🏈 Saban

[Duder]

Ya know, team allegiance aside, you have to respect Saban's desire to test his team. He's accepted the big games in ATL, Jerry World (Timmy B called in "Jones Town" the other day...eesh) and has publicly said he wants 9 SEC games. Meanwhile, Les Miles is complaining about UF being on their schedule annually....

Random thought while watching College Football Live reruns

 

[planomateo]

Thanks for posting this.

I saw this up on the ticker today while at lunch and it kinda caught me by surprise. I couldn't help but think that he was leading change.

 

[TerryP]

I don't care for it because it means us losing these big season openers we've had the last few years. It's purely selfish on my part. I've just really enjoyed the football seasons starting off with the games we've had.

He's said he'd rather play another SEC game instead of those openers.

One thing I can't disagree with: we'll get a better barometer on which teams are the best with nine games in a 14 team conference.

 

[TerryP]

Warriors were judged by the quality and strength of their enemies. This is also true in college football where you are judged by the strength and quality of your opponents.

It was strength of schedule that helped push Alabama past Oklahoma State last year in the final computer rankings and polls.

Saban knows the importance of playing quality teams, but the problem is (as I see It) not biting off more than you can chew...

They say teams like Utah, BSU and TCU couldn't handle an SEC schedule because of their depth.

If that is true then where is the line, as far as strength of schedule, where even a team as deep as Alabama could not survive (depth wise) their own schedule.

I think we're on the same page, but see it differently.

As example, OSU was ranked above UA until they lost to ISU (#2 and #3 respectively.) That loss, based on the team ISU was, is one of the primary reasons they didn't jump us. We weren't "pushed ahead," so to speak considering we were ranked #2 from week 13's poll and throughout the season. If you recall, in week #13 of the season the #2, #4, #5, and #7 teams in the BCS rankings all lost.

In the end all but two of the computer polls had OSU at #2.

 

[TerryP]

True, but every debate leading up to the final BCS vote and poll made a case for who both teams played and who both teams lost to...

The difference in Alabama getting the nod over OSU was as close as a few human votes or just a handful of points in the computers. In a race that close with teams with identical records it always comes down to SOS.

I think Alabama's SOS and who they lost to compared to OSU's SOS and who they lost to was the determining factor. The same was true for BSU, TCU and other teams in previous years. SOS and who you lost to has played a role in the past and will play a huge role in determining who plays for the BCS Championship in the future.

How many times have we heard the experts and voters say,"They don't play a tough enough schedule about teams like TCU and BCS and how many times have we heard the winner of the SEC should be in the championship game because they play a tough schedule?

The reason: Who you play (and if and when you lose) who beats you does matter.

That's why I said "I think we're on the same page" earlier.

One thing of note. If you look at the Coaches poll, we didn't lose what I would call significant ground in the last few weeks of the poll. Much like we benefited from those four teams losing in week 13, Okie State benefited from Arkansas and Va. Tech losing at season's end. The votes those two teams were getting fell into Okie State's lap.

 

[MunchyOs]

Given that the SEC now has 14 teams, and very well could have 16 in the not to distant future, there is really only way to go with the scheduling. No more divisions. No permanent rivals for anyone. That way, everybody plays everybody within just a few years, and you are assured to have the two best teams in the league play in the SEC Title game.

 

[TerryP]

Given that the SEC now has 14 teams, and very well could have 16 in the not to distant future, there is really only way to go with the scheduling. No more divisions. No permanent rivals for anyone. That way, everybody plays everybody within just a few years, and you are assured to have the two best teams in the league play in the SEC Title game.

Then how to you pick two teams for the SECCG? I don't see any possibility of the conference moving away from that game. It would mean leaving millions on the table.

 

[UAgrad93]

I think we stay with our divisions and our championship game. No way we leave millions on the table from the game alone and TV money from the game too!

 

[MunchyOs]

Then how to you pick two teams for the SECCG? I don't see any possibility of the conference moving away from that game. It would mean leaving millions on the table.

Take last season, for instance. Lets say that there were no divisions. In that scenario, Bama and LSU's rematch is in Atlanta, since they are, bar none, the two best in the SEC. As opposed to LSU and Georgia, which was a total mismatch. Take 2010 as well. If there were no divisions, the SEC Title Game would have been an auburn-LSU rematch as opposed to auburn-South Carolina. I say just go with the two teams with the best records and there is your conference title game. Couldn't that work?

 

[MunchyOs]

I think we stay with our divisions and our championship game. No way we leave millions on the table from the game alone and TV money from the game too!

Keep the championship game. Lose the divisions. I really think it could work.

 

[Bo]

I've thought about Munchy's proposal before myself. I like the idea.