SVP and Rissilio and Brad Edwards bashing our schedule

[CadaverDawg]

They say one loss should all but put us out of the playoffs due to our OOC schedule weakness.

[SDDawg]

Do not trust the system if we lose. We need to win out.

[mstatefan91]

Yeah our easy schedule that had us playing in death valley at night, 5 SEC games in a row, on the road at Ttown, on the road in Oxfart, and just generally being in the SEC.

But crown almighty Bammer for playing west Virginia

[msstate7]

Let em cry.

[cheewgumm]

I'm all for scheduling better teams non conf. However, the argument is stupid. You should look at total schedule and compare. I woild love for is to play ND or someone but I can even see that.

[Goat Holder]

Just win the SEC.

[Bully041184]

Good thing they aren't on the committee

[BrunswickDawg]

Its total BS. Every SOS metric I've seen places our schedule anywhere from 10 to 35. What more do they want? The #1 always has to play the toughest schedule??? Morons.

[Maroons]

That is absolutely not what they said. Edwards basically said the committee would have to consider our weak OOC schedule as part of the evaluation. And it was in the context of talking about other schedules.

Let's stop acting and thinking like we're poor old victimized State.


edited for reply fail

[RossDawg82]

We are #1 now even wih our cupcake OOC schedule. So how can a loss to either Bama or TSUN take us out of the running. That is what confuses me. If our OOC schedule is so bad, why put us ahead of FSU?

[dawgs]

Our resume would still be more impressive than say a 1 L Michigan st. But it definitely still opens up a reason to keep us out if they need to defend our exclusion.

We also don't need to get the doors blown off if we lose. Needs to be a close hard fought game.

[codeDawg]

That is absolutely not what they said. Edwards basically said the committee would have to consider our weak OOC schedule as part of the evaluation. And it was in the context of talking about other schedules.

Let's stop acting and thinking like we're poor old victimized State.

Let's lay it out there. If we lose to Bama and beat UM, our resume will be as strong or stronger than anyone in the country. Wins over LSU, Auburn, UM, UPig, UK, A&M, and Vandy with one loss the the presumed SEC champ is as good as anyone outside the SEC.

Right now #4 Oregon has wins over Michigan State and UCLA and a worse loss to Arizona. I would switch schedules with them any day.

Inside the SEC, Auburn is our competitor, and despite that KSU win, we have the head-to-head.

We are in as good of a position as anybody for the #3 or #4 if we don't win the SEC.

[Beaver]

They say one loss should all but put us out of the playoffs due to our OOC schedule weakness.

I wasn't listening to the show, so I don't have any context to work with. But they can't say we purposely scheduled 4 terrible teams. Most SEC and other power 5 schools will schedule 3 not-so-great teams and then 1 decent-good team. State scheduled Southern Miss for 2014 back in 2009 Proof (http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=204800928) -- back when they were going to bowl games. Heck, they went 12-2 in 2011! Southern was supposed to be our decent team for this season. Just didn't pan out.

[CadaverDawg]

That is absolutely not what they said. Edwards basically said the committee would have to consider our weak OOC schedule as part of the evaluation. And it was in the context of talking about other schedules.

Let's stop acting and thinking like we're poor old victimized State.


edited for reply fail

You missed after that when all 3 said "you can't reward MSU with a playoff spot with that OOC", when referring to us as a potential 1 loss team. And nobody said we're a victim.

[dawgs]

I wasn't listening to the show, so I don't have any context to work with. But they can't say we purposely scheduled 4 terrible teams. Most SEC and other power 5 schools will schedule 3 not-so-great teams and then 1 decent-good team. State scheduled Southern Miss for 2014 back in 2009 Proof (http://www.hailstate.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=204800928) -- back when they were going to bowl games. Heck, they went 12-2 in 2011! Southern was supposed to be our decent team for this season. Just didn't pan out.

In modern CFB, you know scheduling a 12-2 usm 5 years out that 12-2 seasons for usm are unsustainable.

I think if we lose a game, we still likely need both k state and tcu to lose a 2nd game, or both oregon and asu to lose a 2nd game, or f$u to lose, or for auburn to beat Bama to feel safe. I think we'd still get the nod over a 1 L big 10 champ mich st/Ohio st.

[MadDawg]

They say one loss should all but put us out of the playoffs due to our OOC schedule weakness.

Excuse me, sorry, I was busy reading our page in the history books where it talks about us as being one of only 5 teams in the history of college football to have played and won 3 games in a row against top 10 teams. What was this about our weak schedule again?

[messageboardsuperhero]

I'm all for scheduling better teams non conf. However, the argument is stupid. You should look at total schedule and compare. I woild love for is to play ND or someone but I can even see that.

Exactly. Compare the whole schedule, not just OOC.

We play in the ****ing SEC West. That means we're guaranteed to play 3-4 top 10 teams every year, not to mention games against UM, Texas A&M, and other SEC teams. That's already way tougher than 80%+ of the rest of the country without even considering OOC, so why wouldn't we schedule gimmie wins every chance we get? It's so stupid when people outside of the SEC bash our non-conference schedule- without even taking into consideration who we play in conference. Sagarin rates us as playing the 17th toughest schedule in the country up to this point- and that doesn't even include two remaining road games against top 11 teams still left. Last time I checked, having one of the 15-20 toughest schedules in America was pretty good. What the hell else do these people want us to do?

And just for reference, here are some SOS rankings of non-SEC playoff hopefuls:

Florida State- 40
Michigan State- 58
Ohio State- 67
Notre Dame- 49
Oregon- 29
TCU- 39
K-State- 45

So yes, it is total bullshit to say that we should be knocked out of the race because of our schedule if we lose a game- when all those above teams already have a loss (except FSU), AND they all play easier overall schedules. Thank God the committee doesn't seem to be paying any attention to this noise.

[Liverpooldawg]

Just win.

[HoopsDawg]

You missed after that when all 3 said "you can't reward MSU with a playoff spot with that OOC", when referring to us as a potential 1 loss team. And nobody said we're a victim.

Sorry dude, you took that totally out of context. Let's worry about it later.

[Beaver]

In modern CFB, you know scheduling a 12-2 usm 5 years out that 12-2 seasons for usm are unsustainable.

They were coming off a 7-6 campaign in '09 when we scheduled them. Obviously 12-2 is unsustainable like you said, but they went to a bowl 14/15 (record of 8-6) years from 1997-2011. My point was that you can't accuse of State scheduling 4 awful teams for 2014 since USM 'at the time' consistently went to bowl games.

[BulldogBacker]

They were coming off a 7-6 campaign in '09 when we scheduled them. Obviously 12-2 is unsustainable like you said, but they went to a bowl 14/15 (record of 8-6) years from 1997-2011. My point was that you can't accuse of State scheduling 4 awful teams for 2014 since USM 'at the time' consistently went to bowl games.

Excellent point, plus this year's schedule was contracted for years ago. I hear we are adding a game against Kansas State in the future.

[Chip]

Brad Edwards was just on Feinbaum saying the same thing. I don't think Cadaver has it out of context.

Basically saying that depending on what the other conferences do, a one loss State that isn't the SEC champion, may not make it in ahead of a one loss team from another conference, due to the OOC schedule State has played, as compared to the OOC schedule that another team may have played. He mentioned Michigan State for instance. Their one loss was to Oregon on the road. That if the State team made it in under the circumstances above, over the Michigan State team which was a one loss conference champion, then the committee would send the message to the Michigan States that they shouldn't take a chance and play an Oregon in their non-conference schedule, but should stay at home and play Akron instead and get the sure win and be undefeated.

I think there's a lot of football to be played yet, and a lot of arguments one way or another. Bottom line, is that State needs to continue to take care of business and assume that we need to win every game to play our way in.

[codeDawg]

Brad Edwards was just on Feinbaum saying the same thing. I don't think Cadaver has it out of context.

Basically saying that depending on what the other conferences do, a one loss State that isn't the SEC champion, may not make it in ahead of a one loss team from another conference, due to the OOC schedule State has played, as compared to the OOC schedule that another team may have played. He mentioned Michigan State for instance. Their one loss was to Oregon on the road. That if the State team made it in under the circumstances above, over the Michigan State team which was a one loss conference champion, then the committee would send the message to the Michigan States that they shouldn't take a chance and play an Oregon in their non-conference schedule, but should stay at home and play Akron instead and get the sure win and be undefeated.

I think there's a lot of football to be played yet, and a lot of arguments one way or another. Bottom line, is that State needs to continue to take care of business and assume that we need to win every game to play our way in.

I think the message is that you need top 25 wins to get in. If you can't get them in your conference, you had better try to line them up outside.

We can get those at home in the SEC. This year Michigan State plays Ohio State, Nebraska, and Wisconsin in conference play. None of those are top 10. Oregon is, so you probably need them on the schedule if you are going to make it in. We have Bama, Auburn, and UM in the top 11 this week.

Again, I would trade schedules with Michigan State any day.

[dawgs]

They were coming off a 7-6 campaign in '09 when we scheduled them. Obviously 12-2 is unsustainable like you said, but they went to a bowl 14/15 (record of 8-6) years from 1997-2011. My point was that you can't accuse of State scheduling 4 awful teams for 2014 since USM 'at the time' consistently went to bowl games.

7-6 in c-usa is awful.

[ckDOG]

Anyone who compares parts of a schedule is a damn moron. These guys are trolling. Anyone with moderate intelligence, and I assume those on the committee do, know it's about it's about the total picture. Of course, an OOC schedule must be evaluated as does the conference schedule. It just so happens that the conference portion of ours is tough as nails and we are perfect against it thus far. Screw the radio idiots. They are good at moving their mouth for 3 hours at a time not necessarily having intelligent thoughts come out.

[dawgs]

Brad Edwards was just on Feinbaum saying the same thing. I don't think Cadaver has it out of context.

Basically saying that depending on what the other conferences do, a one loss State that isn't the SEC champion, may not make it in ahead of a one loss team from another conference, due to the OOC schedule State has played, as compared to the OOC schedule that another team may have played. He mentioned Michigan State for instance. Their one loss was to Oregon on the road. That if the State team made it in under the circumstances above, over the Michigan State team which was a one loss conference champion, then the committee would send the message to the Michigan States that they shouldn't take a chance and play an Oregon in their non-conference schedule, but should stay at home and play Akron instead and get the sure win and be undefeated.

I think there's a lot of football to be played yet, and a lot of arguments one way or another. Bottom line, is that State needs to continue to take care of business and assume that we need to win every game to play our way in.

Depending on how things would have shaken out, I'm not sure a 13-0 Michigan st with all cupcakes out of conference would have been ahead of a 1 L sec, big 12, and pac 12 champs, then assume f$u runs the table playing a non-conf slate of florida, ND, and okie st, and there's your 4. Conversely, if Michigan st wins the Oregon game, even if they lost a game along the way (so long as it wasn't a terrible loss), they'd likely be ahead of a 1 L oregon team in the pecking order. So playing that non-conf game can be a huge boom too.

The big 10's problem is they need these record profits to be used by illinois and Indiana and Purdue and Maryland and rutgers to improve their programs. Those programs show little desire to build themselves into being regular mid-tier programs that make life hell for the top of the conference. They need Michigan and penn st to get their shit together. They need Nebraska and wisconsin and Michigan and even Michigan st to spend that money to emulate the facilities of Bama and auburn and lsu and Texas. Ohio st is the only program in that conference that acts like they really care about being a modern football powerhouse.

This is a great write-up on just how big the discrepancy is between the big 10 and the sec, big 12, and pac 12.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-b1g-game-ohio-state-and-michigan-state-battle-the-big-tens-toxic-reputation-for-playoff-relevance/

[IMissJack]

I'd rather have a shot with a weak OOC, than open up with Oklahoma State type team again and ruin the season with several injuries. I also thought we were top 5 SOS.

[Smitty]

These idiots have it backwards. Michigan State HAS TO play a tough OOC just to look comparable to our schedule. Obviously more than one tough OOC because their strength is still at 58!

[drunkernhelldawg]

The possibility of three SEC teams in a four team playoff was sure to create a lot of hand wringing. I actually do wish we played some of our OOC games against power conference teams just so the quality of football would be high every week. Practically speaking, though, our schedule overall is as tough as any. It always is.

[IMissJack]

And keep in mind K State played Auburn. Without that, they probably are 60.

[Political Hack]

5 games against current top ten teams is a weak schedule.

[CadaverDawg]

Brad Edwards was just on Feinbaum saying the same thing. I don't think Cadaver has it out of context.

Basically saying that depending on what the other conferences do, a one loss State that isn't the SEC champion, may not make it in ahead of a one loss team from another conference, due to the OOC schedule State has played, as compared to the OOC schedule that another team may have played. He mentioned Michigan State for instance. Their one loss was to Oregon on the road. That if the State team made it in under the circumstances above, over the Michigan State team which was a one loss conference champion, then the committee would send the message to the Michigan States that they shouldn't take a chance and play an Oregon in their non-conference schedule, but should stay at home and play Akron instead and get the sure win and be undefeated.

I think there's a lot of football to be played yet, and a lot of arguments one way or another. Bottom line, is that State needs to continue to take care of business and assume that we need to win every game to play our way in.

Good post. And Thank you.

That argument they are making is such garbage. If we didn't play a schedule of powerhouses we WOULD schedule tougher. Hence the reason Michigan state DOES need to schedule Oregon. We have to play 5 Oregon's this year while Michigan State plays 1....so explain what is unfair about it. It's a horseshit, one sided, debate that is only being used to try and discredit the SEC, and MSU in particular because we aren't a National Brand. That's why I want us to not only get in, but to win the damn thing so we can flip everyone the bird and say, "here's to your weak schedule argument, bitches".

[ShotgunDawg]

This is a great thread, and I think we should all make sure that Bo Bounds sees this thread and asks Brad Edwards about this on his show next week.

I have a lot of respect for Brad Edwards, and consider him a smart guy. Therefore, I'm not sure why he and others can't figure out that their argument here is absurd. It seems ridiculous to me that the playoff committee would consider anything other than the "full body of work" unless, of course, they were biased against allowing two SEC schools in the playoff.

Defending our non-conference schedule is ridiculous because it sucks. However, it seems just as ridiculous to say that MSU doesn't deserve a 1 loss bid to the playoffs because of their non-conference schedule when they have played a more challenging schedule and have better wins than Michigan State or any other team that would be vying for the same spot in the playoff.

Brad Edwards is a smart guy, but I don't understand the big picture of his argument here. You aren't encouraging Michigan State to schedule Akron, because, at the end of the day, Michigan State needs to schedule Oregon in order in order to play enough quality teams to be considered for the playoff. An SEC school doesn't need to do that. I can't understand why it would matter if you play good teams in conference or out of conference, so long as you play good teams. If the Big 10 or Pac 12 schools are upset about MSU's non-conference schedule, then tell them we would gladly switch schedules with them.

Why should SEC teams have to play more quality opponents than Big 10 or Pac 12 schools, because if you bash MSU for their non-conference schedule, that's exactly what you are saying?

Why should Michigan State only have to play 2 top 25 teams a year, with one being in conference and the other being Oregon, while MSU has to play 3 top 10 teams in a year and 2 more top 25 teams?

Why should Arkansas have to schedule a good non-conference opponent when they've had to play 5 straight conference games against top 10 foes?

Brad is smarter than this, and I'm curious if the whole "SEC Bias" thing has swung the other direction and now smart analysts are going against logic and are showing reverse bias against the SEC in order to seem neutral?

The whole conversation is stupid and lacks objectivity. Why would you ever judge teams on any other thing than their entire schedule?

[Todd4State]

Well, let's break down our schedule:

USM- Probably a 3-9 team, but we shouldn't be penalized for scheduling an in-state school. Nor should anyone else.

UAB- Currently 5-4 and they have had injuries at QB that have slowed them down. They have La Tech, Marshall, and USM left, so I think they end up 6-6 and bowl eligible. If they beat La Tech and USM, they are definitely a bowl team. Not a bad OOC team at all.

At South Alabama- 5-3 and in the Sun Belt race. They finish with Arkansas State, Texas State, South Carolina, and Navy. I think they also end up bowl eligible and we played them on the road. Not a bad mid major at all.

At LSU- 7-2 and possibly a 9-10 win team. I think only THREE teams have beaten them at night in Death Valley and two of those teams won NC. Cajun Cupcake all right.

Texas A&M- 6-3, so they're a bowl team even though I think they end up 6-6 or 7-5. But when we played them they were top 10 and we broke their will. Not our fault they're wusses.

Auburn- 7-1 and they will win at least 9 and probably 10. They have a chance to win the SEC.

At Kentucky- 5-4 and it wouldn't shock me if they crapped out and went 5-7. I bet they get Tennessee and go 6-6. Yet another bowl team possibly.

Arkansas- 4-5 and I could see them crapping out and going 4-8. I bet they win at least one more though, and if they can beat Mizzou and Ole Miss they'll go bowling.

UT-Martin- We had to play someone for homecoming. And so does everyone else in America.

At Alabama- They probably are a 10 win team. If they fall completely apart, they are still an 8 win team.

Vanderbilt- They should be happy that they are mathematically bowl eligible at this point. It won't last for long.

At Ole Miss- Rivalry game on the road with a team that is an 8-10 win team.


This is what they call "easy".

[BeardoMSU]

Well, let's break down our schedule:

USM- Probably a 3-9 team, but we shouldn't be penalized for scheduling an in-state school. Nor should anyone else.

UAB- Currently 5-4 and they have had injuries at QB that have slowed them down. They have La Tech, Marshall, and USM left, so I think they end up 6-6 and bowl eligible. If they beat La Tech and USM, they are definitely a bowl team. Not a bad OOC team at all.

At South Alabama- 5-3 and in the Sun Belt race. They finish with Arkansas State, Texas State, South Carolina, and Navy. I think they also end up bowl eligible and we played them on the road. Not a bad mid major at all.

At LSU- 7-2 and possibly a 9-10 win team. I think only THREE teams have beaten them at night in Death Valley and two of those teams won NC. Cajun Cupcake all right.

Texas A&M- 6-3, so they're a bowl team even though I think they end up 6-6 or 7-5. But when we played them they were top 10 and we broke their will. Not our fault they're wusses.

Auburn- 7-1 and they will win at least 9 and probably 10. They have a chance to win the SEC.

At Kentucky- 5-4 and it wouldn't shock me if they crapped out and went 5-7. I bet they get Tennessee and go 6-6. Yet another bowl team possibly.

Arkansas- 4-5 and I could see them crapping out and going 4-8. I bet they win at least one more though, and if they can beat Mizzou and Ole Miss they'll go bowling.

UT-Martin- We had to play someone for homecoming. And so does everyone else in America.

At Alabama- They probably are a 10 win team. If they fall completely apart, they are still an 8 win team.

Vanderbilt- They should be happy that they are mathematically bowl eligible at this point. It won't last for long.

At Ole Miss- Rivalry game on the road with a team that is an 8-10 win team.


This is what they call "easy".

Good breakdown, Todd. This shit is crazy, and really stems from the talking heads trying to appear as non SEC homers. Lucky for us, though, is the committee isn't that gullible.

[ShotgunDawg]

Good breakdown, Todd. This shit is crazy, and really stems from the talking heads trying to appear as non SEC homers. Lucky for us, though, is the committee isn't that gullible.

I very much agree with this. I actually trust the committee more than these analysts. The committee seems unbiased and objective thus far. Hopefully that continues and they aren't influenced.

The NCAA basketball team is objective and only cares about quality wins and losses, no matter where they are on the schedule. Why this committee would be different is beyond me.

[BeardoMSU]

I very much agree with this. I actually trust the committee more than these analysts. The committee seems unbiased and objective thus far. Hopefully that continues and they aren't influenced.

The NCAA basketball team is objective and only cares about quality wins and losses, no matter where they are on the schedule. Why this committee would be different is beyond me.

God help us if the likes of Danny Kanell actually had power behind his empty words.

[ShotgunDawg]

We need to make sure Bo Bounds sees this thread. Brad Edwards needs to be grilled about this on next week's Out of Bounds appearance