Except that their first string RB's are the same size.... 5'10 213 and 5'11 213. Did you make this little gem up on the spot?
Everyone was not "fine with things the way they were". We've changed the selection process repeatedly over the last 20 years because we wound up with split championships and bizarre scenarios where teams "backed in" to winning titles. (My '96 Gators? I'm looking at YOU) There may be monetary pressure influencing the system, but this system is still better than what we used to have.
I fully believe Saban will go back to the NFL at some point. As he edges toward retirement the urgency with which he will have to make that jump increases. I've never seen Saban as someone who would retire at Alabama. He is unarguably a great coach, but he has also shown himself to be out for Nick Saban first and foremost. He has no special ties in Alabama, and with all the 'tradition' there, no matter what he does he'll always be the second greatest coach in program history. He's accomplished what he can is Tuscaloosa. I think he'll take another crack at earning a Super Bowl ring when the right offer comes along. And if you think it's about money or giving up living in Tuscaloosa.... Let's be real.... Any NFL city and team can match or beat both.
Without Fornette, LSU loses to UF and probably Mississippi State. While I agree that LSU may have some other talent, they drop from a top 5 team to a top 25 team without him.
Kanell hates on the SEC to stay relevant. It's basically all he has to say.
What doubters? Florida played one great game. It looks like they may have a special season, and I certainly hope they do, but let's not lose perspective. Florida hasn't played like they did against Ole Miss in years. I don't suddenly assume they'll play every game like that.
Uh, no he's not. Reading it any other way is nonsenical.
I love Spurrier and he is a douche. Muschamp isn't even coming close. In any respect.
The article says "______ You, Florida." So I'm sure it was "Thank you, Florida."
I would have been more surprised if they didn't show Tebow. Honestly, they should be showing him. Wouldn't you expect them to show ANY former QB (Or even player really) who was on the sidelines who had a Heisman and a couple of national titles? There are legitimate examples of Tebow getting the golden boy treatment from the media, but this is not one of those examples.
So you're defending playing those teams based on the timing, rather than the quality? If anything, playing your cupcakes early in the year is smarter... My team sucks this year, but that has nothing to do with either what Spurrier said or whether he's being a wee bit of a hypocrite.
Because the HBC's schedule doesn't include Furman and South Alabama. Oh, wait...
I'm amazed that Arkansas fans are defending Bulimia's decision to challenge that first down spot. He's pretty much the polar opposite of a class act. Challenging a spot when you're up by 60+ doesn't mean you're "leading by example". It means you don't know what's important, and casts doubt on your motivational credibility.
I find it pretty interesting that Alabama does not appear on this list at all. I'm no 'Bama fan, but does this mean the QB position is overvalued, or show that Bama is succeeding in spite of its lack of a 5 star prospect?
The question that's most important is whether a 2 team playoff is better than a four team playoff. We already have a system that matches teams in "seeded" final where they spend the entire season playing for a seed. I would argue that including 2 additional "worthy" teams is better than whatever minor dilution of the games toward the end of the season with 4 vs. 2 in the playoffs. As it is, During the last few weeks of the season, there are relatively few games that matter for the national championship in the status quo. That wouldn't change all that much with four teams in the playoffs. Consider yesterday's games that mattered: Bama v. Auburn ; GA v. GT, and ND v. USC. All three of those games continue to matter in a four team playoff because a loss by any one of those teams would endanger their ranking in the top four (Or whatever system will determine who plays in the game.) I'll grant you that ND-USC would have been somewhat diminished, as ND could probably have stayed in the top 4, but that too is a relatively rarity. I'm not going to make the case for four teams for the playoffs based on the years with three undefeated teams. Instead consider the SEC self interest: In a conference that rarely churns out undefeated champions, I'm a lot more worried about the selection process getting the right one loss team than having too many undefeated teams.