Link: 1A opponent prospects to replace 1AA on schedule?

KrAzY3 said:

The issue is that there are cupcakes in a lot of other conferences. You think the Big 10 proves anything when their teams beat Maryland for example? What this means though in the long run is the SEC has to has to soften their out of conference schedule to keep the gap from being even wider. Like I said Alabama SoS #1, Ohio State 60. There's nothing at all wrong with the Alabama product.

Click to expand...

ALA2262 said:

Minor league teams? I assume you are referring to what I refer to as 1AA. FCS if you insist. What makes you think that any such mandate is in the works? There is a better chance that all 1A (FBS) schools be required to play a 1AA (FCS) than there is the other way around! Read post #4 in this thread for the history of this issue. They are not going back to limited scheduling of 1AA, much less completely restricting one half of the FBS segment.

Click to expand...

TUSKtimes said:

OK, so I will put you down for, bring on the next North Texas.

Click to expand...

TUSKtimes said:

I don't fear an upgrade in competition. I fear an uneven playing field.

Click to expand...

TUSKtimes said:

The 1979 schedule for our national champion Bama team was a sight to behold and shows just how far teams have maneuvered away from the past norm. Everyone can decide how they want to spend their Bama dollar. I personally think getting back to the old grown up schedule creates a lot more interest in our game and team in the long run, than how many folks show up for practice in the spring.

Click to expand...

KrAzY3 said:

Absolutely, I care about championships, not exciting games. I mean the Shula era had plenty of exciting games, and I look upon it as a miserable period.
Well, first let's be clear. Alabama could play North Texas three times in a row and the playing field would still be uneven, in favor of other teams. Secondly, as I stated earlier, Alabama already played the #1 schedule, there's no point to upgrading and... I do have to point out that you don't play the games. So you don't have to worry about recovering from minor injuries after a tough game or getting mentally focused for the 15th game of the year. You and I don't have to go through what the players go through. And this connects to something else you said.
In 1979 Alabama played 12 games. One of those games was against Wichita State. In 2015 Alabama played 15 games. Out of the 15 teams they played, I believe two were not bowl eligible (someone correct me if I'm wrong). It doesn't end there though. In 1979 Alabama played 3 teams ranked at the time. In 2015 Alabama played 9 teams ranked at the time. Some of that information could need updating or what not, but you get the idea.
Go look at it for yourself, there's no question at all that the 2015 schedule was tougher. Virginia Tech was a cupcake playing a cupcake schedule for example. Vanderbilt was 1-10. You want the kicker? The 1979 football team had a scholarship limit of 95! So what they did that year, was play less games, against easier competition, with more players, and yet you seem to be holding that up as an example of how things should be. I understand your viewpoint but I'm not sure you are digging deep enough. There are physical limitations to what a football player is capable of doing and Alabama is already doing things that would be the undoing of a lot of other contenders.
Edit: To me the context is a bit like this. Some teams already have a cakewalk to the playoff, and we're talking about it like: "I'm not sure there are enough landmines in Alabama's path, we need more landmines!". I just don't get that.

Click to expand...

KrAzY3 said:

Absolutely, I care about championships, not exciting games. I mean the Shula era had plenty of exciting games, and I look upon it as a miserable period.


Well, first let's be clear. Alabama could play North Texas three times in a row and the playing field would still be uneven, in favor of other teams. Secondly, as I stated earlier, Alabama already played the #1 schedule, there's no point to upgrading and... I do have to point out that you don't play the games. So you don't have to worry about recovering from minor injuries after a tough game or getting mentally focused for the 15th game of the year. You and I don't have to go through what the players go through. And this connects to something else you said.


In 1979 Alabama played 12 games. One of those games was against Wichita State. In 2015 Alabama played 15 games. Out of the 15 teams they played, I believe two were not bowl eligible (someone correct me if I'm wrong). It doesn't end there though. In 1979 Alabama played 3 teams ranked at the time. In 2015 Alabama played 9 teams ranked at the time. Some of that information could need updating or what not, but you get the idea.

Go look at it for yourself, there's no question at all that the 2015 schedule was tougher. Virginia Tech was a cupcake playing a cupcake schedule for example. Vanderbilt was 1-10. You want the kicker? The 1979 football team had a scholarship limit of 95! So what they did that year, was play less games, against easier competition, with more players, and yet you seem to be holding that up as an example of how things should be. I understand your viewpoint but I'm not sure you are digging deep enough. There are physical limitations to what a football player is capable of doing and Alabama is already doing things that would be the undoing of a lot of other contenders.

Edit: To me the context is a bit like this. Some teams already have a cakewalk to the playoff, and we're talking about it like: "I'm not sure there are enough landmines in Alabama's path, we need more landmines!". I just don't get that.

Click to expand...