I suppose you could...I agree
As far as I know, we've never had any BBQ concession stands in our stadium. If we did, I wouldn't want to try.
In addition to the normal hot dog/burger/stadium nacho concession stands, we do have a Taco Bell, a Whataburger, and a couple of food trucks including a Mexican/Korean fusion one called "Ch'lantro." Their bulgogi tacos and kimchi fries are fantastic.
I agreeI'd certainly hope not!
They would cook the brisket with liquid smoke
I think it usually is served after being held for some time on a warmer. I'm not sure that harms the flavor. I'd guess ribs are often that way as well, maybe brisket also in many places. Chicken too.Pulled pork holds just fine. It can dry out a little, gotta be careful with the sauce/reserved liquids in a warmer, but it's pretty much made for keeping warm.
Makes sense, Fox Bros. has great brisket. I had their pulled pork combo again last time and it was good, the first time it was mediocre. You get both. Have not tried ribs yet. They have a "kiosk" at another location and I think are opening another full restaurant now. Where they are is not that easy for us to get to today, but worth the effort.
Fat Matt's is near us but I was not impressed with their PP. It is packed nearly all the time, and they have music at night.
Another place called "Community" gets high ratings and dined their once, take out only, it was decent, not superb.
I think I've become too picky maybe.
I'm extremely picky for BBQ. Ten years of owning, working at, and occasionally seemingly living in, a BBQ restaurant in my youth, leaves me no room for tolerating bad or even average BBQ. If it's not great, I don't bother with it.whats the best wood for BBQ?
So this is what the SEC board is to become, huh? Another forum for beer and brisket.Whats that I cant hear ya with all the massive posting going on here
Politics goes on the B1G board, food and drink went on the B12, silence goes on the PAC and ACC (where I've done most of my posting for the past several years), football went on the SEC. Do we move football to the B12 or what?
And which one do I go to for gardening tips, plant propagation, and to complain about my job?
whats the best wood for BBQ?Post oak for beef.
Hickory or Pecan or Mesquite
Im a hickory man
See, I know good BBQ, but I still enjoy it if it's not great. I'm not saying I enjoy it if it's a disaster, but we know the things that makes different types of BBQ imperfect....I guess I'm understanding.
If a brisket is a little dry and I know why, I can make an allowance for that and still enjoy it. If ribs are a little blackened, I get it.
.
The other day, I tried a new place (since I moved, I have lots of new places to try out) called Rudy's. Like a few other places in Phx, it's technically a restaurant, but probably 75% of their business is people ordering meat by the pound as take-out. They cook on-site, obviously, and keep each meat in a metal container to serve it up. I ordered turkey and pulled pork sandwiches. I love me some good turkey. And fortunately, the turkey container was out, so I got a newly-off-the-smoker turkey, freshly sliced.
.
Great pulled pork may have sauce mixed in (may) and shouldn't need any more added. Theirs was pretty good, but better with a little sauce added on. So again, it wasn't great, but I enjoyed it.
So this is what the SEC board is to become, huh? Another forum for beer and brisket.
Politics goes on the B1G board, food and drink went on the B12, silence goes on the PAC and ACC (where I've done most of my posting for the past several years), football went on the SEC. Do we move football to the B12 or what?
And which one do I go to for gardening tips, plant propagation, and to complain about my job?
Rudy's is a chain that originated in Texas, just outside of San Antonio. They have locations all over the state and country now, including several in Austin. It's actually decent, and it's always hot and fresh down here in Texico, never in warming trays. Pulled right off the pit and sliced in front of you. In fact, many locations even have a "Cutter's Cam" that shows all activity occurring on the cutting board, and is displayed on a TV out in the line queue waiting area.There's a Rudy's in Norman. It is, as you say, decent. But there's better BBQ in Norman.
There's a Rudy's in Norman. It is, as you say, decent. But there's better BBQ in Norman.Well then obviously it sucks. :)
It's where Lincoln Riley and Bob Stoops before him have done their weekly in-season radio shows.
Yeah there's better BBQ than Rudy's in most towns where a Rudy's is located, but I'll give them credit for serving a very consistent product throughout the day, and across all geographic locations (that I've ever been to, anyway).That's a fair analysis.
That kind of consistency is hard enough to get at one location, where you're only serving lunch. But to have store hours from morning to night, and at dozens of chain locations across the states, and serve a consistent product, is pretty darn impressive. They've got their process down pat.
I find in Texas that most BBQ joints, chain or local, have a pretty acceptable product. Maybe not as good as you can do in your backyard, but good enough for me. What's odd is that there aren't nearly as many BBQ places in Louisiana as I'd assume, given how many people like to eat BBQ. Louisiana is overrun with Mexican restaurants these days. Go figure.That describes Georgia as well, oddly enough.
That's a fair analysis.Definitely.
Rib Crib fits the "consistency" description, I think. I offer no opinion about its merits relative to Rudy's, as I've only eaten at a Rudy's once, and at Rib Crib not more than once every 2-3 years.
When there's better available at a similar price, I generally choose the better.
Can we discuss toilet paper?I really am a TP expert in effect. Some TP is mostly eucalyptus fiber, from Brazil.
Definitely.Yep.
Or, alternatively, the one where you don't have to stand in line for 4 hours to get served...
Sonny's BBQ | Home (sonnysbbq.com) (https://www.sonnysbbq.com/)I love Sonny's - it's a staple in Gainesville.
This is the main chain in GA. It's "OK". They have something called "Red Neck Egg Rolls" which are like Chinese rolls, but with Q and slaw.
God I hope not. Playing Mizzou is about as exciting as watching the grass grow. The games between us are yawners.The graphic I posted doesn't have y'all playing Mizzou. It does have you playing Arkansas. And Texas and LSU.
I have no interest in playing Arkansas either. They've been in the SEC over 30 years and have literally done nothing or next to nothing. Don't get me wrong, our games are exciting, but they just don't excite me as an opponent. Even our god awful '22 squad beat them for chrissakes !
As I said, I prefer LSU and Ole Miss. IMO LSU is a 21st Century Blue Blood, or 21BB, and we've had some really great and exciting games with them even if they come out on the W side more than we do. I just enjoy watching our games, and they're not far geographically to College Station. Ole Miss is exciting, and they can knock off anyone at anytime. They're enough of a perennial up-and-comer that I enjoy watching their games even when we don't play.
So my order of permanent rivals are LSU, UT, OM, Auburn, UF, UGa, Bama, OU, and then the rest really all tie for last. SCar, Mizzou, Kentucky....bleh. I could go for UTenn in my top 5, they're fun to play most of the time.
The graphic I posted doesn't have y'all playing Mizzou. It does have you playing Arkansas. And Texas and LSU.My bad, got my Tigahs mixed up !
Obviously it's not official by any means, just some internet fodder.
And like I've said, UT's preferences are pretty easy. Don't know if we'd get all three, but I'd be surprised if they don't set us up to play both OU and A&M annually.
I'm sitting here wondering WTF they have us playing Arizona as a permanent non-con, and then I realize what team it is.
Touche'.
Heh... this particular graphic came from the twitter account of UT proponent and longtime ag-fun-poker Kyle Umlang. I think the sole reason he posted it was for the purpose of taking one jab at the ags. He's that kind of guy. :)Yeah when I saw that I knew it was made up bullshit. No way either A&M would want to play tech for a long, long time.
What's more alarming is having Texas Tech listed as a permanent OOC rival for Texas. Um, no thanks.
I'm sitting here wondering WTF they have us playing Arizona as a permanent non-con, and then I realize what team it is.Ooh. . . .
Touche'.
Well now that the the move is officially set for the 2024/5 season, let the speculation resume!This is both decent and realistic.
While acknowledging that 16 team conferences are unwieldy and pretty much awful for scheduling, I think the least of all evils is the 3+6+6 format. Three permanent rivals, and then playing home-and-home with 6 schools for two years, and then switching to the other 6 during the two years after that.
That format maintains a lot of the longstanding rivalries, but also offers the chance to play EVERY school in the conference for at least 2 of every 4 years.
I'm certain that a million of these proposed rivalry scenarios will be produced between now and the time the 2024 schedule is released, but here's one dude from the internet's opinion on the matter, in nice graphical form:
(https://i.imgur.com/bPie4as.png)