🏈 Saban dynasty causing an SEC decline?

[TUSKtimes]

Never said it was. You're arguing against a Straw Man.


Duuuh ...


I'm not saying that you should. I'm saying that most fans do. Hell, when players are interviewed during bowl season, they even admit to cheering on their conference rivals to make their conference proud. I cannot believe I'm having to explain this to college football fans.


A flawed argument??? To measure conferences based on OOC results??? Well how the hell else do you compare conference strength?? LOL ... you even got Jimbo and Dabo both bragging about the ACC surpassing the SEC based on the ACC's results head-to-head against the SEC during the last several years.

No, I'm arguing with you and you're short on ammunition. The sample size is still too small. I don't think you can honestly compare conferences short of putting the big boys back on the schedule. And I wish you success lobbying that.

I wonder how many Alabama football fans on here are pulling for ALL SEC teams just because it's the right thing to do?

GaTech vs 10RC
Clemson vs the barners
BYU vs LSWho
UCLA vs Texas A&M
Michigan vs Florida
Notre Dame vs Georgia

I personally will be rooting for at least 4 OOC teams in this group.

 

[bamachine]

I have seen many Bama fans doing the SEC, SEC, SEC chant. When they are doing it, I am chanting Al-A-Bama to the same beat.

I do pull for Vandy and MissSt, except when it would negatively affect Bama. The rest, I either pull against or just abstain from pulling either way.

 

[JoshB]

lol this entire mindset is beyond stupid to me. So, Alabama fans should be bummed that the rest of the SEC sucks? Should Alabama fans root for Alabama to NOT be dominating so the other teams can come back up? Like what sort of logic is that?

And not to mention, I've ALWAYS hated the conference pride BS. Never understood what an Alabama fan would get chanting "SEC" if Florida won the National Championship. I'm not a Florida fan, why would I care if they won? Never did and never will.

 

[musso]

I personally will be rooting for at least 4 OOC teams in this group.

You go and do that then.

 

[musso]

Should Alabama fans root for Alabama to NOT be dominating so the other teams can come back up? Like what sort of logic is that?

Jesus you guys are drunk. No one is saying to not want Bama to dominate whoever they play. Conference pride simply means you prefer for your conference rivals to beat whoever they play out of conference. You want your conference to be strong because it means your team is stronger if it wins the conference and/or makes the play off. If your conference keeps losing to its out-of-conference opponents, then that is something to worry about. I don't have the numbers, but Dabo and Jimbo have both tossed out the wins-losses in recent years between the ACC and SEC, and it isn't pretty for the SEC.

 

[planomateo]

Yet the SEC doesn't have the stones to move to a 9 game conference schedule...

 

[UAgrad93]

I went through the trouble because no one evidently had gone through the trouble to actually rebut Cowherd's arguments in their replies. I was trying to spoon feed you guys one of his more merited arguments relating to SEC coaching turnover.


Every Bama fan I personally know ALWAYS roots for other SEC teams. Don't be ridiculous. All of us want our conference to be well represented, if for no other reason than to improve our strength of schedule.

I don't! I could care less as to how the rest of the conference does!

 

[Destiny's Child]

No, I'm arguing with you and you're short on ammunition. The sample size is still too small. I don't think you can honestly compare conferences short of putting the big boys back on the schedule. And I wish you success lobbying that.

I wonder how many Alabama football fans on here are pulling for ALL SEC teams just because it's the right thing to do?

GaTech vs 10RC
Clemson vs the barners
BYU vs LSWho
UCLA vs Texas A&M
Michigan vs Florida
Notre Dame vs Georgia

I personally will be rooting for at least 4 OOC teams in this group.

I will be pulling hard for the fighting dabo' s vs the barn but I won't be upset no matter who wins. Besides for that I will be pulling for the SEC in all of those games.

I will say all this talk out of Jumbo and Dabo about the ACC being superior makes me almost want to pull for the barn but all I have to do is look at a clip of Gus Malzan and it makes me pull against him.

 

[TUSKtimes]

I will be pulling hard for the fighting dabo' s vs the barn but I won't be upset no matter who wins. Besides for that I will be pulling for the SEC in all of those games.

I will say all this talk out of Jumbo and Dabo about the ACC being superior makes me almost want to pull for the barn but all I have to do is look at a clip of Gus Malzan and it makes me pull against him.

My disdain for the viles is right there with barners, anytime, anyplace. Can't think of a reason I wouldn't want the fighting Mormons to get the Ed O "error" off to a rousing bad start. That's 3 SEC games that require absolutely no thought whatsoever. The ND/Georgia contest will be a game-time decision.

 

[JoshB]

Jesus you guys are drunk. No one is saying to not want Bama to dominate whoever they play. Conference pride simply means you prefer for your conference rivals to beat whoever they play out of conference. You want your conference to be strong because it means your team is stronger if it wins the conference and/or makes the play off. If your conference keeps losing to its out-of-conference opponents, then that is something to worry about. I don't have the numbers, but Dabo and Jimbo have both tossed out the wins-losses in recent years between the ACC and SEC, and it isn't pretty for the SEC.

Okay and? Yes, the other SEC teams being stronger makes Alabama's wins look better, but you cant freaking help if the other teams are weak, and NO ONE should want Alabama to be less dominating just so those other teams can be stronger. You acknowledge this, so wtf is your point?

 

[musso]

The last sentence is key.

@Birdman37 you ask wtf is my point? Excessive coaching turnover/attrition weakens the league ---> a weakened league eventually weakens our team ---> which could have an effect on our performance in the post-season. Think of the physicality we played with after Saban's first season through our 2012 championship season, particularly on offense. Think of the gradual decline in the little things. Maybe someone can reproduce them, but I remember the stats of Saban's early years at Bama ... we were consistently among the best at turnover ratio, time of possession, and lack of penalties. We were physical and fundamentally sound. Granted the game has changed since then, forcing offenses to change a bit. But I can't help but assume that no team is immune from the cumulative effect of playing their conference schedule.

Think of the amazing stretch the SEC had winning EVERY national title game in which it participated, beginning with our '92 championship season (also don't forget Auburn's two undefeated seasons in '93 and '04 during this run). Ironically it was Auburn's loss to FSU in '13 which ended the SEC's undefeated streak in national title games (5 different SEC schools winning at least one national title). It was generally agreed that the SEC's advantage in the more meaningful bowls came from the unrivaled quality of SEC conference play during the season.

Bama physically dominated every bowl opponent we faced from '09-12. But we have been pushed around ever since: by OU in '13, Oh St in '14, Clemson in '15 and '16 (needing big plays from busted overages and huge special teams plays to win in '15 and then losing in '16 by being dominated in time of possession/total plays. As Saban always says, being physical shows up in maintaining possession on offense and creating 3-and-outs on defense.

Think about it ... we are two special teams plays away from our last national title being 5 years ago. I think Saban has possibly been a victim of his own success. He dominated immediately. And like Cowherd says in my first post in this thread, our rivals should have been happy with merely competing with us and hoping to beat Saban maybe once every 4 seasons. Instead the SEC panicked. The league became destabilized by 34 coaching changes, and thereby lessened the quality of its product.

 

[alagator]

Think about it ... we are two special teams plays away from our last national title being 5 years ago. I think Saban has possibly been a victim of his own success. He dominated immediately. And like Cowherd says in my first post in this thread, our rivals should have been happy with merely competing with us and hoping to beat Saban maybe once every 4 seasons. Instead the SEC panicked. The league became destabilized by 34 coaching changes, and thereby lessened the quality of its product.

Think about it ... we are one stop away from our last national title being 253 days ago. He's still dominating. A victim of his own success by losing the NC in the last seconds of the game...making it to the playoffs every year.

You're stirring, sir. Stirring.

 

[musso]

You're ignoring the quality of our play in the post-season. You can't compare the dominating style of play in our bowl games from 09-12 to our performances ever since.

Accusing someone of "stirring" is to accuse him of being disingenuous. Let's not get personal. Debate facts, not feelings. I provided facts and data. You replied with "I'm stirring." Try again.

 

[TerryP]

You're ignoring the quality of our play in the post-season. You can't compare the dominating style of play in our bowl games from 09-12 to our performances ever since.

Sure you can't. They were different opponents.

This Clemson team Bama lost to last year would have killed Notre Dame in the same fashion Bama did. Texas against that Clemson team wouldn't have fared any better. LSU in '11? The Tigers likely would have made it past the 50 more than once, but they'd still be on the losing end.

What Bama did to Michigan State in '15 is every bit as dominant as what we've seen. The fact they got in a shoot out with Clemson isn't a step back from being dominate. That offensive performance against Clemson? Quality play.

Debate facts, not feelings.

OK, let's go with one set of facts.

2009 NC team. They finished the year ranked #2 in total defense.
2016 team. They finished the year ranked #1 in total defense.

That '16 team played two more games, ended up giving up about 15 more yards per game. The difference in the total yards is found in pass defense...because of the quality of the run defense that's been consistent, year in and year out.

If we want we can start comparing offenses but I assure you we'll find improvement.

Instead the SEC panicked. The league became destabilized by 34 coaching changes, and thereby lessened the quality of its product.

I don't believe we'll find many that'll disagree with that statement. We can find a few here and there. Joe Alleva down in Baton Rouge would deny it had any impact. Jacobs down on the Plains would say otherwise. Their fan bases of their respective schools are beginning to realize the truth and say otherwise. (Good for them, I say.)

Personally, I could care a little less...but not a lot.

 

[musso]

What Bama did to Michigan State in '15 is every bit as dominant as what we've seen.

You mean in '10, right?

OK, let's go with one set of facts.

2009 NC team. They finished the year ranked #2 in total defense.
2016 team. They finished the year ranked #1 in total defense.

That '16 team played two more games, ended up giving up about 15 more yards per game. The difference in the total yards is found in pass defense...because of the quality of the run defense that's been consistent, year in and year out.

@Birdman37 you ask wtf is my point? Excessive coaching turnover/attrition weakens the league ---> a weakened league eventually weakens our team ---> which could have an effect on our performance in the post-season. Think of the physicality we played with after Saban's first season through our 2012 championship season, particularly on offense. Think of the gradual decline in the little things. Maybe someone can reproduce them, but I remember the stats of Saban's early years at Bama ... we were consistently among the best at turnover ratio, time of possession, and lack of penalties. We were physical and fundamentally sound. Granted the game has changed since then, forcing offenses to change a bit. But I can't help but assume that no team is immune from the cumulative effect of playing their conference schedule.

Add to this is my memory of negative plays on offense, false starts, and holding penalties creeping in toward the latter half of Yeldon's career (that whiff by our TE on the late 4th & 1 against Auburn in '13 jumps out to me as one of the noticeable OL failures that began our trend of run blocking inconsistencies) and all during Henry's tenure (Henry would get stopped behind the line half the time, the other half he would rip off amazing runs). We've reached a point now where we have to ask our QB to supplement our weak running attack. Meanwhile, our OL was near perfect during the Coffee, Ingram, Richardson, Lacy days. Our offense would literally suck the will to live right out of the opposing D.

 

[musso]

This Clemson team Bama lost to last year would have killed Notre Dame in the same fashion Bama did. Texas against that Clemson team wouldn't have fared any better. LSU in '11? The Tigers likely would have made it past the 50 more than once, but they'd still be on the losing end.

I'm willing to concede that we were fortunate with Saban's early bowls:

1. we injured the Texas QB early, and didn't really do much offensively the whole second half
   
2. Michigan St was co-Big Ten champ during a down year for the Big Ten (plus Bama was finally healthy for that game after struggling with injuries all season)
3. we should have easily beaten LSU during the regular season but missed like 3 or 4 field goals; plus Saban had a month to prepare for a mediocre LSU offense.
4. and everyone admitted Notre Dame was one of the most overrated teams to play for a national title in recent memory.

But let's be clear, Clemson would have killed these teams primarily because of Deshawn Watson and their offense. My point is the Clemson D kept our offense off the field in both meetings. Without Henry's big run in the first quarter, our rushing yardage was pathetic in '15. And in '16, Clemson shut down our running after halftime.

Again, you're emphasizing our defense, which I'm not really addressing. I'm emphasizing our offensive physicality and how it's changed since '12.

 

[TerryP]

You mean in '10, right?

No, I mean '15 in the playoffs. You know the other section of Saban's tenure you're talking about here...that was an offensive and defensive showcase. Remember, out of those 38 points only six came by way of a NOT.

We've reached a point now where we have to ask our QB to supplement our weak running attack

Weak running attack? I'm sorry, but what? In Saban's tenure there's only been one year where the team finished with a higher average per game rushing than what they are averaging now--245 per game in '16. The '12 team was close with 227 and this team still has over 10 games left on the schedule.

You've asked for facts, not feelings, and right now this team is averaging more per game than the teams you're referenced.

Bama has a quarterback who is averaging almost nine yards per carry, a running back averaging over six per carry, another over four ... and it's a weak running attack because no one can stop the QB from running?

Seriously, a weapon like Jalen is being used sparingly when you consider he's only running about 12 times per game. I know he's ran somewhere around 35 times this season...out of what, 190 or so plays?

What gets me is if it was a guy like Ridley getting 12 carries a game this offense would be labeled as one using its playmakers. But, if it's the quarterback rushing ... it's a weak running attack?

Add to this is my memory of negative plays on offense, false starts, and holding penalties creeping in toward the latter half of Yeldon's career (that whiff by our TE on the late 4th & 1 against Auburn in '13 jumps out to me as one of the noticeable OL failures that began our trend of run blocking inconsistencies) and all during Henry's tenure (Henry would get stopped behind the line half the time, the other half he would rip off amazing runs).

Now you're jumping to '13, talking about the offensive line failures, despite a Bama team that averaged almost 250 yards per game against SEC opponents? Facts, not feelings.

I'm willing to concede that we were fortunate with Saban's early bowls:

1. we injured the Texas QB early, and didn't really do much offensively the whole second half
   
2. Michigan St was co-Big Ten champ during a down year for the Big Ten (plus Bama was finally healthy for that game after struggling with injuries all season)
3. we should have easily beaten LSU during the regular season but missed like 3 or 4 field goals; plus Saban had a month to prepare for a mediocre LSU offense.
4. and everyone admitted Notre Dame was one of the most overrated teams to play for a national title in recent memory.

1) You sure you're not a Texas fan? :devil: You really aren't going with "If Colt hadn't been hurt, are you?" How many games has Bama lost in Saban's tenure when the Tide has rushed for over 150 yards on the ground? OK, let's try 200? Or, how many games has Bama been beaten when the opponent didn't rush for 100 yards? Oops, we've found another example of consistency and quality play.
2) I suppose you're talking about '10 here? That was a year decimated by injuries, remember? Bama wasn't fortunate to beat Michigan State the way they did--they were finally healthy. Ingram and Upshaw hurt pre-season. Upshaw hurt again against Florida. Dareus, Julio, Nico, Barrett. Carpenter, Fluker, and a host of others hurt that season. Damn, look at those names there.
3) Easily? No. Every team LSU played that season had trouble with Jordan that season. (Why Miles started with Lee I'll never figure out.) In #1 I mentioned "how many games has Bama been beaten when the opponent didn't rush for 100 yards?" LSU put 150 on Bama that day. And, it was the defensive adjustments--specifically with Jerrell Harris--which bottled up their dual threat attack in New Orleans.
4) Yah, I believe I pointed to that daily here...specifically, poor tacking from their front seven.

 

[JoshB]

You're ignoring the quality of our play in the post-season. You can't compare the dominating style of play in our bowl games from 09-12 to our performances ever since.

Accusing someone of "stirring" is to accuse him of being disingenuous. Let's not get personal. Debate facts, not feelings. I provided facts and data. You replied with "I'm stirring." Try again.

So, do you not watch the games or what? Michigan State wasn't dominant? Washington wasn't dominant? What the hell have you been watching? Not ever championship game is going to be Bama vs. Notre Dame, its supposed to be the two best teams in the country. You aren't going to "dominate" THAT game much if ever. You are 100% stirring. Especially considering this is a two month old topic and you're rehashing it.

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

When it comes to the non conference games, I pull for the SEC! (Admittedly, not hard for awbarn, but IF they win, better for the SEC).
Besides, it looks better when we lay the first loss of the season on one of our conference brethren. ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!

 

[18Champs]

Add to this is my memory of negative plays on offense, false starts,

It's ironic to see the mention of false starts while criticizing the offense this season when they've had zero false starts this season (versus 12 at this time last season.)