|
Title: It sounds like bammer, Vandy, and SC… Post by: Black Diamond Vol on March 09, 2023, 07:20:42 EST …will be our three permanent opponents when the new FB schedules come out.
There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over these opponents, particularly from Saban (who would presumably get UT, AU, and LSU). But does it really matter? Other than preserving traditional rivalries, I really don’t see how the permanent opponents make much of a difference. The rest of the SEC is going to rotate on to your schedule every other year. These schedules are going to be murderous for everyone, and there’s really no hiding from it (thoughts and prayers to UGA, who has consistently had the easiest schedules in the SEC for over a decade). Even if you were to draw the 3 weakest opponents possible on a yearly basis, that just means that more tough opponents are going to rotate your way every other year. Conversely, bammer (who is admittedly getting a tough draw), will get the likes of Vandy, Missou, UK, and the MS schools rotating on every other year. So really, who cares? Saban and company should stop their whining. Title: Re: It sounds like bammer, Vandy, and SC… Post by: PirateVOL on March 09, 2023, 07:40:10 EST …will be our three permanent opponents when the new FB schedules come out. He was protected in the covid year so he can kindly STFUThere’s been a lot of hand-wringing over these opponents, particularly from Saban (who would presumably get UT, AU, and LSU). But does it really matter? Other than preserving traditional rivalries, I really don’t see how the permanent opponents make much of a difference. The rest of the SEC is going to rotate on to your schedule every other year. These schedules are going to be murderous for everyone, and there’s really hiding from it (thoughts and prayers to UGA, who has consistently had the easiest schedules in the SEC for over a decade). Even if you were to draw the 3 weakest opponents possible on a yearly basis, that just means that more tough opponents are going to rotate your way every other year. Conversely, bammer (who is admittedly getting a tough draw), will get the likes of Vandy, Missou, UK, and the MS schools rotating on every other year. So really, who cares? Saban and company should stop their whining. Title: Re: It sounds like bammer, Vandy, and SC… Post by: Coupe De VOL on March 09, 2023, 09:24:23 EST I think the permanent opponents should have been based solely on tradition and the only issues would be resolving conflicts where too many traditional matchups are shared. I hate to lose the KY game simply because we have played it so many times over the life of our program. To be honest, I'd rather lose Vandy than KY. Vandy is never gonna be dominant in football again. They may have a couple of good years out of a decade, but that will be it, if at all. KY at least has the potential to be a good rival. Nominally we should beat Vandy 55-0 every year. That doesn't do much for me. Sure it is a "nice to have" but that is about it.
And yeah, yeah yeah, I know we just recently lost around 5 out of ten to the commode doors. That is only a sign of how pathetic we were, not much else. Title: Re: It sounds like bammer, Vandy, and SC… Post by: BanditVol on March 10, 2023, 04:33:19 EST And yeah, yeah yeah, I know we just recently lost around 5 out of ten to the commode doors. That is only a sign of how pathetic we were, not much else. We absolutely were pathetic. But vandy was also about as good as they have been since the early 50s, when their era of being actually good at football ended. So it was a combination. I would rather keep Kentucky also for reasons of tradition. USC might be a hair better year in and year out, but that's about the only difference I see. If the pairing is true, it will be a shame that our most played rivalry will eventually not be that, but I can live with it at the end of the day. And yes. Saban CAN STFU. :naughty: I swear, for all his success, he's the biggest whiner I know. |