Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

Miles Backs Spurrier: Only Division Games Should Count

Steve Spurrier and a group of South Carolina fans have found a friend outside the Palmetto State.  LSU head coach Les Miles told a group in Birmingham today that he’s in favor of the SEC’s divisional champs being decided by division games only:

 

“I want the schedule to be fair and I want it to give everybody the same opportunity.  I’m for the Western Division deciding the Western Division champion and the Eastern Division deciding the Eastern Division champion.”

 

And there you have it — two SEC coaches are now in favor of making cross-divisional SEC games meaningless.  Totally meaningless.  Exhibitions actually.

Miles says he wants the schedules to be fair.  Well, then he should be in favor of a 13-game round-robin format in which every SEC team plays every other SEC team.  That or he should favor just going back to the six-game schedule of old with only games against division foes on the docket.  (In reality, those scenarios wouldn’t be fair either because some teams would play at home and some on the road and some would meet pre-injuries, some post-injuries, etc.)

Personally, I’m tired of writing about this subject because it’s so utterly ridiculous.

If the SEC wants to become the only major league — college or pro — in America to not count all its games, fine.  Might as well.  I’m already on record as saying the SEC is being flat-out cowardly when it comes to avoiding a ninth conference game.  What’s a little more nonsense?

If Mike Slive and his presidents are content to let the league’s athletic directors do what’s best for themselves rather than what’s best for the league as a whole, then why not add more cupcakes to the nonconference portion of the schedule and stop counting or even playing cross-divisional league games?  Hell, perhaps they can get the folks with the BCS computers and the poll voters not to count those games, either.

“Loss?  What loss?  That exhibition with Alabama didn’t count in the SEC standings so it shouldn’t count in the BCS rankings!”

Jon Solomon of The Birmingham News was on hand for Miles’ engagement today and he has more on the ongoing soap opera that is the SEC’s struggle to put together a new schedule format.  An SEC vote at the end of the month can’t get here soon enough for this writer.  Time for this story to be put to bed.  Regardless of the final decisions.

 

SIDENOTE — Miles also managed to chuck a little warning in the direction of SEC newcomers Missouri and Texas A&M, today: “I would say strap it up.  They’re going to really not enjoy their welcoming to this conference.”

 

 


64 comments
jwolfe
jwolfe

to 10vol85, your point is that the historical match-ups would have changed.  1. in those contests there were less games within the division.  2. Is the conference trying to find the best team in the division (only by division play)?    or the best two teams in the conference (everyone plays everyone)?  , or the best two teams in the conference (impossible because non SEC opponents will always be significantly different.   Respectfully submitted there is nothing legit half way between these accepted conference ideas and nobody else in the country is going to respect anything  half way as legit.  The SEC is not the only conference to face this scrutiny and no matter who does it the outcome is viewed as questionable.   Deciding a division by games within the division cannot be questioned, it is clear and logical.

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @jwolfe

 Actually, there was no point except to present the data.  Since there are 20 years of division play, it gives a reasonable look at how the two different methods of determining division play compare in practice.  For the record, though, I am for only division games counting.

jwolfe
jwolfe

 @10Vol85 So what do you expect the Vols to do in the division this year and who will be the new key players on offense and defense there?  Who are the teams the Vols will be favored by the talking heads to defeat?  Is there a division team that seems to beat the Vols in spite of having a questionable match up?  Is there a golden child in the east the media seems to promote more than anyone else?  When you compare officiating in the SEC east to the bowl games, does anything seem different?

10Vol85
10Vol85

It's probably pointless to post this here now since 1) John is not a proponent and 2) it's off the front page.  Maybe someone else of significance will weigh in and MRSEC will be compelled to write another piece.  Nonetheless, I was curious how this proposal would've played out over the last 20 years and thought I would share.  I'll give MRSEC credit in that he will often go to the trouble of compiling data of a similar nature where most sites will just regurgitate the news and offer opinion.  ESPN is the worst if you consider their vast resources.  Following is a list of SEC seasons in which utilizing the divisional record instead of the conference record would have changed the division representative.  Records for SEC teams are (division / conference / regular season).  Records for non-SEC teams are for the entire season.  Post-season games are not noted in other losses.  6 out of a possible 40 teams (15%) would have been altered.  Not surprisingly, the weaker championship game participant would have been more often affected (5 of 6).

 

1992 Alabama 28 Florida 21

Tennessee (4-1 / 5-3 / 8-3) would have replaced Florida (4-1 / 6-2 / 8-3)

Reason: head-to-head tiebreaker - Tennessee 31 Florida 14

Non-divisional common opponents:  LSU (2-9) lost to TN & FL.

Other losses:

Tennessee to SC (5-6), Ark (3-7-1), and AL (11-0)

Florida to MSU (7-5) and Florida St.  (11-1)

 

1993 Florida 28 Alabama 13

LSU (3-2 / 3-5 / 5-6) would have replaced Alabama (3-2 / 5-2-1 / 8-2-1)

Reason: head-to-head tiebreaker – LSU 17 Alabama 13.

Non-divisional common opponents:  Tennessee (9-1-1) defeated LSU, tied AL

Other losses:

LSU to Auburn (11-0), Ark (5-5-1),  TN (9-1-1), FL (9-2), KY (6-5), Texas A&M (10-2)

AL to Auburn (11-0)

Other:  Auburn (5-0 / 8-0 / 11-0) was ineligible.  Auburn defeated champ FL in the regular season.  This is only year to feature a team with 2 division losses in the title game.

 

1995 Florida 34 Arkansas 3

LSU (4-1 / 4-3-1 / 6-4-1) would have replaced Arkansas (4-1 / 6-2 / 8-3)

Reason: head-to-head tiebreaker: LSU 28 Arkansas 0

Non-divisional common opponents:  S. Carolina (4-6-1) tied LSU, lost to Arkansas

Other losses:

LSU to AL (8-3), FL (11-0), KY (4-7), Texas A&M (9-3)

Arkansas to  TN (10-1), S. Methodist (1-10)

 

2002 Georgia 30 Arkansas 3

Florida (5-0 / 6-2 / 8-4) would have replaced Georgia (4-1 / 7-1 / 11-1)

Reason: better division record

Head-to-head:  Florida 20 Georgia 13

Non-divisional common opponents:  Mississippi (6-6) defeated FL, lost to GA; Auburn (8-4) Lost to both.

Other losses:

Florida to LSU (8-4), Miami (12-1), and Florida St. (9-5)

Georgia none

Other:  This is only year that where the championship winner would have been replaced.

 

2007 LSU 21 Tennessee 14

Florida (4-1 / 5-3 / 9-3) would have replaced Tennessee (4-1 / 6-2 / 9-3)

Reason:  head-to-head tiebreaker – Florida 59 Tennessee 20

Non-divisional common opponents:  LSU(10-2)  lost to TN, defeated FL

Other losses:

Florida to GA (10-2), Aub (8-4)

Tennessee to AL (6-6), California (7-6)

 

2011 LSU 42 Georgia 10

S. Carolina (5-0 / 6-2 / )would have replaced Georgia  (4-1 / 7-1 / )

Reason:  better division record

Head-to-head:  S. Carolina 45 Georgia 42

Non-divisional common opponents:  Auburn (7-5) beat S. Carolina, lost to Georgia; Mississippi St. (6-6) lost to both.

Other losses:

S. Carolina to Arkansas (10-2)

Georgia to Boise St. (12-1)

Guest
Guest

I would rather cross-divisional games count but would also like to do away with the static "rivalry" games.   Miles and Spurrier know Alabama will never give up the Tennessee game so they see this as an alternate solution.  The team that gets Vanderbilt or Ole Miss as their static game will always have an easier schedule than the team that gets LSU or Alabama.  That is where the unfairness originates.  If the cross divisional games truly rotated, then a team having an easier slate would be tolerable as they will have a tough slate eventually. 

10Vol85
10Vol85

Think about this.  If you don't count cross-divisional games in the standings, you would have a lot more flexibility in how you schedule them.  There would be no need (other than insuring enough TV game) to put everyone on a similar rotation.  You could vary the permanent games by team or even the number of games.

10Vol85
10Vol85

*number of permanent games

jwolfe
jwolfe

As for the Miles comment.  If anyone should be able to tell someone else that they are intend to make them 'strap it up', it should be an opposing coach.  But wait a minute Miles knows he is not an opposing coach to Missouri.  So I guess he only provided Texas A&M players with the best kind of game week reading material.  If Missouri would win the East however and if Miles would survive calling A&M out, then i guess Miles might have made game week for his team before the biggest conference game of the year also just a little bit tougher.  Anyone who doesn't strap up to play D-I football is not going to make it past their first few plays.  As for the enjoying it part, some players like it hot and don't play well or have as much fun in something less than a tough conference game.  Missouri played a lot of ranked teams last year and it sure looked like they were having fun to me.  Texas A&M lost a lot of close games last year just like Missouri and it sure looked like they were having fun.  A Missouri defensive player called out Texas last year, it made the papers in every Texas market,  He and his team-mates made it stick allowing zero touchdowns.  Personally I would never presume to talk for the team I support, I sure wouldn't presume to talk for the conference that team plays in.  Missouri and Texas A&M fans, coaches, and certainly the players are being appropriately optimistic and gentlemen about the upcoming season.  College football is the greatest sport of all time, may the best team win.

jwolfe
jwolfe

Every game a football team plays counts to the players personal season record, to the coaches season and institution and conference and lifetime record, it counts to the all time record of the university, it counts to the series record with the opponent, it counts toward national ranking, it counts toward fans having a great time attending the game, it counts toward those who watch on tv, it counts on campus and in the media and anywhere anybody talks about the game, it counts toward media wanting to broadcast future games, it counts toward seniors getting pro offers, it counts toward the players keeping their starting positions.

NOW  TELL ME AGAIN WHY CROSS DIVISIONAL CONTESTS COULD SOMEHOW BE MEANINGLESS IF THEY WERE NOT COUNTED TOWARD WINNING A DIVISION?  On the other hand how can you decide a division championship based on games against teams that don't even play in that division??  If you look in the dictionary for the hypen-ated word "no-brainer" the example given will be changing this brainless system.

Statesman
Statesman

Easy solution to Spurrier & Miles recommendation.  Put the point system in place.  Divisional games count as 1-full point, while cross divisional games count as a half or fractional point.  In  case of a tie  with total points, then the head to head competitition determines the winner.  This allows both divisional & cross divisional games to count.  The uneven schedule will require a "non-traditional"-(Calipari's world) to thinking.

MoKelly
MoKelly

So, why would the Coach make the "strap it up" comment to Mizzou and A&M? Seems out-of-place and somewhat mean-spirited. Obviously, everyone will strap it up and play. Just let the games be played and in the end we will see who is happy and who is not happy. Gosh, I have extra incentive to see Arkansas win over Thanksgiving this year!

OldArmy
OldArmy like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @MoKelly Well, taking the emotions out of it, Miles is correct. A&M and Mizzou are going to have to pull their trousers up, tighten their belts and play harder. Dumb thing to say, and it will be used by the newbies to get their teams fired up. Not a diplomatic, or smart, thing to say. But its true.

pseudonymion
pseudonymion

Completely stupid to not count cross-divisional SEC games.  Schedules are set well in advance (this year's conference expansion being an exception) and teams ebb or rise in relative power across the years.  This sets up a scenario where a team with an overall weaker record would play in the SEC championship game over a team with a better overall record (but less within that particular division).  Why make the overall SEC product weaker in the national picture?  This is typical rhetoric from a traditional whiner (Spurrier) and a non-rocket scientist (Miles -- good recruiter though (credit where credits due)).

viciousdawg
viciousdawg

I didn't hear Spurrier and Miles complaining when they got the softer schedule.

OtownGator
OtownGator like.author.displayName 1 Like

This is really simple. Keep the current system in place for selecting division winners with one new rule. If you beat every team in your divison you go regards of your sec overall record. If you beat every team in your division you deserve to represent your division in the SEC CG, regards of your overall SEC record.

XIlarf
XIlarf

 @OtownGator That makes sense to me and is perfectly logical.  What some seem to miss is that this would be the one and only scenario in which cross-divisional games would be rendered less significant/meaningful.  You still have an overall record that counts for rankings and possible playoff scenarios.  And if no one is undefeated in their conference the existing rules still apply.

 

Also, starting this season the worst a team that is undefeated within it's conference could be is 6-2, not 5-3 as in the past.  The odds that a 6-2 team is better than a 7-1 team that lost to them is pretty darn high,  Tired of the 5-3 vs 7-1 argument, it is invalid now.

 

Will it happen?  Highly friggin doubtful.

 

Would it be more fair if every team played it's 6 divisional rivals and 6 of the 7 cross-divisional teams?  That would be much more "fair" as far as determining the best team in the conference, but the SEC doesn't want to go to a 9 game schedule much less a 12 game schedule.

Secbeast
Secbeast

Tell how Georgia's schedule compares to other east teams! It is a joke.

10Vol85
10Vol85

From below:  "2.  There is no such thing as a "fair" schedule.  The idea of trying to create a "fair" schedule is laughable.  Unless every team plays every other team on the exact same date, in the exact same place, with the exact same roster, in the exact same weather conditions, there are advantages and disadvantages to any and all schedules."

 

1.  Of course "there is no such thing as a 'fair' schedule" but are not some schedules more fair than others?  For that matter, you can't create a perfectly fair game but does that stop the NCAA from changing ends of the field and swapping kickoffs in each half to make games more fair.

 

2.  This is a tangential point but to touch on another subject, it is also laughable to think that a poll or computer can identify the best 4 teams in college football.  I have seen many statements to the effect of "it's simple - just take the top 4 teams and have a playoff".  To take college football, which has conferences scattered across the country with very little meaningful interconference play, most of which, excepting bowls is very early in the season and then to think you have any degree of statistical certainty of who the best 4 teams is the absolute definition of laughable and absurd.

btm
btm

This John fellow sure does get emotional.

OldArmy
OldArmy

Been reading some of the "you're a Spurrier hater, no I'm not, stupid idea, no it's not, don't shoot the messenger, shoot the next guy who brings this up" comments here. I think folks need to remember we are talking about Spurrier here. He's one of the smartest and best coaches in the country. He's also a hyper active guy. He's also a guy who has been known to say things just a tad faster than his brain has finished thinking it through. A lot of very smart people do this, but God bless the guy, he also has a bit of a temper, and he likes to win.

 

Oh hell, lets face it, the guy is consumed with winning. He's just like a 150 pound pit bull with the nervous system of a chihuahua. I don't think Spurrier has ever encountered a problem he did not immediately have 7 solutions he knew would work. This is one of those times. And Steve knows he got close this year. And if you have watched Spurrier for as long as I have, nothing, and I mean nothing, will drive that man harder, and to look for and experiment with more solutions to a problem, than getting close. Nothing.

 

I don't think for a minute Spurrier believes this is a suggestion that will get anywhere. But he's Spurrier, and he's gonna try all 7 of those solutions, all the time, at the same time if he has to, to make sure he does not just get close again.

 

Just my take on why this even came up.

Brazos
Brazos

 @OldArmy He's also been rewarded in the past for being the squeaky wheel - when his whining over late hits in the Florida -Florida State game in 1996 resulted in him sliding into a rematch with Florida State in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship,  Don't think for one second he wouldn't have been on the flip side of that coin in the original result was in his favor.  He is intense, he is a hell of a competitor and highly entertaining but he is like a petulant child whose parents always give him the lollipop when he cries.  Obviously, this isn't going anywhere but he enjoys whipping up his fanatical masses even when he doesn't believe his own words.  Spurrier wasn't talking about how unfair Georgia's schedule was in 2008 when they played both Alabama and LSU in the rotating schedule.  That's life in the SEC.  Florida won a couple national championships while they were in the weak rotation on SEC West teams.  Again, that's life in the SEC.  Take way that importance of the cross divisional games and the national respect for the SEC being such a meat-grinder conference is certainly diminished.  

OldArmy
OldArmy

Agreed, especially your last sentence.

10Vol85
10Vol85 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I'd rather be right than in the wrong-thinking minority.  I've been complaining about the inter-conference games counting for a long time.  I commented on one of your earlier articles on scheduling possibilities before this was even brought up by Spurrier.  You didn't engage me  (apparently because you think it is so dumb), though I would've loved to engage in civil debate.  Generally, fairer  is better.  I'm in favor of any change that brings us closer to teams winning it on the field instead of by vote or by schedule.  Your argument that inter-divisional games would no longer be meaningful is dumb as I might add is the constantly pitched claim that college football is so great because every game in the regular season matters.  There were still fans in the stadiums last year for TN, KY, Vandy. and others' games though the only games that mattered in the NC race were their losses to AL and LSU.   So I guess the games matter to some.  I'm a Tennessee fan, not an LSU or USC fan.  Divisional game standings would've cost Tennessee in 2007.  (FL would've landed it instead of TN).  I don't care.  You're unwilling to engage in reasonable debate on this matter and are quite emotional on the matter for someone who slams you're readers for being unreasonable homers.

10Vol85
10Vol85

And, just to be fair (in case you want to use my comments against me), my comments to which I was referring are in "SEC A.D.'s Ready to Start Schedule Talks" - Feb. 29. 

10Vol85
10Vol85 like.author.displayName 1 Like

To each their opinion but I have a problem with you calling it goofy, etc.  The only case you have made is that it devalues non-divisional games.  Well, there hasn't been a season yet where all games are valued equally.  You think Tennessee would only play 3rd teamers against Alabama if it didn't have as much weight in the standings?

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

10Vol85...

 

I've made the same cases time and again on this site:

 

 

1.  Why play league games if they don't count?  While the fact that no one else in the world does is doesn't impress you, it does me.  If it were a good system, I think someone would have gone to it.

 

2.  There is no such thing as a "fair" schedule.  The idea of trying to create a "fair" schedule is laughable.  Unless every team plays every other team on the exact same date, in the exact same place, with the exact same roster, in the exact same weather conditions, there are advantages and disadvantages to any and all schedules.  

 

3.  If Team X beats Team Y but then goes on to lose to another team in its division as well as to two teams from the other division, Team X would still hold the head-to-head tie-breaker over a Team Y squad that won every other league game it played.  Think about that.  Re-read it.  Cross-division games aren't supposed to count.  So the head-to-head game would be THE tie-breaker.  Do you not believe Spurrier, Miles and those fans supporting this plan would immediately scream if they lost out on a division title to a team with a 5-3 league mark (5-1 in its division WITH the tie-breaker) when they themselves had a 7-1 league mark?  

 

 

Those are the only points I feel need to be made and I've made them repeatedly in posts, in comment boxes under those posts, in emails responding to those posts, etc. 

 

Lastly, I feel those three points make the idea of cross-division games not counting... goofy.  

 

I thank you for reading the site,

John

OldArmy
OldArmy like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @10Vol85  @John at MrSEC You should remember to take your pills in the right order.... the red one on Monday, two of the yellows on Tuesday......

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @OldArmy  @John at MrSEC

 

OldArmy - "Get a grip Vol, now you're just ranting."

You consider responding specifically to your points as ranting?

 

10Vol85 - "I’ve got an idea: Let’s just determine the division representative based on which one has been the longest without representing. ..."

OldArmy - "Well 10Vol85, if that is your idea of an idea, I think we can safely say you are not an idea man."

OldArmy - "I did not comment on the system you constructed, I commented on your mocking someone else for showing the current system isn't all that bad."

It's pretty plain that, yes, you did.

 

OldArmy "You're the one going off the deep end on everything posted by those who disagrees with you. I've already said you have some good points, but you can't seen to return the courtesy."

In almost every post, including the one in which you gave me credit, you lodged and escalated personal attacks.

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @10Vol85  @John at MrSEC Get a grip Vol, now you're just ranting. I did not comment on the system you constructed, I commented on your mocking someone else for showing the current system isn't all that bad. Get a grip Vol. You're the one going off the deep end on everything posted by those who disagrees with you. I've already said you have some good points, but you can't seen to return the courtesy.  Earlier you posted you were just getting slammed because of others bias. Well, I think you protest too much on that, because you're the one in the slamming mode. No skin off my nose. When you decide to return to civility mode, let us all know. Until then, rant away.

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @OldArmy  @John at MrSEC

 Really?  I construct a system that shows the fallacy of measuring fairness by looking only at the distribution of championships and you think I have no idea?  I know statistics.  I also know that they are worthless when applied incorrectly.  Under the alternate system that is being discussed here, 9 of 12 teams would still have competed in the championship game.  From that limited point of view, it is no more or less fair.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the current system is grossly unfair.  We're proposing something we believe is more fair.  The context of fairness that is applicable here is that teams have a relatively equitable opportunity.  I wouldn't want a team to win a championship that they didn't earn it.  Looking at results only without looking at how the results were earned tells you nothing of whether a system is fair or not.  Socialism rewards those who haven't earned it by "spreading the wealth".  It's not at all a fair system but will have the characteristics you indicate are indicative of a fair system.

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @10Vol85  @John at MrSEC Well 10Vol85, if that is your idea of an idea, I think we can safely say you are not an idea man.

 

And rather than expecting you will get it, I'll explain the baseline to others who might be interested: statistically speaking a system where each school competes for talent in the same marketplace, with a finite opportunity to recruit the best talent using an equal number of scholarship options, but has as uncontrollable delineators that include the quality of coaching at each institution, facilities or access geographically to the limited talent pool available, affect of family or historical affiliation the target talent pool has to the range of institutions, the variance in the quality of opponents any given  year, the historical patern of injuries, and other factors (average probability of incorrect referee decisions that affect the outcome of conference games, etc., the spread of 9 out of 12 teams being competitive in any given year for a championship is a significant indicator the system is "fair."  And if you had read the post you commented on, you will note I was just commenting on the rather dubious assertion that the current system was inherently unfair.

 

Recommend if you should consider re-taking introductory statistics. There are a number of junior colleges within driving distance of most small to medium sized towns.

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @OldArmy  @John at MrSEC

 

So, because 9 different teams have competed for the SEC title you think that justifies the system.  If that’s the objective, I’ve got an idea:  Let’s just determine the division representative based on which one has been the longest without representing.  Missouri/A&M in ’12, Vandy/Miss in ’13, Kentucky/?? in ’14.  In 3 short years, you can make the argument that all 14 teams have competed for the title!  Spread the wealth!  Now that’s a fair system – NOT!

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @John at MrSEC Well, the one thing I have not seen mentioned is the results the SEC has had with this "unfair" scheduling "problem" it has.

 

Since 1992 (a reasonable time frame I think to look back on with a conference of 12 teams), 6 different teams have won the SEC Championship. not bad if you look at the record in the Big 12, Big 10, Big East, ACC, etc, in spreading the wealth around. In that time frame, this "unfair' system has had 9 different teams compete for the SEC title. Hmmmm. Not sure you are going to find a conference with a better spread than that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator

10Vol85...

 

I don't slam all our readers... just those who always say we've attacked their team or hate their coach, etc.  Ninety percent of the fans are great.  They're smart, reasonable, and don't see everything through their own lenses.  

 

But as far as being unwilling to engage in reasonable debate, this is -- from what I gather -- the first time we've communicated on this topic.  I, however, have been down this road via comment boxes and emails to the tune of 200 or 300 debates on this same topic.  In most every case, I'm called a "hater" of Steve Spurrier, etc.

 

If you don't think you'd be a little tired of this stuff after engagement #300 vs engagement #1, you're a better man than me.

 

My problem -- I try to respond to all the emails I receive and most of the comments that are either questions or complete misrepresentations of what I write.

 

Instead, I should either go a) the Gregg Doyel/Clay Travis route and be as ugly as possible whenever possible or b) not respond to anyone.

 

Regarding the "quite emotional" part... this post was written in such a way for a reason.  I'm tired of this coming up.  It's a goofy idea and it's not going to be passed and the man who pitched it wouldn't have pitched it if USC had gotten the benefit over Georgia last season.  I can assure you, my pulse rate didn't rise as I was writing this post.  I was simply writing for effect.

 

John

btm
btm like.author.displayName 1 Like

The idea presented actually makes an enormous amount of sense. So what if no one else does it that way? Better to be a leader than a follower.

tryptic67
tryptic67 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Why would the cross-division games be meaningless exhibitions when they would certainly be tie-breakers for conference standing, and count for post-season RPI / BCS rankings, not to mention bragging rights?  You're letting your disdain for the idea lead you into overheated invective and hyperbole. 

 

In any event, that's two of the SEC's top 3 coaches endorsing the idea; based on LSU's 2011 regular-season success, Miles cannot be accused of whining (the way you dismissed the concept out--of-hand with an ad hominem attack on Spurrier).

jwolfe
jwolfe

 @tryptic67 exactly right.  look at my comment at the top of the page.  the idea that these games would be different than division deciding games is ok, but the idea that they wouldn't have enough interest to be more important than any other regular season game except maybe a top 4 national ranking challenge with someone outside the conference is totally without merit.

10Vol85
10Vol85 like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @tryptic67

 Agree with tryptic67.  John, you are the one responding emotionally and lacking objectivity, here.

gatorwhisperer
gatorwhisperer like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @10Vol85 

Huh? Are we reading the same comments? How is John "emotional" (other than loathing his own site)? Come on. It's retarded. Spurrier is a whiner. Except in the 1996 FSU game when Bowden said they "played to the echo of the whistle." 

 

SEC games count until Iran becomes a democracy. Why is this even worthy of a debate, much less worthy of the author engaging commenters that have feasted on one too many rabid squirrels?

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @OldArmy  @gatorwhisperer

Per Meriam Webster:

idiotic - characterized by idiocy (extreme mental retardation)

idiot - a person affected with extreme mental retardation

I am sorry but I don't see much difference in saying one's idea is idiotic and saying one is an idiot so no I haven't "got it".  Attacking an idea in a way that insults a person is just as offensive as insulting the person directly.  Since you don't seem to agree, I guess you wouldn't mind if I called your comments dumb, ridiculous, ignorant, etc.

 

You first accused me of "getting personal" for calling John emotional.  FYI, being emotional is not, in and of itself, negative.  The negative I used was in questioning John's objectivity which he also did to the previous poster and for which you did not call out John nor question his mental faculties as you did mine.

 

"You have accused folks of personality flaws (for being emotional),"  Again, calling someone emotional is not accusing them of personality flaws.

 

"Have a good day bud, and I'm done with you on this" - Good.  I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

 

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @gatorwhisperer  They still serve Gatortails in Gainesville? I could use one of those right about now. Your squirrel sandwiches got me hungry.

 

And I darn near cried when I found out Skeeter's Big Biscuits closed. National tragedy.

 

The game is sold out at Kyle. If you know anyone who can scarf a visitor's ticket from UF to the game, I'd like to hear about it. Orange and Blue and Maroon and Maroon and White on the same field. Can't wait.

gatorwhisperer
gatorwhisperer like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @10Vol85  @OldArmy 

Umm,... 10Vol. My sincere apologies. I had no idea that you actually had brain damage or that you fancied squirrel sandwiches when I was trying to add levity to my comments. For what it's worth, you seemed like any other ordinary Tennessee fan to me. Again, I apologize unreservedly and I wish you a full recovery and safe meals.

OldArmy
OldArmy like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @10Vol85  @gatorwhisperer Because you are getting personal. Big difference in saying some one else's idea is idiotic and saying someone is an idiot. I'll say it again, BIG DIFFERENCE IN SAYING SOMEONE IS AN IDIOT. Got it? Attack the idea, you can have a conversation, attackt the person and you have a fight. The way it works.

 

Now, if John or Bill, or Bob or George takes that tact with you, and you then say, "Oh, he did it to me first," well no sympathy for dude. You get in the mud with the pigs (and no Razorbacks, not talking about you), three things happen. You get dirty, the pigs get happy and every body watching laughts at you.

 

In other words, saying someone is an idiot is perjorative to the max. It is a sign of personal disrespect. It is a sign of immaturity. It is a sign of lack of respect.  You have accused folks of personality flaws (for being emotional), but you sure can't deal with it in return it seems. We call that a lot of things where I come from, and none of them good.

 

I don't care at this point what you think on the issue. You're points have nothing to do with the ranting that has followed. That's why I said take it down a notch. Clear? Not going to explain it again because I can't possibly see how this could be of interest to anyone on this thread.

 

Have a good day bud, and I'm done with you on this.

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @OldArmy  @gatorwhisperer

I appreciate you trying to calm it down.  I have to question why you want ME to take it down a notch, though.  Let's see.  John has said the ideas I agree with are dumb and ridiculous which means he would believe anyone that holds those views is either ignorant, dumb or worthy of ridicule.  He insinuated that a poster was not being objective while himself being subjective.  I pointed that out.  In response, Gatorwhisperer calls my point of view retarded and insinuates I might be suffereing the effect of rabies.  You and another agreed with him.  In response to his babbling, I call Gatorwhisperer an idiot and you want ME to take it down a notch.  Perhaps if I was indirect or tried to be cute, my remarks would be received better.  Perhaps, Gatorwhisperer got his head a little to close and the gator didn't like what he had to say.  I prefer to stick to arguing the points on merit but it's kind of pointless to do that when conversing with people that will only try to divert the conversation by getting personal with petty insults.

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @10Vol85  @gatorwhisperer Come on Vol, take it down a notch. You've got some good arguments, but it sucks the air out of the room when folks assume its personal at the start. It isn't. Its a sports blog, and this is not a perfect communications medium. Easy to misconstrue stuff. Gator isn't an idiot, neither am I, and I'm guessing you have not sufferred a cranial injury that has impaired you either. If you want to see "emotional" responses, take a trip over to one of those every now and then. Sort of puts things in perspective for me. Anyway, if that sounds like a sermon, I appologize, not intended that way.

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @gatorwhisperer Thanks Gator. Now, only a true Southerner or Appalacian would form a sentence that includes the words squirrels, sandwiches and lunch in the same sentence. Sept is going to be an interesting month for me. My Ags meet my Gators on my favorite football field. Do not know how I am going to control myself....... if it is a night game, I might just have to have the oxygen standing by. 

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @gatorwhisperer  @OldArmy

 Gatorwhisperer, you're an idiot.  OldArmy, call it personal feelings if you prefer.  John made his personal feelings about certain kind of comments/commentors clear.  John made an assumption about the commentor based on those personal feelings.  That's subjective, plain and simple.  Whether I am emotional or not is irrelevant.  In and of itself, being emotional isn't a bad thing.  The point in the original post was primarily in relation to the objectivity.

gatorwhisperer
gatorwhisperer

 @OldArmy  

nam nam nam: Onomatopoeia (describing the sound) for eating, nibbling, feasting on etc. particularly delicious food or anything else 'edible' that comes to mind.

 

1. A phrase sometimes heard in TN: Nam nam nam, I had some delicious squirrel sandwiches for lunch. 

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @10Vol85  @viciousdawg  @gatorwhisperer Well, that "sorry" thing is indicative of an emotional response on your part. Should we now accuse you of being emotional?

 

Being sorry is ofcourse just another phrase that expresses sadness, and sadness is akin to woefulness, which is a relative of the word depressed. So, using your logic stream above, are we to assume you are depressed there 10Vol85? Most of us reading your stuff are sufficiently adept at using our mother tongue (it is the most widely spoken language on the planet) to discern you are not, actually depressed because you used the word sorry. But we are able to figure out you're trying too hard to make a point, and we're aware you are not quite getting there from where you are using your examples, so let us help you out.

 

Since viciousdawg, gatorwhisper and myself graduated from accredited unversities (don't let their location in the South fool you, they teach real subjects there, they do). let me share something we all learned, that might help you out in the future. The English language is the most complex language on the planet. The word "run" has over 170 different definitions and or uses, for example. The use of the word in the context of a sentence or a paragraph, and the inflection the speaker places on the other words in the sentence, the accent on syllables or even the facial expression of the user can alter the words meaning.

 

Funny, the word "love" is like that. It does not, you may be surprised to know, in most cases infer emotion. "I just LOVE this song," is not an emotional response for most people (maybe you develop an emotional attachment to a string of audible vibrations, but most of us.... not so much). That is not to say a song cannot elicit an emotional response, but that is not the same as the expression of LOVE for that song. See the difference? The use of the word "love" in the American tradition and practice does not connotate actual fillial attachment.

 

Same with the word dislike. Dislike can be used to describe a well thought out, logical and unemotional assessment. A predjudice if you will (and the root word of predjudice is judge, so in this context it is used to reinforce the logical assessment involved), is a dislike. Example: "I dislike poisonous snakes." A very logical, unemotional statement. They can kill me, I don't like that, I don't like being around them because it is not safe. I dislike them. 

 

Not so hard if you think about it. Dislike does not equal emotion. Love does not equal emotion.

 

Or I could have just said nam nam nam..... but honestly have no idea what that means.

10Vol85
10Vol85

 @gatorwhisperer

 

It's called comprehension.  Let me help you.  In point #3, John insinuated that tryptic67 is incapable of being objective:

 

"I love your comment about my "attack" on Spurrier. Here's what I dislike about hardcore, blind-allegiance type fans -- they are incapable of being objective. ... When I write something critical of their coach or their team... they say it's an "attack" and that I must "hate" their team, their coach, etc."

 

Per Meriam-Webster:

 

"objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"

 

Admittedly, John does use "they" instead of "you" but even with the indirect reference, the inference is clear:  Because tryptic67 pointed out the ad hominem "attack", he must be the type of fan described, one incapable of being objective and one that lets personal feelings affect his judgement.

In that I "prefer truth", I agree with tryptic67 that clearly an ad hominem attack was used against Spurrier in the referenced article.  In his reply to tryptic67, John followed that up with a similar attack against Miles.

 

How is John emotional?  He states that he loves certain kinds of fans and dislikes others.  (I'm pretty sure love and dislike are indicative of emotion).  He subjectively associates what tryptic67 said about the ad hominem attack as meaning tryptic67 is the type of blind allegiance fan that he admittedly dislikes.

 

I agree with John that motive and personal feelings certainly do play into arguments made by both coaches and fans and it would be foolish to ignore.  Here, John himself was clearly being emotional and subjective in his response to tryptic67 while insuating that tryptic67 was not objective.  It appears that John feels this idea is so "dumb" and "utterly ridiculous" that anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint is either dumb, ignorant or motivated by team prejudices.  If the idea is so ridiculous, making your case strictly on the merits should be able to make that plain without having to resort to personal attacks or trying to discredit everyone with an opposing view.

 

As for Gatorwhisperer, it's sad that you lack the comprehension to understand this without having someone that you insinuate has brain damage to explain it to you.  Same goes to viciousdawg and OldArmy who felt the need to agree with Gatorwhisperer's  unwarranted personal attack.

OldArmy
OldArmy

 @viciousdawg  @gatorwhisperer Well, we thank our brothers from the Great State to our North cutting us a little slack every now and then. And I agree with your agreement. And the "Until Iran becomes a democracy" line was worth reading all the thread. 

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator like.author.displayName 1 Like

tryptic67...

 

1.  I'm glad you picked up on the hyperbole.  Yes, I think it's a dumb idea and I wrote this 1000th piece on the topic in such a way as to make that very, very clear.  In fact, most people think it's a dumb idea.  I did a Columbia radio show two weeks ago and was told by the show's hosts that only a very small minority of Carolina fans even support the plan.

 

2.  Spurrier was whining.  He's never made this proposal in nearly 20 years of SEC coaching.  He made it only after his team lost to West Division foes and that cost him a title.  I find that to be conspicuous, to say the least.  If the roles had been reversed, he would have NEVER proposed it.  Never.  If USC had gone to Atlanta because Georgia lost to two West foes we would not be talking about this today.  I would bet my house on that one.

 

3.  I love your comment about my "attack" on Spurrier.  Here's what I dislike about hardcore, blind-allegiance type fans -- they are incapable of being objective.  (It's also why I absolutely LOVE objective, intelligent, reasonable fans who prefer truth to pats on the back.)  I may write something positive about a Spurrier action today and something negative tomorrow.  That's because I'm looking at the actions and have no love or hate for the man.  But the hardest-dying of the die-hard fans see everything through their own lenses.  When I write something nice about their coach or their team... they ignore it (because, by God, I should praise 'em).  When I write something critical of their coach or their team... they say it's an "attack" and that I must "hate" their team, their coach, etc.

 

I don't recall you commenting after this piece, for example:

 

http://mrsec.com/2012/01/carolinas-best-season-ever-was-also-spurriers-best-season-ever/

 

Was that an "attack" on Spurrier?  All the Carolina fans who write to tell me that I hate USC didn't say much after that one.

 

 

In summary, I stand by every word I've written on this subject.  It's a ridiculous idea.  No one else uses a plan like this because no one else wants to have meaningless conference games.  Spurrier simply proposed it because he feels his team deserved better.  It didn't.  If Carolina had beaten an average Auburn team at home, they'd have gone to Atlanta.  They didn't.  

 

As for Miles backing Spurrier's plan, well, I can't think of a more fitting person to support a kooky idea.  He's a helluva football coach, but there's a reason he's got a site dedicate to his weird statements and weird views: 

 

http://thequotablelesmiles.com/

 

In this case, both Spurrier and Miles are in the minority.  As are you.

 

Now, should the SEC adopt the plan during the league's spring meetings, I'll be more than happy to admit that I am the one in the minority.  But that won't change my belief that this is an awfully dumb idea.  

 

Oh, and you should expect even more hyperbolic language to come if such a plan is put in place.

 

John

tryptic67
tryptic67

 @John at MrSEC John - love your blog but don't project your biases onto me.   Actually, I don't support the plan - I just don't utterly dismiss it out of hand as whining the way you have.  I also wasn't the one who superimposed a picture of Spurrier on a whining baby.;   that's ad hominem by anyone's standards - even if you have an autographed photo of Spurrier on your wall, or would love to move to Charleston (and we'd love to have you). 

tryptic67
tryptic67

 @John at MrSEC  Assuming you're not being facetious about not enjoying your own site, that's kind of a bummer.  I read it every day, but rarely get to scan the comments (or leave one - sorry about that).  You're in a tough spot because you have to sometimes pop 12 balloons (now 14).  If people didn't feel so passionately about their teams, however, then there wouldn't be a need for blogs like this though.   In any event, if you were Caspar Milquetoast no one would read you - the "you attacked my coach" comments means you must be doing something right.  Still won't stop me for sticking up for my guys when I think you've been too hard on 'em - and while, yes, the photoshop of Spurrier was clearly based in humor (yes, I got that), I felt it was of an acidic flavor - more biting and character-questioning  than jovial.   Thus 'ad hominem'.  

 

Note I haven't attacked you personally (even though I feel you sometimes channel the sensibilities and talking points of a CMR-can-do-no-wrong UGA fan).   I don't particularly favor the Spurrier plan, but an endorsement by the 'Mad Hatter' - even if he is (or hams it up to be) crazy as a march hare - takes it out of the realm of whining.  Sorry if you disagree.  There are cogent arguments against it, granted.  It will never be adopted - certainly.  

 

In any event, thanks for all you do. 

John at MrSEC
John at MrSEC moderator

tryptic67...

 

The photo of Spurrier was a joke and I thought it was rather obvious that it was an attempt at humor.

 

Oh, well.  Wrong again.

 

I'm glad you usually enjoy the site (because I usually don't).

 

John

 

 

 



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC