Tony's Take: In terms of scheduling, change wouldn't hurt Alabama

Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe now!

First-year athletic director Greg Byrne knows better than to change certain things at Alabama. Upon initially being named to the position in January, one of his first matters of business was to assure Alabama fans how much he loved the Crimson Tide’s classic uniforms.

A drastic change from previous stops Arizona and Mississippi State, programs that are still trying to build a brand with flashy uniforms and catchy phrases, Byrne’s job at Alabama is to keep the Tide where he found it — on top.

Looking at it in terms of another widely-established brand, Alabama is very much like Coca-Cola. In 1985, the popular soft drink decided to re-brand itself, switching its formula to “New Coke,” which despite being generally accepted around the nation was despised in South due to its change from the traditional taste. Unsurprisingly, those are the same people who cheer on the Tide.

Coca-Cola eventually announced the return of its old ways less than three months later and has successfully kept things the way they were ever since. To use the popular phrase from businessman Bert Lance, ‘If it ain't broke don't fix it.'

For the most part, Byrne would do well to stick to that theory. He’s already taken a traditional approach toward alcohol sales inside Bryant-Denny Stadium, stating Alabama would be “a ways away” from doing so, even if new legislation was passed allowing beer to be sold inside SEC stadiums.

Byrne was also quick to shoot down any notions of following Kentucky’s lead as the first SEC school to sell the naming rights to its football stadium.

“Some places are sacred,” he said during the Regions Tradition Pro-Am last month. “and that’s not something we have on the top of our list as far as priorities.”

However, unlike running a soft-drink company, being in charge of a college athletics program leaves a little more room for adaptation.

While Byrne appears likely to follow suit in the longstanding practice of not scheduling in-state opponents for non-conference games, it isn’t something he has to do.

When pressed on the topic during the SEC spring meetings in Destin, Fla., last week, Byrne said he doesn’t foresee Alabama scheduling in-state schools for non-conference games in the future.

That’s a shame.

Before we get into all of this, let me state that this is not an attempt to bash Byrne’s work. Byrne did a fine job in his first hire by bringing in Auburn assistant Brad Bohannon — a move that should be applauded for both being swift and bold.

He also seems to have a good pulse on the future of Alabama athletics and appears unafraid to make the necessary changes to advance the Tide’s athletic program as a whole. That’s what makes his decision to stick to a selfish and stubborn tradition so frustrating.

In Byrne’s defense, it’s not like Alabama needs to play smaller in-state opponents. In fact, there is an argument, albeit weak, that paying in-state schools to come to Tuscaloosa would only be aiding the enemy. I’ve heard even more laughable cases stating that Alabama is simply being courteous of its fellow in-state programs, sparing them a potential beat down.

Let’s be serious, though. There are several small schools across the nation chomping at the bit to take their butt-whipping in Bryant-Denny Stadium as long as it comes with a high-dollar payout. Last year, Alabama paid FCS opponent Chattanooga $500,000 to come to Tuscaloosa. The Mocs gave the Tide a surprisingly good first half before ultimately folding late in a 31-3 win for Alabama. A lofty paycheck later, Chattanooga got what it wanted, and other than a frustrating start so did Alabama.

So why wouldn’t that same dynamic work with Troy, Jacksonville State or better yet Alabama’s sister school, UAB? Even if Alabama was to give any of those schools $1 million for a game, the Tide would be in no danger of losing its grip on the state. After all, Alabama is one of the richest athletic programs in the nation. Also, it’s not like a prized recruit is going to choose an offer from UAB over one from Nick Saban.

Now I know Alabama isn’t in the practice of copying Auburn by any means. Given the state of both programs, there’s no reason to. However, it is worth noting the Tigers have scheduled an in-state football opponent in five of the past six seasons.

Guess what, nothing bad happened. Auburn won all five games. Other than a somewhat embarrassing 27-20 overtime win against Jacksonville State in 2015, the Tigers rolled past their in-state foes in a predictable fashion. None of the teams Auburn has played suddenly became a threat. However, the payouts received from the games probably went a long way to aiding each respective program.

There are plenty of Alabama fans thirsty to see the Tide square up against in-state opponents whose rosters are chock-full of in-state players who would also love the opportunity to play inside Bryant-Denny Stadium.

Alabama’s 2019 schedule figures to be its least exciting non-conference slate in years. After starting the season with a middle-of-the-road ACC program in Duke, Alabama will play snoozers against New Mexico State and Southern Miss. While it has yet to be determined, it’s probable that an FCS opponent will be added to the mix as well.

I get it, Alabama doesn’t have to play high-quality non-conference opponents in order to make the College Football Playoff. As long as the Tide wins the SEC, it is assured a shot at the national title. But is it too much to replace New Mexico State with a team that anyone cares about?

Alas, we come back to that familiar phrase, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Admittedly, things are far from broken for Alabama.

That's precisely why a change for the good of the state wouldn’t break the Tide.

Talk Alabama football recruiting on the Talk of Champions message board