A lot of talk about the SEC leaning towards a 9 game conference schedule..

[travis.sixpack]

True, but...

We're in no position to dictate anything to the SEC. The good news is, they don't really want Bama or LSU playing us permanently either. Bama will get Auburn, Tennessee and LSU. LSU will get Bama, A&M and Mississippi.

Sankey would rather have a 14-0 vote than a 12-2 or whatever. That might involve some minor horse-trading on permanent opponents. If the mid and lower tier teams band together, they can demand more favorable annual opponents in exchange for full support of the 9 game model.

Another bit of good news is I don't think any team other than Ole Miss considers us a historical rival, even though we've played LSU and Bama forever. That might mean we can pick up some combination of Mizzou/Ark/Kentucky/So Car/Vandy/Texas A&M to go with Ole Miss. Give me Mizzou/Texas A&M/OM and I can live with a 9 game schedule.

 

[johnson86-1]

We're going to have a lot less imbalance with 3 permanent opponents than we have now. I can promise you the SEC didn't add Texas so they could play A&M every 2nd or 3rd year. And the idea of moving UGA-AU, or Bama-Tenn or Bama-LSU to rotating games is ridiculous.

For the record, I would prefer either 2 or 4 permanent opponents & an 8-game schedule. But that’s not what we’re gonna get.

One of these things is not like the other. But aside from that, I would say there are two things you are missing. One, while the blue bloods may accept an imbalanced schedule to satisfy the TV gods, there is going to be a limit to that. Bama is not going to have UGA, LSU, and Auburn as it's permanent opponents; nor is Texas going to have OU, Texas A&M, and LSU. The blue bloods may be willing to have two other blue blood permanents, but they are not going to want three blue blood permanents while MSU plays Vany, UK, and Ole Miss.

Two, the TV gods only care about matchups that move the needle on eyeballs watching. UTenn is attractive as far as having a decent sized fan base and some name recognition, but UTenn is much less relevant nationally than OU, Bama, Texas, A&M, UGA, Florida, and even Auburn. The TV execs will love getting to schedule UTenn against the more relevant teams if they can convince those teams that UTenn is just another MSU, Ole Miss, or Kentucky, but they are not going to care about preserving Bama-UT at the expense of Bama and another high profile matchup.

That said, over the past 19 years, UTenn's overall record is 129 and 108 (winning 54.5%) and MSU's is 118-119 (winning 49.8%). Over the last ten years, UTenn is 62-61 overall, and 29-53 in conference. MSU is 74-54 overall and 38 and 44 in conference against a much harder conference schedule. So it may not be hard to get Bama to agree that UT is just another mid tier SEC team and therefore a permanent slate of LSU, Auburn, and UTenn is fine.

 

[GloryDawg]

Once upon a time, people said the exact same thing you just said about Saban, except they said it about Bear Bryant. Alabama was only able to get to the level where they could hire Saban by the decades of dominance they experienced under Bryant and those that followed him. Hell, Mike 17ing Dubose even won an SEC title there. They are, by far, the most tradition-rich program in the most tradition-rich conference. And they might not find another Saban, but they’ll come damn close to it if they don’t….before too long. We don’t want them as a permanent under any scenario….Saban or no Saban. Literally any other team in the league would be more preferable.

Michigan state wasn't good or around average until Saban. If he had stayed there they would have grown into a really good team. He built LSU up to a point they have never reach. Yes they were good in the late 50's and early 60's but became average until Saban. He has built Alabama to a point no school has ever reach. He has won all of his NC on the field. Bear only won NC in voting. Bama was not the power house that it is now. It was a power house but nothing like it is today. The Bear didn't play the real power house football teams at the time. Guys like Jim Brown would have made those skinning white boys look foolish. After the Bear and before Saban Bama was viewed as a team that you could be. I don't have that view now. Once he is gone they will fall back down a few years after. There is not another Saban out there. There is not. Name him. I don't want to have to play Bama every year. It has gotten old. We have played them more than Auburn has. More than Tenn has. In fact no school has played Bama more than Miss State. I don't think we will get stuck with Bama and I don't think KY will have both Miss State and Ole Miss. When Saban is gone they will fall back down a little.

I also want to add I think Bama fans want Tenn, Bama fans want Auburn and I think they want LSU more than they want Miss State. Playing LSU will fill their stadium up. Playing Miss State will not.

 

[PirateDawg]

There are some big TV money making games being left out of the permanent schedule. LSU vs Bama is huge. Auburn is getting the worse in the deal. Florida is not going to stay down. They will get the right coach in there eventually. That would be brutal for Auburn.

Side note: I did not mine playing Bama every year until Saban arrived. He will be gone and they will not stay at the level they are now. They will still be Bama and tough but not the Bama of today. Saban made them into the power house they are. I just don't see another coach keeping them at that level. He build LSU and Miles kept them at a high level for years but look at LSU today, no one is scared to play them. Kelly will not be their guy.

This is the reason it is good to have Alabama as a permanent opponent. Without them, our viewership will look weak. With them we'll add to the average viewership every year and make no mistake that is what the networks are looking at. When it comes to super conferences you better have the TV numbers to get in the discussion. We were on the outside looking in last year.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Once upon a time, people said the exact same thing you just said about Saban, except they said it about Bear Bryant. Alabama was only able to get to the level where they could hire Saban by the decades of dominance they experienced under Bryant and those that followed him. Hell, Mike 17ing Dubose even won an SEC title there. They are, by far, the most tradition-rich program in the most tradition-rich conference. And they might not find another Saban, but they’ll come damn close to it if they don’t….before too long. We don’t want them as a permanent under any scenario….Saban or no Saban. Literally any other team in the league would be more preferable.

I get this train of thought, but Saban is nearing the end, and even in the case of Bear, it took them a quarter century to find another one. You could say Gene Stallings, but his Alabama teams were not exactly the 'feared' Bear/Saban type domination. And that was 8 years later anyway, hell the whole system could change again by then.

And in the new era of NIL, I don't think Bama will be AS dominant, even if they retain another Saban type (which history says they want). There will just be too much competition from other money programs for them to take all the talent like they do now. Texas A&M already put a dent in them. Saban is upset yet again, but in this case there's nothing he do to 'adapt'.

His rein as dictator is coming to an end.

 

[NWADawg]

Don’t think that will shock anyone. Probably hurts MSU in the long run. Also, seems like a huge advantage for 1/2 the league every year with an extra home game.

3 & 6 set up:

[TWEET]1560994380248383491[/TWEET]

I work with a bunch of guys that went to non-SEC schools, mostly big 10 and big 12. They are a small sample group but give some insight to how the rest of the college football world sees the SEC. The championships won by the SEC force them to admit that the top of the SEC is better than the top of any other conf. But, they claim that the rest of the SEC is overhyped. The rest of the SEC loses to UGA and Bama just like the schools in their conf..... => The SEC schedule is not as brutal as ESPN and the SEC says it is. I think bowl history and other matchups would disagree with them but will playing more conference games and less "measuring stick" out of conf games just feed that logic.

 

[Go Budaw]

I get this train of thought, but Saban is nearing the end, and even in the case of Bear, it took them a quarter century to find another one. You could say Gene Stallings, but his Alabama teams were not exactly the 'feared' Bear/Saban type domination. And that was 8 years later anyway, hell the whole system could change again by then.

And in the new era of NIL, I don't think Bama will be AS dominant, even if they retain another Saban type (which history says they want). There will just be too much competition from other money programs for them to take all the talent like they do now. Texas A&M already put a dent in them. Saban is upset yet again, but in this case there's nothing he do to 'adapt'.

His rein as dictator is coming to an end.

They still won 4 SEC titles and a national title in the quarter century between Bear and Saban….which was probably the worst quarter century stretch in their history. Went something like 20-6 against MSU during that stretch, with 4 of the 6 losses being in a single 5 year stretch.

Point was….if you don’t mind Alabama as a permanent opponent without Saban there, you literally could not give a **** who our permanent opponents are. They are the strongest and most well-positioned SEC program, and will likely remain so for the long haul. For MSU’s well being, there is not a worse choice for an annual permanent opponent, even if they do take a step back.

 

[Go Budaw]

This is the reason it is good to have Alabama as a permanent opponent. Without them, our viewership will look weak. With them we'll add to the average viewership every year and make no mistake that is what the networks are looking at. When it comes to super conferences you better have the TV numbers to get in the discussion. We were on the outside looking in last year.

That could not be more of a non-factor. Networks are looking at a lot more than raw total viewership numbers for each game. They know where those viewers live, and they also have comparative data between the same team and different opponents. They know how many fans each team is bringing to the table….I can assure you they aren’t dumb enough to think that 5 million viewers of an Alabama-MSU game are evenly split 50/50 between Alabama and MSU.

If being a Top 20-25 TV draw is ever a requirement for joining a superconference, we’re pretty much 17ed now and forevermore. That’s all there is to it.

 

[Smoked Toag]

They are the strongest and most well-positioned SEC program, and will likely remain so for the long haul.

That's where I disagree, and I've already said why. Just the sheer chances of replacing Saban are slim (no one has done and everyone has tried). And even he is worried about what Texas A&M and Tennessee can do with NIL. Neither of those will ever become what Alabama has been the last 15 years but they will also cut into Alabama's riches. As will LSU, Florida, Georgia, and whoever else decides to go throw some money at the 5 stars.

Michigan could decide to say screw it, and come and buy the top 5 guys in Alabama and Georgia.

 

[fedxdog]

I'm for the scheduling model that puts the other 15 SEC teams in DWS the most often.

 

[PirateDawg]

Everyone doesn't agree with you: Viewership

 

[SwampDawg]

This is the reason it is good to have Alabama as a permanent opponent. Without them, our viewership will look weak. With them we'll add to the average viewership every year and make no mistake that is what the networks are looking at. When it comes to super conferences you better have the TV numbers to get in the discussion. We were on the outside looking in last year.

That you Larry Templeton?

 

[PirateDawg]

Not hardly! Look, I would love to see Alabama off our schedule but let's face facts. If you aren't showing the numbers you will become a "group of" team in the future. I advocated realigning the conference so Alabama was in the East so we didn't have to play them every year. When you look at these numbers you can see that we need them: Viewership

 

[PirateDawg]

People don't show up for the directional games anyway. Make the games meaningful!

 

[Go Budaw]

That's where I disagree, and I've already said why. Just the sheer chances of replacing Saban are slim (no one has done and everyone has tried). And even he is worried about what Texas A&M and Tennessee can do with NIL. Neither of those will ever become what Alabama has been the last 15 years but they will also cut into Alabama's riches. As will LSU, Florida, Georgia, and whoever else decides to go throw some money at the 5 stars.

Michigan could decide to say screw it, and come and buy the top 5 guys in Alabama and Georgia.

Then why haven’t they already? Instead, it’s been the other way around. Bama went up to Flint and bought a Heisman trophy winner from their back yard.

 

[patdog]

What it means is that we lose more of them. I'd love to keep an 8-game schedule AND get Vandy and Missouri more often. But that's not gonna happen. We'll get a 9-game SEC schedule probably plus the P5 OOC game and lose an easy win. I hope y'all like a lot of 5-7 seasons, cause that's probably where we're headed.

 

[Go Budaw]

Everyone doesn't agree with you: Viewership

So were you trying to prove my point for me? Link shows us outside the Top 25 (like I said), behind the likes of TCU(!!!), Iowa, Nebraska, and others. And yes, we were only even that high because we had 5 games against Bama in the sample size. This is just a guy who took the raw viewership numbers and averaged them per team over 5 years based on what he could find on Google. He’s not a network marketing analyst, who would have way more available data that would show us even further down the list if you separated out only regular “diehards” of MSU.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Then why haven’t they already? Instead, it’s been the other way around. Bama went up to Flint and bought a Heisman trophy winner from their back yard.

"They" have. Texas A&M just went out and signed the best class of all time last year. The tide is already turning.

"Michigan" is just a name for any program that had money, but not necessarily access to all the talent, before......but now does, due to NIL.

You're asking about a player that played 13 years ago. Something fairly significant happened 1 year ago.

It won't happen immediately, but slowly the talent Saban is stockpiling will get picked away by these other programs. When he leaves, it'll accelerate. You can already see how concerned he is last year with the way he went after A&M.

 

[Go Budaw]

"They" have. Texas A&M just went out and signed the best class of all time last year. The tide is already turning.

"Michigan" is just a name for any program that had money, but not necessarily access to all the talent, before......but now does, due to NIL.

You're asking about a player that played 13 years ago. Something fairly significant happened 1 year ago.

It won't happen immediately, but slowly the talent Saban is stockpiling will get picked away by these other programs. When he leaves, it'll accelerate.

Regarding Texas A&M’s class, how many did they sign from Alabama?

Here are the certainties about Alabama’s post-Saban future:

1) Dabo is going to get a stupidly absurd offer that is going to substantially trump anything Clemson is capable of matching, as well as any other previous new hire offer in college football history. He’s going to have to turn down both record setting money and an opportunity to coach his alma mater for them to not keep rolling along for another 10-15 years after Saban’s done.

2) If he does somehow turn it down, they are going to have every elite coach in the country except Smart, Kelly, Day, Riley, and Harbaugh / Fisher (who both aren’t really elite) willing to crawl to Tuscaloosa to take the job. They could wind up with someone like Lane Kiffin, who would at minimum keep the offense operating at an elite level for 3-4 years even if he eventually had to be replaced, and that’s literally the worst case scenario in their range of outcomes.

3) They have one of the top AD’s in the country (if not the top AD in the country) who is not going to 17 up the next hire, whoever it may be. That wasn’t the case in the 80’s and 90’s when they were underachieving.

Simply put, they aren’t going anywhere in the big picture. The annual floor for their program in this NIL / portal environment is still going to be Top 7-8 nationally, even after Saban. You can’t say that about any other program in the league.

 

[PirateDawg]

Take Alabama away and we fall out of the top 35. Playing in the SEC makes us look better. Playing Georgia this year will make us look better. Ultimately, growing our fanbase is the only way to survive going forward. I've met people on trips (wear a State hat) that became a fan of State because we beat someone they hated. Alabama is the most hated team in America. Winning is the best way to grow your viewership. Until then we are on the outside looking in. My point is ditching Alabama won't help our cause. Beating them will.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Regarding Texas A&M’s class, how many did they sign from Alabama?

They recruit nationally. You know that. Of those 6-8 or however many 5 stars they signed from out of Texas (which is the real change), Alabama was on every last one of their lists. FL, TN, AZ, GA...all over.

Here are the certainties about Alabama’s post-Saban future:

1) Dabo is going to get a stupidly absurd offer that is going to substantially trump anything Clemson is capable of matching, as well as any other previous new hire offer in college football history. He’s going to have to turn down both record setting money and an opportunity to coach his alma mater for them to not keep rolling along for another 10-15 years after Saban’s done.

2) If he does somehow turn it down, they are going to have every elite coach in the country except Smart, Kelly, Day, Riley, and Harbaugh / Fisher (who both aren’t really elite) willing to crawl to Tuscaloosa to take the job. They could wind up with someone like Lane Kiffin, who would at minimum keep the offense operating at an elite level for 3-4 years even if he eventually had to be replaced, and that’s literally the worst case scenario in their range of outcomes.

3) They have one of the top AD’s in the country (if not the top AD in the country) who is not going to 17 up the next hire, whoever it may be. That wasn’t the case in the 80’s and 90’s when they were underachieving.

Far from a certainty. No elite coach wants to follow up the best coach of all time. Dabo will NOT be nearly as good as Saban.

Simply put, they aren’t going anywhere in the big picture. The annual floor for their program in this NIL / portal environment is still going to be Top 7-8 nationally, even after Saban. You can’t say that about any other program in the league.

They will still definitely be a blue blood. But they won't be the present day Alabama, which is damn near unbeatable. At best, another Georgia, at worst, Auburn or LSU.

 

[Smoked Toag]

What it means is that we lose more of them. I'd love to keep an 8-game schedule AND get Vandy and Missouri more often. But that's not gonna happen. We'll get a 9-game SEC schedule probably plus the P5 OOC game and lose an easy win. I hope y'all like a lot of 5-7 seasons, cause that's probably where we're headed.

Yep. This is what we're getting, and it's not good for MSU.

If we got rid of the concept of a 'winning season' and bowl games, I'd accept this more easily.

 

[johnson86-1]

In about 8 years, there’s going to be a big battle between the SEC & Big 10 over which one takes North Carolina.

Virginia and North Carolina are the only two big prizes left to fight over that make sense geographically (granted the Big 10 has already given up on geographical limitations).

Be interesting to see whether one league locks down each state, or whether the B1G takes Clemson and one of UVA/Va Tech and UNC/NCSt and the SEC takes the other. If the B1G added UNC, Clemson, Miami, and one of UVA or Va Tech, that would go a long way to siphoning off SEC eyeballs. Could even take Ga Tech to get into Atlanta market, although I'm not sure they're enough of a draw to justify taking another second fiddle.

 

[Go Budaw]

They recruit nationally. You know that. Of those 6-8 or however many 5 stars they signed from out of Texas (which is the real change), Alabama was on every last one of their lists. FL, TN, AZ, GA...all over.


Far from a certainty. No elite coach wants to follow up the best coach of all time. Dabo will NOT be nearly as good as Saban.


They will still definitely be a blue blood. But they won't be the present day Alabama, which is damn near unbeatable. At best, another Georgia, at worst, Auburn or LSU.

I mean, we could keep going around and around about the degrees of domination Alabama could have….but its pointless. Ultimately, this started with someone else saying they “wouldn’t mind having Alabama as a permanent opponent if it weren’t for Saban”. Its still just a ridiculous statement. They are the top college football program historically by a huge margin, they are virtually guaranteed to remain no worse than a Top 5 national program going forward, and they are located 70 miles from us where their perpetual superiority is on constant display for recruits.

If you can name another SEC program that would be worse for us to play every year for the rest of your life, please do so. Otherwise, there’s no need to discuss further.

 

[Smoked Toag]

I mean, we could keep going around and around about the degrees of domination Alabama could have….but its pointless. Ultimately, this started with someone else saying they “wouldn’t mind having Alabama as a permanent opponent if it weren’t for Saban”. Its still just a ridiculous statement. They are the top college football program historically by a huge margin, they are virtually guaranteed to remain no worse than a Top 5 national program going forward, and they are located 70 miles from us where their perpetual superiority is on constant display for recruits.

If you can name another SEC program that would be worse for us to play every year for the rest of your life, please do so. Otherwise, there’s no need to discuss further.

This link here is the best way to make your point: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/m...ssissippi-states-time-records-every-sec-team/

Not whether or not Alabama will remain at a certain dominance level, or hire a coach equal to Saban. And looking at those numbers, I'd probably agree with you. And that was 8 years ago, obviously worse now.

But even with all that I'm not scared of Alabama post-Saban. Perhaps not playing them will help us get out of their shadow, being so close and all. I don't know.

 

[Go Budaw]

But even with all that I'm not scared of Alabama post-Saban. Perhaps not playing them will help us get out of their shadow, being so close and all. I don't know.

Scared isn’t really the right word. Hell, we’re State fans, right? We’ve had our asses kicked and hopes dashed too many times for us to really be scared of anybody. Its a simple preference as far as maximizing our winning percentage. If the two choices are play Alabama every year, or play Alabama every 2 years, I’m taking the 2nd option every time. There have been too many great seasons and teams at MSU (1994, 1999, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2017) that were kept from being truly special due to running into an Alabama team that was just a bit better. I’d like to cut those occurrences in half if we can.

That said, I still like having the opportunity to knock them off every other year or so. I’m also a proponent of the 9 game SEC schedule because of increased chances of high profile wins over all the SEC teams, not just Bama. There just needs to be some balance to it.

 

[ChinaDogSunflower]

OM, A&M, UK