Dawg Sports: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:





Nick Saban Attempts to Out-Duel Les Miles in Stupid Statement Competition

First, Phillip Fulmer said something stupid. Then, Les Miles ran his mouth. Really, when you think about it, Urban Meyer started the whole thing.

Now, however, Nick Saban has gotten into the act. The Montgomery Advertiser quotes the Armani Bear as having said the following:

No disrespect to the Big Ten, but most of the time there were three or four good teams in the Big Ten each year. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State were pretty good and then there might be another team or two that was better that year. But here [in the S.E.C.] there were eight or nine teams that were all pretty good. That was a challenge to play with the kind of consistency you needed to be able to sustain that kind of performance.

Anybody that has won a national championship in this league, that speaks volumes to me because of the quality of this league from top to bottom and the consistency it takes to be successful long-term.


First of all, Coach Saban needs to use some of that $4 million contract to buy himself a dictionary, because his definitions of "disrespect" and "pretty good" could use some fine-tuning. (I'm not even going to fool with correcting "[a]nybody that.")

According to Nick Saban's definition, does an S.E.C. school qualify as "pretty good" if, after being mired in mediocrity, it hires a failed N.F.L. retread who previously won a national championship at a rival school in the same division? (I'm talking about South Carolina, of course.)

I am, as I have ever been, a regional homer. That does not, however, make me impervious to common sense or evidence. If Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State qualify as "pretty good" football teams, then not even the most devoted Southern partisan could claim that eight or nine S.E.C. teams fit that description.

A more sensible view is taken by the Southeastern Conference football fans at And the Valley Shook, where an honest assessment of the numbers reveals that two of the only three big-name teams to have posted a winning percentage of better than .770 over the course of the last decade are Big Ten squads, many of whose victories have been claimed in marquee non-conference games.

Over the past five years, 12 top-tier teams have won more than two-thirds of their games. Four of those were S.E.C. teams and they were the four you would expect: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana State . . . the only four teams to have won Southeastern Conference championships in the last seven seasons.

Which, though, are the other four or five S.E.C. teams that are, in Coach Saban's estimation, consistently pretty good? Certainly, Tennessee can make a valid case for inclusion, but the pickings get pretty slim thereafter. Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi have had successful seasons in the last five years, but none are so consistently excellent that their achievements overshadow those of Iowa, Purdue, and Wisconsin.

For instance, Coach Saban might want to give the Hawkeyes credit for their 2005 Capital One Bowl victory.

Even the one part of Coach Saban's argument that held water fell somewhat short of sufficiency, as the incoming Alabama skipper observed:

The Big Ten has a lot of tradition, but the SEC to me is different because most of the people's passion is greater because they grew up relating to their school. Pro sports were not as prominent 25 years ago in the South so this was everybody's passion and they identified and related.

I agree that Southern sports fans, in general, are far more passionate about college football than about professional sports, but college football fans in other regions are passionate, too, and Coach Saban's status as an outsider is confirmed by his lack of understanding of history.

I mean . . . 25 years ago? Actually, you'd have to go back more than four decades---to the time before major league baseball and N.F.L. football came to Atlanta---to find a time when Coach Saban's historically valid but increasingly irrelevant point was true. A quarter-century ago, Joe Torre was leading the Braves to a division title, the Hawks were not strangers to the postseason, and the Falcons were making their third playoff appearance in a five-year span. We were then, and are now, more devoted to intercollegiate athletics than to professional sports, but a lack of prominent pro teams was not, and is not, the reason this is so.

What troubles me is that, even though these S.E.C. coaches are pandering to the worst elements of their fan bases by saying such things, their observations are those of interlopers insultingly playing to the lowest common denominator. Other than the home-grown Phillip Fulmer, the smart-mouths saying such things are, to a man, immigrants who are not native to Southern soil.

Urban Meyer is an Ohio native whose coaching experience prior to 2005 was all in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Utah. Les Miles had no ties to the S.E.C. for the first 50 years of his earthly existence. Nick Saban's coaching pedigree traces back to Toledo, the Cleveland Browns, and Michigan State. These carpetbaggers are engaging in the same shameless practices pioneered by Dan McGugin, the Vanderbilt coach who once fired up his Commodores before a game with Michigan by reminding them that their Confederate forebears had seen their homeland invaded by Midwesterners . . . but who failed to mention that his own father had been an officer in the Union Army. (The opposing coach, Michigan's Fielding Yost, was the son of a Confederate veteran.)

Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant agree to settle their differences on the football field.

Yes, Coach Saban spent five seasons at L.S.U., but that stint in Baton Rouge appears to have done little to assimilate him into Southern culture, as evidenced by his subsequent derogatory characterization of Louisianans as "those coonass guys that talk funny." (Seriously, even leaving aside the obvious slur on Cajuns . . . "guys that"? Did no one teach Coach Saban the proper use of the word "who"?)

The fact is that Coach Saban's tenure on the bayou (2000-2004) matched exactly the duration of the earlier period he spent at Michigan State (1995-1999), in the Midwest to which he has far more, and more lengthy, ties. With respect to Coach Saban's stay in East Lansing, Death Cab for Woody's Herringbone made the very good point that Nick Saban was 34-24-1 with the Spartans, not only going 6-7 against the three Big Ten teams he identified as "pretty good" (Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State) but also posting a 2-5-1 record against Purdue and Wisconsin.

Herringbone is correct that this may reveal something of the method to Coach Saban's madness. Go back and re-read the new Alabama head coach's quotation (with emphasis added) while bearing in mind that the speaker posted a poor record against upper-echelon and middle-of-the-road Big Ten teams while capturing a national crown in the S.E.C.:

Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State were pretty good and then there might be another team or two that was better that year. But here [in the S.E.C.] there were eight or nine teams that were all pretty good. . . . Anybody that has won a national championship in this league, that speaks volumes to me because of the quality of this league from top to bottom and the consistency it takes to be successful long-term.

In other words, "The things I have accomplished are extremely impressive, but the things at which I failed are no big deal."

He tried it and he couldn't do it, so that's why he says it's dumb. You know, sort of like Eddie Murphy with the Moonwalk.

Although Herringbone offers an effective retort to Coach Saban, he nevertheless goes too far when he begins returning criticisms of Michigan's schedule in kind. Writes Herringbone (once again, with emphasis added):

[W]ho could argue with a group of fans supporting a team that is finishing it's [sic.] season with this minefield of games....Georgia, Vandy, @ South Carolina, Florida Atlantic, and Florida State (Herringbone references these teams as "Terrible"...yes, even Georgia and Florida State...and dont [sic.] get me started on Western Kentucky)[.]

See it's all about perspective, SEC fan looks at Big Ten schedule and thinks there are only 2-3 tough games on there a year. I look at UF's schedule this year and I see 3 teams this year that are even in the arena of being worthy to describe as formidable (Tenn, Auburn, and LSU). Outside of those teams, Georgia and South Carolina are the only teams that might give UF a Northwestern-style scare in-conference. However, Georgia = No Offense.


With all due respect to Herringbone, his characterization of my alma mater is as ignorant and erroneous as Coach Saban's animadversion upon the Big Ten. The "Terrible" Georgia team with "No Offense" managed to hang 37 points on Auburn and score 31 points against Virginia Tech in two of its last three games. The Hokies and the Plainsmen ranked first and seventh in scoring defense, respectively.

The second half of the Chick-fil-A Bowl? That sure looked like offense to me.

Just this morning, I noted that "[t]he Bulldogs are the only S.E.C. team to have won at least nine games in each of the last five seasons and they alone among Southeastern Conference squads have captured two league titles during that span." If you won't take my word for it, though, go back and look at And the Valley Shook's aforementioned charts.

Over the past 10 years, Georgia's .762 winning percentage is the best among S.E.C. teams. Over the past five years, Georgia's .803 winning percentage is the best among S.E.C. teams. Whatever one may think of Southeastern Conference newcomers' arrogant remarks, surely the league deserves enough respect that its top program qualifies as "being worthy to describe as formidable" . . . or, at least, not "[t]errible."

Mark Richt is one of only six coaches in conference history to have won two S.E.C. championships in his first five years in the league. He is one of only five coaches in conference history to have posted four straight seasons of double-digit victory totals. Coach Richt is 25-2 in non-conference contests, including marks of 10-0 against the A.C.C. and 2-0 against the Big Ten.

In fact, since Penn State was an independent at the time of the 1983 Sugar Bowl, the Bulldogs have gone 7-0 against the Big Ten since the Red and Black's last loss to a Midwestern B.C.S. conference opponent on October 5, 1957. While I agree that Coach Saban's current and former leagues are comparable conferences, surely Georgia should get some respect for being less than three months shy of celebrating the 50th anniversary of its last loss to a Big Ten team, particularly at a time when Damon Evans is trying to schedule regular-season games against teams like Michigan.

Less than a month ago, I took the pledge (and not without taking some criticism) to refrain from participation in the conference wars, and so I shall. I hope my fellow denizens of the intercollegiate athletics blogosphere likewise will refrain from fighting these battles . . . or, at a minimum, that they will choose not to malign elite S.E.C. programs with classy coaches in retribution for the stupid things said by coaches from Big Ten country who are in, but not of, the South.

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Now you're just arguing semantics...
Calling Michigan, tOSU, and Penn State "pretty good" might not be my first choice when talking about the Big 10, but come on.  He didn't call them bad, or only half way decent, he acknowledged that they are good football teams, and in light of the recent severe beatings of both Michigan and tOSU in their respective bowls, "pretty good" gets it just about right.

by Todd on Jul 17, 2007 12:03 AM EDT   0 recs

Whatever "pretty good" means . . .
. . . he's saying three teams in the Big Ten fit that description and eight or nine teams in the S.E.C. fit that description. He used the same term to describe both groups, so, whatever the term means, its practical import is that the top three or four teams in the Big Ten are equivalent to the top eight or nine teams in the S.E.C.

I'm as big an S.E.C. homer as anybody, but that's nonsense.

If Coach Saban really thinks there are eight or nine S.E.C. teams on a par with Michigan and Ohio State, he should enlighten us by naming them.

Based on the last six or seven years, I believe credible cases could be made for Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and L.S.U. While Tennessee has taken a step back, I'll concede the Vols for argument's sake.

That's five. If anyone can name three or four other S.E.C. teams that are equally as good as Michigan or Ohio State year in and year out, I'll concede that I'm drawing a purely semantic distinction. I don't think anyone can make that argument with a straight face, though.

I'm not putting Nick Saban in the same category with Les Miles. Clearly, Nick Saban is a talented coach of proven ability whose no-nonsense approach, while off-putting to many (particularly in the news media), produces results on the field which cannot be denied. I respect Nick Saban as a coach and I don't even particularly dislike him as a person.

When he says something as silly and inflammatory as this, though, he deserves to be called out for it. Between early December and mid-July, one-third of the league's coaches made such statements publicly and only one (Urban Meyer) did so in a context which could be anything other than harmful to the conference and the perception of it.

If we, as S.E.C. fans, don't call out our coaches for their dumber utterances, it will come back to haunt us. When Mark Richt guides Georgia to an undefeated season in the next three or four years, I don't want an anti-S.E.C. backlash to cause the 'Dawgs to be Auburned. To prevent that from happening, I will continue to do what I can to save the conference from itself.

by T Kyle King on Jul 17, 2007 12:30 AM EDT   0 recs

Kyle...
C'mon. My God, we get it. No more posts about this please.

by randomterrace on Jul 17, 2007 12:34 AM EDT   0 recs

Sorry
When these millionaire Ohioans make all Southerners look bad by mouthing off like the most extreme of message-board yahoos, it riles me up, but your point is taken that the point has been made and I will do my best to change the subject.

Thank goodness actual football is only a month and a half away. . . .

by T Kyle King on Jul 17, 2007 8:46 AM EDT   0 recs

well...
One would think that Coach Saban, having first hand experience in the B10, would have an appreciation for competition.  B10 conference games are rarely "gimmees" regardless of opponent.  It's as much psychological as it is physical and your squad has to be ready.

I honestly think that he was trying to bolster the SEC - it is an amazing feat to have a successful regular season in the SEC- and even more impressive to also survive the championship game.

Oh, and when we look backward to a team's performance, may I request a term of either (at least) 15 years or 2?

by PSUgirl on Jul 17, 2007 9:23 AM EDT   0 recs

"However, Georgia = No Offense."
This statement needs further rebuttal than the citation of two games from last year.

Even without addressing the fact that the defenses Georgia has played over the past 5 years are far stingier than the typical Big 10 schedule's, Georgia's offense isn't that bad.

Compare Georgia's scoring offense to the Big 10 and see how they'd fit:

  1. 25.2 ppg = Tied Michigan State for 6th in the Big 10
  2.  29.5 ppg = would be 9th in the Big 10
  3.  27.9 ppg = would be 5th in the Big 10
  4.  26.5 ppg = would be 6th in the Big 10
  5.  32.1 ppg = would be 3rd in the Big 10.
So over the last 5 years, had Georgia been in the Big 10, their average position in conference ranks for scoring offense would be 5.8th place.  When you add Georgia to the existing 11 teams, that means Georgia would be in the top half of the conference (and depending on the fluctuation of other teams, could be as high as 4th).

And that doesn't discount for opponents' defenses.

So by the numbers, if "Georgia = No Offense", then "more than half of the Big 10 = No Offense".

by LD on Jul 17, 2007 10:27 AM EDT   0 recs

Georgia = undeniable addition to SEC strength
I don't think Bulldog fans need to defend Georgia at all.  If I were to make an argument for the strength of the SEC (which I frequently do), I would most definitely include Georgia in my argumentation.  Without question, Georgia increases strength and depth (and, perhaps most importantly, class) to the SEC.

by ejchis on Jul 17, 2007 10:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Bullying Method
I am finding myself on Dawg Sports for the second time in a very short period of time, and I think I'll have to bookmark the site--maybe even subscribe to the feed.  Point is: good site with thoughtful and analytical discussions.  I am thankful for anything worthwhile regarding college football at this time of year, and Dawg Sports is certainly worthwhile.  Thank you.

I know there have been pleas to have this discussion end, but one thought is pressing that has not been brought up yet.  There seems to be a bit of bullying going on by Saban and Miles.  These two coaches are attempting to boost themselves by ripping on others.  And, just like all acts of bullying, these acts are creating an appearance of insecurity on the part of the bullies.  

When it really comes down to it, my impression is that Saban and Miles are attempting to get ahead of the losses that they fear could mar their respective seasons by beating up anyone who might jump them in the polls now.  What I absolutely would tolerate and listen to would be an SEC coach coming out in public to talk about what a tough conference the SEC is (within reason, of course; there certainly are not eight or nine teams on par with Michigan and Ohio State in the SEC).  What makes no impression on me whatsoever is when a coach comes out and publicly bashes other conferences or teams.  That's the bullying I'm talking about.

I've posted on here before that I believe the conference strength argument is entirely overrated.  But, if you really want to make one, I think it is better to count the consistent doormats than it is to count the consistent powers, especially when talking to fans of different conferences who won't remember the smaller details of any given season.  For example, in 2003 Michigan played back-to-back weeks (weeks nine and ten) against opponents ranked nationally in the top ten. Week seven also pitted Michigan against a top-ten opponent.  Does anyone outside of the Big Ten (and maybe even Ann Arbor) remember who those teams were?   They were Minnesota, Purdue, and Michigan State.  Now, I'm not saying or even suggesting that Purdue, Minnesota, and Michigan State should fall into the "pretty good" category.  My point, however, is that there are tough games every year against teams that either are not expected to be tough or are not remembered as tough.  Also, the relative strength of a conference can shift quite quickly.  But these are tough games, and they happen in every conference

This is why I propose we look at the bottom-feeders in order to truly understand the strength of a conference.  How many weeks each year can a team spend preparing for the opponent two weeks out because the present week's opponent is that bad?

In the Big Ten, you get Indiana and Illinois.  Even with those two, though, you've got to be careful.  Indiana stole wins from Iowa and Michigan State last year.  And Illinois pulled one off against Michigan State too.  Granted, Michigan State was atrocious last year, and Iowa was in a down year.  But Iowa is a team that currently puts one of the top recruiting classes in the nation on the field, that won double-digit games in '02, '03, and '04, and that came this close to beating Texas last year.  Heck, even Illinois won the Big Ten as recently as 2001, finishing seventh in both polls with a 10-1 record.

As for which teams are traditionally terrible in the SEC, I'm not even going to make a guess at it.  I would imagine that a lot of SEC fans would have put Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota into that bottom-feeder category of the Big Ten, failing (without fault) to remember that those teams have hung out in the top-ten rankings in the last couple of years.  And to try to categorize the teams from the other conferences is exactly the kind of nonsense that the bully coaches are taking part in and that I'm condemning.  

My guess is that the average SEC fan sees a couple of Big Ten teams that are worthwhile following by a bunch of nobodies.  My guess is that the average Big Ten fan sees a couples of SEC teams that are worthwhile followed by a bunch of nobodies.  I will say right now that I, personally, have seen both the Big XII and also the PAC-10 in that way in recent years.  But, in the end, everyone is just admiring the green grass on the other sides of the conference fences.  

And the bullying needs to stop.  The same argument I made to fellow Michigan fans last year after Florida was picked for the national championship game over us applies here: take care of business, win your games, and you'll have nothing to complain about (usually).

by ejchis on Jul 17, 2007 10:49 AM EDT   0 recs

A point of clarification before more generalizing
Georgia = No Offense...

Not the last five years...

Not the last five games of last season...

The course of the season...like the 12-spot against Colorado...AT HOME...or 22 against Vandy...AT HOME.  I wont even get into Kentucky or Ole Miss..

On sheer talent alone, Georgia should have been able to put up fantastic numbers against Colorado and Vandy.  

I am talking about next year..not the past.  I just dont see a miraculous turnaround in the Georgia offense next year.  Stafford looks like the second coming of Anthony Morelli, which is not a good thing.

I am also not talking about Big10 having a bunch of juggernauts either, but some of you guys are approaching kool-aid status on your belief in SEC superiority.

by Herringbone on Jul 17, 2007 10:57 AM EDT   0 recs

This clarifies nothing.
I'm not dictionary, but I'm pretty sure that clarification doesn't mean, "with a factual scenario under a strict and specific set of circumstances I have cherry-picked that provides a particular result I have already determined."

So "no offense" means "in the 2 or 4 games I have specifically selected in a particular season, but not games which work against my point"...  

As for the games you've chosen, well...

Vanderbilt gave up, on average, 23 points a game last year.  Georgia scored about as close to that average as you can get.  And Georgia exceeded Vanderbilt's average pass defense conceded yards in this game. Georgia's offense moved the ball, just settled for FGs (3 inside 23 yards) in the red zone.

Colorado gave up, on average, 20 points a game last year, and in 2/3rds of their games they held their opponent to below 21.  Not a terrible defense Georgia faced.  And also, Georgia exceeded its average passing by about 50 yards in that game - so it's not necessarily Stafford or the QBs' fault for the low score.  

If your argument is that Georgia's offense might not be great next year, fine.  But if that's your argument, might better support be provided by the near-complete turnover of the talent on the offensive line or the propensity of WRs to drop the ball, rather than cherry-picked, early-season statistics of a true freshman QB who you're assuming won't improve?

As for Anthony Morelli... well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how much the numbers make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Morelli's Freshman Year numbers:
5/13, 45 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, 52.16 rating

Stafford's Freshman Year numbers:
135/256, 1749 yards passing, 188 yards rushing, 7 TDs, 13 INT, 3 rushing TDs, 108.99 rating.

Comparing apples to apples, Stafford is more than several times as good as Morelli was at the same point.  Thirty-two months younger than Morelli, Stafford already has just 2 fewer career TDs, an almost identical completion percentage and a better yards per attempt, and almost identical career QB rating.  Stafford is only the second coming of Morelli if he improves by exactly ZERO in every category over the next three years.

Nobody's drinking the Kool-Aid around here - aside from some of the loudmouth coaches - and especially not Kyle King.  But what we are doing, and will continue to do, is fact check people who mis-analyze.  

by LD on Jul 17, 2007 3:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

whoa, whoa, whoa...
Anthony Morelli?  I'm one to temper expectations about a lot of things football-related, but calling Stafford the next Morelli instantly revokes your credibility card.  Hand it over, and if you get caught opining without it, be prepared to suffer Caleb King-like justice.

by Bodey on Jul 17, 2007 12:00 PM EDT   0 recs

Stafford...
He showed flashes of brilliance against my team, even though he threw three picks.  He will be good.  But then again, what do I know?  My team is "terrible."
--Robert

by a gamecock fan on Jul 17, 2007 12:59 PM EDT   0 recs

2 more things...
  1.  Can we please get back to the football?  Petty arguments (between coaches and fans) and disgusting displays of personal judgment are starting to irritate my stomach.
  2.  I missed out on your "lovefest" in the other post, so congrats Kyle and now MaconDawg on 2 years--and still going strong--writing one of the best blogs on the net.
--Robert

by a gamecock fan on Jul 17, 2007 1:02 PM EDT   0 recs

Ha hah!
"UGA lost to Vandy and Kentucky, proving point X" is the worst kind of football analysis.  It's the kind of crap I'd expect to hear on Atlanta Sports Talk, probably from Perry at 680 on the way to work.

by peacedog on Jul 17, 2007 2:13 PM EDT   0 recs

Turnovers killed us last year
We wound up +1 or -1, but after the 3 game blitz with Auburn, Tech, and Tech (where we were iirc +7, with 12 TO gained, more than one third of our season total).  Before the contents on the Plains, we simply didn't get all that many short fields to work with last year and we failed to capitalize on some of our better opportunities.  Also, we gave up far to many good opportunities to the bad guys.  30 or 31 TO for the year, iirc.  But only 5ish in the last 3 games.

I could go on (but I'm busy).

by peacedog on Jul 17, 2007 4:46 PM EDT   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.
Ad-medium-smq

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Galagaship_small
Welcome to the new Dawg Sports and SB Nation

Recent FanPosts

Crown_small
EDSBS charity contest
Small
DVD's
Small
Eavesdropping on the enemy...the Rivalry is back.
Small
looking for UGA Memorabilia for book
Small
Cost of going to the Sugar Bowl
Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small
What are they saying about Georgia hoops?
2007102712_small
I want to have my say too
Small
Na Derris Ward
Blue_small
Shaving facial hair in relation to basketball vs. in relation to Football

Post New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Ad-banner-faketeams

Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King

ad

Site Meter