Nick Saban questions SEC's 3 permanent opponents proposed for Alabama football schedule for 2024

[PA Tide Fan]

I guess there's one situation where having 3 good teams as permanent opponents is beneficial and that is a scenario where things come down to tiebreaks at the end of the season. If we would not play Auburn, Tennessee or LSU and one of them would be chosen over us for a championship game through some complicated tiebreak format we would be saying "If only we'd had a chance to play them we'd have proven who's the best team." This way we'd have a head to head game (hopefully a win) with them to be the one chosen instead.

 

[CoolBreeze]

I guess there's one situation where having 3 good teams as permanent opponents is beneficial and that is a scenario where things come down to tiebreaks at the end of the season. If we would not play Auburn, Tennessee or LSU and one of them would be chosen over us for a championship game through some complicated tiebreak format we would be saying "If only we'd had a chance to play them we'd have proven who's the best team." This way we'd have a head to head game (hopefully a win) with them to be the one chosen instead.

Thing is, the collection of the 3 is likely where an L would manifest itself directly or indirectly. Won't matter after next year anyway once we go to a 12 team playoff. We should be in that dance from here to eternity.

 

[RammerJammer14]

I got an idea. How about we just don’t add Ok and Tx, and let them screw up their own conference.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I have an illness.

It's called the Deja Flu:

Why do certain SEC teams get 4 cupcake teams on their schedule? | TideFans.com

 

[KrAzY3]

Also, it would appear the SEC is trying to use some sort of circular reasoning to justify Alabama playing these three teams. Saban alluded to some sort of 10 year record thing, as though the SEC is using that to determine the "fairness" of the schedule.

Well, I've always, always blasted such shortsightedness. Remember Virginia Tech and now they were viewed as a football power to what was a relatively short lived time as being relevant in football? I kept saying they were not a true football power,

Well, VT has won 10 games once since 2012. They have had two losing seasons since then, and their attendance has fallen. So basically they are close to being back to what they've always been. But mean, when expansion was first heating up they were one of the top names people wanted. Recency bias is strong.

Well, in this case there's one really, really strong thing at play here. Alabama's greatness. Alabama has been playing LSU, Auburn, and Tennessee every year during this ten year window, heck longer than that. The problem is Alabama has also been the best program in college football over that period of time. So while other teams have been playing Kentucky or what have you, those teams have been playing Alabama.

So, one of the reasons the SEC thinks it's "fair" for LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn to play Alabama is because Alabama has been playing, and beating those teams. Of course had they instead been playing Vanderbilt or in the case of Tennessee, Miss. State annually, they'd all have a lot more wins. Obviously SEC West teams look weaker in terms of raw record relative to SEC East teams purely because they are playing tougher competition.

It's all just sheer stupidity. In order to test the validity of the matchups, obviously you'd need to go back further than ten years, but the next obvious thing is you'd have to actually remove the team in question from the results, something the SEC appears to be too stupid (or malicious) to do.

 

[BamaMoon]

Bottom line: Neither Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tenn., Georgia OR LSU (the historical bell cows of the SEC should have to play THREE in this group!!!

With the remaining SEC teams making a group much more sizeable than the top teams there's no reason an equitable schedule (if we are bent on assigning permanent opponents) can't be worked out!

 

[Padreruf]

CNS is using the media to try and coerce the SEC into a different setup. He's playing chess with them...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I got an idea. How about we just don’t add Ok and Tx, and let them screw up their own conference.

Texas already did that.
Twice.

My assumption - which may be wrong - is that we are basically taking them because "natural selection" is at work here and going to root out everyone until we basically have a "Northern conference" and a "Southern conference." This was seen as a first strike that in all honesty was probably more of a defensive posture to keep the B1G out of the largest "Southern" state.

In regards to Texas, I'll paraphrase Churchill: "Never has so arrogant been paid so much money and attention for actually accomplishing so little."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Bottom line: Neither Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tenn., Georgia OR LSU (the historical bell cows of the SEC should have to play THREE in this group!!!

With the remaining SEC teams making a group much more sizeable than the top teams there's no reason an equitable schedule (if we are bent on assigning permanent opponents) can't be worked out!

I assume (without saying) you mean "as part of an annual schedule" since there will be times (of course) where all those teams wind up on the schedule. And I AGREE with you btw.

LSU should not be mandated to play Florida, Alabama, Auburn and Georgia (for example) EVERY YEAR while an MSU or Kentucky gets each other and Vandy each year as a guaranteed opponent. As much as we all hate Auburn here, no, they shouldn't be torched with Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and LSU every single year, either.

Especially not with adding Texas on the rise (as they have been every year since 1971) and Oklahoma, too.

 

[Tidelines]

Alabama has made the conference more money than anybody. Why should playing three traditionally tougher games so the conference can make more money even factor in the decision. Alabama needs to do what is best for Alabama. MSU is a legitimate traditional rival. When the rest of the big boys play a tough 3 permanent games schedule, we will talk about it.

 

[Bama_N_Va]

Can you guys maybe agree to this schedule:

Bama plays LSU, Tenn, GA, and either Florida/TX every year, and awburn gets thrown out of the league!

 

[TideEngineer08]

Can you guys maybe agree to this schedule:

Bama plays LSU, Tenn, GA, and either Florida/TX every year, and awburn gets thrown out of the league!

Hang on. How about LSU, UGA, Florida, Texas, OU and we kick both Tennessee and Auburn out?

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Hang on. How about LSU, UGA, Florida, Texas, OU and we kick both Tennessee and Auburn out?

this. deserves a double banjeaux

 

[DrJJoyner]

So, one of the reasons the SEC thinks it's "fair" for LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn to play Alabama is because Alabama has been playing, and beating those teams.

I think you're overthinking this. If LSU is Alabama's third opponent, it would because "the SEC thinks it's 'fair'" but because they think it'll make more money than making, say, Mississippi State the third opponent. Money is the answer to every decision the SEC has made going back to adding Arkansas and
South Carolina in 1992 to create the SEC Championship Game.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I think you're overthinking this. If LSU is Alabama's third opponent, it would because "the SEC thinks it's 'fair'" but because they think it'll make more money than making, say, Mississippi State the third opponent. Money is the answer to every decision the SEC has made going back to adding Arkansas and
South Carolina in 1992 to create the SEC Championship Game.

If that's true, and I don't doubt there is some truth in it, then why do we not have Oklahoma playing Florida/Georgia/Texas? Georgia playing Auburn/Florida/Tennessee? Florida playing Geogia/Oklahoma/LSU?

Alabama is not the only big ticket team in the conference.

 

[KrAzY3]

I think you're overthinking this. If LSU is Alabama's third opponent, it would because "the SEC thinks it's 'fair'" but because they think it'll make more money than making, say, Mississippi State the third opponent. Money is the answer to every decision the SEC has made going back to adding Arkansas and
South Carolina in 1992 to create the SEC Championship Game.

I think that's a reasonable point to make, although instead of using the word think, I would probably have been better off alluding to it as justification.

However, I do have to belabor one point. The SEC has does things contrary to Alabama's interest on numerous occasions, despite Alabama being the cash cow. They have on a few occasions done things that were overly malicious so I don't simply accept the notion that this is just about money. It's also about not protecting Alabama's brand, which is where that money comes from.

They could be throwing other teams under the bus for the sake of money, they're choosing to throw Alabama under the bus. I would also add that is a bit of a dangerous game to play, as they are in a massive struggle with the Big 10 for power over college football. Angering Alabama or simply being seen as mistreating their top brand is not the right course of action if they want to make money in the long run.

 

[DrJJoyner]

If that's true, and I don't doubt there is some truth in it, then why do we not have Oklahoma playing Florida/Georgia/Texas? Georgia playing Auburn/Florida/Tennessee? Florida playing Geogia/Oklahoma/LSU?

Alabama is not the only big ticket team in the conference.

We haven't seen the schedule.

I presume Texas will play Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas---basically, a SWC rematch that would do well on TV.

Most of the Oklahoma predictions seem to be Texas, Missouri, Florida.

I have seen quite a few predictions of Auburn drawing Bama, Georgia, and Florida---which would be brutal and restore a traditional rivalry. But I've also seen Vandy instead of Florida, which would be easier but less exciting.

 

[DrJJoyner]

However, I do have to belabor one point. The SEC has does things contrary to Alabama's interest on numerous occasions, despite Alabama being the cash cow. They have on a few occasions done things that were overly malicious so I don't simply accept the notion that this is just about money.

It doesn't make sense for them to do that but there are examples I could point to. Most obviously, they seem to allow everyone to schedule a bye before they face Alabama but always have us come off our bye to play LSU also coming off a bye. The only other thing that comes to mind is moving the SEC Championship Game away from Birmingham, because it was supposedly unfair to give Alabama home field, and then move it to Atlanta---essentially giving Georgia home field.

 

[JamieSPC]

A round robin just fixes it all. Including a lot of other issues that have long been bothering me personally, ha ha.

I'm a born, raised, and life-long resident of Alabama and a graduate of the University. And I don't care one WHIT about playing Auburn every year. But maybe that's just me. In fact, I think it would make the "rivalry" both richer and perhaps even a bit more civil if it were just in the rotation like every other game.

Further... Money won't be an issue for an SEC TV slate that features Georgia playing Texas and Bama playing Oklahoma and Florida playing LSU and Auburn playing Tennessee and on and on and on. Are we really thinking there'd be LESS revenue in a scenario where we closed our season with Texas rather than AU? Nahhhh. Stop doing things because it's what you've always done.

I propose the fairest (round robin) is also the most lucrative, or at least a wash.

And we don't have to put up with the Aubs, or anyone else, every stinkin year.

 

[TideEngineer08]

We haven't seen the schedule.

I presume Texas will play Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas---basically, a SWC rematch that would do well on TV.

Most of the Oklahoma predictions seem to be Texas, Missouri, Florida.

I have seen quite a few predictions of Auburn drawing Bama, Georgia, and Florida---which would be brutal and restore a traditional rivalry. But I've also seen Vandy instead of Florida, which would be easier but less exciting.

Well that's a great point... we really don't know yet. We just have this historical reference as Alabama fans that the SEC is never going to do us any favors.

And for the record, I don't think it would be right for Auburn to be playing Alabama/Florida/Georgia either. They got that on the first go around after the SEC expanded to 12 and you played 2 permanent rivals from the opposite division. I remember the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth because we got Tennessee and Vanderbilt, which there was historical precedence for, and they got Georgia and Florida.

By the way, everything I've seen is saying the SEC will NOT have Texas vs. Texas A&M on an annual basis. Which I think is a huge mistake.