A comparison to the 2010 team isn't a good one. There are several reasons behind my stating that but I'll only mention a few. One, you had a team that was facing six of their eight SEC opponents on their schedule just off of their bye week. Secondly, and this really could be combined into one point, that 2010 team had a total of 30 something games missed by starters due to injury. Ingram missing two and Jones missing a couple as well really amplified the impact of the first point. The odds right now for the BCSNC don't show a great deal of difference between the two teams. It fluctuates depending on the location with the numbers being anywhere from +250 to +300 separating the two teams. Something you might find of interest is both LSU and Alabama carry one of the lowest home field advantages—in terms of points—in college football. I believe LSU is ranked 108 with Bama ranked 105 out of 120 teams. That's not a bad thing because some of it is derived from how well a team plays on the road. Two points I disagree with here. One, Mizzou. If the spread was set at +10 for Mizzou I'd take Bama and the points. An off week will give the Tide some rest, but it's Mizzou's schedule that bears noting. It'll be their seventh game in a row with the last three consisting of @ UofSC, at UCF, and hosting Vandy. With Arizona State (Mizzou last that game last year) and Georgia preceding those three games that Tiger team will be beaten up. Secondly, don't be so quick to judge Dooley. One thing that you can count on when it comes to successful seasons is experience. When Dooley took over that program, his offensive line had a combined start total of three games along his offensive line. That number is around 100 now. He's got the same type of experience on the defensive side of the ball. Quite frankly, on the Alabama schedule the UT game is likely to be the second hardest. (If Mizzou is smart, they'll take that game visiting UCF seriously. As I see it, it has possible upset written all over it. In fact, it may have as much of an upset possibility as LaTech does hosting the Aggies to start the season.)
The "bye week before a game" is an EXCUSE...whether for Alabama or LSU or anyone else. If you would really take Alabama and give Missouri 10 points...I assume that is what you meant with +10 for Missour although you said you would take the points. Anyway for your own sake, please don't bet that game. When a team like Missouri is favored, it would be stated Missouri -10. You could have meant that, I can't tell to be honest. Experience is overrated UNLESS it is good. I laugh at some predictions that basically act like the number of returning starters is a big deal. It DOES count some of course which is why I'm downgrading Alabama's defense so much. But if that was the only yardstick, then every 3 or 4 years, Vandy would probably win the SEC. It isn't only the # of returning starters but how good they are. If I was an Arkansas fan for example, except for maybe 2 or 3 defensive players, I would hope the Hogs had 3 returning starters on defense...the GOOD ones. Anyway, my prediction still goes...Alabama will be tired of losing to Tigers this season although I do think you beat Auburn.
Read what I said before launching, eh? "If the spread was set at +10 for Mizzou I'd take Bama and the points." Another way to put it would have been saying if it's -10 Bama I'd take Bama and the points. It's the same damn thing. So, what you are saying is when a team is facing an SEC schedule that has 75% of its opponents getting a week off before they meet it is an excuse? On one end it's said playing SEC teams week in and week out is the toughest schedule in the nation. BUT, when a team has to face another that has taken a week off of that brutal schedule six of eight times in a single season it is an excuse in your eyes? That viewpoint is obtuse. It makes for an interesting season reading your opinions on how the games will go. We'll see just how long your predictions continue to go.
I did NOT say you were wrong on your points spread but I can assure you that is NOT the way the Vegas sites state it. I look at almost every single game every single week during the season. If Missouri was a 10 point dog, it would be Alabama -10 or Missouri +10. They never put it +10 Missouri. That is just a formatting deal...I did say since you would give the points, it seemed like you knew what you meant. Anyway, my suggestion still holds...do NOT bet that game. You mentioned the week off deal again. The ONLY advantage I see for a week off is to prevent injuries and heal some "nicks" as Les Miles likes to say. But you act like every SEC team is a big time program....Vandy isn't...Kentucky isn't....Ole Miss isn't....Miss State isn't...Tennessee isn't....Florida wasn't last year. And if you don't play a game the week before and you are playing well, you MIGHT lose the momentum and edge you had (in other words come out a little flat the next game...I know it has certainly happened to many teams over the years). So yeah, blaming a scheduling deal like that is an EXCUSE! Once again, I have Alabama losing at least to LSU, Arkansas and/or Missouri, their OOC schedule is about the same as LSU's...a total joke and no Georgia or South Carolina, so alright there I think. Looks like Alabama to me will be 10-2 or 9-3.
In other words, semantics on the spread. I've said what I feel about Mizzou, and since you've missed it I'll repeat on Arkansas. Four loss team at best dropping LSU, Bama, South Carolina, and I'm thinking they drop Auburn's game as well based on how it falls on their schedule. As to our game? IF I say anything about that game here I'll reserve it for game week.
Arkansas IMO will not lose 4 games BUT I wouldn't bet a penny on it. The reason...I have no idea if John Smith will lose control of the team or not. This is a bizarre situation although it is my understanding that Smith was a former assistant coach at Arkansas so that will help. But if players start getting into trouble due to all the upheaval, Katie bar the door.
Wait, you mean to tell me that the odds of a team winning a game in the future has more to do with players that might be on that team than it does with games that took place in the past? Well golly gee, when you put it that way...
There's more than one reason I feel that way. I'll touch on two. With Petrino, specifically his play calling, you could add two wins per year to their schedule. Minus Petrino? You have to subtract things like coming back on Vandy. Secondly, JL Smith has been coaching for over 20 years. He's had one of those teams finish in the top 25 in the polls. History, tending to repeat itself, says the chances of them reaching that 9 or 10 win mark—regular season—are slim. No, make that three. They still have no defense and they still have a very weak offensive line. I'll admit both Wilson and Davis are very talented players but without a coach to put them in position to make plays?
