NCAA coaching salaries for 2016 - Saban #2...

According to Sugaring, Michigan has played the 50th toughest schedule in FBS, while Bama has played the 11th toughest schedule in FBS.

If Bama played Michigan's schedule they'd still be undefeated. If Michigan played Bama's schedule, I doubt they'd be undefeated...
I'd say barely in the top 25.


Sent from my iPhone 7 Plus [emoji336] using Tapatalk
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,530
338
102
If Bama played Michigan's schedule they'd still be undefeated. If Michigan played Bama's schedule, I doubt they'd be undefeated...
I agree with this, but that's a far cry from "they haven't played anyone with a pulse." Wisconsin, Colorado, and Penn State are all good.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,530
338
102
I agree with this, but that's a far cry from "they haven't played anyone with a pulse." Wisconsin, Colorado, and Penn State are all good.
Not willing to go that far yet. Michigan started the season projected (like everyone else) to be a tough opponent. Are they? It's tough to look bad given your competition. I mean, I know this WAS the big 10s year, with tons ranked up there, but look at their level of competition......




You're all smart people and can figure out whose schedule is whose. The rank shows position at time of game.
Why would you include their ranking when they played vs. their ranking now?

You're basically discounting their wins vs Colorado and Penn State (which look more impressive in retrospect) and hyping up Bama wins vs. opponents who are no longer ranked and don't look as impressive in hindsight.

Zero question Bama has played the tougher schedule (I mean it's the SEC West) but your post is very misleading.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Why would you include their ranking when they played vs. their ranking now?

You're basically discounting their wins vs Colorado and Penn State (which look more impressive in retrospect) and hyping up Bama wins vs. opponents who are no longer ranked and don't look as impressive in hindsight.

Zero question Bama has played the tougher schedule (I mean it's the SEC West) but your post is very misleading.
Can use either rankings if you like. Just depends on how you want to use them. Does a week one ranking mean as much as a week six ranking? Alabama beat the preseason number 20 team in the nation in week one. The same team that is now unranked and 4-3.

Looking back on the season, we tend to look at both rankings to get a better understanding of how tough a schedule really was.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
Why would you include their ranking when they played vs. their ranking now?

You're basically discounting their wins vs Colorado and Penn State (which look more impressive in retrospect) and hyping up Bama wins vs. opponents who are no longer ranked and don't look as impressive in hindsight.

Zero question Bama has played the tougher schedule (I mean it's the SEC West) but your post is very misleading.
Just ask Sagarin: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

At this point in the season, stats make sense - there have been enough games played for the numbers to begin to reflect reality...
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
According to Sagarin, Michigan has played the 50th toughest schedule in FBS, while Bama has played the 11th toughest schedule in FBS.

If Bama played Michigan's schedule they'd still be undefeated. If Michigan played Bama's schedule, I doubt they'd be undefeated...
The ol' gut is just making me question a lot of the teams we've played so far. We've played some good teams, we've played some teams with good records to date.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,530
338
102
I agree with this, but that's a far cry from "they haven't played anyone with a pulse." Wisconsin, Colorado, and Penn State are all good.
Can use either rankings if you like. Just depends on how you want to use them. Does a week one ranking mean as much as a week six ranking? Alabama beat the preseason number 20 team in the nation in week one. The same team that is now unranked and 4-3.

Looking back on the season, we tend to look at both rankings to get a better understanding of how tough a schedule really was.
I'm not saying rankings at the time are irrelevant but rankings particularly from early in the season clearly mean less than whatever the most recent rankings are, as the most recent rankings are looking at the entire body of work up to this point. For example clearly Colorado is much better than people thought they were in Week 3. They've been a doormat in the Pac-12 for several years so blowing them out didn't look that impressive -- but now they're 6-2 and probably the front runner for the Pac-12 south, so blowing them out is a nice win.
 

UntouchableCrew

All-SEC
Nov 30, 2015
1,530
338
102
Just ask Sagarin: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

At this point in the season, stats make sense - there have been enough games played for the numbers to begin to reflect reality...
Don't get me wrong, obviously Alabama has had the tougher schedule. I just think the point of view that Michigan has played nobody and has no resume is unfair. They've notched some impressive wins and murdered the lesser opponents they have faced. (Those same sagarin rankings have them 2 for a reason.)

I think Bama kills Michigan head to head (I just don't think they have the horses on offense to score on the Tide defense) but they're a very talented team that can make noise.
 

tide96

All-SEC
Oct 4, 2005
1,616
32
72
46
No one is worth what Saban is worth.

Harbaugh is probably worth being paid as much as the #3 coach behind Saban and Urban Meyer.

What that number should be is up to the schools and their crazy fans.
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
I'm not saying rankings at the time are irrelevant but rankings particularly from early in the season clearly mean less than whatever the most recent rankings are, as the most recent rankings are looking at the entire body of work up to this point. For example clearly Colorado is much better than people thought they were in Week 3. They've been a doormat in the Pac-12 for several years so blowing them out didn't look that impressive -- but now they're 6-2 and probably the front runner for the Pac-12 south, so blowing them out is a nice win.
For a couple of reasons I always go with the ranking when the game was played.

1. If you don't go with the ranking when the game was played then you essentially penalize a team for winning. Say Bama beats a team that's ranked #20 when they play and Bama wins. That team is unranked the next week. If you don't give credit for the ranking when the game was played you're penalizing the winning team by taking away a top 25 win.

2. Team dynamics change. When we played UGA last year they were highly ranked (can't remember exact ranking), undefeated and Nick Chubb was healthy. We beat them at their house under those circumstances. Going forward UGA's season fell apart because Chubb got hurt and other injuries. Alabama should still get credit for beating that UGA team with the ranking they had when the game was played.
 

tattooguy21

Suspended
Aug 14, 2012
3,615
612
132
Why would you include their ranking when they played vs. their ranking now?

You're basically discounting their wins vs Colorado and Penn State (which look more impressive in retrospect) and hyping up Bama wins vs. opponents who are no longer ranked and don't look as impressive in hindsight.

Zero question Bama has played the tougher schedule (I mean it's the SEC West) but your post is very misleading.
Well, I'll give you my 100% honest reason for the rank at time of play.......that was the info on the site I had pulled up. It reflected that as opposed to current.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.