If you and others are so sure that Alabama will win, then I assume you have made tens-of-millions of dollars being on them, correct?
Alabama fatigue
- Thread starter Rushmorehusker
- Start date
Saban will retire before then. I give him 3 or 4 more years. Perfect timing for us to rise up and reclaim the throne, right?
So far Alabama has avoided having the media, lawyers from disgruntled players and or abused victims of the team’s players, or recruiting scandals or other malady’s be able to effectively attack and tear them down. Is Saban is effectively able to run that upright of a program that these typical downfalls of college football programs are not a threat, then he has to be admired.
My own speculation is that if there are any “JoPa” type skeletons in the Alabama closet, then the next Bama Coach (Dabo Swiney?) may be the one that has to endure and deal with them. The enduring threat of Saban’s ire against folks must keep that type of thing at bay.
It doesn't matter who Alabama hires to replace Nick Saban when that day comes. Nobody is going to be able to do what Nick has done there. They will regress backwards to the level that the head coach will take them to. Even if they hired Dabo from Clemson they will regress backwards. Look at what is happening to Clemson after they lost the two QB's they had a run with (both became NFL starters) and now their offense sucks.
Late in bringing this up and I dislike Alabama as much as the next guy but wasn’t there about the most blatant targeting against an Alabama return man on a kickoff that there can possibly be with no call. It was crown of the helmet to the face. If that would have been Nebraska committing that hit they would have ejected 2 guys.
Clemson still won 10 games this year and has won 10 games every year since 2011. They havent really gone downhill yet.
I don’t really care about the playoffs since Alabama has cornered the market, imo most fans believe the sec has been paying players for the last 15 years and now Kirby has learned from the master. I think most fans are sec burned out, still remember auburn and cam Newton payoff. They need to tweak something but I don’t know what should be done
I don't think that it just Alabama. The 4 team playoff has resulted in most of the elite players going to only a few schools. There's no particular reason why Alabama or Clemson should be prime destinations for athletes, just right place at the right time.
Ohio State has literally always been good, because they have the same rabid fans as Nebraska does, but they have 30 times as much talent in their state alone than Nebraska does.
Nebraska's biggest problem now talent wise that Nebraska doesn't produce much high school talent anymore.
1983 - 11 starters from Nebraska and 4 of them were All-Americans and one won the Outland.
1985 - 8 starters from Nebraska with one of them an All-American
2021 - 5 starters from Nebraska - No Awards
Instead of complaining why don’t we the fans and big money boosters open our pockets to help buy players. Or why doesn’t our AD/Ted/Ronnie open the university’s purse strings and go offer a top shelf coach 10-15 million per year to come here? Or why don’t our current HC start hiring more analysts like Alabama does, to bend the rules on how “many coaches we can have”.
I’m just saying, not calling you out but we have the resources and the funds to compete. If we choose not to use those resources then that is on us, the boosters, and the athletic dept as a whole.
Saban will go down as the greatest of all time. That said, he was lucky to win his first 3 national championships.
2003 with LSU - the season ended with 3 one-loss teams at the top: LSU, OU and USC. The BCS put LSU and OU in the NC game. OU had just been creamed in the Big XII title game 35-7 by KSU. Meanwhile USC had only lost a triple overtime game in the 4th week of the season. This was a USC team coached by Pete Carroll and lead by Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush. The BCS made a mistake by putting OU in the title game. LSU got lucky.
2009 with Bama - played Texas. On UT's first offensive drive of the game Colt McCoy was injured and Texas had to play a true freshman at QB for the entire rest of the game. The true freshman ended up throwing 4 INTs (one a pick six).
2012 with Bama - played LSU. This was a rematch. LSU won the first meeting during the regular season. Historically, when there are rematches in college football, the team that lost the first game ends up winning the second game more often than not (it's about 2:1). OSU went undefeated this year (Urban's first year there), but were ineligible for post season play due to rules infractions the previous year. The title game likely would have been LSU vs OSU otherwise.
In some sense, Saban's first 3 national championships came in no small part due to pure luck. Of course no one can say for certain, but I don't think he'd have seen the level of success he's had these past 10 years had he not won those early national championships.
I think nil will balance things out more...it will probably cost alot to keep benches full of 5 stars at each position.
I don't know if the sec, especially bama , are masters at paying players uncles...or if the ncaa is sargent shultz...
but I do know there are schools that make sec schools look like they are on the welfare..the question is do they want to be a football power? the sec pushes football more then anyone else cause they get revenue alot more from sports, then grants..
you allways hear, look at the parking lot of players cars, everyone cheats....but again nothing is ever proven...
the good thing is I like bama.....if it was miami I would be turned off from football alot more.
so either bama is the greatest all time, or the greatest cheatin bastards all time. I suppose time will tell if their any eric dickerson type stories in the future or not.
but I do think nil will push everything above the table, but maybe it won't fully because biden will want a cut..
but I think it will put a strain on the ohio states and bama quality of depth. you know something is fishy when texas and florida is geeked about geting ohio states leftovers at qb.
Our first two opportunities came with a bit of luck attached, too, as did the 1981 bid.
In 1965, Michigan State, Arkansas and Nebraska all went into New Year's Day at 10-0, though the Huskers were ranked behind the Spartans and Hogs. Of course, MSU lost the Rose Bowl and Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl to set up Alabama-Nebraska for the title. We lost 39-28.
In 1970, it was Texas and Ohio State ahead of the Huskers, but on New Year's night the Huskers found themselves the top-ranked team and responded with a 17-12 victory over LSU and later was crowned the AP national champs.
In 1981, we lost two of our first three games — to Iowa and PSU; we defeated Florida State and Auburn also — with Nate Mason and Mark Mauer at QB. Turner Gill took over at halftime of the Auburn game and led the Huskers to an 8-2 record after the ISU game that year, the game in which he was injured and lost for the rest of the year. With Mauer at QB, we beat Zero U. 37-14 in Norman and entered New Year's at No. 4 behind Clemson, Georgia and Alabama. The Bulldogs and Tide lost in the Sugar and Cotton Bowls, setting up the Clemson-Nebraska title game in the Orange Bowl. Clemson won 22-15.
I don't think Alabama has ever had to win a national title on an opponent's home field, though, which Nebraska was forced to do in 1983 and 1994, losing the first to Miami 31-30, while beating the 'Canes 24-17 in the second.
I wouldn't mind Bama's success if the championships were undefeated seasons. However, what is so frustrating to me is how they have managed to back into championship games with imperfect records. In all of Nebraska's history, how many national title shots did they get with a one-loss team? The 2001 season is the only one I can remember.
It just seems like the rules are designed to help them out as much as possible, and poll voters happily join in.
It just seems like the rules are designed to help them out as much as possible, and poll voters happily join in.
We lost twice in 1981 but could have been named national champs if we'd beaten undefeated Clemson. Such was the prestige of the Big 8 back in the day. The Big Ten back then was crap.
The argument for expanding the playoffs even if the same team wins all the time:
In FCS, 24 teams are invited. This year, Montana State was seeded eighth yet won three games to make it to the final against NDSU. Do you think MSU fans won't remember with absolute giddiness the run the Bobcats made in this year's tournament? Do you think MSU fans would rather have celebrated a secondary bowl victory in a one-game postseason than a successful title chase? How about unseeded South Dakota State's improbable three-victory run to the semifinals? Again, would they rather have played a single, meaningless bowl game instead?
The FCS playoffs aren't always about who wins it all.
I completely agree, and that's really the best argument for expansion.
there's a reason programs hang banners for Sweet 16 appearances.
just don't think it'll change anything at the top, which is honestly perfect for a league like the B1G that doesn't compete there anyway.
I just meant uncle sam, which biden is the rep of now...lol
but that is a good chuck of change taken, compared to if it's under the table
They still have a lot of talent, but Dabo seems to be throwing in the towel. Some of the decisions he's made recently are head scratchers.
The problem is it further diminishes the regular season though, and college football had/has the best regular season around. Outside of Duke/North Carolina fans, does anyone really care who wins that game? But if the loser didn't make the tourny, that game would be must-see TV and would be the most watched game every season.
Expanded playoffs are one reason why I don't care for the NFL anymore. Almost half the teams get in, so really, the "regular" season is just exhibition to see who qualifies for the playoffs, when the "real" season begins.
It works for FCS because no one gives a rats *** about regular season FCS games, except for some fans of said schools.
a fair point, I suppose.
to counter, I would ask 'who cares' about the regular season after a team has lost one single game, since they've essentially already been eliminated from title contention, even if that loss occurred at home in Sept (to a MAC team).
the only programs that can survive a loss during the regular season must've started out in the pre-season top 15, so the final results are basically predetermined by a bunch of dork nerd newspaper writers who vote for their favorite teams/big markets on Aug 1.
you do not care about UNC/Duke in the regular season, so imagine how little the country cares about a x-loss minnesota vs wisconsin (I'm told this is a rivalry?) even 6 weeks into the season, when both have already been eliminated from title contention either by an early loss or by being left out of the AP top-15 in the pre-season poll for no reason other than 85% of voters put the same schools in year after year like it's 1988 (the B1G benefits gigantically from this).
all of this is to say - the regular season is great when you go unbeaten, and is the exact same as all other sports when you don't.
Last edited:
Thanks for the good reply king_kong_. Half the replies just make fun of me for being a Gopher fan on your board.
I'd counter with something like "lots of people will still care with one loss". Sure, without a playoff at all, 'bama would have been eliminated with that aTm loss, and maybe their fans would have tuned out, but most fan bases expect to lose at least a game, and yet those fans have elevated college football extreme popularity.
If the Gophers lose in Sept or October, all Gopher fans will still care because a January bowl game is great and we're happy with those, and you can get there with 1 or 2 losses.
You brought up MN/WI, but these teams never compete for NCs, yet it's still a wildly popular game because that's the team we want to beat the most. Did you guys still care to watch Nebraska vs. Oklahoma, or Nebby / Iowa?
So I guess I disagree with "the regular season is great when you go unbeaten, and is the exact same as all other sports when you don't". We beat WI, Michigan had a great season with a loss, MSU had a great season with a loss, etc. Your statement is only true for the teams who start out with NC hopes.
I'd counter with something like "lots of people will still care with one loss". Sure, without a playoff at all, 'bama would have been eliminated with that aTm loss, and maybe their fans would have tuned out, but most fan bases expect to lose at least a game, and yet those fans have elevated college football extreme popularity.
If the Gophers lose in Sept or October, all Gopher fans will still care because a January bowl game is great and we're happy with those, and you can get there with 1 or 2 losses.
You brought up MN/WI, but these teams never compete for NCs, yet it's still a wildly popular game because that's the team we want to beat the most. Did you guys still care to watch Nebraska vs. Oklahoma, or Nebby / Iowa?
So I guess I disagree with "the regular season is great when you go unbeaten, and is the exact same as all other sports when you don't". We beat WI, Michigan had a great season with a loss, MSU had a great season with a loss, etc. Your statement is only true for the teams who start out with NC hopes.
I am still getting used to the trophy games in the B1G, but I know enough to know that at Nebraska, a “great season” starts with a conference title, not some ‘rivalry’ game in Nov.
I also am well aware that in the B1G these regular season trophies define success for 11+ teams.
So, yea, I work from a starting point of ‘we have national title aspirations’ when discussing these things.