Coach Saban’s Telling Comments

Submitted by Sten Carlson on
Coach Saban was interviewed in the selection show just a minute or two ago, and he made some very telling comments regarding the current system. First, he right said it’s always going to be somewhat subjective. Second, he said more Power 5 teams should play. He said people point at Alabama, but they “couldn’t get a game” so they played a game that nobody wants to watch nor play in — interesting. Further, he said the intra-conference divisions are “lopsided” and referenced the B10 as well as the SEC. Although I usually don’t like Saban, he made some very important points about the fact that identifying the best 4 (or even 8) teams becomes easier if teams play their entire conference (maybe a jab at the SEC structure) and more P5 teams. It’s hard to argue with him there. I for one, would like to see the conference CG’s go away, and go back to a more traditional all-play-all format rather than seeing rematches and/or CG’s with to top teams that never played. Obviously, would take some restructuring of the conferences and within them. Further, such changes would really hurt the smaller programs who rely upon those OOC games. One thing is certain to me, though. CFB needs to find a way to make the regular season more exciting week to week, and make a true viable playoff. Discuss.
MGoBoard
Football

trueblueintexas

December 4th, 2017 at 12:21 AM ^

The true reason for the Mercer game is that Alabama and Auburn agreed to play cupcakes the week before the Iron Bowl to make sure neither team had an advantage/disadvantage based on schedule. Trying to make it sound like no P5 team was willing to play them so they had to play Mercer is flat out lying.

Joined: 11/10/2008

MGoPoints: 36705

Sten Carlson

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:17 PM ^

I kinda laughed at first, but he did follow it up by saying he wanted to play more P5 teams and they “couldn’t get a game.” Now, is he being genuine? I kind of felt like he was. The Alabama AD makes those schedules, not him. He knows they’re helpful, but he even said that “you guys [ESPN] get better products ...” or something to that point.

Joined: 11/16/2009

MGoPoints: -56

Pepto Bismol

December 3rd, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^

You think he was being genuine in that he couldn't get a game?  Like last year when they played Tenn-Chatanooga on 11/19?  Or in '15 when they played Charleston Southern 11/21?  Or in '14 when they played Western Carolina on 11/22?  It goes all the way back to 2009.  UT-Chatanooga, Western Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State....  EVERY SEASON, Alabama schedules a 1-AA Bye Week on that 3rd November weekend, right before the Championships.

They're not alone.  Auburn does the same thing.  Alabama A&M, Idaho, Samford, blah, blah, blah... Their string of November cupcakes stretches back to '07.  

Maybe it's tough to get an out of conference game in November.  But they're not trying.  This is an intentional late-season breather.

Joined: 02/03/2015

MGoPoints: 7857

pescadero

December 4th, 2017 at 9:16 AM ^

"You think he was being genuine in that he couldn't get a game? "

 

Yes.

 

Given the constraints - November game and no return game - they are never getting anything other than a bodybag game, and even getting a MAC level garbage team is difficult.

 

What P5 team is going to go to Albama with no return game on a weekend in November?

Joined: 03/28/2013

MGoPoints: 12103

L'Carpetron Do…

December 4th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^

I have no problem with Chattanooga or UL-Monroe being on those teams' schedules, I just have a problem when they're on the schedule. Push it to September and play an additional conference game - even a conference cupcake like Kentucky or Vanderbilt in that November slot. To play a weak OOC opponent in late November while those other conferences are eating each other alive is pretty bogus.  

 

 

Joined: 03/15/2010

MGoPoints: 8572

I Like Burgers

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:23 PM ^

That’s the whole point of Saban’s comments. The SEC only has 8 conference games, they try to schedule other teams to fill up the non-conference but pretty much no one wants to play them because it’s Bama and you’re going to get your face punched in. So they are stuck scheduling teams like Mercer.

He’s also pointing out things like the fact that Wisconsin is in the playoff picture ever damn year due to the fact the don’t play any one good the whole season because the Big Ten West is a shit show.

Basically, it’s hard to tell who the best four really are because everyone is scheduling games by a different set of rules.

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30575

J.

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^

One of my pet peeves about college football is that teams can schedule their way to prominence.  Washington did it last year; Wisconsin almost did it this year.  Michigan used to eschew that crap but finally gave in and started playing MAC teams and the Delaware States of the world; happily, the pendulum has mostly swung, but there are still plenty of people who want to buy out the upcoming games against Washington because the schedule is "too hard."

College football would really benefit from an impartial, NFL-like scheduling model, where teams were slotted into balanced schedules based upon the prior season's performance.  Combine that with an impartial, record-based playoff seeding system, and you'd have a fair sport.  The sport is unfair today -- mostly to teams like UCF, but also to teams like Michigan, who play in a difficult division, as opposed to, say, Florida, who doesn't.

Joined: 03/11/2012

MGoPoints: 13057

yossarians tree

December 3rd, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^

Absolutely. The unbalanced scheduling within conferences makes the "conference championship" concept a total joke. You can only be declared the champion if you played everyone. Until that happens or they go to 16 teams, there is always going to someone with a legitimate beef.

Joined: 08/19/2010

MGoPoints: 22296

DoubleB

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:34 PM ^

the impression I got (and I think the committee as well) was that Wisconsin just isn't that good. They didn't play one team, until yesterday, that could take advantage of their lack of speed in the back 7. 

The fact OSU could only beat them by 6 is reflective of both of those teams.

And I get that the SEC only plays 8 conference games, but every year Bama schedules a neutral site game against a marquee opponent. 

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 7470

DHughes5218

December 3rd, 2017 at 5:20 PM ^

I think the point was to cover his tracks from a previous statement where he said only conference champions should get in. Now he has to backtrack a little. I sort of agree with him because his team didn't get to play the champion of his conference, yet they finished the regular season with the same record and a loss to the same team, but because they are separated by an unbalanced division, somehow Georgia is considered the better team? 

I really hope both SEC teams get wrecked in the semifinals and we can stop pretending the SEC is so great that they deserve two spots in a four team playoff.

Joined: 10/04/2014

MGoPoints: 7267

Mr Miggle

December 3rd, 2017 at 5:45 PM ^

They play an FCS team like that every single season. They'll play the Citadel next year. The argument that no one will play Bama is a joke. Auburn played Mercer too this season. Most of the SEC does the same thing.Their formula is one good opponent, two body bag games and one weak FCS foe. Florida and USC are exceptions .

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47691

jmblue

December 3rd, 2017 at 4:47 PM ^

Sending MSU west just does them a favor.  No thanks.  They should be playing OSU and PSU every year, too.

IU-PU is the only rivalry that's split up by the East-West format, and they have it protected.   Otherwise the divisions contain them all.  This is a big improvement IMO over the Leaders/Legends mess, where several rivalries were broken up and we had a tougher schedule than the rest of our division.  If the two divisions aren't balanced, that's life.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102861

bronxblue

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:44 PM ^

They cancelled it in 2013, and as noted in the article it was because (he thought) they were going to play 9 conference games, which would have meant they played MSU and FSU in the same year, both effectively on the road.  I doubt Alabama was "ducking" MSU, but teams cancel games all the time for a variety of reasons.  

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171810

Magnus

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:16 PM ^

This has been my big frustration ever since the Big Ten stopped being 10 teams. Once you get to 11 or 12 or 14 or 16 teams in a conference, teams don't play each other and it screws up your chances for an objective conclusion. IMO, each conference should be limited to 10 teams, which would give you 3 non-conference games, and there should be a conference championship game at the end.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009

J.

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

If you have 10 teams in a conference, and a full round-robin, why would you need a conference championship game (which would necessarily be a rematch?)

It's hard enough to beat OSU once.  Do you really want to have to beat them twice, in back-to-back weeks? :)

Joined: 03/11/2012

MGoPoints: 13057

Magnus

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:29 PM ^

I could take or leave conference championship games, really. Either way is fine with me, but I like to see football for that extra week.

Joined: 07/17/2008

MGoPoints: 166009

J.

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:35 PM ^

I'd rather see an extra week of playoffs then.  Or a 13-week regular season, if people don't want expanded playoffs.

Note that the differnece between an extra week of playoffs and a conference championship is twofold: 1 - much less likely to be a rematch; 2 - home games!  The atmosphere at the Big House for a first-round playoff game against, say, Texas, would be off the charts.  The atmosphere at whatever they're calling the RCA Dome this week for a Michigan/OSU rematch would be great -- Michigan/OSU is always a big game -- but not off-the-charts great.

Joined: 03/11/2012

MGoPoints: 13057

yossarians tree

December 3rd, 2017 at 4:21 PM ^

Agreed. A conference championship is even more of a joke if you already played everyone. If we are asking the kids to play another game, make it be for a shot at the title.

Joined: 08/19/2010

MGoPoints: 22296

MichiWolv

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:56 PM ^

The only thing with not having a conference championship in that situation would be a 3(or more) way tie were the 3 teams all go 1-1 against the other 2.

I could just see three teams going 11-1 and 2 having legitimate beef. I don't know how often that would happen, and it obviously still happens with the current setup, but it might be more common. Whether or not that is better than a CG rematch with a split result is up for debate too. Neither way is perfect.

Joined: 05/19/2011

MGoPoints: 406

uncleFred

December 3rd, 2017 at 3:55 PM ^

13 games in the regular season. No conference playoff game. 2 OOC games and play the 11 other teams in your conference. Personally I'm fine with a ten team limit, but this gets all of us 13 games we care about and a conference champion that played their entire conference. 

Redefine the playoff committee. Every P5 conference champion gets in plus three at large teams, selected by the playoff committee.  

Joined: 10/14/2011

MGoPoints: 2399

MGoStrength

December 3rd, 2017 at 2:19 PM ^

12 teams in all Power 5 conferences.  Power 5 conference teams play everyone once.  Conference winners in Power 5 get into the playoff with the next top ranked 3 teams also getting in.  Done.  Sorry, but no one cares about the non-power 5.

Joined: 07/29/2010

MGoPoints: 20002