Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 77
  1. #1
    The Godfather dawgstudent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    31,778
    Twitter
    @SixPackSpeak

    Has Alabama ruined SEC football?....

    Their dominance has almost made this like Kentucky and basketball. I still enjoy watching State play but until Saban leaves - it's the Alabama Invitational.
    I support the two most frustrating teams in America: The New Orleans Saints and The Mississippi State Bulldogs


    5 out of 6 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    348
    Yes


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  3. #3
    What Would Freezus Do? hatfieldms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,198
    Yes. I have been saying that for a few years now. It is just boring


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  4. #4
    Hail Yes!! Buck Fama!!


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  5. #5
    With the help of the league office.....YES


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  6. #6
    President, John Cohen Fan Club
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    5,394
    Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State have ruined NCAA Football.... a 16 Team Playoff would help it a lot.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  7. #7
    Alabama definitely has dominated SEC play, but I wouldnt say they are alone in ruining SEC football.
    Bama has 5 NCs in the last 13ish years since Saban came to coach. They have won the division 9 times and finished 2nd 2 times. Total domination.

    UGA is 24-4 in conference play since the 2017 season. You can definitely add them in as ruining SEC football because its 'if not for Bama, then UGA' in terms of most dominant.


    But this is just whats happened in college football- this century's focus on conference realignment and TV rights has only further separated the haves and the have nots. And to be clear, all in the SEC are 'have', even if its a 1-3 MSU team.
    So now the haves and the have nots are more separated than ever, and a select handful of dominant programs are controlling conferences year in and year out. Bama, UGA, Clemson, OSU, OU- these 5 teams, and maybe if you want to be kind you can toss LSU and Oregon into the mix, are who most anyone that follows college football would guess will be in the mix at the end of any given year for conference/playoff spots.



    Reduce scholarships to 60 per team. Set a roster limit at the start of classes to 80.
    To address common ignorant accusations against the above suggestions- the current system isnt a free market so dont compare it, scholarship reduction isnt socialism so dont compare it, and this actually is enough players to form a team that can play the game of football.

    Spread out talent to make games more interesting. There will be less blowouts and more meaningful games. Of course there will still be really good teams and really bad teams because more than just roster count affects results on the field, but this change could go a long way towards improving college football as a whole.


    7 out of 9 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgstudent View Post
    Their dominance has almost made this like Kentucky and basketball. I still enjoy watching State play but until Saban leaves - it's the Alabama Invitational.
    Ruined is a strong word, but yes, they've definitely lessened the appeal.

    And I do think long term, college football is going to be hurt by the different rules applied to haves and have-nots. Assuming participation in high school football continues to decline over time, asking people that didn't play for their high school football team to be die hard about a college football team that can never compete is not the easiest ask.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  9. #9
    It's an oligarchy. About a 7 team oligarchy. They control the dispersion of five star talent. The rest of us are fighting over the leftovers.
    “I’m not going to take anything off the table at this point in time ... but I will tell you this,” Cohen began, “this person is going to have serious baseball experience as a head coach. This person is going to have made trips to Omaha, Nebraska. This person is going to have expertise in an area of the game and in all facets of the game. And this person is going to make our fan base very happy.” - Intense Bastard, April 5, 2018.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  10. #10
    ^This.
    When Miami was steamrolling opponents during a comparable dynasty I remember Officials throwing the book at them every game for obvious reasons. They were also hated with gusto in part because they were so good and won in spite of any aid from the conference or officials.

    This banner dynasty is different. The shit those bastards consistently get away with has completely calloused my expectation of any justice in any game they play. And every single other school has the right to hate them for preferential treatment on so many levels, except Auburn. 17 them too


    4 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  11. #11
    Was talking about this with friends over the weekend. I am starting to like college football less and less because it is Bama, Clemson, Ohio St. and one or two other teams every year. No one else has a chance...it is a joke we are playing for the same national championship. I guess expanding the playoff to 16 would make it more interesting, but one of those three would still win. I know they would NEVER do this, but it seems the only solution is picking one recruiting ranking service and having a rule that a team can only have 5-10 five star recruits on their team. The talent needs to be spread out to make it competitive.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  12. #12
    Yes


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  13. #13
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    Alabama definitely has dominated SEC play, but I wouldnt say they are alone in ruining SEC football.
    Bama has 5 NCs in the last 13ish years since Saban came to coach. They have won the division 9 times and finished 2nd 2 times. Total domination.

    UGA is 24-4 in conference play since the 2017 season. You can definitely add them in as ruining SEC football because its 'if not for Bama, then UGA' in terms of most dominant.


    But this is just whats happened in college football- this century's focus on conference realignment and TV rights has only further separated the haves and the have nots. And to be clear, all in the SEC are 'have', even if its a 1-3 MSU team.
    So now the haves and the have nots are more separated than ever, and a select handful of dominant programs are controlling conferences year in and year out. Bama, UGA, Clemson, OSU, OU- these 5 teams, and maybe if you want to be kind you can toss LSU and Oregon into the mix, are who most anyone that follows college football would guess will be in the mix at the end of any given year for conference/playoff spots.



    Reduce scholarships to 60 per team. Set a roster limit at the start of classes to 80.
    To address common ignorant accusations against the above suggestions- the current system isnt a free market so dont compare it, scholarship reduction isnt socialism so dont compare it, and this actually is enough players to form a team that can play the game of football.

    Spread out talent to make games more interesting. There will be less blowouts and more meaningful games. Of course there will still be really good teams and really bad teams because more than just roster count affects results on the field, but this change could go a long way towards improving college football as a whole.
    Agree with most all of this, especially about it not being a free market. And we should all hope it does NOT go in further in the free market territory. And less scholarships will make Saban have to coach more, rather than recruit.

    And while we're at it, give those 25 extra scholarships to baseball.


    6 out of 7 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  14. #14
    Dawg1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    East Central MS
    Posts
    5,192
    Yep. Not much interest in it.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,884
    Nah. Hasn't it always been there's a dominant team in the SEC? And it isn't like they've won the league every year.

    I'm more turned off by the role of the sport as a whole. Back in the 80's and even in to the 90's it felt like most of the roster was made up of local kids who were playing for their school. Sure there was rampant cheating going on but it was that special player here or there, not the whole damn team that was being imported from around the country. That feels like it has changed, along with the amount of resources that are swallowed by D1 football.

    I'm a college professor who loves football so it is a conflict. We've basically had our salaries and department academic resources frozen since 2008, while we watch the administration build dorms with pools and weight rooms, coaches making 8 figures, etc. Feels like this isn't a sustainable or particularly desirable outcome.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  16. #16
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Shmuley View Post
    It's an oligarchy. About a 7 team oligarchy. They control the dispersion of five star talent. The rest of us are fighting over the leftovers.
    At some point, when does it come back to the players? They are choosing to go sit on the bench over there. It's also proven that playing for them doesn't automatically equal success in the NFL. Somebody needs to be educating these kids that they need to go where they can play. The oligarchy does not have a gun to their heads making them come there.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  17. #17
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Cotton View Post
    Nah. Hasn't it always been there's a dominant team in the SEC? And it isn't like they've won the league every year.

    I'm more turned off by the role of the sport as a whole. Back in the 80's and even in to the 90's it felt like most of the roster was made up of local kids who were playing for their school. Sure there was rampant cheating going on but it was that special player here or there, not the whole damn team that was being imported from around the country. That feels like it has changed, along with the amount of resources that are swallowed by D1 football.

    I'm a college professor who loves football so it is a conflict. We've basically had our salaries and department academic resources frozen since 2008, while we watch the administration build dorms with pools and weight rooms, coaches making 8 figures, etc. Feels like this isn't a sustainable or particularly desirable outcome.
    You're hitting on something here. College sports definitely needs to get a little bit back to the 'college' aspect of it. I'm not sure the answer, but that's what it needs.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgstudent View Post
    Their dominance has almost made this like Kentucky and basketball. I still enjoy watching State play but until Saban leaves - it's the Alabama Invitational.
    In my opinion, the SEC offices and Bama have:

    * Lessened the experience for SEC fans - starting the year knowing who will win west and most likely the SEC turns games into simply something watch. You never get the feeling you're building toward something bigger.

    * Lessened the appearance of SEC being the best conference in football - Many around the country see us as Alabama and the rest. The MSUs, Auburns, and even Floridas of this conference are seen as riding he coat tails of the one dominant school. We are still seen as the best conference, but most believe the gap isn't what it used to be. (I miss the days when there were usually 3-6 teams at the start of the season that most thought had a legitimate chance to win the natty)

    * Lessened the "you can play in the SEC" recruiting pull for schools not named Bama.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  19. #19
    VirginiaDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    2,128
    Bama... and a couple others are doing the same in other conferences ... there's just little hope for anyone else in the west.

    I would've thought this all SEC schedule and no preseason may give them some trouble, but it really hasn't. When you recruit to the point where you can roll out of bed and beat 98% of the teams in nation, you're only going to lose if you beat yourself.
    Hail State, Braves, Panthers, Liverpool


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  20. #20
    Absolutely. The favoritism give AL by the SEC offices/refs is nothing short of organized crime. Auburn gets the second best preferential treatment. It's a State of Alabama thing. It will not change until the other SEC school presidents grow a pair and make it stop. But I am not holding my breath. As long as they get a big SEC check, it's ok with them.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  21. #21
    It's weird because my gut answer is yes, but then I remember they've only won the West one of the last three years and it doesn't seem very sensical to say yes.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  22. #22
    No. The system is rotten and they have figured out how to abuse it.

    Start with scholarships. The ratio of starting players/total scholarship players is way out of line. Assuming you have 25 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 3 ST), 85 scholarships is 3.4x your starting lineup size. The sport with the closest ratio is Hockey with 18 scholarships for 6 starters, so 3x. Basketball with 13 has 2.6x, and it gets worse from there on team sports, especially for men.

    Setting football to the same 2.6 multiplier gets you to 65 scholarship players. Reduce the signing limit to 20. Take the 20 scholarships and send them to baseball and men's soccer.


    6 out of 7 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  23. #23
    FBS now has 130 teams. Even if there were something approaching parity (there clearly is not), having that many teams compete for 1 championship is absurd.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgstudent View Post
    Their dominance has almost made this like Kentucky and basketball. I still enjoy watching State play but until Saban leaves - it's the Alabama Invitational.
    Saban is a once in generation kind of coach, but honestly, were it not for some really bad hires by Alabama, the brief respite in the 90's would not have been a thing. The Alabama brand draws so much talent that it will take someone particular terrible in all facets to kill that draw, or some rule change of substance. We can always hope...


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by UpTheMiddlex3Punt View Post
    No. The system is rotten and they have figured out how to abuse it.

    Start with scholarships. The ratio of starting players/total scholarship players is way out of line. Assuming you have 25 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 3 ST), 85 scholarships is 3.4x your starting lineup size. The sport with the closest ratio is Hockey with 18 scholarships for 6 starters, so 3x. Basketball with 13 has 2.6x, and it gets worse from there on team sports, especially for men.

    Setting football to the same 2.6 multiplier gets you to 65 scholarship players. Reduce the signing limit to 20. Take the 20 scholarships and send them to baseball and men's soccer.
    This guy gets it.

    Alabama isn't ruining college football. It's not their fault that the rules are set up for monopolies to form. Them, Ohio State, & Clemson are basically just the most ruthless that exploited the rules for their benefit.

    Give me a break on OU & Oregon. They are hardly closer to being a national title contender as MSU. They just play in bad conferences that allows them to advance.

    The monopolies are Alabama, Ohio State, & Clemson with LSU and Georgia has two teams with the ability to take the monopolies to court.

    Everyone else is just playing exhibition games for mid level bowl games that are also exhibitions.

    Recruiting rankings, recruiting combines, etc have made the public far more aware of how terrible the CFB system is.
    Last edited by shotgunDawg; 10-26-2020 at 03:13 PM.


    4 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by VegasDawg13 View Post
    It's weird because my gut answer is yes, but then I remember they've only won the West one of the last three years and it doesn't seem very sensical to say yes.
    Bama won the West in '12, '13(tie), '14, '15, '16, '17(tie), and '18. And Bama is currently leading the West this year. 7 of the last 8 years they tied for 1st or outright finished 1st in the conference and they are on track to make it 8 of the last 9 years.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  27. #27
    The system may enable Alabama via players just dying to go there and them having room to stockpile, but the draw to Alabama is the key thing. Kids throw away chances to play elsewhere to sit on the bench at Alabama.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by horshack View Post
    Kids throw away chances to play elsewhere to sit on the bench at Alabama.
    Not really because they don't think they're going to sit the bench. They go there thinking they'll play


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You're hitting on something here. College sports definitely needs to get a little bit back to the 'college' aspect of it. I'm not sure the answer, but that's what it needs.
    Yeeup.
    Ive long been a pretty lonely voice against the rising coaching salaries, exponential spending on athletic buildings, etc.

    The focus on college athletics and influx of money has been a hulluva double edged sword. Its brought easy access to MSU sports of all levels(not just football and basketball, but volleyball, baseball, etc). Its brought great publicity to the department(2014 season). But its also brought absurd football coaching salaries and a focus on what should be a secondary part of MSU.
    Its brought a mentality that we have to keep up with the Joneses when its a losing battle- we cant keep up with the spending of Arkansas, LSU, A&M, Bama, or Auburn.

    Obviously the towel shouldnt be thrown in, but itd be great if college sports were de-emphasized a bit. Maybe if it hadnt been so emphasized over the last 20 years, we wouldnt be on a collision course of athletes being paid for their likeness due to the legal battles within state legislatures and the NCAA's archaic views since $ flooded in.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    FBS now has 130 teams. Even if there were something approaching parity (there clearly is not), having that many teams compete for 1 championship is absurd.
    agree. There are only 65 power 5 schools though.

    There should be an attempt to create rules that make the largest point spreads between power 5 schools about 17-20 points. Anymore than that and you've got a non-competitive system


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunDawg View Post
    agree. There are only 65 power 5 schools though.

    There should be an attempt to create rules that make the largest point spreads between power 5 schools about 17-20 points. Anymore than that and you've got a non-competitive system
    Welp, we are 32 point underdogs Saturday, so...


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    FBS now has 130 teams. Even if there were something approaching parity (there clearly is not), having that many teams compete for 1 championship is absurd.
    330 D1 volleyball teams play for 1 championship.
    297 D1 baseball teams play for 1 championship.

    yada yada yada.

    those odds are worse.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  33. #33
    Saban has ruined it.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    330 D1 volleyball teams play for 1 championship.
    297 D1 baseball teams play for 1 championship.

    yada yada yada.

    those odds are worse.

    Also absurd


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  35. #35
    I agree. Kids likely do think they were gonna play, even when the rest of the world is able to tell that they will not. Can't recall the name of the Germantown db that went there a few years back and never sniffed the field, but he's just one of many. SPS should offer recruiting advice services for high school seniors, because "we" nailed that one, if I recall.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by horshack View Post
    I agree. Kids likely do think they were gonna play, even when the rest of the world is able to tell that they will not. Can't recall the name of the Germantown db that went there a few years back and never sniffed the field, but he's just one of many. SPS should offer recruiting advice services for high school seniors, because "we" nailed that one, if I recall.
    This is where the new transfer portal rule could help. We'll see


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by dorndawg View Post
    Welp, we are 32 point underdogs Saturday, so...
    yes, non competitive system


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by thatsbaseball View Post
    With the help of the league office.....YES
    This is a really good point. If the league didn't protect them, they'd still be dominant, but how many more losses would they have had without things like the officials picking up their hat b/c Bama is in danger? That'd be enough to flip who is in Atlanta more often, but just as important if not more important, leave a lot more games uncertain. There are usually handful of SEC teams in any year that could upset Bama, but there is usually not but two or three at the most that could realistically upset Bama and the refs, and even in years where there are three, no more than two of them will be on Bama's schedule.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  39. #39
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	I've had worse (2)_LI.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	705.7 KB 
ID:	18501


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy Cotton View Post

    I'm a college professor who loves football so it is a conflict. We've basically had our salaries and department academic resources frozen since 2008, while we watch the administration build dorms with pools and weight rooms, coaches making 8 figures, etc. Feels like this isn't a sustainable or particularly desirable outcome.
    That's mostly two separate issues. If your coach is making 8 figures, that means you're at a P5 and football is most likely a net contributor to university finances (even if it's indirect through attracting students).

    Administrative bloat and the arms race in amenities to attract more and more suckers willing to take out loans for amenities rather than an eduction is another issue (or possibly two separate issues).


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SixPack Sponsors






Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.