Rednilla

I dare you to find posts that support this statement.

Okay, again, I don't want to lose those two rivalries. At no point have I even hinted at such a thing. My argument is for not renewing rivalries that have already been left behind. The fact that you misrepresent what I'm saying in order to laugh at it is pretty telling.

First of all, "should beat" is not the same as "almost guaranteed". All time, Auburn has won slightly more than 70% of the games vs. Mississippi State. 70% is 7 out of 10, which means 3 times out of 10, they win. It's also worth noting that the only team we have played more times than Mississippi State is Georgia, so it's not like there's no history to back it up. Beyond that, if you *really* think the "average" SEC teams are of the same quality as those of the B1G and the ACC, then you need to get a clue. There's a reason why there have been the same number of different national champions from the SEC alone as there have been from every other conference combined in the last quarter century, and it's not because the conference is weak... especially considering that one third of the non-SEC national champions are working on moving into the SEC as we type. So no, you don't get to say that the arguments are synonymous. It doesn't matter that you aren't saying to play them three weeks in a row. It's that you think we should play all three of them every year, along with the rotating schedule that would bring the other marquee SEC opponents in at intervals. Hey, we might even wind up with more games against those teams who've won it all than we have against those other weaklings who aren't worthy of our attention. That's the dream, right? Make things as absolutely impossibly difficult as they can possibly be, so that in the infinitesimally small chance that we make it through that hell unscathed, no one can say that we didn't earn it. If you really need the game to be against Florida, Tennessee, or LSU to be interested in it, then you're the one who needs to be checking your fanhood at the door. As much as I want to see Auburn play the best, I also want to see Auburn win more than 2/3 of the time, and it's hard to do that when you're playing nothing but the best of the best.

It's NOT an almost guaranteed win. It's still an SEC opponent. It's just against a team that is less likely to be in the midst of a dynasty. It's an opponent that we should do better than break even with over the years, but it's not like we're playing Samford as an annual rival.

Well, you see, some of us don't feel like facing murderer's row every single season. The SEC is tough enough as it is. There's plenty of intrigue with Auburn vs. Mississippi State, which was the third permanent opponent I suggested. I think it's pretty pathetic that you are trying to shame those of us who have sense, as if somehow the work is less hard when not going up against 3 of the top 20 programs in the history of the sport every single year. Good grief.

No. Just no. That's the oldest rivalry in the deep south, literally our oldest rival. No chance I want to get away from that one.

Uh, just because we don't play UF, UT, or LSU every year doesn't mean that we won't ever play any of them. I'd be willing to bet we would almost always have at least one of those three on the schedule, if not two of them. Are they still "meh conference games" then? This is the SEC. There's no such thing as a "meh" game on the conference slate. But you're asking for trouble if you willingly make the third team on the permanent slate one of the six traditional powers, because they all have the resources to become a powerhouse with the right coach. If a coach like that comes along at Mississippi State, or Ole Miss, or South Carolina, he's virtually guaranteed to be lured away by a traditional power. But Tennessee, Florida, and LSU *are* places that could get a coach like that and hold onto him, making our schedule all the tougher.

Bear Bryant was a master of scheduling opponents that would not challenge his team too greatly, so yeah, I think UAT cares about who they play. It can't be all cupcakes, but it can't be all juggernauts, either. Ohio State and Clemson play in conferences other than the SEC.

It's not UAT or UGA that anyone is running from. It's the notion that our third permanent rival should be yet another one of the traditional powers.

So you would willingly have a more difficult road to a championship just for the antiquated notion that we should never shy away, at all, not in the least, not even when it's the smarter thing to do?

Um. . . did you read my whole response? Because my conclusion was that we didn't need to have the third game be against a traditional rival like UF, UT, or LSU. Mississippi State would work, but so would a lot of other schools. My problem is having the yearly rivalries against nothing but the best teams in the SEC.

Mark My Words: Auburn passes for 3,000 yards this season. It might not be all one QB, because I think Hars likes to give more than one guy game time, but we're going to see a passing game that surpasses what we've been getting by a fair margin. Mark My Words: By December, Mikey will either have adopted the mantra that he always supported Harsin, just like he acknowledged it was time for Malzahn to go long before he was actually terminated. . . or he will have disappeared from AUFamily altogether.

I would take Mississippi State as the third permanent rival. Would rather it not be Tennessee or Florida, regardless of the amount of history we have with them. Someone mentioned that the only reason we're rivals with LSU is that there have been so many memorable games in the last 30 years. . . yeah, well, that's what it takes to build a rivalry, and we have a lot more recent history with the Corndogs than Florida or Tennessee. MY first football memory is of the Interception Game in 94. My first game in the student section was the nail biter in 04. I'm 38 years old, and I can't even remember when Tennessee was a permanent rival. The only classic game with them that I remember was in 04, when they were being talked up so much and we bitch slapped 'em up and down Neyland. (And, truthfully, the amount we dominated them at their place, and then beat them again in Atlanta when they had the motivation of having been shown up at home pushing them, is all the more impressive when you consider that Tennessee team lost a total of 3 games, including the 2 losses to us.) Florida has a little better case, because we were still facing them every year into this century. . . but really, it shouldn't be UT, UF, or LSU if UAT and UGA are the first two. Again, Mississippi State would work. Vandy would make more sense for Bama, because it seems like Bear always made it a point to schedule them so there's some history there.

Who is TU?

It depends upon whom you listen to.

Auburn football received good news on the recruiting front Saturday afternoon. Not only did a major target announce his commitment date, but a major recruiting site is now predicting that Auburn is the frontrunner to earn his pledge. Daquayvious Sorey, a four-star wide receiver from Chipley, Florida, says that he intends to announce his commitment this upcoming Friday, Aug. 26. In addition to Auburn, Sorey is also considering Alabama, Florida, and Miami. Shortly after Sorey shared his news, On3 revealed that Auburn is the front runner to earn Sorey’s pledge. Currently, Auburn has a 96.2% chance to grab Sorey’s commitment, which leads in-state schools Florida and Florida State by an overwhelming margin. Sorey was briefly committed to Georgia from Feb. 19 to Feb. 26. After taking a few months to reconsider his options, Sorey announced a new top-four on June 16, dropping the Bulldogs completely out of consideration. According to On3, Sorey is rated as a four-star wide receiver. He is the nation’s No. 35 ranked receiver and is the No. 53 overall prospect from Florida. If Auburn were to in fact land Sorey’s commitment, it would pair well with fellow four-star commitment, karmello English. https://auburnwire.usatoday.com/2022/08/20/auburn-football-recruiting-daquayvious-sorey-commitment-date-prediction-machine/?fbclid=IwAR2H06dP4odss8-CPeQbUcXFaRt_7MQWc_iJzGg5GN6hJmmzY-DZ54P190Q

I haven't seen any news about it, I'm just saying that's more likely what Bama's permanent rivals would be. Not getting rid of the Iron Bowl, not getting rid of the Third Saturday in October, and not going to play three of the other five traditional SEC powers on a permanent basis.

No shot that Bama draws AU, UT, and LSU as permanent rivals. They'll lose LSU, most likely, and probably get Mississippi State.

He's pretty danged spot on about Harsin from where I'm sitting.

There's no doubt we underachieved in last year's tournament. I'm of the opinion that that would not have happened if Chance Westry had been on last year's team, because that big, playmaking guard is what we lacked. However, things are set up again this season. We were never going to replace Jabari and have no dropoff, but with Traore it's as small of one as possible. I'm not sure Broome is a step down from Walker at all, which is obviously bigtime praise. Flan looked 100% better, Westry appears to be everything he was touted as being, and every single one of the other returning players look like they've taken a step forward so far in the offseason. Donaldson definitely showed that he belongs on this team, but I had been hearing he was going to redshirt, so I don't know that we'll see him this season unless something drastic happens. And as good as we legitimately were last season, we might be better this year simply because of the better balance from top to bottom of the roster. Could this year be the year?

Phallic subliminal messaging.

I've had a feeling that was going to happen for about 48 hours. The part about one or the other of those two having a good scrimmage, not that it would throw the board into a tailspin. I mean, it probably would, but that wasn't part of my premonition.

I don't mind my mancrush being Alston.

Right, but how much would doing drills of basketball rebounding do for them? That was the initial question.

Did you read the second part of the post you quoted?