Things college football teams should NEVER do

Ohio State usually has at least one good non-conference game. I could see Meyer getting rid of those.

 

One thing that bugs me about scheduling is when someone (Penn State) drops a long-time rival (Pittsburgh) after about 100 years of home-and-homes, for no real reason. But the lemmings in the administration allowed Paterno to stop playing Pitt, and the sheep in the stands didn't complain at all, even though a top game every other year was replaced by some MAC opponent like Akron or Bowling Green.

 

2007 - Alabama vs. #23 FSU (L 21-14)
2008 - #9 Clemson (W 34-10)
2009 - #7 VT (W 34-24)
2010 - #18 Penn State (W 24-3)
2011- #23 Penn State (W 27-11)

In each of those seasons, Alabama played at least 5 more ranked teams. The difference is Alabama wins those games and Oregon State is scheduled in those games to get beat.

 

What screws it up is that ticket revenue is so high that big schools leave millions of dollars on the table by having less than seven home games. To pull a random example from this weekend, Virginia Tech can make more money playing an Austin Peay every year, even with thousands of empty seats, than it can by doing a home and home with West Virginia, even though their fans would be much happier with the later.

 

That's kind of what I was trying to say before. You can't compare all BCS conference teams apples to apples.

It's beyond naive to think a perennial national-title contender like Alabama could schedule a home-and-home with a fellow BCS conference team as easily as could Oregon State, whose postseason high-water mark in the last decade is beating Missouri in the Sun Bowl.

 

Of those games, three were played at neutral sites, one at Bama, and one on the road. Florida State, Clemson, and Penn State (boith years) were not ranked teams at the end of the season, a far more accurate barometer of a team's strength.

I'd expect Alabama was favored, or a push, in every one of those games. So it should win the bulk of them, as it did.

Actually Snake, I don't think there's a program in America that would turn down a HOME-AND-HOME series with Alabama, given a chance to play one. I think every Pac-12 team would play that series in a heartbeat.

 

There isn't a non-conference team that Alabama wouldn't be favored against.

 

But those are all teams that are reasonable for Alabama to play. Some of them were thought to be title contenders. (I think the "ranked at the end of the season" is a bit tricky because I think that early loss has a trickle-down effect through the rest of the season, as teams no longer have the championship to play for and sometimes respond accordingly.)

Put up a lot of schedules from non-SEC teams -- specifically a lot of the Big Ten -- and you won't see so much successful risk-taking.

If that's the gauge going forward, whether Alabama is favored, they're never going to satisfy anyone because they're always going to be favored. I hate that he's doing it, but Saban has built a dynasty. As far as the eye can see -- which is to the incoming recruiting class that will be seniors in 4-5 years -- I think everyone expects them to be a top-five finisher at minimum.

 

Alabama was an underdog to FSU (the neutral site was Jacksonville BTW) and I think was a small underdog to Clemson.

As a fan, my wish is that they would play more of these name teams home and home instead of neutral site. This year in Tuscaloosa, the home games are Western Ky., Florida Atlantic, Ole Miss, Miss. St., Texas A&M, Western Carolina and Auburn. That's probably two bowl teams unless WKU or FAU wins the Sun Belt. Blech.

 

Going back to Bear Bryant, Alabama has always had a pretty steady diet of at least one "they're tough most years, or supposed to be" nonconference opponents on their schedule. Michigan and Penn State may not be what they were, but nobody puts them on the card looking to duck a possible loss. Same for Virginia Tech. It makes money and is good for recruiting. Kids don't go to Alabama because they dream of playing Florida Atlantic on ESPN 12.

 

With Wisconsin, they played Colorado, still a power under McCartney/Neuheisel, in back-to-back years right after the first Rose Bowl trip under Alvarez, and got their asses kicked twice. It sure seemed like after that, Alvarez decided there was little to no upside to risking that again, and since then their non-conference schedule has been embarassing. They played Oregon in the early 2000s, when they were good under Belotti but not like they are now, and apart from that it's been cupcakes all the way. They're at a point now (at least they were after the last two years, before this year's early disappointment) where they really need to upgrade things.

 

Where did this "old man football" shit start? I follow the college game religiously and never heard of the phrase before.