OT-ish – Saban unhappy about BCS selection process. Sound familiar?
Don't kill me, but this sounds oddly familiar to how we benefitted last year. Saban is upset that Florida is a Sugar Bowl lock while the loser from the SEC Championship game will likely be surpassed and not selected for a BCS bowl when they won their division.
If it sounds familiar, that might be because Sparty (Oh, Kork) whined about it last year. Maybe there's a legitimate gripe, but the counter argument from Will Muschamp sounds pretty familiar from our side last year, as well.
We'd much rather trade up for a B1GCG and chance at roses, even with the possibility of losing, even if it means another team gets to go to a BCS game. Right?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8680281/florida-gators-m…
November 27th, 2012 at 2:04 AM ^
The man is a goddamn baby. Every week he's whining about something or other. Oh those darn A&M players are lining up so fast!
November 27th, 2012 at 9:39 AM ^
I have to disagree with you on this one. You think NFL coaches are babies when they tell the media that the other team's defenders are targeting their QB, or that their O-line gets away with holding every play, etc etc?
I hate Saban as much as the next guy but this is just a calculated maneuver on his part. I wouldn't expect anything less from a guy like him.
November 27th, 2012 at 9:49 AM ^
Speaking to his comments though, this is probably the most hypocritical thing I've heard in a while.
You were OK not winning your conference last year and still being able to play in the NCG, but because you're on the other end of the stick this year suddenly there's a problem. All the world's violins are playing in unison for you, Nick. It's just too bad that we can't arrange your 1st team guys playing against your 2nd team guys in the NCG, wouldn't that be something?
November 27th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^
Back in 2008 (I think, maybe '07) he was whining about Florida going to the title game because "they didn't even win their conference". Any way the winds blows...
November 27th, 2012 at 2:13 AM ^
I don't buy that teams in that situation should have nothing to lose for playing in these games. Why? If Alabama, the current #2 team in the country, loses to Georgia, they obviously won't get to play in the national championship game. Why should Georgia or MSU or whatever get a free pass? Teams have a lot to gain from playing in these games (automatic BCS bid, sometimes more); they should have something to lose, too.
November 27th, 2012 at 2:14 AM ^
The main reason his argument has no merit is that Florida actually has a better resume than either team at this point and especially will over the team that loses. Yay for big bloated conferences causing big scheduling imbalances.
November 27th, 2012 at 2:17 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 2:28 AM ^
Florida beat aTm and Johnny Football in College Station.
Alabama lost the to aTm and their No. 1 ranking AT HOME.
He has nothing to complain about.
November 27th, 2012 at 2:52 AM ^
Saban's team failed to win their division last year but still got to play for the national title. Oh, the cognitive disconnect!
November 27th, 2012 at 3:37 AM ^
He also was quoted (without a source that I saw, to be fair) as saying a team that doesn't win its conference championship "has no business playing for a national championship"
But yeah, I didn't even think of how idiotic that is. I wish he were right though, then ND would be excluded, right you guys?
November 27th, 2012 at 7:57 AM ^
I say: "better Notre Dame than another all NASCAR championship"
excuse me while I gargle battery acid
November 27th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^
That quote is apochryphal - I've looked for it before.
November 27th, 2012 at 3:34 AM ^
will argue endlessly just to get their way with no regard to how they've benefited in the past from what they are now argueing against.
they suck
November 27th, 2012 at 3:48 AM ^
Well, this is politickin' from Saban. At once an act of self-aggrandizing the SEC title game this weekend--how DARE it not be recognzied that even the loser of this game is deserving--and campaigning for a Sugar Bowl bid should 'Bama slip up.
By comparison, Cousins's belly-aching was small-time.
November 27th, 2012 at 5:29 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 6:07 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 6:10 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 6:20 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 6:41 AM ^
When Alabama didn't win their division and still was able to go to the BCS National Championship
November 27th, 2012 at 7:04 AM ^
"Saban said Sunday that is isn't fair that the Gators, fifth-ranked in the BCS, likely will play in the Sugar Bowl over the loser of the Southeastern Conference title game."
So, if I read this correctly, Nick Saban is concerned about the non-zero probability that a "less than stellar" performance, if you will, in the SEC Championship Game could knock Alabama down what Saban must term "those other bowls"? Heaven forbid that Alabama should have to interact with what Saban must see as the rabble in Division I football....
November 27th, 2012 at 7:28 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 7:32 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 7:43 AM ^
He didn't win his division last year and won a national championship...why is he complaining?
November 27th, 2012 at 7:45 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 8:43 AM ^
How would a playoff solve this? Even if you're talking about an expanded format, at some point a line has to be drawn and losing a conference championship game could cause a team to fall below that line. I suppose a solution could be losing a conference championship game wouldn't mean falling below someone from you conference that didn't make the game. But that solution could be instituted even without a playoff.
November 27th, 2012 at 7:51 AM ^
I recall last year various TV commentators speaking of LSU deserving to go to the NC game even if they lost the SEC championship game. And then talk of LSU deserving a piece of #1 even if they lost to Alabama in the NC game.
To all that I screamed at the TV and shook my fist -- "Then shut the f*ck up about the need for a playoff. Because a playoff is precisely that -- lose and you're done. No talk of 'body of work' or 'quality of opponents.'"
It's really simple -- win the games that need to be won and the glory is yours. All else is just nonsense blather.
November 27th, 2012 at 8:29 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 9:15 AM ^
November 27th, 2012 at 9:28 AM ^
BCS bids go out to teams with fewest losses. They really don't take into consideration who won a division title or quality of wins or losses. A 1-loss Florida gets preference over a 2-loss UGA/Alabama just as a 2-loss UM got preference over a 3-loss Sparty. Simple really. All the complex rankings and polls go out the window, it simply boils down to # of losses.
November 27th, 2012 at 9:32 AM ^
Sometimes I struggle with irony, but wouldn't this be irony?
November 27th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^
So is Saban prepared to argue that he shouldn't have been in the National Championship Game last year, given that he got to go without playing a conference championship game?
November 27th, 2012 at 10:10 AM ^
this contradiction above. Amazingly, even many in the press did.
November 27th, 2012 at 10:10 AM ^
the assumption that it's manly manball in football. I mean, have you looked at some of these people's HAIR?
November 27th, 2012 at 10:18 AM ^
I wish the NCAA would make Alabama the "poster child" for cheating, and remove every bit of leverage that Saban has to have people take his comments seriously. Saban has a bully pulpit and uses it to further his own ends.
Nice work if you can get it...
November 27th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
Sparty fans who complained about it last year had no gripe in the first place because their team was ineligible for a BCS game. Teams must be ranked in the top sixteen to be eligible for a BCS game and they were not.