All That and a Bag of Mail: Is Bama-A&M in September an SEC conspiracy?
It's Friday which means it's time for the Mailbag.
Congrats, you can pretend to work while reading in advance of the Memorial Day weekend.
Our beaver pelt trader of the week is Kevin Durant. He's included in a mailbag question as well, but his decision to donate a million dollars to the tornado victims is worthy of the award.
And much more.
Okay, let's dive into the mailbag.
Mike W. writes:
"How coincidental is it that the SEC placed its biggest game of the year on 9/14? The loser of this game basically has 10 weeks to recover in the polls and, if they run the table, a probable rematch in Pasadena should everyone else lose. Is this why the conference always put (and remains to this day) Florida/Tennessee so early back in the 90’s?
If this is a strategic ploy, why don’t more conferences do this? We’ve got UGA/SC early this year, too. It always seems as if we have a few marquee non-con games in September, but nothing in-conference that moves the needle. Bama/A&M destroys that concept and sets both up for a shot at the national title, regardless of the outcome at Kyle Field."
I think it's coincidental that the SEC's best game is taking place in September this year. The reason why Florida and Tennessee played in September was Florida's request that it space out the "big" games on the schedule. The Gators already had Georgia in October and Florida State in November. Tennessee would have preferred the game later in the year, but the Gators wanted it early.
Back to Bama at A&M, remember that the SEC released the 2013 schedule on October 18, 2012. At that time A&M was 5-1, but no one could have foreseen Johnny Manziel's Heisman or the upset on the road at Alabama. No one would have looked at the 2013 schedule then and said that Bama at A&M was clearly the best game in the conference.
I think what the SEC was trying to do by sending Bama to A&M early in the 2013 schedule was set up a guaranteed nationally televised game for A&M. It's the same reason Bama went to Mizzou last year and why Florida went to A&M to start the 2012 season, to give a television bump to expansion. The SEC was trying to help out A&M's introduction to the SEC.
Combine that with the fact that the SEC is trying to stagger the schedule better so there are marquee games each weekend and the decision makes even more sense irrespective of its potential impact in the BCS title race.
I mean, I can basically guarantee you the CBS game of the week over 100 days before the season even starts.
Bama at A&M has already been announced as the 2:30 central CBS game.
9/21 will be Vols at Gators
9/28 LSU at Georgia (outside shot of Ole Miss at Bama if both LSU and Georgia have already lost a game)
10/5 Georgia at Tennessee
10/12 Florida at LSU
10/19 The toughest week of the year to project CBS's pick.
Who will be hot? Who will be undefeated?
Arkansas at Alabama
Auburn at Texas A&M
Florida at Missouri
Georgia at Vanderbilt
South Carolina at Tennessee
LSU at Ole Miss
Right now I'd bet on the winner of Bama and A&M as the pick. Because whoever wins that game should be undefeated and both teams are playing first-year head coaches in Arkansas and Auburn. But Georgia could also be undefeated and Vandy could be 5-1. Really, it could happen. Would that be a sexier game than a number one team against a weak opponent? South Carolina could also be undefeated. So could LSU. So could Florida.
This week is a complete wildcard, the only real wildcard on the 2013 schedule.
(Edit, this is also a doubleheader week. So this gets easier to project. One game will be an 11 am kickoff, the other a 2:30 kickoff).
10/26 Tennessee at Alabama
11/2 Georgia vs. Florida at the Cocktail Party
11/9 LSU at Alabama in primetime (another game earlier in the day, this is the doubleheader week)
11/16 Florida at South Carolina
11/23 Texas A&M at LSU
11/30 Alabama at Auburn
Save my predictions and check back later in the year. The vast majority of these are pretty easy picks.
But back to your original question, Bama at A&M in September is more of a happy coincidence than it is a plan to keep both teams viable for a national title run. The SEC was just trying to make sure there was a decent game on 9/14. The conference didn't know at the time this would be the biggest game of the year.
Will R. writes:
"I'm a Southern ex-pat who has relocated to Seattle. Rather than starting to drink coffee or wear socks with sandals, I gained my Seattle Card by giving up cable TV. How far away are we from being able to view TV content like the SEC Network through our IPads and mobile devices without a cable subscription?"
I don't think this will happen unless the entire cable model explodes. And I don't think the entire cable model will explode. That is, I don't believe a la carte cable will ever happen. (I'll write about this next week).
Right now the number one thing keeping men from cutting out cable is sports.
You just can't legally get all the sports you want without a cable or satellite subscription.
Going to a sports bar is far more expensive than a cable subscription. Plus, do you really want to watch every game you care about with strangers? Are you going to go all day Saturday and Sunday?
Sure, you can stream an illegal feed through an online site, but it's an awful, jumpy feed and you have to worry about computer viruses and whatnot. Not to mention, is there anything worse than streaming an illegal game, getting invested in it, and then having it suddenly disappear?
You can also use someone else's cable password to stream games online, but, again, that's illegal.
The vast majority of the SEC Network's value comes via cable subscription fees. So they're not going to allow you to buy it without a cable subscription. Unless, again, the cable industry explodes. I don't see that happening.
So you might want to start drinking coffee or wearing socks with sandals and resubscribe to cable or satellite.
Mike Y. writes:
"So Kevin Durant has officially become one of my favorite athletes in any sport. Not only is he really, really good, but the guy is unselfish to a fault on the court, humble, and now he gives $1 million to the Red Cross for relief efforts in the wake of the tornados. Is there any athlete more suited to be the face of America? Screw sending Rodman places. We should just send Durant everywhere.
Basically, if you could choose any athlete to be the face of America, who would you pick?"
I think you have to go Kevin Durant or Peyton Manning.
You can eliminate most athletes because they have to be dominant at their sport, incredibly famous, and squeaky clean outside the sport. Durant is the definite choice in basketball. (LeBron isn't a viable choice because he's disliked by so many people. Even if, to be fair to LeBron, most of that dislike isn't legitimate. Tiger Woods is also out). Baseball doesn't have anyone famous and well-liked enough to make the cut. (Derek Jeter is on the way out). In football I think you could go with Peyton Manning or Drew Brees -- based on everything he's done with the city of New Orleans. (Tom Brady really hasn't done anything philanthropic that I'm aware of).
Given the choice between Brees and Manning, I think you go Manning.
A dual peace mission between Manning and Durant would be the strongest possible athlete tandem.
Zach McKenzie Tweets:
"How bad would it be if AG Holder had ordered wiretapping and email confiscation on you?"
You know, I actually wondered about this because the concept of the government secretly reviewing a someone's correspondence is pretty scary. I could honestly argue both sides of the equation here. I get the need for governmental security on classified briefings, but I also get the need for a free and vibrant independent press. Personally, I'd side more with the press regardless of the political parties involved, but I could make either argument. This isn't an easy decision either way.
But if all my email and telephone conversations went public, would I be in any trouble at all?
I think the answer is no.
I mean, I wouldn't want all my business affairs out there and I wouldn't want all the email threads I participate in with people in sports and with my buddies to be public. Nor would they. But I don't think anything would get me in trouble. There wouldn't be any shocking revelations.
I don't even talk on the telephone that often anymore so I think the government would be bored with that.
I mean, there would be a lot of really funny, R-rated stuff that would come out from email threads and whatnot, but I think most people would just shrug their shoulders and say, "That's kind of what I would expect for Clay Travis's email to look like."
This is one of the benefits of having a site like Outkick and a Twitter feed like I do, I get a lot more creative freedom than most. Nothing I do in my private life would be shocking.
