Saban to Bielema: Thanks, but no Thanks

July 3, 2012 at 11:44p    by Jason Priestas    
19 Comments
19 Comments

Comments

BuckeyeNation's picture

That's sounds about right for Saban... Hypocrite! He can talk the talk about the SEC being better than B1G but is definitely to scared to walk the walk!
Sorry guys... it's really hard for me to do/say this but I gotta give one up to Bielema on this!

Irricoir's picture

If I am the champ and some nonrate approaches me for a title shot I am going to tell him to go win a few matches first. Yeah he has the first B1G conference championship but that's it. They are tough to beat at home but what else can they do with consistency? We beat them in our weakest year ever. The last bowl game they won was against a shatty Miami team in the [laughable] cold. The team is only known for producing good running backs and Offensive Lineman under a coach that is no longer there. That's it. They don't seem to be recruiting quality QB's anymore, not counting the transfers, and have no depth at any position other than Runningback and possibly OL. Their defense is average at best except when they are playing inspired football. They may have a chance at home but they'd get the brakes beat off of them in September in Bama. They play us in some tough games but I also think we wouldn't have matched up well with Bama during the Tressel era either. (During the overlapping Saban era I mean. Certainly better than Wisky) I equate this to a situation where Saban has nothing to gain but everything to lose. Strength of schedule applies to everyone else not in the SEC conference. Until that conference's perception is changed, and a SEC team loses their game in the championship, that image will remain intact and there will be a SEC team in the championship game unless they have more than one loss, regardless of who they have played that year. 

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

Jason Priestas's picture

This "nonrate" has been the Big Ten's representative to the last two Rose Bowls. We're not talking about Indiana here...

Irricoir's picture

Jason,
Wisconsin isn't a scrub by any means. I think my strong stance on the matter maybe indicates that I put them on the same level as Indiana. That isn't the case in my mind. Even giving them that, and I really hate typing this, there is no team in the B1G at Alabama's level. If Wisconsin had our defense then I would say that they had a legit chance to challenge Alabama. Our offensive line has been pretty bad for some time now. We wouldn't be able to handle Alabama's Defensive line. Wisconsin potentially had the manpower to handle that task but they wouldn't be able to keep up with Alabama's respectable offense. It's just my opinion. Yes, Wisconsin was our representative in the Rosebowl. Which one of those was a victory? They certainly didn't handle business with Oregon the way that we did. They did hang around in those games but i wouldn't say they gave our conference any notoriety. There are no moral victories for a conference, only L's and W's. Again, this is just my opinion and it I might be the only one that thinks it. /shrugs?

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

buck-I.8's picture

There is no B1G team on par with Bama, BUT OSU and Michigan at least know how to win BCS games occasionally, and are thus qualified to challange them. Wisconsin gets destroyed in the Rose Bowl and then thinks they can challange the big dogs anyway

Irricoir's picture

Yeah, pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

CincyOSU's picture

They have lost the last two Rose Bowl games by a total of 9 points, although losing to a non-BCS team doesn't look the greatest. Basically, I agree with you. Its just a bit of a stretch to say they got destroyed.

buck-I.8's picture

Didn't mean destroyed in terms of the score, more in terms of the fact that they came in with their heads held high, especially against TCU, who they assumed they could dominate, and came up empty handed.

buckeyedude's picture

 

They are tough to beat at home but what else can they do with consistency?

I dunno. I hear they make some pretty good cheese.
I always liked how Tress and Smith scheduled at least one tough non-conference game per year(Texas/USC). Win or lose, it increases respect from around the country. And it was usually a nationally televised game.
YOu are right, Irricoir. There is no real up side for Saban to take the Crimson Elephants to come north of the Mason-Dixon Line. However, I don't think Wisconsin playing Notre Dame really helps their SOS much.

 
 

spqr2008's picture

That's because the last time the SEC ventured north of the Mason-Dixon line, they got whupped.  See Penn State vs. Citadel, July 1-3, 1963.

spqr2008's picture

no, got my century wrong.  I was making a jack a** comment about Gettysburg.  I meant 1863

Bucksfan's picture

We aren't ones to talk.  Ohio State was the one who pulled out of the home-and-homes against Tennessee and Georgia.  And personally, I don't really care if we're going to start playing a Pac-12 team every year...we STILL should be playing Tennessee and Georgia.

Irricoir's picture

I agree. The difference between Wisconsin and us is that we have not been scheduling creme puffs in our entire non conference scheduling. We at least have had Texas, USC, Miami and others. Compare that to Oregon St. So, I feel comfortable talking a little bit of noise about their scheduling. The games we pulled out of were for Delaney's shenanigans. If we were afraid of the SEC do you think we would have scheduled those games in the first place? 

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

Bucksfan's picture

Oh, don't get me wrong, we could go on and on all day about Wisconsin's non-con schedules since Bielema took over.  I'm just saying we can't get all over Saban for declining to schedule yet another Big Ten team...in this case, one that is in some of the least fertile recruiting grounds.  They just got done embarrassing Penn State, they have one against Michigan this year, and they've got a home-and-home against Michigan State coming up in 2016 and 2017.  Plus they have neutral site games against VaTech and WVU also on the horizon.  Of all the SEC teams, Alabama and LSU have to be given some credit for their scheduling of good teams in recent years.  The rest of the SEC is stinkville.

Irricoir's picture

I agree with this too.

I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.

Hoody Wayes's picture

If all national championships - to date - are mythical, then those claimed by ANY team from a warm weather state are MOST mythical.
In my opinion, the college football non-conference schedule should be spread out over the course of the season or played once, per month. This would make an Alabama at Camp Randle in November, possible. 
Moreover, given the abominable inbalance of bowl sites in warm weather locations, at least two bowls need to be played in cold weather. I submit the Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium, a re-located Liberty Bowl (to MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford), a re-located Independence Bowl (to Philly or Foxboro) and a "Veteran's Bowl" in Soldiers' Field (that's how it's pronounced in Chicago.) as suggestions.
Finally, teams like USC, Bama, LSU and the like that have played most of their bowls in either their own backyards, home states or warm weather, should be placed on a schedule, in which they are mandated to play in cold weather bowls either every year or ever other year, in which they are bowl-eligible...until the "books are balanced."
To me, the least mythical of college football champs, are those teams that played in temperate climes.
Happy 4th! 

VestedInterest's picture

Wisconsin is the personification of how the B1G is perceived as as a whole, giant, lumbering, slow offensive lineman and a ground and pound gameplan/mentality, with a non descript defense built around defending the same. There have been attempts to deviate from the B1G stencil with limited success, IU, just can't get recruits, NW, ditto. UM tried too but abandoned defense entirely, they're still picking up the pieces. Ohio State will be the next to attempt to break the "B1G Mold".
You couldn't dismiss the Wisconsin's and the Iowa's when recruiting in the past. If you wanted a chance to win the B1G it depended on getting by unscathed against big oafs utilized by much of the B1G. Now comes OSU's shot. Looks like we'll be wearing out defenses, running them ragged and not just standing them up. The difference in my opinion is on defense, where relentless pressure and forcing things seems to be a focus where others have failed.

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Wisconsin has been relevant for about an hour.  They've made a couple of Rose Bowls, both of which they lost (TCU - come on son, Oregon - virtually unable to win on the big stage until they met Wisky).  They've had a nice offense the past couple of years, and have had the good RBs, OL, and a couple WRs/TEs here and there.  They're not an elite program, however. 
It would have been wise in terms of strength of schedule for Alabama, even though they get the whole "we play in the SEC, therefore strong schedule" argument.  I'd ask what they're afraid of as far as going up to Madison, but quite frankly, there's nothing to be afraid of.  We always act like Madison is such a tough place to play, but we've only lost 3 times and tied once up there since 1990.

Class of 2010.