You notice LSU is 10th there, right? And you're suggesting you're educating me, when you've just posted ... You're having a hard time keeping your own narrative straight here, Ramah. You're asking me if I'm kidding about that link going ESPN's rankings when the url, as seen above, clearly states "ESPN Power Index." And no, I'm not kidding. Vegas bookmakers are not using ESPN's power index (FPI) to make their own lines. Hell, you've just linked Action Network and you can see they don't match. Vegas bookmakers have their own power index.
Nine of the 38 games are playoff games. I took a five yr look which doesn't include the BCS. That leaves us with Bama playing 29, LSU playing 27. If we go back another five years and don't include the BCS games Bama played 25 ranked teams in the post season, LSU 27. Bama's played 54 ranked teams in the regular season over the last 10 years. LSU has played 54 ranked teams in the regular season over the last 10 years. The notion "The SEC cash cow must be protected at all cost" when referring to the schedule is patently false. I'd call it intellectual dishonesty but it's clear there hasn't been any thought put into the statement.
When stating how many ranked teams Bama has played in reference to Alabama's schedule? The implication of the post I responded to was clearly one that tried to equate Bama's success being due to its schedule when they've played as many, if not more, ranked teams than any other in college football. They have played more ranked teams because of post season play. However, having played as many ranked teams as LSU makes the statement just what it is; contrived and dishonest. I'm still a little confused on what category to put this train of thought in. So, since Saban arrived at Bama LSU has played Florida 12 times (7-5.) Over the same period Bama is 6-1 against the same team. But having Florida on the schedule for LSU, yearly, is "protecting the cash cow" because Tennessee has been beaten 12 times in a row. Since the SEC went to divisions how many times has Florida kept LSU out of the SECCG? Those who keep pointing to "permanent opponent" don't want to know that because it ruins their narrative. In 1996 LSU was undefeated going into Florida and lost. They lost to Bama as well keeping them out of the SECCG. in 2001, an SECCG year for LSU, included a loss to Florida (as well as UT and Ole Miss.) In 2003, a national title year for LSU, included a loss to Florida. in 2006 there was another loss to Florida in a season where LSU had already lost to Auburn. This is a year where LSU does have an argument with Florida being on the schedule. Arkansas represented the West with a late season loss to LSU. A win over Florida that season would have put LSU in the SECCG. In 27 years the Florida game has cost LSU a SECCG berth one time. But the reason LSU hasn't had more success within the SEC, and nationally, over the last 27 years is because it has Florida on the schedule? Is the Florida/permanent opponents argument not intellectually dishonest from its foundation?
Why would you not count playoff games? I mean, its elite teams at that point and Bama won most of them....
Th e implication in @TerryP comment was that Alabama had more games against top ranked opponents than Lau in the regular season as that is where the discussion was going. Accuracy and intellectual honesty required the regular and post season to be broken out. As it is he didn’t need to shade his figures as a 27-28 regular season breakdown demonstrated his point well. Sort of like their NC count....they have more than enough and don’t need to claim those bogus ones.
@Winston1 I'll retract the dishonesty monicker if we can agree schedule preferences as suggested is just bullshit. It's a comment like that ... bullshit. The two teams play, for all intents and purposes, similar schedules throughout the years. ~signed ~looking at a few years I've hung around here and I've called it when I've seen it since day one
