New SEC scheduling format

[mstate68]

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx

Looks like we'll have to play 1 major OOC game a year starting in 2016

[esplanade91]

I'm for.

Been hoping we'd start scheduling games like WSU, BC, TTU, or any of the other MSU-of-other-conferences type teams. This kind of forces their hand.

Home and home with COLORADO. Ski trip, fa sho.

[mstate68]

I'm for it as well. This won't change much scheduling wise, and it won't effect teams that have OOC rivals such as Florida and UGA.

[Todd4State]

Hmmm.... I wonder who this was aimed at?

Since they are moving the goal posts on us and going all Stalin we have to adjust.

Scott needs to be very smart about how he schedules. It's too bad that the American Conference isn't in that. We could have just scheduled Memphis every year and then forgotten it. Colorado has been pretty bad. My gut instinct says Wake Forest. If you want your program to emerge, you schedule MSU.

[bluelightstar]

This isn't aimed at us imo

[Todd4State]

I'm for it as well. This won't change much scheduling wise, and it won't effect teams that have OOC rivals such as Florida and UGA.

It probably affects us more than anyone else. This is going to cost us a lot of money to schedule those teams and it's going to cost us home games.

[Todd4State]

This isn't aimed at us imo

Every time we have had sustained success in football, the SEC changes something. Back in the 1990's they adjusted how the OOC was done because UK and a then bad South Carolina team were our permanent opponents and we didn't have to play Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.

Then they changed the rules on JUCO eligibility which was also aimed at us.

I might be wrong, but there is a pattern.

[HoopsDawg]

It probably affects us more than anyone else. This is going to cost us a lot of money to schedule those teams and it's going to cost us home games.

Definitely effects us more than others. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have natural rivals that they pretty much have to play. The Bama's/LSU's of the world have no problem scheduling these type of games, usually in a kickoff classic type of game. And teams like Duke and Wake Forest don't mind playing a Vandy or a UK. Stricklin is going to have to do some work to schedule an automatic win from another conference. We are going to end up having to play a Kansas State or a Virgina Tech type game.

[ShotgunDawg]

This has nothing to do with us, and no one is complaining abou us. We just need to make sure we time this right with the years we play Bama and LSU at home. When Bama and LSU are at home, we need to at this game on the road or at a nuetral site. When Bama and LSU are on the road, this game MUST be at home

[HoopsDawg]

. We just need to make sure we time this right with the years we play Bama and LSU at home. When Bama and LSU are at home, we need to at this game on the road or at a nuetral site. When Bama and LSU are on the road, this game MUST be at home

True, good point.

[cheewgumm]

What's Alcorn going to do now?

[ShotgunDawg]

My guess is that we'll look to schedule, TCU, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Kansas, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona (Greg Byrne), Arizona State, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, NC State, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Illinois, Iowa State, Colorado, and Utah.

[ShotgunDawg]

What's Alcorn going to do now?

You can bet your ass we'll still play Alcorn and JSU. This will just take the place of Troy, UAB, Bowling Green, MTSU, and South Alabama.

In many ways this could be a great opportunity for MSU to show on a yearly basis that we are a very good football program that just happens to play in the Crenshaw Blvd of divisions.

[scottycameron]

I want Texas. Love to see Notre Dame (I know it's not happening). UCLA and USC. Michigan, Ohio st., much. st., any of those. Oklahoma would be awesome, UNC, NCSt, UVA, all awesome. Clemson would be great. Screw those big conference no-names y'all are throwing out there. The more noteworthy the opponent the better. I damn sure ain't scared.

[BulldogBear]

This isn't aimed at us imo

This is aimed at the ones that schedule 4 OOC patsies per year and only occasionally play a road game. Notorious offenders are Auburn, LSU, Tennessee


....and Bammers before all this Kickoff Crap

[BulldogBear]

My guess is that we'll look to schedule, TCU, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Kansas, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona (Greg Byrne), Arizona State, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, NC State, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Illinois, Iowa State, Colorado, and Utah.

This will probably be one of the first ones

[ShotgunDawg]

This will probably be one of the first ones

Agree

Here is a wild card in the process: do we care what OM does? For recruiting purposes, what if OM is scheduling Ohio State, FSU, Texas, USC, Stanford, and Oregon, while we are scheduling the lesser teams? Will that hurt us or help?

[BulldogBear]

I guess the only question I've got is..

What if no one will cooperate? Then the Kentuckys, MSUs, Vandys, Ole Misses are stuck with a single game at USC, Michigan, FSU, etc. We become a HC opponent. Would love the matchup, yet hate that it's not H/H or at least 2 there, 1 in Starkpatch.

I just hope it doesn't make SEC schools that don't have a built in Big 5 rivalry or aren't regular candidates for the 1time season opener type games (Bama has one EVERY year) seem to other Big 5 conferences as desperate. It's kind of like going car shopping without the option to walk away...when you have to have a ride. Even middle tier Big 5 members might try to take advantage. Seriously, they could all band together and agree not to agree to anything less than a 2 for 1. This could be farfetched but we kind of put power in other schools hands that they don't need to have. I'd rather see 9 SEC games than 8 + 1.

[TUSK]

Lsu's AD acts like he was just tabagged...

http://www.secrant.com/rant/p/49578319/LSU-AD-Joe-Alleva-is-mad.aspx

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx

Looks like we'll have to play 1 major OOC game a year starting in 2016

I'm for it. I remember the board having this discussion a few months ago. Several folks wrote a book against it. While I do think we still need at least 3 easy games, it will be nice to see at least 1 OOC that is a decent name opponent. Anybody willing to look up the thread from several months ago? I remember some pretty good comments.

[Political Hack]

this is Florida, SC, & Georgia led. While I am generally ok with the rule, anyone pushing this rule should not oppose other power schools within their own borders joining the sec in the future.

[cheewgumm]

to play any OOC tough games.

Basically, this board should be totally against this, if I remember the argument right.


I'm for it. I remember the board having this discussion a few months ago. Several folks wrote a book against it. While I do think we still need at least 3 easy games, it will be nice to see at least 1 OOC that is a decent name opponent. Anybody willing to look up the thread from several months ago? I remember some pretty good comments.

[cheewgumm]

Let's just do what we can to get Iowa State, Minnesota, Wake, etc...before big teams gobble them up.

[BulldogBear]

this is Florida, SC, & Georgia led. While I am generally ok with the rule, anyone pushing this rule should not oppose other power schools within their own borders joining the sec in the future.

Agreed.

And don't get me wrong, I like the concept of a "real" OOC game. My earlier comment just expresses a concern that crossed my mind. I look forward to going to games against opponents other than the usual suspects. It will help a bunch in my quest to see every FBS school play in person. Plus means other nearby schools will have a "real" game every year and those may be easy trips.

[HailState39110]

I wish the rule was the OOC opponent could be from the other Big 4 conferences or from the Mountain West, Independents, or American Athletic Conference with the SECs office approval. This cuts out Notre Dame, BYU, Boise St, Central Florida, South Florida, UConn, Navy,etc from being potential opponents and these would all be enjoyable games to watch

[ShotgunDawg]

I actually agree with LSU's AD. I have never understood why preserving two games (Bama v TN & UGA v Auburn) are worth sacrificing the competitive integrity of the conference.

These two games may have at some point in time been very important to the identity of the SEC, but the conference has grown well beyond needing this. Outside of those 4 fan bases, I don't think anyone really cares about these games to the point of wanting to sacrifice the competitive integrity of the conference.

However, it does benefit MSU, and for that, I guess I hope it stays. IMO, LSU is more than welcome to allow ULL, La Tech, or Tulane to enter the SEC. Then they can have an instate rival.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

OK nevermind nobody go look that up. As a season ticket holder, I just like the thought of having an extra BCS game to go to (assuming we can get at least one every other year and not always travel). And you'll still have the opportunity to schedule 3 near-lock wins. If we have to go to somewhere like Michigan all the time, and end up 5-7 on a regular basis, I'll probably change my stance. But for now, I'm all for it. I think you'll see more fans driving multiple hours to Starkville to see teams like TCU, Georgia Tech, etc. over teams like South Alabama or Troy.

[BulldogBear]

I wish the rule was the OOC opponent could be from the other Big 4 conferences or from the Mountain West, Independents, or American Athletic Conference with the SECs office approval. This cuts out Notre Dame, BYU, Boise St, Central Florida, South Florida, UConn, Navy,etc from being potential opponents and these would all be enjoyable games to watch

....and would serve the spirit of the rule as well. Perhaps this part will get revisited later.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

I wish the rule was the OOC opponent could be from the other Big 4 conferences or from the Mountain West, Independents, or American Athletic Conference with the SECs office approval. This cuts out Notre Dame, BYU, Boise St, Central Florida, South Florida, UConn, Navy,etc from being potential opponents and these would all be enjoyable games to watch

Agreed. At least the AAC should be in there. That throws in a few close opponents like Memphis or Louisville and includes several more beatable opponents.

[BulldogBear]

OK nevermind nobody go look that up. As a season ticket holder, I just like the thought of having an extra BCS game to go to (assuming we can get at least one every other year and not always travel). And you'll still have the opportunity to schedule 3 near-lock wins. If we have to go to somewhere like Michigan all the time, and end up 5-7 on a regular basis, I'll probably change my stance. But for now, I'm all for it. I think you'll see more fans driving multiple hours to Starkville to see teams like TCU, Georgia Tech, etc. over teams like South Alabama or Troy.

The safest bet may be to eestablish a good relationship with another mid to lower Big 5 OOC school and sign a long term deal like 10yrs (5H, 5A) vs. someone like Arizona

[BulldogBear]

Agreed. At least the AAC should be in there. That throws in a few close opponents like Memphis or Louisville and includes several more beatable opponents.

Louisville actually is in there as they start Atlantic Coast Conference play this year in same division as FSU, CLemson, WF, NCSU, BC, and Syracuse. They replaced Maryland. Problem, Kentucky's gonna get them sowed up every year and they won't be looking for another "tough" game.

[HailState39110]

The safest bet may be to eestablish a good relationship with another mid to lower Big 5 OOC school and sign a long term deal like 10yrs (5H, 5A) vs. someone like Arizona

I would start with the normal door mat programs and work my way up: Purdue, Indiana, Duke, Kansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington State , Wake Forest, Boston College would be a good start

[BulldogBear]

One more tidbit then I gotta go get ready to watch Game of Thrones. What does this mean?

"Provides each team with a traditional opponent for the final weekend of the season"

We (and everyone else) does already. What is the point of making this statement. The new format does not make this happen. It already did. Surely they're not implying the cross-divisional rivalry will be the season finale. If they are referring to Mizzou-Ark that's Germans. Arkansas had LSU and TAMU defaulted to Mizzou before anyway. Andy Vandy still ain't got nobody, although Tennessee seems to switch between Kentucky and Vanderbilt depending on the recent trend of who is a better opponent. Maybe Kentucky and Louisville become a season finale?

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

Louisville actually is in there as they start Atlantic Coast Conference play this year in same division as FSU, CLemson, WF, NCSU, BC, and Syracuse. They replaced Maryland. Problem, Kentucky's gonna get them sowed up every year and they won't be looking for another "tough" game.

Good catch. Forgot they were moving to ACC.

[DawgSaint]

The safest bet may be to eestablish a good relationship with another mid to lower Big 5 OOC school and sign a long term deal like 10yrs (5H, 5A) vs. someone like Arizona

This is the only thing that concerns me. I think you are right. The only way to make sure you get home and home is to lock up a deal with a team long term. Don't see how it could ever work in our favor any other way.

[ShotgunDawg]

Louisville vs Arkansas has to happen, right?

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

The safest bet may be to eestablish a good relationship with another mid to lower Big 5 OOC school and sign a long term deal like 10yrs (5H, 5A) vs. someone like Arizona

May be the safest way. Otherwise you may occasionally be at the mercy of the other Big 5 conference schools and hope that you aren't stuck with a top 10 team on the road or something. Here's all the article says about the scheduling:

"at least one opponent from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or Pac-12 must be scheduled by each SEC school on an annual basis beginning in 2016, with assistance from the conference office."

I'm not holding my breath on Slive helping us get hooked up with a good matchup, and while I like Stricklin, I don't know that he'll have the pull to find a good matchup consistently.

[Dawgface]

If we can get teams like Kansas or Iowa St, I'm ok with it. Anything stronger, I'm not for it.

[War Machine Dawg]

Every time we have had sustained success in football, the SEC changes something. Back in the 1990's they adjusted how the OOC was done because UK and a then bad South Carolina team were our permanent opponents and we didn't have to play Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia.

Then they changed the rules on JUCO eligibility which was also aimed at us.

I might be wrong, but there is a pattern.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.......And lest we forget, our "pal" LT is in charge of SEC scheduling. You really want me to believe he doesn't have an axe to grind with us?

[dickiedawg]

Hopefully we'll get to the point where scheduling a power team is a good thing. For now, let's get Iowa State and Syracuse on the horn.

[Todd4State]

to play any OOC tough games.

Basically, this board should be totally against this, if I remember the argument right.

This doesn't change the way I feel about scheduling. If we have a chance to get four wins, we should do it. That's to our benefit. Playing a "name" opponent is not to our benefit and this doesn't help us.

I think this is a dumb rule and I don't like the SEC telling us how we should schedule and go about our business.

[Todd4State]

What's Alcorn going to do now?

We're still going to play them. But this is going to take the place of a Sun Belt team. Our schedule is going to be something like:

1. SWAC team
2. Troy
3. USM/Memphis/Tulane/UAB/some other Sun Belt team
4. Kansas

[Todd4State]

this is Florida, SC, & Georgia led. While I am generally ok with the rule, anyone pushing this rule should not oppose other power schools within their own borders joining the sec in the future.

I agree with that other than the being OK with the rule.

[1bigdawg]

I actually agree with LSU's AD. I have never understood why preserving two games (Bama v TN & UGA v Auburn) are worth sacrificing the competitive integrity of the conference.

These two games may have at some point in time been very important to the identity of the SEC, but the conference has grown well beyond needing this. Outside of those 4 fan bases, I don't think anyone really cares about these games to the point of wanting to sacrifice the competitive integrity of the conference.
.

And another way to accomplish this is to change the divisions and put Auburn and Alabama in the East and Vandy and Missouri in the West. Vandy is west of Auburn so it makes some sense.

[Coach34]

say what you want about the weak OOC- going to 4 straight bowl games has been great for our program. Being a perenniel bowl team is the goal of the program and leads to chances like we have this season. Hopefully we take advantage

[Martianlander]

I guess the only question I've got is..

What if no one will cooperate? Then the Kentuckys, MSUs, Vandys, Ole Misses are stuck with a single game at USC, Michigan, FSU, etc. We become a HC opponent. Would love the matchup, yet hate that it's not H/H or at least 2 there, 1 in Starkpatch.

I just hope it doesn't make SEC schools that don't have a built in Big 5 rivalry or aren't regular candidates for the 1time season opener type games (Bama has one EVERY year) seem to other Big 5 conferences as desperate. It's kind of like going car shopping without the option to walk away...when you have to have a ride. Even middle tier Big 5 members might try to take advantage. Seriously, they could all band together and agree not to agree to anything less than a 2 for 1. This could be farfetched but we kind of put power in other schools hands that they don't need to have. I'd rather see 9 SEC games than 8 + 1.

This is a good point. Just because the SEC decrees this, doesn't mean the other conferences have to go along.

[DawgSaint]

And another way to accomplish this is to change the divisions and put Auburn and Alabama in the East and Vandy and Missouri in the West. Vandy is west of Auburn so it makes some sense.

Ha! This would be great for us, but I doubt anybody in the East would be too happy with that trade!

[TUSK]

I actually agree with LSU's AD. I have never understood why preserving two games (Bama v TN & UGA v Auburn) are worth sacrificing the competitive integrity of the conference.

These two games may have at some point in time been very important to the identity of the SEC, but the conference has grown well beyond needing this. Outside of those 4 fan bases, I don't think anyone really cares about these games to the point of wanting to sacrifice the competitive integrity of the conference.

However, it does benefit MSU, and for that, I guess I hope it stays. IMO, LSU is more than welcome to allow ULL, La Tech, or Tulane to enter the SEC. Then they can have an instate rival.

The problem is UT sucks right now. And if UF was the Florida of (really) old, he wouldn't say a thing.

[ShotgunDawg]

The problem is UT sucks right now. And if UF was the Florida of (really) old, he wouldn't say a thing.

I agree Tusk, but UT has sucked for a while, Florida has not.

[Political Hack]

One more tidbit then I gotta go get ready to watch Game of Thrones. What does this mean?

"Provides each team with a traditional opponent for the final weekend of the season"

We (and everyone else) does already. What is the point of making this statement. The new format does not make this happen. It already did. Surely they're not implying the cross-divisional rivalry will be the season finale. If they are referring to Mizzou-Ark that's Germans. Arkansas had LSU and TAMU defaulted to Mizzou before anyway. Andy Vandy still ain't got nobody, although Tennessee seems to switch between Kentucky and Vanderbilt depending on the recent trend of who is a better opponent. Maybe Kentucky and Louisville become a season finale?

they should've said "preserves." Protects FSU/UF, Clemson/SC, Georgia/GT, UK/Louisville (moving to end of thee season).

[maroonmania]

Well I guess at least this way EVERYONE has the same issue. At least now you aren't at a disadvantage to certain other league schools by doing this so in that way I'm OK with it. The deal with these games is that it mostly hurts SEC teams with less depth like we have been traditionally. Hopefully now we are better prepared but, for example, we are STILL woefully thin on the OL. Last year the OSU game hurt MUCH more long term than 1 loss. I mean we got to 6 wins anyway by the end of the year but the big issue was losing Jay Hughes and Justin Malone for the year in that opening game plus having Tyler Russell cold cocked in the head which negatively affected his SR year and our ability to compete in the SEC. Seems we were many weeks really ever getting back on our feet after that game. In our other 3 non-conference games I don't really remember anyone getting any serious injuries. What I WOULD like to do is quit playing Top 20 teams out of these conferences. From the scheduling of Oregon to West Virginia to Georgia Tech to Ok St, seems EVERY BCS team we schedule for a regular season game lately has been on a MAJOR upswing at the time. Got to be smarter in setting these games up.

[jumbo]

as many have said, as long as we can schedule mid-lower tier teams I am ok with this. When we are "forced" to play Ohio State, Oregon, Oklahoma etc. is what would be no good.

[jumbo]

What I WOULD like to do is quit playing Top 20 teams out of these conferences. From the scheduling of Oregon to West Virginia to Georgia Tech to Ok St, seems EVERY BCS team we schedule for a regular season game lately has been on a MAJOR upswing at the time. Got to be smarter in setting these games up.


With the exception of OK St. those games were setup years in advance when each team was in a different state. It just so happened to cycle that those teams improved and we declined.

[maroonmania]

With the exception of OK St. those games were setup years in advance when each team was in a different state. It just so happened to cycle that those teams improved and we declined.

Guess we need to hire better soothsayers in the athletic department. I do feel that is why so many of our fans are so uneasy about this. Lately we haven't just played other BCS teams, we've played some of the very best other BCS teams and usually gotten our head handed to us.

[jumbo]

Lately we haven't just played other BCS teams, we've played some of the very best other BCS teams and usually gotten our head handed to us.



Again, OSU was an exception. Most non-conference games and scheduled years in advance. Take this years Chick Fil A game. OM and Boise. When that was scheduled OM was coming off back to back Cotton Bowls and Boise was playing in BCS games. I guarantee you if the people running that game were given a mulligan they would take it in a heartbeat.

We scheduled Oregon when life was pretty good for us. They weren't terrible, but they were certainly not on the level they are today.

[esplanade91]

I really enjoyed tailgating at MSU, much more than I have at any other school I've been to, but what's lacking is an interest from other schools not named Alabama.

No one cares about UAB football. Iowa State fans do. A great opportunity to mingle with fellow football fans from around the country.

[Hot Rock]

This does not apply to KY> They play Louisville every year who is moving to a new conference.

[dawgs]

Hmmm.... I wonder who this was aimed at?

Since they are moving the goal posts on us and going all Stalin we have to adjust.

Scott needs to be very smart about how he schedules. It's too bad that the American Conference isn't in that. We could have just scheduled Memphis every year and then forgotten it. Colorado has been pretty bad. My gut instinct says Wake Forest. If you want your program to emerge, you schedule MSU.

why do people want to pay for games against shitty opponents?

[dawgs]

Guess we need to hire better soothsayers in the athletic department. I do feel that is why so many of our fans are so uneasy about this. Lately we haven't just played other BCS teams, we've played some of the very best other BCS teams and usually gotten our head handed to us.

very best? we haven't played a traditional power OOC since texas. okie st is a good program the last decade, but isn't a traditional power and is more likely to be a fringe top 25 than one of the "very best other BCS teams". GT, wvu...similar story. we caught them in some of their better seasons in their history, but we could just as easily caught the 2013 version of those programs. hell, some of yall would bitch if we scheduled duke years ago and now cutcliffe has them respectable, saying we shouldn't schedule such difficult OOC games.

i will never understand to enjoyment of watching us beat subpar programs (memphis, tulane, FCS schoos, etc) and paying good money to do so 4 times a season. that's boring. twice a year against those kinda programs is more than enough. it's like a HS senior beating up a 7th grader and thinking he accomplished something.

[Goat Holder]

it's like a HS senior beating up a 7th grader and thinking he accomplished something.
Except for sometimes the 7th grader wins, leaving the HS senior extremely embarrassed. Most times it's because the HS senior had their mind on other things, like the other HS seniors he had to fight in order to survive, while the 7th grader saved up all their energy all year for this one fight with the HS senior.

What I fail to understand, is how people like you cannot understand this logic. Take Southern Miss for example. We are 14-12-1 against them on the field. Do you REALLY think our teams are that comparable? Of course not. We just never took them seriously because we had to play Alabama and LSU in close proximity to that game. Oh, I bet you'll now say that we should be 'up' for every game we play? That proves you've never played football, because being emotionally high every weekend is impossible. It's not happening. Give that line of thinking up.

[Johnson85]

i will never understand to enjoyment of watching us beat subpar programs (memphis, tulane, FCS schoos, etc) and paying good money to do so 4 times a season. that's boring. twice a year against those kinda programs is more than enough. it's like a HS senior beating up a 7th grader and thinking he accomplished something.

I will never understand the idiots that think we need a top five SOS for them to enjoy the season. We will usually have one of the toughest schedules in the nation and one of the top 5 SOS's if you look at the toughest 8 opponents. LSU, Bama, Arkansas, UM, A&M, Uk, and a rotation among the other east teams is plenty tough enough for me. I'd like to play mid and low tier teams from other major conferences, but since we can't really do that consistently, I'd rather go to bowl games. Are we the dumbest fan base in the nation? Do teams like Boise State have fans complaining that they don't have a top 5 SOS? Or do they enjoy running through patsies, being up for their 2-3 games against meaningful competition, going to bowl games, and being in the BCS at large discussion? We are going to have a tougher schedule than them pretty much every year but I bet their fans don't sit there and complain about how soft their schedule is.

[dawgs]

Except for sometimes the 7th grader wins, leaving the HS senior extremely embarrassed. Most times it's because the HS senior had their mind on other things, like the other HS seniors he had to fight in order to survive, while the 7th grader saved up all their energy all year for this one fight with the HS senior.

What I fail to understand, is how people like you cannot understand this logic. Take Southern Miss for example. We are 14-12-1 against them on the field. Do you REALLY think our teams are that comparable? Of course not. We just never took them seriously because we had to play Alabama and LSU in close proximity to that game. Oh, I bet you'll now say that we should be 'up' for every game we play? That proves you've never played football, because being emotionally high every weekend is impossible. It's not happening. Give that line of thinking up.

what don't i understand? that a team is more likely to come out flat again troy/memphis/maine/etc. than against florida/wvu/oregon/okie st? i 100% agree with that.

our historical record against usm is pretty irrelevant. when was the last time we played them? whenever it was, the landscape of CFB was a completely different animal. there's a clear 5 conferences head and shoulders above everyone else now when it comes to financial resources. 20+ years ago, the major conferences had a financial advantage, but it wasn't the huge gap we have today. and that gap is growing, not shrinking. and modern recruiting and scouting doesn't allow for as many guys to fall through the cracks to usm. the sec caliber players are going to be recruiting by msu, om, lsu, aub, and bama, regardless of the size of the school they go to.

but congrats on pointing out that sometimes upsets happen. coincidentally those upset usually only happen when the bigger program is down (msu and maine, florida and ga southern, etc), and rarely, if ever, happen when the bigger program is good. in other words, they are primary upsets in name only, and not as much on the field as they initially appear.

[dawgs]

I will never understand the idiots that think we need a top five SOS for them to enjoy the season. We will usually have one of the toughest schedules in the nation and one of the top 5 SOS's if you look at the toughest 8 opponents. LSU, Bama, Arkansas, UM, A&M, Uk, and a rotation among the other east teams is plenty tough enough for me. I'd like to play mid and low tier teams from other major conferences, but since we can't really do that consistently, I'd rather go to bowl games. Are we the dumbest fan base in the nation? Do teams like Boise State have fans complaining that they don't have a top 5 SOS? Or do they enjoy running through patsies, being up for their 2-3 games against meaningful competition, going to bowl games, and being in the BCS at large discussion? We are going to have a tougher schedule than them pretty much every year but I bet their fans don't sit there and complain about how soft their schedule is.

who said anything about a top 5 SoS? just stop with the hyperbole. i'm just saying i would rather play 10 games against conference opponents and 2 BCS conference opponents (they can even be a duke type program!) (tbh i would rather there be 9 conference games, 1 non-conf BCS game), and then 2 games against weaker FBS conference opponents (memphis, tulane, uab, etc). a FCS game can replace one of the weaker FBS games.

that's the general direction the other major conferences are going too, so simply playing a standard schedule isn't going to consistently give you a top 5 SoS. so please stop acting like i'm calling for us to schedule USC, ohio st, and oklahoma.

[BulldogBear]

This is a good point. Just because the SEC decrees this, doesn't mean the other conferences have to go along.

In the future we could see more Big Ten opponents. I remembered that they are about to move up to 9 conf games in the next year or two AND require a Big 5 OOC game. This may help SEC schools find opponents that don't try to take advantage b/c they are in a similar boat.

There may be a trend for all the Big 5 to require this in the near future. But it will probably also mean a move to 9 conf games.

And I had an thought on this anyway. A lot of the arguments against 9 conf games by those not called UF, UGA, SC, KY come down to not having a 4H-4A balance in "real" games forced on you. Notorious offenders UA, AU, UT, and LSU enjoy only making a road trip OOC every 5-8 years. The only thing causing some of them to buck this trend recently is the KOclassic type games in recent half decade. Nine conf games is actually the logical choice for playing other some SEC members often enough to feel bonded with them instead of playing them 6-8 times in your whole lifetime. I would be willing to bet that this is actually some frog in the frying pan type of stuff. This may to be to get those not used to playing an extra "big" opponent used to it before switching to nine SEC games in half a decade.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I'm crazy and I've been drunk before, but I'd just as soon play a good team every week. Plus, trying to schedule weak teams into the future is uncertain because teams can get better and good teams can go down. Houston, Maine, and La Tech are all examples of weak football programs that weren't weak when we had to play them. How quickly we've forgotten how beatable Bama was during the previous decade. I wasn't around for Ole Miss's glory days in the 1950's, but I'm sure the situation seemed hopeless for a while. We just need to build a good football team and bring it ready to play every week. This bowl business is post season. Who wants to go 7-6 or 6-7? It doesn't excite me generally although last season had it awesomeness.

[TUSK]

I agree Tusk, but UT has sucked for a while, Florida has not.

True, but it's still somewhat hypocritical. I want the TSIO no matter how good they are...

[Johnson85]

who said anything about a top 5 SoS? just stop with the hyperbole. i'm just saying i would rather play 10 games against conference opponents and 2 BCS conference opponents (they can even be a duke type program!) (tbh i would rather there be 9 conference games, 1 non-conf BCS game), and then 2 games against weaker FBS conference opponents (memphis, tulane, uab, etc). a FCS game can replace one of the weaker FBS games.

that's the general direction the other major conferences are going too, so simply playing a standard schedule isn't going to consistently give you a top 5 SoS. so please stop acting like i'm calling for us to schedule USC, ohio st, and oklahoma.
I'm pretty sure the standard schedule does not involve playing half your games against teams in the top 25. If we could reliably schedule bottom feeders in the other BCS conferences, that'd be great. But we can't do that now and it won't be any easier going forward except for maybe with the Big 10 since they are giving up FCS games.

So there's not really a reliable way to do this without ending up with top 5 and top 10 SOS fairly regularly. I'm all for us trying to schedule lower tier teams from BCS conferences when we can, knowing that a lot of times we will end up with a team that is much more difficult than when we scheduled them (ala Ga Tech, UWVa, and Oregon), but having this mandated puts us at too much of a disadvantage when negotiating and will end up with us playing teams that will put our SOS well ahead of where we are as a program.

[BulldogBear]

Another angle to the fact that just because we make up some rule doesn't obligate any other conference and/or schools to cooperate:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2044073-why-other-conferences-should-boycott-scheduling-sec-football-teams

[dawgs]

I'm pretty sure the standard schedule does not involve playing half your games against teams in the top 25. If we could reliably schedule bottom feeders in the other BCS conferences, that'd be great. But we can't do that now and it won't be any easier going forward except for maybe with the Big 10 since they are giving up FCS games.

So there's not really a reliable way to do this without ending up with top 5 and top 10 SOS fairly regularly. I'm all for us trying to schedule lower tier teams from BCS conferences when we can, knowing that a lot of times we will end up with a team that is much more difficult than when we scheduled them (ala Ga Tech, UWVa, and Oregon), but having this mandated puts us at too much of a disadvantage when negotiating and will end up with us playing teams that will put our SOS well ahead of where we are as a program.

if every other conference goes to 9 conference games (is the ACC already there? i know the big 10 is going there, pac 12 and big 12 are already playing 9), then the middle of sec will be ranked higher many times because that's an extra 7 Ws for sec programs to be had playing la tech and uab instead of playing each other. if the pac 12 played 8 conference games, that's 6 conference wide Ws that could be spread around. oregon st or ucla might be a little bit better ranked if they could drop a tough conference and schedule idaho or new mexico instead. suddenly they are 9-3 and ranked higher (or ranked period) than if they were 8-4. i'm not going to argue the sec isn't the best CFB conference, but i will argue the middle and back end of the conference gets a perception boost by getting 1 extra easy OOC game instead of a 9th conference game like the rest of the CFB world is going because their record is going to be slightly prettier than the records of the middle and lower end of the other big 5 conferences.

[maroonmania]

very best? we haven't played a traditional power OOC since texas. okie st is a good program the last decade, but isn't a traditional power and is more likely to be a fringe top 25 than one of the "very best other BCS teams". GT, wvu...similar story. we caught them in some of their better seasons in their history, but we could just as easily caught the 2013 version of those programs. hell, some of yall would bitch if we scheduled duke years ago and now cutcliffe has them respectable, saying we shouldn't schedule such difficult OOC games.

i will never understand to enjoyment of watching us beat subpar programs (memphis, tulane, FCS schoos, etc) and paying good money to do so 4 times a season. that's boring. twice a year against those kinda programs is more than enough. it's like a HS senior beating up a 7th grader and thinking he accomplished something.

Well yes, the very best. WHEN WE PLAYED THEM they were all among the very best BCS teams THAT YEAR, which is all that counts. I don't give a flip what they normally are because we don't play them every year. I only care how good they are the year we have them scheduled. ALL the teams I listed were Top 20 ranked THE YEAR or years we had to play them. OK St was ranked 14th when we played them and Oregon, WV and GT were all ranked the years we played them too.

[dawgs]

Well yes, the very best. WHEN WE PLAYED THEM they were all among the very best BCS teams THAT YEAR, which is all that counts. I don't give a flip what they normally are because we don't play them every year. I only care how good they are the year we have them scheduled. ALL the teams I listed were Top 20 ranked THE YEAR or years we had to play them. OK St was ranked 14th when we played them and Oregon, WV and GT were all ranked the years we played them too.

Guess we need a crystal ball or a psychic for scheduling purposes then.

Some of y'all are such pussies when it comes to scheduling. Either we are good or we aren't and going into year 6 of a HC, we shouldn't be worried too much about playing 1-2 non traditional power BCS programs out of conference.

[Todd4State]

Another angle to the fact that just because we make up some rule doesn't obligate any other conference and/or schools to cooperate:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2044073-why-other-conferences-should-boycott-scheduling-sec-football-teams

I wondered about that. Plus, what's the SEC going to do if a school can't schedule someone? This just seems poorly thought out.

[Coach34]

Some of y'all are such pussies when it comes to scheduling. Either we are good or we aren't and going into year 6 of a HC, .


Why should we play a tougher schedule than Bama every year? 3 of the last 5 years we have been in the top 10 in SOS. What more do you want?

I'm sorry, but playing Bama, LSU, Auburn, A&M is enough. Plus, playing a top 5-10 schedule is hell on you injury-wise usually.

[BulldogBear]

I wondered about that. Plus, what's the SEC going to do if a school can't schedule someone? This just seems poorly thought out.

This is why I think this is just to get SEC members used to playing 9 real games and they intend to switch to nine conf games in the next half-decade.

[Todd4State]

This is why I think this is just to get SEC members used to playing 9 real games and they intend to switch to nine conf games in the next half-decade.

Honestly, if given a choice I'd rather play 9 SEC games than have to try to find someone in a BCS conference to play. Even if that means us playing Florida/Georgia/Tennessee every year.

Most of us want to play Wake Forest or someone comparable. But I have a feeling we're going to end up playing people like Virginia Tech, Stanford, and Oklahoma State more often than not. And we're probably going to have to pay top dollar to do so. This just totally sucks.

Also- I think it could be pretty hard for us to find some people to play us. If I remember correctly, Gundy almost left Oklahoma State because he didn't want to play us. Greg Byrne will throw us a bone for at least a couple of years I bet.

[Todd4State]

Guess we need a crystal ball or a psychic for scheduling purposes then.

Some of y'all are such pussies when it comes to scheduling. Either we are good or we aren't and going into year 6 of a HC, we shouldn't be worried too much about playing 1-2 non traditional power BCS programs out of conference.

I'm all for hiring a psychic because we always play someone like West Virginia when they are a National Title contender or Georgia Tech when they win the ACC. It's hilarious. Heck- even Oklahoma State won 10 games this year. If Oklahoma hadn't pulled off a miracle come from behind win on the road against them, they might have gone on to the NC game. Scheduling us is the best way to guarantee yourself a 9 win season.

And of course Ole Miss gets Texas the week they happen to fire their DC.

[BulldogBear]

Also- I think it could be pretty hard for us to find some people to play us. If I remember correctly, Gundy almost left Oklahoma State because he didn't want to play us. Greg Byrne will throw us a bone for at least a couple of years I bet.

If we can find someone willing we need to try to lock down something long term, at least 4 years (10 if possible), 2H 2A

[Johnson85]

Why should we play a tougher schedule than Bama every year? 3 of the last 5 years we have been in the top 10 in SOS. What more do you want?

I'm sorry, but playing Bama, LSU, Auburn, A&M is enough. Plus, playing a top 5-10 schedule is hell on you injury-wise usually.

Clearly you're just a p*##* Coach34. Why should mighty MSU not have a top 10 SOS 5 out of 5 years. It's not that dawgs is a 17ing moron. There's zero chance that programs like Boise State and VaTech stay ranked consistently because easier schedules let them pad their records and give them chances to rest banged up players during the season so they can be up for their two or three big games. And them being consistently ranked doesn't contribute to a positive feedback loop that helps them stay good enough to be ranked. People that want to limit us to 2 or 3 top 15 teams and another 2-3 top 15-30 teams so that aren't in the top 10 SOS every year are just girly men for wanting to compete on a somewhat level playing field with other teams.

[Bully13]

What worries me is some earlier posts suggesting the possibility of us getting sucked into a 2 for 1. We should never under any circumstances succumb to that. I don't like us having to negotiate with another team that is not under a similar command either.

[BulldogBear]

So, the day after this comes out LSU cancels a home and home series with North Carolina State in 2017 and 2020. They also play Syracuse in 2017 (along with 2015). NCSU wouldn't move the series into the future. Reasons cited for canceling were not wanting to play 2 Power 5 conferences in same season (though not both on road). Little ol' LSU...scared. NCSU and Syracuse are hardly national title contenders. Just play the game ya bunch *****cats. Too late. I guess that means we drop the word "cats."

[sandwolf]

....but i will argue the middle and back end of the conference gets a perception boost by getting 1 extra easy OOC game instead of a 9th conference game like the rest of the CFB world is going because their record is going to be slightly prettier than the records of the middle and lower end of the other big 5 conferences.

So, you don't like the fact that the SEC is smarter than all the other conferences?

[dawgs]

So, the day after this comes out LSU cancels a home and home series with North Carolina State in 2017 and 2020. They also play Syracuse in 2017 (along with 2015). NCSU wouldn't move the series into the future. Reasons cited for canceling were not wanting to play 2 Power 5 conferences in same season (though not both on road). Little ol' LSU...scared. NCSU and Syracuse are hardly national title contenders. Just play the game ya bunch *****cats. Too late. I guess that means we drop the word "cats."

that's a ***** move too. imo, a perfect world would be 4 super conferences of 16-20 teams apiece separate from everyone else (the usm's and akron's of the world drop to FCS level). every team plays 12 games: every team in their division, 1-3 teams in the opposite division (depends on the size of the conferences obviously), 1 game against another random superconference teams, 1 game against a FCS program. 11 out of 12 games are must watch TV. then everything conveniently breaks down for division winners player in a conference CG, conf champs play in a national semi-final, and winners of the semis to play for the crystal ball. it breaks down too easily and makes too much common sense, so it'll never happen, since CFB prefers unbalanced schedules, subjective opinions, and picking you favorite metrics to support you subjective opinion instead of settling things on the field.

in the current format, i'd like to see every program in the big 5 play 9 conference games and 1 other BCS game, then 2 games for non-big 5 programs (or sub in 1 FCS game).

my least favorite part of CFB is that the schedule is almost as ****ing important as how good you are, and to me that's completely against the point of playing the sport. i don't want to play the toughest schedule in the country, but i don't think playing a NC ST or arizona type out of conference is going to ruin our season either. nor do i think 9 conference games will ruin it. if we can't win 6+ games against 9 or 10 real opponents, then let's get ****ing better, not schedule our way to 6+ Ws.

the reason our SoS is stronger than bama's most years is because we play bama and bama can't play themselves. when you are the best, you SoS is generally going to be worse than your opponents for that simple reason.

[dawgs]

So, you don't like the fact that the SEC is smarter than all the other conferences?

it's a ***** move. and only gives ammo to sec haters. why not just shut them the **** up and play 9 conference games? i don't live near starkville anymore, but i try to get back for a game or 2 per season. i'd travel back for any SEC game that works out. i would never travel back for a bullshit non-conference game. hell, i have other shit in my life going on that half the time i maybe watch a quarter of the crappy OOC games before i have other stuff to do. if we were playing a conference game instead or playing another BCS program, i'd rearrange my schedule and be glued to the TV for 3+ hours.

[sandwolf]

if we can't win 6+ games against 9 or 10 real opponents, then let's get ****ing better, not schedule our way to 6+ Ws.

Well the way to get better is to recruit better players, and it is much harder to recruit better players when you are having losing seasons and playing in a shitty atmosphere because your stadium is only half full.

I will never understand why any Mississippi State fan would want to put us in an even more difficult situation than we are already in. How can you possibly think that scheduling our way to 4-5 wins is better for the program than scheduling our way to 6+ wins? We already know that we need to get ****ing better.......why in the world would we want to make that a more difficult task than it already is?

[dawgs]

Well the way to get better is to recruit better players, and it is much harder to recruit better players when you are having losing seasons and playing in a shitty atmosphere because your stadium is only half full.

I will never understand why any Mississippi State fan would want to put us in an even more difficult situation than we are already in. How can you possibly think that scheduling our way to 4-5 wins is better for the program than scheduling our way to 6+ wins? We already know that we need to get ****ing better.......why in the world would we want to make that a more difficult task than it already is?

At some point you have to stop scheduling your way to getting better and actually find out if you are better.

(I also don't think the riveting atmosphere at a uab game is helping recruiting either)

[sandwolf]

At some point you have to stop scheduling your way to getting better and actually find out if you are better.

Our SEC schedule gives us more than enough opportunities to find out how good we actually are.

LSU and Alabama are top 10 teams every year. A&M and Auburn are top 25 teams that will occasionally be top 10 teams. OM and Arkansas are generally going to be top 35 teams. We play those 6 teams every year. And then more often than not, our rotating opponent from the East will be a top 25 team.


(I also don't think the riveting atmosphere at a uab game is helping recruiting either)

You are right, which is why we bring the recruits in for Auburn, A&M, OM, etc., to a packed stadium and an electric atmosphere. You don't have that option when your team has a losing record year after year.

[BulldogBear]

For the last couple of days I've been stewing on this. I'm not in favor of this rule for reasons I've said. But with that said, it's what we have for now and as such is sort of water under the bridge. What's getting my goat at the moment is all the criticism from other Big Fivers. Often, in recent years they have been quick to cite bowl records and/or other head to head matchups to go on ad naseum about how the SEC any given year is really only 1-3 schools and a bunch of also rans. They rave about how overrated the mid and lower level SEC schools are, even compared to theirs. Now, the SEC disclaimers are out in force again. Do you know what I don't see? I don't see other Power 5 Mid to lower levelers burning up the phonelines trying to get the ADs of Mizzou, MSU, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Vandy and Arkansas on the horn to get a game scheduled. ***It doesn't make sense 'cause I mean you know we all suck so bad. And now we have to schedule them!!?? We shouldn't be calling them, they should be calling us.***

Since the SEC is so overrated, seriously Stanford, Iowa, Miami, Kansas State... schedule a mid level SEC school for a home and home series or stfu.

[Bothrops]

??Questions??--When a big 5 team is scheduled, will it be a home and home, two year event, then on to the next team? Or, a one year deal at a neutral site? Or a one year deal at either campus? Thanks