Saban whines about new SEC scheduling

[QuaoarsKing]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/03/alabama-coach-nick-saban-not-fan-proposed-2024-opponents-sec-schedule

Relevant quotes:

They’re giving us Tennessee, Auburn and LSU. I don’t know how they come to that [decision].”


The SEC’s exact 10-year metric is unclear. But using league records from 2013–’22, the top half-finishers in winning percentage are Alabama (88.8), Georgia (79), Oklahoma (78.2), LSU (63.4), Florida (57.3), Texas (54.3), Auburn (53.6) and Texas A&M (53). The bottom half is Missouri (47.5), Mississippi State (46.3), Ole Miss (44.4), Tennessee and South Carolina (both 41.4), Kentucky (39), Arkansas (25.6) and Vanderbilt (19.7). Big 12 records were used for Oklahoma and Texas. Presumably, those in the top half of the conference over the past decade will play two other teams in the top half and one in the bottom half. Those in the bottom half will play two in the bottom and one in the top half.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

In other words, Alabama is getting LSU as their third, not us, and Saban is mad.

I think we are very likely to get Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Texas A&M.

We could get Auburn instead of A&M, but of we don't get Kentucky, it will be someone else in that second "lower" group.

 

[patdog]

Impossible. Multiple posters on this site have promised me we were getting Alabama as a permanent opponent and that Saban controls the SEC office. This is fake news. There's no way I (and others) were right about this.

Ironically, in the long term, we might have been better off with Alabama instead of A&M as our 3rd permanent opponent.

 

[Mobile Bay]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/03/alabama-coach-nick-saban-not-fan-proposed-2024-opponents-sec-schedule

Relevant quotes:

They’re giving us Tennessee, Auburn and LSU. I don’t know how they come to that [decision].”


The SEC’s exact 10-year metric is unclear. But using league records from 2013–’22, the top half-finishers in winning percentage are Alabama (88.8), Georgia (79), Oklahoma (78.2), LSU (63.4), Florida (57.3), Texas (54.3), Auburn (53.6) and Texas A&M (53). The bottom half is Missouri (47.5), Mississippi State (46.3), Ole Miss (44.4), Tennessee and South Carolina (both 41.4), Kentucky (39), Arkansas (25.6) and Vanderbilt (19.7). Big 12 records were used for Oklahoma and Texas. Presumably, those in the top half of the conference over the past decade will play two other teams in the top half and one in the bottom half. Those in the bottom half will play two in the bottom and one in the top half.

Well Nick,

It's because half your fanbase would riot if you didn't play Tennessee every year. All of the SEC would riot if you didn't play Auburn every year. And Alabama-LSU is one of the highest rated mid season games every year.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

With Saban being against it, I'm hoping they abandon the three perm opponents. Must teams have one true rival (for Ole Miss that is LSU )

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

So he wants the best players and the weakest schedule...waah.

 

[Baddog11]

Impossible. Saban controls the SEC office.

Controls the sec officiating office***

common mistake

 

[ckDOG]

Yes, Nick. ESPN wants high-draw TV ratings. They would rather it be guaranteed you play Tenn or LSU for ratings over your annual thrashing of MSU. Imagine that?

 

[Brew_Dawg]

I think what irks me the most is Missouri having a better percentage than we do.

 

[Clay Lyle]

A&M is likely getting Texas, LSU, and Arkansas. We will end up with duds, and we will love it. Fingers crossed for Ole Miss and two of Missouri, Vandy, or Kentucky.

 

[patdog]

A&M is likely getting Texas, LSU, and Arkansas. We will end up with duds, and we will love it. Fingers crossed for Ole Miss and two of Missouri, Vandy, or Kentucky.

We'll get Mississippi, Kentucky, and either A&M or Auburn.

 

[GloryDawg]

We'll get Mississippi, Kentucky, and either A&M or Auburn.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Impossible. Multiple posters on this site have promised me we were getting Alabama as a permanent opponent and that Saban controls the SEC office. This is fake news. There's no way I (and others) were right about this.

Ironically, in the long term, we might have been better off with Alabama instead of A&M as our 3rd permanent opponent.

Haha, I was about to log in and give you props. BUT......remember, the basis of this very article was one reason I always assumed we would get Bama. Nothing is official yet, so let's see if Bama Tears outweigh TV matchups.

I absolutely hope it happens. But with a lifetime of the SEC/Bama 17ing over MSU, I won't believe it until I see it.

 

[patdog]

Haha, I was about to log in and give you props. BUT......remember, the basis of this very article was one reason I always assumed we would get Bama. Nothing is official yet, so let's see if Bama Tears outweigh TV matchups.

If Saban's whining about it, the decisions have been made. Actually, there were made months ago and Ross Dellenger told us what was going to happen.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

If Saban's whining about it, the decisions have been made. Actually, there were made months ago and Ross Dellenger told us what was going to happen.

We all know that, we know the reasons, we know the logic. It's just never been done that way before, so it's a change, TV has finally become powerful enough to outweigh southern good ole boys. Even outside of that, I don't think it's the right decision. The schedule should be based on real rivalries (like Bama/Auburn), geography and historical winning percentage, for the overall good of the conference (even though not so much for MSU). Selling out to TV is a bad thing. I'd rather have great 'TV matchups' in the playoffs if I'm the SEC.

Good for Dellenger. It's not hard to figure out what TV wants. But I will say - TV seems to always win, no matter the damage done to the sport.

 

[mcdawg22]

I think what irks me the most is Missouri having a better percentage than we do.

They racked up a 14-2 record in 13/14 when the East was weak. Those 2 years the East had 8 teams finish with 7 or less wins, 5 of which were losing seasons. By contrast the West had 3 with 7 or less and only one losing season.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

The upper vs. lower Permanents will probably be:

Alabama - Tennessee
LSU - Ole Miss
Georgia - South Carolina

It gets hazy at this point.
Oklahoma doesn't really have any obvious choices, but they have some history with Missouri.

Auburn is going to have Georgia and Alabama and permanents, so giving them Vanderbilt seems fair.

Florida - Kentucky is at least already a permanent rivalry.

That leaves Texas and A&M for us and Arkansas. Either combination is possible, but I lean more toward Texas-Arkansas and Texas A&M-Mississippi State because there's more collective history there than the opposite.

 

[patdog]

We all know that, we know the reasons, we know the logic. It's just never been done that way before, so it's a change. I still don't think it's the right decision. The schedule should be based on real rivalries (like Bama/Auburn), geography and historical winning percentage, for the overall good of the conference (not so much for MSU). Selling out to TV is a bad thing. I'd rather have great 'TV matchups' in the playoffs if I'm the SEC.

Good for Dellenger. It's not hard to figure out what TV wants. But I will say - TV seems to always win, no matter the damage done to the sport.

I think they are doing the right thing. Teams in the lower half of the conference get 2 permanents from that group and only 1 from the top half. Teams in the top half get 2 permanents from that group and only 1 from the lower half. Makes for both better equity in scheduling and better TV matchups.

For all Saban's bitching about how Tennessee should be in the top half, if he's right that over the next 20 years they'll return to the top half, then someone has to drop down to the bottom half. The most likely candidate is Auburn.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Would love to get Vandy, easy road trip to a nice city for fans.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Also, if Tennessee really is "back" and elite long-term, they could change these matchups down the road. Like start by just saying they're the matchups for 2024-2029 and reevaluate then.

Hopefully it's Mississippi State who is too good to be on the lower tier then.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Also, if Tennessee really is "back" and elite long-term, they could change these matchups down the road. Like start by just saying they're the matchups for 2024-2029 and reevaluate then.

Hopefully it's Mississippi State who is too good to be on the lower tier then.

I'm interesting in seeing if last year was a "one off" for UT.

 

[mcdawg22]

Also, if Tennessee really is "back" and elite long-term, they could change these matchups down the road. Like start by just saying they're the matchups for 2024-2029 and reevaluate then.

Hopefully it's Mississippi State who is too good to be on the lower tier then.

We’ve been sandbagging this whole time to get 2 lower tier permanents. Checkers Chess

 

[Perd Hapley]

When was the last year that Alabama didn’t play all 3 of those teams?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

The upper vs. lower Permanents will probably be:

Alabama - Tennessee
LSU - Ole Miss
Georgia - South Carolina

It gets hazy at this point.
Oklahoma doesn't really have any obvious choices, but they have some history with Missouri.

Auburn is going to have Georgia and Alabama and permanents, so giving them Vanderbilt seems fair.

Florida - Kentucky is at least already a permanent rivalry.

That leaves Texas and A&M for us and Arkansas. Either combination is possible, but I lean more toward Texas-Arkansas and Texas A&M-Mississippi State because there's more collective history there than the opposite.

I'd love having Texas A&M as a permanent. Helps keep our growing fanbase in Texas engaged. Plus, they aren't that good and are a notoriously underperforming program. And it's one road trip that I'll never be tempted to go and spend money on.

Ole Miss, Kentucky, Texas A&M. That's about as good as it gets for us.

 

[Mobile Bay]

I would rather get Auburn over Texas A&M. Bring your cowbell to work day is one of my favorite days of the year.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

I think what irks me the most is Missouri having a better percentage than we do.

Imagine if we'd spent the last decade in the east.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

I'd love having Texas A&M as a permanent. Helps keep our growing fanbase in Texas engaged. Plus, they aren't that good and are a notoriously underperforming program. And it's one road trip that I'll never be tempted to go and spend money on.

Ole Miss, Kentucky, Texas A&M. That's about as good as it gets for us.

T5&7 has been stumbling through the desert for many years, but eventually they will put to together and be a force. Plus it is hard to get to and College Station is Starkville with better credit.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I would rather get Auburn over Texas A&M. Bring your cowbell to work day is one of my favorite days of the year.

I want as far away from the Alabama schools as possible. I'd like for MSU to be a solid #3 school choice for AL kids, and it's worse if we're continually losing to them.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

T5&7 has been stumbling through the desert for many years, but eventually they will put to together and be a force. Plus it is hard to get to and College Station is Starkville with better credit.

Ya'll have been saying that for years, and it's never happened. They are just like the rest of us, they can rise up with a Heisman QB, or select group of older players, in an up year once in a while.

They have a legitimate national title caliber coach right now and still can't put it together.

 

[dickiedawg]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/03/alabama-coach-nick-saban-not-fan-proposed-2024-opponents-sec-schedule

Relevant quotes:

They’re giving us Tennessee, Auburn and LSU. I don’t know how they come to that [decision].”


The SEC’s exact 10-year metric is unclear. But using league records from 2013–’22, the top half-finishers in winning percentage are Alabama (88.8), Georgia (79), Oklahoma (78.2), LSU (63.4), Florida (57.3), Texas (54.3), Auburn (53.6) and Texas A&M (53). The bottom half is Missouri (47.5), Mississippi State (46.3), Ole Miss (44.4), Tennessee and South Carolina (both 41.4), Kentucky (39), Arkansas (25.6) and Vanderbilt (19.7). Big 12 records were used for Oklahoma and Texas. Presumably, those in the top half of the conference over the past decade will play two other teams in the top half and one in the bottom half. Those in the bottom half will play two in the bottom and one in the top half.

Alabama is automatically going to have one of the easier schedules by virtue of never having to play Alabama. Give them Auburn, Tennessee and Georgia.

 

[Drebin]

We’ve been sandbagging this whole time to get 2 lower tier permanents. Checkers Chess

Lonnie Tinkle doing work.

 

[Drebin]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/03/alabama-coach-nick-saban-not-fan-proposed-2024-opponents-sec-schedule

Relevant quotes:

They’re giving us Tennessee, Auburn and LSU. I don’t know how they come to that [decision].”


The SEC’s exact 10-year metric is unclear. But using league records from 2013–’22, the top half-finishers in winning percentage are Alabama (88.8), Georgia (79), Oklahoma (78.2), LSU (63.4), Florida (57.3), Texas (54.3), Auburn (53.6) and Texas A&M (53). The bottom half is Missouri (47.5), Mississippi State (46.3), Ole Miss (44.4), Tennessee and South Carolina (both 41.4), Kentucky (39), Arkansas (25.6) and Vanderbilt (19.7). Big 12 records were used for Oklahoma and Texas. Presumably, those in the top half of the conference over the past decade will play two other teams in the top half and one in the bottom half. Those in the bottom half will play two in the bottom and one in the top half.

Dellinger say our three permanents will be Ole Miss, Kentucky, and A&M.

Ole Miss? Us, Arkansas, and LSU.

 

[wsjmsu75]

I think what irks me the most is Missouri having a better percentage than we do.

All you have to do is compare toughness of schedule us vs. them to see why. If that were reversed, we would probably have a better percentage than their 47.5.