Link: Alabama adds The Citadel to 2018 Football Schedule

[81usaf92]

That's cool -- my bad. The Citadel is though. MTSU isn't, but my point about hindsight still seems relevant even though I misapplied it. We will not know enough about relative strength two years out to really make a prudent decision. In a sense, that means neither side can really win an argument just based on a numbers. However, the adage "less is more" comes to mind here. For most purposes, non-P5 games are meaningless space fillers. It is the nature of meaningless things to be eliminated, so I'd prefer to let them go to their fate sooner than later.

Again what about scheduling Kansas. Charleston southern is a higher FPI than them at the beginning of the season as well.

 

[RTR91]

I'm just guessing our schedule is still tougher with 1 fcs team than tosu.

Of course

 

[KrAzY3]

all things being equal I'd rather see more quality less quantity if that's the tradeoff. Maybe drop two FCS schools, add another power 5, and add another bye week. I'd be okay with that.

I don't want to participate in any needless back and forth but I thought I'd reply to this. The two FCS game things aside, I actually don't take exception to your suggestion in and of itself. From looking at the 1978 schedule, it became clear one reason Alabama was able to play so many difficult games was because they had less of them and there was more of a buffer between some big games. I personally would consider it acceptable to create a second bye week and drop the FCS opponent entirely. Lost revenue aside, that is something I would have no issue with. But as it is, it does function as close to a bye as Alabama can get and I just don't like it when people fail to take into account that players are now asked to play 15 games in the same time frame they used to play 12.

 

[LA4Bama]

Ok... We can go with preseason polls instead of end of the season. Know how that'll come out, right?

I'd say that unless you have a crystal ball, it's six on one hand, half a dozen on the other, no matter what metric you use.

Again what about scheduling Kansas. Charleston southern is a higher FPI than them at the beginning of the season as well.

What about it? I don't give a flip if we play Charleston Southern or the 2015 Kansas team -- they both were not good. That's besides the point. Let me put this into a format you can follow: It's Let's Make a Deal, and behind curtain #1 is an undisclosed FCS school and behind curtain #2 an undisclosed school from the Big 12. Which game would you expect, on the whole, to be a more challenging game?

Let's try the next level of complexity. This might be a little more advanced, but follow me here... Over ten years we can play 10 FCS teams or 10 power 5 teams. Which ten year period will produce more good games?






This thread is hotter than it needs to be for such a mundane hypothetical topic. I don't have anything to say about half of what is being argued herein. I am not making a commentary on the gap between conferences' SOS or what is the best way to attain more championships. I'm making a different point, simply that I think 3 meaningless games is more than there should be. I'd prefer to see us try to schedule one more potentially meaningful game. It is true, some lower tier schools excel some higher tier schools each year. My point is that we do not know which those teams will be, and in the real absence of knowledge of the future, we are best served by scheduling a P5 team, understanding that some years we will get duds and some years get a team who actually is dangerous. (Remember, I'm not arguing about whether this will or will not enhance our chances for a Natty). And then, to acknowledge the issue of harm to these great young mens' bodies from over-exposure to violence, add an open week, which is good for healing (not to mention the "student" part of student athlete). That probably isn't great for some bottom line somewhere, but it is also a respectful way to consider season ticket holders, too, who probably have an upper limit for wasting money on junk food games. Finally, I think limiting the number of games in the season is a good step in preserving amateurism in this sport. If it truly is the case that money rules all decisions, I'm going to have to rethink my current opinion on that issue.

 

[LA4Bama]

I don't want to participate in any needless back and forth...

Did you mean to write this in blue, Krazy? :wink:

 

[CrimSonami]

Dis thread makin' mah head huut!

 

[BamaInBham]

Since most P5 teams demand a home and home Bama would lose 1 home game every 2 years. That's a lot of money. Most other non-SEC programs cannot fill their stadiums, especially when playing non-P5 teams. Some have admitted it. The primary reason they schedule more P5 teams and conf games is money and, with the media's help, they get the bonus of trying to shame the SEC into cannibalizing itself with a 9 game conf schedule and eliminating non-P5 teams. Their cry for the SEC to do the same as they is a ruse.

Last year Bama had the toughest sched in the nation and one of the toughest all time:

14 post season teams, with a record of 10-4 (did not count games against Bama)
14 teams with a wining record
12 teams won 8 or more
10 teams won 9 or more
7 teams won 10 or more
8 ranked teams at time of game
7 ranked teams in top 25, 10 in top 31 in AP at season's end

One of the greatest seasons in history.

Why would anyone want to strengthen that schedule ?

 

[Redwood Forrest]

When playing an FCS team there are three things that can happen and TWO of them are bad.

 

[B1GTide]

Last year the thought was pretty unanimous that, while Alabama had the most talented team in the country, their difficult schedule would make it impossible for them to win the championship. Going into the season just about every pundit remarked at how difficult the schedule was, especially with so many key games on the road. My point - you can add tougher filler games if you wish, but your SoS doesn't require it as it does for so many other teams/conferences.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I don't understand why a fan of any team would want the road to a championship to be even tougher than it already is - it's like they live in a world of ideals and principles instead of real-world experience and facts.

 

[92tide]

I'd say that unless you have a crystal ball, it's six on one hand, half a dozen on the other, no matter what metric you use.

indeed

 

[Mystical]

The Big Ten is getting tougher. You can look at the draft and bowl records the last few years to see this. Michigan is on the rise. I think for that conference it will be determined by what James Franklin does at Penn State. Ohio State has forced the rest of the conference to raise their coaching and recruiting.

 

[CB4]

Discussions like this make me pray for the good old days of "The Hat Thread"....

 

[Intl.Aperture]

Last year the thought was pretty unanimous that, while Alabama had the most talented team in the country, their difficult schedule would make it impossible for them to win the championship. Going into the season just about every pundit remarked at how difficult the schedule was, especially with so many key games on the road. My point - you can add tougher filler games if you wish, but your SoS doesn't require it as it does for so many other teams/conferences.

Agree 100%. Just wanted to also point out that a lot of pundits also began to scoff at the scheduling of Charleston Southern so late in the season. While I found that ridiculous given the overall SOS, the nuances of scheduling FCS teams isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[92tide]

Agree 100%. Just wanted to also point out that a lot of pundits also began to scoff at the scheduling of Charleston Southern so late in the season. While I found that ridiculous given the overall SOS, the nuances of scheduling FCS teams isn't going away anytime soon.

the good thing is, we have a coach and program that sees pundits as not much more than clutter

 

[RTR91]

For those thinking attrition would be equal if P5 teams only played P5 teams, look at the rankings:

 

[TUSKtimes]

For those thinking attrition would be equal if P5 teams only played P5 teams, look at the rankings:

I know where I'm coming when I need my taxes done.

 

[81usaf92]

I'd say that unless you have a crystal ball, it's six on one hand, half a dozen on the other, no matter what metric you use.



What about it? I don't give a flip if we play Charleston Southern or the 2015 Kansas team -- they both were not good. That's besides the point. Let me put this into a format you can follow: It's Let's Make a Deal, and behind curtain #1 is an undisclosed FCS school and behind curtain #2 an undisclosed school from the Big 12. Which game would you expect, on the whole, to be a more challenging game?

Let's try the next level of complexity. This might be a little more advanced, but follow me here... Over ten years we can play 10 FCS teams or 10 power 5 teams. Which ten year period will produce more good games?






This thread is hotter than it needs to be for such a mundane hypothetical topic. I don't have anything to say about half of what is being argued herein. I am not making a commentary on the gap between conferences' SOS or what is the best way to attain more championships. I'm making a different point, simply that I think 3 meaningless games is more than there should be. I'd prefer to see us try to schedule one more potentially meaningful game. It is true, some lower tier schools excel some higher tier schools each year. My point is that we do not know which those teams will be, and in the real absence of knowledge of the future, we are best served by scheduling a P5 team, understanding that some years we will get duds and some years get a team who actually is dangerous. (Remember, I'm not arguing about whether this will or will not enhance our chances for a Natty). And then, to acknowledge the issue of harm to these great young mens' bodies from over-exposure to violence, add an open week, which is good for healing (not to mention the "student" part of student athlete). That probably isn't great for some bottom line somewhere, but it is also a respectful way to consider season ticket holders, too, who probably have an upper limit for wasting money on junk food games. Finally, I think limiting the number of games in the season is a good step in preserving amateurism in this sport. If it truly is the case that money rules all decisions, I'm going to have to rethink my current opinion on that issue.

Ok, I'll put it in a format that you can follow. If you play in the toughest division in football and you have to schedule one more game. Would it be to the season ticket holders best interest to risk going to the Sugar Bowl because we schedule a random P5 team that could give us trouble or should we schedule a playoff bound FCS team that we most likely end up in the CFP. Take into account most season ticket holders have post season options so would you rather see us play the group of 5 champion in a meaningless game in NOLA, or tosu in a game that actually matters.

 

[BamaInBham]

For those thinking attrition would be equal if P5 teams only played P5 teams, look at the rankings:

You are not saying this is for 2015 are you ? If so, it is incorrect.

 

[RTR91]

You are not saying this is for 2015 are you ? If so, it is incorrect.

Yes. This past season. How's it incorrect? I only did regular season because post season (conference championship and bowl games) are not scheduled.