The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

My view:

http://www.cajunscomments.com/sec-footba...ver-rated/

Agree they are overrated. I'm sure they will have every excuse in the book lined up to whine about until next time.

Need to correct the comment about Bama losing to Miss. State early on as Bama defeated Miss. State.

(01-02-2015 11:57 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  My view:

http://www.cajunscomments.com/sec-footba...ver-rated/

Also the article said the record of ranked SEC teams was 2-7. Don't know where that came from. SEC is 6-5 with the Florida-ECU game to go. I do think this will bring down the SEC haughtiness a degree or two.

(01-03-2015 12:42 AM)Blazeramo Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 11:57 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  My view:

http://www.cajunscomments.com/sec-footba...ver-rated/

Also the article said the record of ranked SEC teams was 2-7. Don't know where that came from. SEC is 6-5 with the Florida-ECU game to go. I do think this will bring down the SEC haughtiness a degree or two.

You're right on both counts. Thanks. Corrected.

I agree.

Occasionally, you get a powerhouse team that just steamrolls, but, for the most part, the SEC was built on the premise that they were so good that they really only lost to each other. That insular method of determining the conference as a whole was the strongest just caught up with them in a year when none of the teams were really exceptional in any real regard. Another thing was that ESPN really hyped the conference up so much because of the birth of the SEC network. A lot of it can be attributed to the kind of fans that make the rounds telling everyone that'd listen that the SEC could have divisions in the NFL and the like.

At any rate, the rhetoric is going to ramp up again next season but I hope that people are a little more humble going forward.

(01-03-2015 01:39 AM)Hopeful Wrote:  I agree.

Occasionally, you get a powerhouse team that just steamrolls, but, for the most part, the SEC was built on the premise that they were so good that they really only lost to each other. That insular method of determining the conference as a whole was the strongest just caught up with them in a year when none of the teams were really exceptional in any real regard. Another thing was that ESPN really hyped the conference up so much because of the birth of the SEC network. A lot of it can be attributed to the kind of fans that make the rounds telling everyone that'd listen that the SEC could have divisions in the NFL and the like.

At any rate, the rhetoric is going to ramp up again next season but I hope that people are a little more humble going forward.

Humility is not characteristic of the SEC or their fan bases.

The cracks really started to show after the last weekend of regular season games, when they lost to several "inferior" ACC teams.

just imagine if tcu HAD play uat ,,,,,people will be killing them self and ask for saban head :)
Oregon will cream ohio state

the whole sec overated is not new for UAB fans
Most SEC teams play 4 easy game otc and need to win two games during the regular season to GO bowling
Look at every sec teams records when they played against a pac 12 teams in at their places ,,,,not too many secs wins
I dont care to much about the sec teams but I can not stand their ignorant fans
Also when a non sec teams play them at home ,,,the sec teams get most of pass interference call or holding call ,,,,,,,
once again sec team are not difficult to beat sec ref are tough to beat :)

The SEC is not overrated in terms of football talent, as the NFL Draft backs that up almost every year. Some of the coaches are probably overrated though.

Guess this means playing Miss. St. close for a half really not so impressive after all.

(01-03-2015 12:12 PM)randy22263 Wrote:  Guess this means playing Miss. St. close for a half really not so impressive after all.

It was still pretty impressive for a team that doesn't exist any more.

The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

(01-03-2015 01:41 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

Ummm ok. Meanwhile back at the ranch....

(01-03-2015 01:41 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

Can you please explain median to me again? Also, are you saying SEC teams pay $200,000 a year per athlete? While we are at it, can you tell me something about per pupil funding in our grade schools?

And thank you for the history lesson on bama coaches. It's relevant to our board as always.

(01-03-2015 01:41 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

Ooookay, so why would anyone want to be a fan of a school which essentially buys it's wins in some years and in other years doesn't get a good return for its money unless it is really just about an ego boost for its fans, financial supporters, and of course the Board of Trustees.?

look at the players in the super bowl
year after year most of the players come outside the sec
get drafted play and stay in the nfl ,,,are very different issues

The citation about Bama coaches illustrates how MONEY in great amounts, enables an athletic program to rectify mistakes more quickly and more often than in a more modestly endowed program.

Yes, UA and AU EACH have spent about $200,000 per athlete EVERY YEAR since 2008 which according to the DCP was greater than the median school for the SEC which spent about $165,000 annually per athlete. The second place conference's (Big 12) median school spent about $35,000 less than the median SEC school. The DCP figures specifically for AU and UA came from an article by Scarbinsky which quoted that source.

http://profootball.scout.com/story/14642...-nfl-stars

Most players are outside the sec in the NFL, but the sec leads the way in players on active rosters.

(01-03-2015 02:07 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 01:41 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

Ooookay, so why would anyone want to be a fan of a school which essentially buys it's wins in some years and in other years doesn't get a good return for its money unless it is really just about an ego boost for its fans, financial supporters, and of course the Board of Trustees.?

As a matter of historical fact, that is exactly what drives a lot of the funding for such programs. The financial ability to sit up in those 6 figure skyboxes and brag to one another about how much each gave to the program's success is critical to its success. One major reason UAB had so few 6 home game schedules is because those P5 schools pay for victories in "always at home" games they can afford to purchase for 6 and 7 figure sums. The UA BOT is probably just more egocentric than those of other schools.

(01-03-2015 02:34 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:07 PM)CajunBlazer Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 01:41 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  The SEC generally gets what it pays for. According to the Delta Cost Project figures for the last 5 years, the MEDIAN SEC team spent over $35,000 annually per athlete MORE than the MEDIAN team in the second place conference (Big 12). Since BOTH AU and UA have spent about $200,000 annually per athlete since 2008, they are hardly the MEDIAN schools in the SEC.

Yes, money has its limitations in that a school must still hire the top talent in coaches (Bama went through about 9 since Bryant before it hired Saban - while UAB could afford to only go through two) and then recruit top talent to play the game. Having multi-million dollar facilities helps with the latter as AU, UA, FSU and Oregon prove.

One note about school priorities, the difference in per ACADEMIC pupil spending among the median schools of all 11 conferences was only about $9,000 between top (Big 10) and bottom (Sun belt) while the difference in ATHLETIC spending was over $35,000 between just the top two.

Ooookay, so why would anyone want to be a fan of a school which essentially buys it's wins in some years and in other years doesn't get a good return for its money unless it is really just about an ego boost for its fans, financial supporters, and of course the Board of Trustees.?

As a matter of historical fact, that is exactly what drives a lot of the funding for such programs. The financial ability to sit up in those 6 figure skyboxes and brag to one another about how much each gave to the program's success is critical to its success. One major reason UAB had so few 6 home game schedules is because those P5 schools pay for victories in "always at home" games they can afford to purchase for 6 and 7 figure sums. The UA BOT is probably just more egocentric than those of other schools.

Unfortunately that is also the case for many of the fans who contribute nothing to the program except the licenses fees for the various pieces of Tide paraphernalia they buy. The fast majority have never attended a class on the university campus. Many rarely see an Alabama game in person; they watch the games on TV because they can't afford to afford the price of tickets. But they are also the most fanatic fans Alabama has because they have little else to be proud of in their lives. They are the type that are regular callers on the Finebalm show.

In way many Alabama fans are a sad lot. They expect Alabama to win every game and contend for the national championship every year. So instead of feeling happy when Alabama wins, most of the time they are just relieved until the next game. The only times that they are happy is when Alabama wins one of the very few big games where their fans truly think they have a good chance of losing. And of course they are devastated when the Tide loses, regardless of who they lose to. That is one hell of way to go through a season.