Hack has swayed me on the scheduling- and you should be too

[Coach34]

I, like many of you thought the Ok State game was a good idea. But after a zillion threads arguing about it, and a little thought, I have decided the "cupcake lovers" are dead right. Here's why:

Why should we- Miss. State- with all the disadvantages we have in the SEC against the Big 7- play a harder schedule than they do? That's really ignorant if you think about it.

State plays 5 teams ranked in the top 12 in the country

Alabama- King of the SEC- plays 2. Two. Dos. Their East opponents? Kentucky and Tennessee. Good thing they played VT or their schedule would be embarrassing.

Texas A&M? Plays 2- not 5 like us- Two. Dos. Their OOC? Rice, Sam Houston St, SMU, and UTEP

Our fans want to compete in the West and "have a chance to win it all" right?
Then why should Mullen have a much harder road than Saban and Sumlin?
Why should we feel ashamed because 4 of our SEC games last year were against teams that underperformed- is that our fault?

People raise hell about our "easy" schedule last year- we still played more top 12 games than Bama did last year in the regular season. Think about and let it sink in- why does Mullen have to play a tougher schedule than Saban?

Count me in as a "cupcake lover" from now on. Bowl games are what it's about

[Barking 13]

but, but what if we had actually smoked OSU, and beat Auburn? We'd be 4-0 with a "signature" win.. and it was actually doable.... and probably ranked.... now how big would the LSU game be then?

[Jacksondevildog]

I've been saying this for months and I don't understand why people see it the other way. We need to schedule our non-conference in a creative way that allows us to get wins. I don't give a damn how easy the schedule is. We can play 1 SWAC game per year. I'm ok with that.

[Eric Nies Grind Time]

I am surprised you were not on this side before. I don't see the point in making it hard on yourself when you have to play in the toughest division in college football. Give yourself 4 easy wins OOC and hope the schedule lines up well like it appears to in 2014. We will have 4 easy OOC, Kentucky, Vandy is back on the decline, hopefully Arkansas stays shitty and a Manziel-less A&M. Also we will have Auburn @ Davis Wade. 2014 is Mullen's chance to come back strong.

[C222]

but, but what if we had actually smoked OSU, and beat Auburn? We'd be 4-0 with a "signature" win.. and it was actually doable.... and probably ranked.... now how big would the LSU game be then?

What would be different if we beat Jackson St vs Okla St? Nothing. I will never understand why people want a tough OOC schedule. I want to go to bowl games. Winning and going to bowls is how you build a program like ours. I don't care how it happens.

[Coach34]

but, but what if we had actually smoked OSU, and beat Auburn? We'd be 4-0 with a "signature" win.. and it was actually doable.... and probably ranked.... now how big would the LSU game be then?

LSU is 6th in the country- it's big regardless. Had we beaten 2 cupcakes, Kansas, and Auburn- it would still be just as big.

The key to it all is getting wins- doesn't matter really over who. Weren't we ranked last year when we were 7-0?

[smootness]

Stricklin agrees with everyone about the cupcakes, so no worries there, it is what we'll do.

To me, the argument isn't a huge one. It's one game either way.

You act as though the fact that we have 5 games against top-12 teams and Bama and A&M have 2 is solely due to scheduling Oklahoma State. We'd still have 4 even without that game, and we can't do anything about that.

I fully understand the argument that it wasn't a good idea to schedule the game.

But if you agree with Hack on it, that means you essentially attribute all of our problems as an athletic department to that decision.

[bocfarm]

Again if we can't beat two out of Ark, Aub, OM and LSU...we suck...two are at home and the other two aren't good. It is what it is.

[Political Hack]

In no way do I attribute all of our problems to scheduling one game. Hyperbole much? I do however think it's shows a systematic problem with our administration that needs to be dealt with swiftly. We have an "awe shucks" group of spineless executives leading our charge for relevance in the toughest division in the history of college football.

Example Number One: We scheduled OSU BEFORE we knew who our SEC East opponent was. We allowed ourselves to be talked into the OSU game and then got dealt the SC game. ZERO backbone. ZERO. Slive and LT either bent Strick over, or he was compliant, and neither of those is acceptable for Mississippi State's AD in my opinion. I expect more and you should too.

If Strick had any brains, we would've only had 4 top ten teams. If Strick had a backbone, we'd only have 3 top ten teams.

[Goat Holder]

I think the big deal with Oklahoma State is not that we scheduled a BCS opponent, it's that we went out and scheduled damn near one of the hardest ones out there. You mention Kansas, we should sign them, Iowa State, Purdue, Colorado, etc. up for home and homes every 6 years or so. Teams with similar standing to us in their leagues. The 'Texas classic' or whatever was nothing but a pay day. I think scheduling the Kansas' of the world would keep our dumb fans happy to an extent too (the ones who want to see us play hard opponents).

[BeastMan]

Lets be honest. When you a 6-9 win team, SOS means absolutely zero. The 1 and only moment SOS means anything is if you're trying to get in the 4 team NC playoff.

[Maroonthirteen]

I was all for OSU and very excited about that game. I thought our program had risen to the point of scheduling those games. However, until we build into a consistant top 10 program, in which a game like that could propel us past someone else in the BCS standings.......there is no point in Mississippi State playing that game. We need to be real about where we are as a program and get to 6 wins and build on bowl wins.

Our OOC schedule should be....

UAB/Memphis/Tulane
USM/Tulsa/Houston/SMU (Strategically planned....years they are down)
Sun Belt/MAC
SWAC/UTMartin/UCA etc.

Also, good point.......Alabama doesn't have to play Alabama. LSU play LSU...etc. That fact isn't new to me but I figure games like GATech, OSU etc gives us another shot at a quality win to offset a SEC loss. However, we just haven't been able to win OOC games vs the major conference teams over the years.

[Goat Holder]

^^ This.

If we had beaten Auburn or South Carolina in 2011, nobody would have given a shit about our schedule. Easy schedules accomplish 2 things: 1) Help you get bowl eligible, and 2) Help you concentrate your 'A' games on the better teams.

[Johnson85]

I would say the Ok St. game was a much better game to schedule in hindsight.

Ahead of time, it looked ridiculous and anybody that thought otherwise was just being stupid. The rewards didn't come close to justifying the risk. Why make things harder on yourself when you are already going to have one of the toughest schedules in the nation just by being in the SEC West. But in hindsight, Ok St. was very beatable. The problem is that our team sucks, not that we scheduled a hard game. It could end up costing us a bowl game, but I'm not sure we're going to get one out of UM or Ark right now, which is what it will take to get us to 5 wins, so it may just end up being the difference between 4 and 5 wins.

We should ideally be scheduling one mediocre team from a big conference every year. You don't do it until you have a good enough program that if one of the mediocre teams ends up being good (ala WVa when we scheduled them v. when we played them), you have some margin for error. When the decision was made, Ok St. was a year early to me and the wrong type of team. But having seen them play, while Ok St. may end up being good, they were definitely mediocre when we played them. That loss was on Mullen for not having a team in year 5 that can beat a mediocre team.

[curmudgeon]

We should be Kansas State in my opinion.

Play four cupcakes to make it easier to get to six wins. Creep up every once in a while and win 9 or 10. We got nothing from Oklahoma State other than a harder time to get to six wins in a down year as we face a great opportunity for 9-10 next year.

If in the future we go 11-1 and get burned on schedule (which we won't because of the SEC), then a valid argument can be made. Until then, we should be playing teams with directions in their name.

[PassInterference]

Lets be honest. When you a 6-9 win team, SOS means absolutely zero. The 1 and only moment SOS means anything is if you're trying to get in the 4 team NC playoff.

Get back to me when the 6 wins you mentioned turns into 5.

Furthermore, the point is to ponder and be pissed about how much better our record would be if we played Bama or aTm's schedule.

But there is one minor thing I should point out even if it is just a minor point. Bama doesn't have to play Bama. aTm doesn't have to play aTm. Other than that, all of the comparisons are valid.

[Ronny]

..but vs. OSU we were uninspired, undercoached, shy with contact & generally appeared pissed that we were forced to play a football game that day.

We could have played South Alabama with such a shitty attitude & gotten our 10 point win. It's a win, but the major flaws in our program wouldn't have been adequately exposed. OSU exposed MUllen for the uncreative wallflower he has become as a coach. Fortuntely, Auburn & Troy have revealed maybe Mullen is beginning to grow a pair again & is getting serious about competing.

Why does Dan MUllen have to play more top 12 teams than Saban?

Courtesy of Alabama Big Money & all that entails, Saban has a billion dollar shield of protection around him. Protection against certain annoyances like having to play too many highly ranked teams.

Meanwhile, Mullen is at the mercy of the dumb & poor. That translates into Mullen having to play pretty much nothing but highly ranked teams.

[BeastMan]

Get back to me when the 6 wins you mentioned turns into 5.

Furthermore, the point is to ponder and be pissed about how much better our record would be if we played Bama or aTm's schedule.

But there is one minor thing I should point out even if it is just a minor point. Bama doesn't have to play Bama. aTm doesn't have to play aTm. Other than that, all of the comparisons are valid.

Maybe I'm missing something but my post supports the schedule easier argument.

[Dawgface]

but, but what if we had actually smoked OSU, and beat Auburn? We'd be 4-0 with a "signature" win.. and it was actually doable.... and probably ranked.... now how big would the LSU game be then?

But we rarely do. We beat Texas early in Jackie's career when they were coming off a good year. A feather in our cap for sure. But I still say play 4 cup cakes, our SEC schedule is just too tough to be playing a big time OOC game. Maybe Indiana or Duke, but that's about it.

[missouridawg]

There are a lot of people in this thread talking about how Alabama has an easy schedule and they don't have to play any tough OOC games because they're special.

Since 2008 they've played Clemson, VaTech, PennState, PennState, and VaTech OOC. You can't fault Alabama that those teams weren't top 10 teams at the time they played them. It's not like they were scheduling Indiana or Kansas

Another point... Alabama's schedule appears easier than ours because they DON'T HAVE TO PLAY ALABAMA (/ForrestGumpVoice).

In regards to us scheduling... we have no business scheduling a tough OOC game. There's like 10 BCS teams that we should even contemplate scheduling (Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Syracuse, Duke, and pretty much anyone in the American Athletic conference). Had we had 2 cupcake games to start the season, we would've been much better prepared for Auburn. We'd be 4-0 with the CBS game against LSU.

Give me 4 cupcakes all day long.

[Goat Holder]

I think you missed his point.

[bluelightstar]

In regards to us scheduling... we have no business scheduling a tough OOC game. There's like 10 BCS teams that we should even contemplate scheduling (Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Syracuse, Duke, and pretty much anyone in the American Athletic conference). Had we had 2 cupcake games to start the season, we would've been much better prepared for Auburn. We'd be 4-0 with the CBS game against LSU.

Give me 4 cupcakes all day long.

I agree with the scheduling stuff, but I see no factual evidence over Mullen's 5 years to suggest that opening with 2 cupcakes prepares us better to beat Auburn. Hell, or anyone else. It pads our win total, but beating UAB and Jackson State does not prepare us to do anything. All things being equal, only advantage (outside an 'easy' win) is that maybe our starters play less and we have fewer injuries.

[Goat Holder]

This is stupid, for various reasons.

ON the Alabama stuff, read Mizzoudawg's post, he saved me from having to type it. Furthermore, WE scheduled the game. We may have been encouraged to do it by the SEC, but we didn't have to. Texas A&M straight up told them no when asked to play Louisville in that exact game.

[AlSwearengen]

At the end of the year and into recruiting season, coaches can tell recruits that we had a winning season, winning x amount of games, and we went to a bowl for the x amount of years in a row. No one will remember or care if it was against alcorn st., prairie view, and jackson st. Beating cupcakes > losing to powers. MSU fans, for some reason want to play twelve big games every year. It is the damndest thing i have ever seen. I always say that if I want to see oregon, texas, ok. st., etc. play, I have cable tv and i can turn them on. I want no part of them unless it is in a bowl game.

[Goat Holder]

but I see no factual evidence over Mullen's 5 years to suggest that opening with 2 cupcakes prepares us better to beat Auburn. Hell, or anyone else.

Do you see any factual evidence to the contrary? Adding to our win total and having less injuries is enough reason to do it anyways, without factoring in preparation. Also helps you develop your team, see who the playmakers are, etc.

[DownwardDawg]

I, like many of you thought the Ok State game was a good idea. But after a zillion threads arguing about it, and a little thought, I have decided the "cupcake lovers" are dead right. Here's why:

Why should we- Miss. State- with all the disadvantages we have in the SEC against the Big 7- play a harder schedule than they do? That's really ignorant if you think about it.

State plays 5 teams ranked in the top 12 in the country

Alabama- King of the SEC- plays 2. Two. Dos. Their East opponents? Kentucky and Tennessee. Good thing they played VT or their schedule would be embarrassing.

Texas A&M? Plays 2- not 5 like us- Two. Dos. Their OOC? Rice, Sam Houston St, SMU, and UTEP

Our fans want to compete in the West and "have a chance to win it all" right?
Then why should Mullen have a much harder road than Saban and Sumlin?
Why should we feel ashamed because 4 of our SEC games last year were against teams that underperformed- is that our fault?

People raise hell about our "easy" schedule last year- we still played more top 12 games than Bama did last year in the regular season. Think about and let it sink in- why does Mullen have to play a tougher schedule than Saban?

Count me in as a "cupcake lover" from now on. Bowl games are what it's about

I've always been in this camp and I always will be. I don't give a crap what the national media says about our schedule. I didn't see any articles written about our #1 toughest schedule when Mullen first got here.

[ckDOG]

It's really simple. MSU should play cupcakes until it actually holds us back. Our 7-0 start last year over crap teams got us ranked very nicely in the BCS. Had we pulled off the impossible and gone undefeated with victories over Bama, LSU, and A&M, I doubt our OOC would have penalized us. If we were ever to miss out on a BCS/playoff opportunity in a 1 or 2 loss season, then it's time to beef up the OOC. Until then, MSU should be nibbling on cupcakes.

[slickdawg]

I've always been in this camp and I always will be. I don't give a crap what the national media says about our schedule. I didn't see any articles written about our #1 toughest schedule when Mullen first got here.

There was an article in ESPN the mag about "If I could pick one place to watch games this year it would be Starkville, MS", talked about the brutal schedule in detail.

[Bass Chaser]

This is also whey we should be against going to 9 conference games.

[Drugdog]

C34,
I agree. No need to make life any harder than it already is.
However , I think we can schedule a name school that is not that good; North Carolina, bottom half of B1G, and Accomplish both goals.
Credit will Never be given for a difficult schedule. Fact.

[HIGHDOG]

i'm w/ hack...extremely dumb & gutless to get screwed w/ osu & usc...jmho...tom

[AROB44]

What would be different if we beat Jackson St vs Okla St? Nothing. I will never understand why people want a tough OOC schedule. I want to go to bowl games. Winning and going to bowls is how you build a program like ours. I don't care how it happens.

THIS +1000

[bocfarm]

The OSU game can be argued both ways. What's funny is some of you guys who are now totally against it were not and were predicting a victory. Pointing to a soft defensive Big 12 team, loss of premier RB, ect until we lost and scored 3 points.

I think we (DM and team) shit the bed more than Strick scheduling that game but that's just me, they were beatable with a better game plan

I do agree that we should have waited to see who all our opponents were before committing, which leads me to this.

Would you have agreed to the OSU game if we were playing Mizzou or TN?

[slickdawg]

If Dak had been healthy (no Toe surgery) and was the #1 from the get go, we probably beat Ok St and Auburn. Dan's offense works extremely well with a dual threat QB. Trying to force a square peg through a round hole just doesn't work. Period. Look at Florida, spread QB Driskel, trying to make him a dropback passer, FAIL.

[C222]

I agree with the scheduling stuff, but I see no factual evidence over Mullen's 5 years to suggest that opening with 2 cupcakes prepares us better to beat Auburn. Hell, or anyone else. It pads our win total, but beating UAB and Jackson State does not prepare us to do anything. All things being equal, only advantage (outside an 'easy' win) is that maybe our starters play less and we have fewer injuries.

What did playing OK ST prepare us for?

[cheewgumm]

I guess I am in the minority. I do believe more that we should play someone tough early, not so mmuch that our schedule is not tough enough. I am glad we played Ok State first and wish we'd do it more often, though I'd settle for just moving one of the "tough" games closer to the beginning of the scheudle so we can see where we stand, before we play Alabama, LSU and A&M. I don't think our schedule is not tough enough, I get it. However, I don't agree that we should just scehdule wins and that we will "build" to a team over time that wins 10. Don't see it.

Regardless, I'll just accept I'm in the minority.

Everyone should agree though that last year was our ideal year.
We won 8.
We beat the teams we should have.
We lost to the decent teams.
but we won 8, and theoretically our recruiting gets better...done and done. We should all be happy.

We're gonna win 5 or 6 this year, then next year we'll win 7 again (again not beating anyone good), probably lose in a bowl, but the plan will be in place. I guess in 2015, we'll do the same? Hopefully we'll have someone else because our recruiting in theory is getting better every year. I don't know. I'll just hope.

[smootness]

If Strick had any brains, we would've only had 4 top ten teams. If Strick had a backbone, we'd only have 3 top ten teams.

This is just dumb.

You have no clue how the East scheduling went down. I'm going to go ahead and assume the AD's had 0 say in that decision.

And ok, so the scheduling of OSU wasn't the cause of all of our problems, but your post basically just said that it is the evidence that we have a systematic problem, and I think that is equally insane.

In what way, besides your assumptions on the scheduling of South Carolina, has Stricklin proven himself to be spineless?

Again, this is a State fan assuming he is because he comes across as an 'aw shucks' nice guy; you're essentially assigning him character traits based on the way he sounds when he talks.

[Coach34]

What did playing OK ST prepare us for?

I will say that Ok State has helped us figure out who the QB should be...so we got that going for us, which is nice

[Coach34]

You have no clue how the East scheduling went down. I'm going to go ahead and assume the AD's had 0 say in that decision.
.


They actually do- the AD's fight like hell to keep tradition games- Bama-Tenn, Auburn-Georgia, etc....and LSU is pissed because they have to keep playing Fla every year- and now have Georgia- while Bammer plays Kentucky and Tenn...

We arent the only program not happy on certain fronts

[starkvegasdawg]

Lets be honest. When you a 6-9 win team, SOS means absolutely zero. The 1 and only moment SOS means anything is if you're trying to get in the 4 team NC playoff.

EXACTLY. SOS has no bearing on whether or not we get into the Music City Bowl or not. Even bowls up to the level of Cotton and Outback probably couldn't give a wet fart about SOS. They have a ballpark win threshhold and then it comes down to which teams' fans will bring in the most $$$. If you notice, there are very few big OOC games for anybody in any BCS conference. The teams with the hardest OOC schedules are from the Sun Belt and other podunk conferences because they are getting paid 6 figures to come get their heads handed to them for the delight of the home team fans. The SEC has just taken the biggest beating for it because we have won almost every national championship in recent memory and the PAC12 fans have gotten their panties in a was about it so they beat up our OOC schedule while their teams go play Santa Monica Girl's School for the Blind. Until we consistently start competing and beating the big 3 in our division (which means we are in the national title hunt) then schedule Alcorn State, Tulane, and MTSU all day long.

[CadaverDawg]

I, like many of you thought the Ok State game was a good idea. But after a zillion threads arguing about it, and a little thought, I have decided the "cupcake lovers" are dead right. Here's why:

Why should we- Miss. State- with all the disadvantages we have in the SEC against the Big 7- play a harder schedule than they do? That's really ignorant if you think about it.

State plays 5 teams ranked in the top 12 in the country

Alabama- King of the SEC- plays 2. Two. Dos. Their East opponents? Kentucky and Tennessee. Good thing they played VT or their schedule would be embarrassing.

Texas A&M? Plays 2- not 5 like us- Two. Dos. Their OOC? Rice, Sam Houston St, SMU, and UTEP

Our fans want to compete in the West and "have a chance to win it all" right?
Then why should Mullen have a much harder road than Saban and Sumlin?
Why should we feel ashamed because 4 of our SEC games last year were against teams that underperformed- is that our fault?

People raise hell about our "easy" schedule last year- we still played more top 12 games than Bama did last year in the regular season. Think about and let it sink in- why does Mullen have to play a tougher schedule than Saban?

Count me in as a "cupcake lover" from now on. Bowl games are what it's about

Welcome, Coach. We on the "cupcake lover" side enjoy big wins and bowl games. We simply point and laugh at those 5-7 teams sitting at home during bowl season that are saying, "We had the toughest schedule in America!". How does that tough schedule taste with your cabbage on New Year's Day while watching my team in a bowl game?

Hopefully this was our last year of stupidity with the scheduling....unfortunately it will cost us a bowl streak unless a miracle happens.

[LiterallyPolice]

I think the big deal with Oklahoma State is not that we scheduled a BCS opponent, it's that we went out and scheduled damn near one of the hardest ones out there. You mention Kansas, we should sign them, Iowa State, Purdue, Colorado, etc. up for home and homes every 6 years or so. Teams with similar standing to us in their leagues. The 'Texas classic' or whatever was nothing but a pay day. I think scheduling the Kansas' of the world would keep our dumb fans happy to an extent too (the ones who want to see us play hard opponents).

I agree with this (I guess I'm one of our dumb fans). I would love to see us play Kansas (for example) rather than another SWAC/Sunbelt team. My main reason is that as a fan, I want us to do well and go to bowls but I also want to be entertained and enjoy football season. Watching us beat up on SWAC teams is boring; so is watching us be out of a game at halftime vs Alabama. The toss-up games are the best to watch, discuss, etc. Some may say that's selfish - but the truth is that if the team/season becomes boring to watch, fans will find better things to do with their time.

We should schedule BCS teams that we SHOULD beat, but people actually care about. (When you think about it, it's alot like boxing).

[cheewgumm]

You need tough teams to figure out tough truths...like our offense sucks ass, and our playcalling is too conservative. If we beat UAB, then Alcorn, then barely lose to Auburn...and Russell does not get concussed...then we have very little chance against LSU. And for everyone who says "Russell might have gotten concussed agasint UAB too"...I say bullshit. I've already been told that the drawback to playing Ok State is that we had injuries, so jsut another reason not to play them. If that's the case, then we assume no injuries againts UAB...so playing Ok State led to Dak starting, playcalling becoming more creative and now we have a legit chance that we would not have had , had we beaten UAB.

I will agree, that the same could have been done by moving the Auburn game to the 2nd game. It's not that our schedule is not tough enough...it's playing crappy teams 7 weeks straight.


I will say that Ok State has helped us figure out who the QB should be...so we got that going for us, which is nice

[CadaverDawg]

..but vs. OSU we were uninspired, undercoached, shy with contact & generally appeared pissed that we were forced to play a football game that day.

We could have played South Alabama with such a shitty attitude & gotten our 10 point win. It's a win, but the major flaws in our program wouldn't have been adequately exposed. OSU exposed MUllen for the uncreative wallflower he has become as a coach. Fortuntely, Auburn & Troy have revealed maybe Mullen is beginning to grow a pair again & is getting serious about competing.

Why does Dan MUllen have to play more top 12 teams than Saban?

Courtesy of Alabama Big Money & all that entails, Saban has a billion dollar shield of protection around him. Protection against certain annoyances like having to play too many highly ranked teams.

Meanwhile, Mullen is at the mercy of the dumb & poor. That translates into Mullen having to play pretty much nothing but highly ranked teams.

You make good points about what the OSU game revealed about Mullen. And to me, I look at it this way....if we have to schedule a tough OOC opponent just to wake our coach up and make him grow a pair, then we have not only a scheduling problem, but a COACHING problem too. That's why I'm not completely back on the Mullen bandwagon yet, because I could easily see him going back to conservative Dan against LSU and our team play uninspired sissy ball. If we come out and give them a 4 quarter fight, win or lose I will be closer to being content with Dan for the moment.

[CadaverDawg]

I agree with this (I guess I'm one of our dumb fans). I would love to see us play Kansas (for example) rather than another SWAC/Sunbelt team. My main reason is that as a fan, I want us to do well and go to bowls but I also want to be entertained and enjoy football season. Watching us beat up on SWAC teams is boring; so is watching us be out of a game at halftime vs Alabama. The toss-up games are the best to watch, discuss, etc. Some may say that's selfish - but the truth is that if the team/season becomes boring to watch, fans will find better things to do with their time.

We should schedule BCS teams that we SHOULD beat, but people actually care about. (When you think about it, it's alot like boxing).

What's more exciting? Watching us play Kansas State, lose, but not be as bored as you would watching us beat Alcorn?.....OR, watching us beat the shit out of Alcorn, be bored, but be excited to watch a bowl game at the end of the year, and not be bored watching IT.

What some of u forget is that it is worth putting up with a boring win if you will get your non-boring OOC contest on New Year's Day BECAUSE you scheduling that boring loss. Give me a boring win and then Michigan in a gator bowl, over Kansas State in an exciting loss and no bowl game because of that loss.

[Coach34]

Playing SWAC games is our way of helping Mississippi schools and keeping some money in the state as well as in our pockets.

It costs us 350K-400K to play Alcorn- it costs us 800K-1.2MM or more to get bigger names in Sville.

[cheewgumm]

...and no, I'm not saying I'm glad that Russell got a concussion.


You need tough teams to figure out tough truths...like our offense sucks ass, and our playcalling is too conservative. If we beat UAB, then Alcorn, then barely lose to Auburn...and Russell does not get concussed...then we have very little chance against LSU. And for everyone who says "Russell might have gotten concussed agasint UAB too"...I say bullshit. I've already been told that the drawback to playing Ok State is that we had injuries, so jsut another reason not to play them. If that's the case, then we assume no injuries againts UAB...so playing Ok State led to Dak starting, playcalling becoming more creative and now we have a legit chance that we would not have had , had we beaten UAB.

I will agree, that the same could have been done by moving the Auburn game to the 2nd game. It's not that our schedule is not tough enough...it's playing crappy teams 7 weeks straight.

[ShotgunDawg]

Maybe I'm missing something but my post supports the schedule easier argument.

This isn't the first time PassInterference has shown sub-par reading comprehension skills.

[smootness]

They actually do- the AD's fight like hell to keep tradition games- Bama-Tenn, Auburn-Georgia, etc....and LSU is pissed because they have to keep playing Fla every year- and now have Georgia- while Bammer plays Kentucky and Tenn...

We arent the only program not happy on certain fronts

I guess that's my point...it's not like every AD gets their way and Stricklin didn't because he has no backbone. Everyone fights, but ultimately the AD's don't actually have a say - they get what they're dealt by the conference. Priority is always given to the big rivalry games, and I don't have a problem with that. But this isn't going to be a yearly thing. They will enter a rotation like we used to have when it was 5 and 3. With Missouri and A&M getting thrown in, there were going to be a couple of years where they had to try to work everything out individually those years. But there is a lot more that goes into it than, who does everyone play this year?

There may be an advantage down the road to us playing SC this year, I don't know; but neither does anyone else. To suggest that if Stricklin had wanted, we could have played Vandy and Kentucky is crazy.

[Political Hack]

I guess that's my point...it's not like every AD gets their way and Stricklin didn't because he has no backbone. Everyone fights, but ultimately the AD's don't actually have a say - they get what they're dealt by the conference. Priority is always given to the big rivalry games, and I don't have a problem with that. But this isn't going to be a yearly thing. They will enter a rotation like we used to have when it was 5 and 3. With Missouri and A&M getting thrown in, there were going to be a couple of years where they had to try to work everything out individually those years. But there is a lot more that goes into it than, who does everyone play this year?

There may be an advantage down the road to us playing SC this year, I don't know; but neither does anyone else. To suggest that if Stricklin had wanted, we could have played Vandy and Kentucky is crazy.

Strick told multiple people that we were getting Vandy, then scheduled the Okie State game, and then got SC. He either got duped or was compliant. neither is acceptable.

[Todd4State]

Strick told multiple people that we were getting Vandy, then scheduled the Okie State game, and then got SC. He either got duped or was compliant. neither is acceptable.

Actuially, he went on the radio and said it I believe.

[Boya]

I, like many of you thought the Ok State game was a good idea. But after a zillion threads arguing about it, and a little thought, I have decided the "cupcake lovers" are dead right. Here's why:

Why should we- Miss. State- with all the disadvantages we have in the SEC against the Big 7- play a harder schedule than they do? That's really ignorant if you think about it.

State plays 5 teams ranked in the top 12 in the country

Alabama- King of the SEC- plays 2. Two. Dos. Their East opponents? Kentucky and Tennessee. Good thing they played VT or their schedule would be embarrassing.

Texas A&M? Plays 2- not 5 like us- Two. Dos. Their OOC? Rice, Sam Houston St, SMU, and UTEP

Our fans want to compete in the West and "have a chance to win it all" right?
Then why should Mullen have a much harder road than Saban and Sumlin?
Why should we feel ashamed because 4 of our SEC games last year were against teams that underperformed- is that our fault?

People raise hell about our "easy" schedule last year- we still played more top 12 games than Bama did last year in the regular season. Think about and let it sink in- why does Mullen have to play a tougher schedule than Saban?

Count me in as a "cupcake lover" from now on. Bowl games are what it's about


A key thing that often gets over looked is what you said about our SEC wins being against the underperforming teams...Shit that's how it is every year, The 4-6 "underperforming" teams are the ones that the other 8-10 teams beat up on. I would much rather be beating up on the underperforming teams than actually being one of the underperforming teams.

[smootness]

Strick told multiple people that we were getting Vandy, then scheduled the Okie State game, and then got SC. He either got duped or was compliant. neither is acceptable.

What if the SEC office told him we were getting Vandy, then later told him we were getting SC and he could deal with it?

What do you want him to do, pitch a hissy fit? Leave the conference?

We don't have a lot of leverage in football discussions, and it has nothing to do with who our AD is.

[Todd4State]

Sitting at home with a 4-8 record and bragging about the toughest schedule in the country is probably the most Mississippi State thing ever.

Everyone knows my scheduling formula by now.

In state SWAC- our fans like watching their bands, there is the in state appeal, and there is a lot of goodwill between all schools involved. It's a win/win on so many levels.

At Tulane- our players get to play in a NFL stadium and our fans get to party and watch our football team kick ass. Jean Lafitte would be proud of us because we completely raided the town the last time we played down there. Easy trip for a lot of our fans- especially on the Gulf Coast which is very important for us to recruit- not to mention New Orleans as well.

Army/Navy/Air Force- Beatable, but likely a bowl team, and no writer with a brain is ever going to criticize us for scheduling a service academy without pissing off a bunch of people in the nation's largest employer. They will draw well- Columbus AFB, Camp Shelby, etc. and it fits our schools ROTC heritage.

Sun Belt special- We have to play someone for homecoming.

[Todd4State]

What if the SEC office told him we were getting Vandy, then later told him we were getting SC and he could deal with it?

What do you want him to do, pitch a hissy fit? Leave the conference?

We don't have a lot of leverage in football discussions, and it has nothing to do with who our AD is.

You tell them you aren't sealing the deal with Oklahoma State until the SEC schedule comes out.

[gravedigger]

Not me. But I think we need to limit our 4th noncon to teams at the low end of major conferences. If we catch lightening in a bottle and miss a national championship b/c of too many perceived patsies no amount of straight bowl games will console me.

After all, we play to win it all. Not be pretty good most of the time.

I don't expect everyone to think the way I do, but this argument seems to flow in the direction of the outcome of the noncon games we play. Not on principle.

[Goat Holder]

If we win the SEC, we're going to the title. You seem to think playing 4 patsies hurts our SOS, when in reality, it is usually going to be Top 25 regardless just due to the SEC opponents.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I just can't find a way to get upset about it. We could and should have won the game. More important to me on this issue is my level of excitement toward a bowl earned for six wins on a 12 game schedule. Zero to one. The only good thing is the team building from the extra travel and practice. Exposure? As likely to embarrass as to help. As a fan, I just don't give a rip about an addendum to a mediocre season.

The reason I'd like to get six wins this season is to avoid a losing season. The bowl game is not even relevant.

[smootness]

You tell them you aren't sealing the deal with Oklahoma State until the SEC schedule comes out.

Maybe Stricklin thought that game was a good idea?

[Todd4State]

Maybe Stricklin thought that game was a good idea?

Well, then he's an idiot.

[CadaverDawg]

Well, then he's an idiot.

^Winner^

[Political Hack]

lmao. Thanks Todd for saving me the time.

[smootness]

Well, then he's an idiot.

Haha, obviously this was going to be the reply, and that's fine if you think scheduling that game was a bad idea. But it only means he made one bad decision.

It doesn't mean he's spineless, which was the argument. Pick which one you want to argue, and argue it, but don't keep moving the target.

[SheltonChoked]

What if we beat Alabama? Then the monkey is off too


Until a cupcake schedule costs us a spot in the playoff, we should play weir and Starkville academy.

[Political Hack]

he let the SEC office lie to him and change the schedule after he was told it would be Vandy. The Ninja would've Kung Fu'd someone and we'd have found LT with a sideways cowbell left between his cheeks.

We went from an 8 win ceiling to a 6 win ceiling in a matter of weeks at the hands of the SEC office. There is nothing more important, as an AD, than exerting some control over the schedule to ensure continued bowl trips and success.

If we miss a bowl game, Strick should be fired.

[cheewgumm]

I obviously would not be for this. But I'm wondering, would anyone be for resting our better players against teams like Alabama and LSU?


he let the SEC office lie to him and change the schedule after he was told it would be Vandy. The Ninja would've Kung Fu'd someone and we'd have found LT with a sideways cowbell left between his cheeks.

We went from an 8 win ceiling to a 6 win ceiling in a matter of weeks at the hands of the SEC office. There is nothing more important, as an AD, than exerting some control over the schedule to ensure continued bowl trips and success.

If we miss a bowl game, Strick should be fired.

[Political Hack]

I obviously would not be for this. But I'm wondering, would anyone be for resting our better players against teams like Alabama and LSU?

hell no. Those are the games we should be striving to win. That's the signature wins we need. Until we get those, beating Okie State is pointless.

[Barking 13]

All I'm trying to say is, If we could have won that game, all of this would be a moot point.. and it WAS winnable.... and it was a pretty good payday, playing in an NFL stadium, etc. just like starting off with a bowl game.. I don't want to do it every year, but the only way to get better, is to be competitive with better teams... what would you rather do, beat the crap out of cupcakes and get a false sense of security, then get blown out by Bama, etc. and get a mid level bowl game, to get killed by somebody like Northwestern? Still got a bad taste from last year...

[dawgs]

LSU is 6th in the country- it's big regardless. Had we beaten 2 cupcakes, Kansas, and Auburn- it would still be just as big.

The key to it all is getting wins- doesn't matter really over who. Weren't we ranked last year when we were 7-0?

lsu played tcu to open the season. if we played tcu, yall would have been howling too. same with bama playing VT. now over the course of the year ok st might end up losing 4-5 games and not be nearly as good as yall wanna make them out to be. or tcu/VT could win out and look a lot stronger in retrospect.

that said, i'm more concerned with being a good team than having a pretty record (as pretty at 6-6 or 7-5 can be i guess). some of yall need to get it through your heads that a bowl game doesn't mean you are good. i want to be good, and part of building a program is to incorporate a decent OOC game or 2 into the schedule. if we can't handle that then we aren't nearly as good as we think we are and maybe it's time to move along instead of propping up our record with 6 crappy Ws and a bbva bowl every year while using the excuse that we can't possibly fire a coach that takes us bowling most years, even if we have to rig the schedule for him to get us there.

[dawgs]

All I'm trying to say is, If we could have won that game, all of this would be a moot point.. and it WAS winnable.... and it was a pretty good payday, playing in an NFL stadium, etc. just like starting off with a bowl game.. I don't want to do it every year, but the only way to get better, is to be competitive with better teams... what would you rather do, beat the crap out of cupcakes and get a false sense of security, then get blown out by Bama, etc. and get a mid level bowl game, to get killed by somebody like Northwestern? Still got a bad taste from last year...

it's like people don't realize that good competition breeds success, much in the same way that competition for a starting spot can push both players to be better. yeah we lost, ok move along. beating jackson st or whoever in week 1 wouldn't make us a better team.

[dawgs]

I obviously would not be for this. But I'm wondering, would anyone be for resting our better players against teams like Alabama and LSU?

jesus man, grow a pair of balls. we aren't likely to win, but we'd get more respect around the conference by playing a tough game against bama/lsu than beating 4 cupcake non-conference opponents. hell, 90% of ole miss's respect from last year was keeping bama reasonably close and playing lsu tough. and half our damn fanbase would rather go play sw texas st 4 times in the non-conference schedule and sit our best players against the lsu's and bama's of the conference. you know what program isn't any better than ours but is on the rise and not acting like bitches about playing good non-conference teams? OLE MISS. meanwhile we pee our britches at the idea of a decent non-conference opponent and automatically start figuring out how it's gonna cost us 6 Ws like 6 Ws is something to be proud of.

[drunkernhelldawg]

lsu played tcu to open the season. if we played tcu, yall would have been howling too. same with bama playing VT. now over the course of the year ok st might end up losing 4-5 games and not be nearly as good as yall wanna make them out to be. or tcu/VT could win out and look a lot stronger in retrospect.

that said, i'm more concerned with being a good team than having a pretty record (as pretty at 6-6 or 7-5 can be i guess). some of yall need to get it through your heads that a bowl game doesn't mean you are good. i want to be good, and part of building a program is to incorporate a decent OOC game or 2 into the schedule. if we can't handle that then we aren't nearly as good as we think we are and maybe it's time to move along instead of propping up our record with 6 crappy Ws and a bbva bowl every year while using the excuse that we can't possibly fire a coach that takes us bowling most years, even if we have to rig the schedule for him to get us there.

You said it better than I did. Amazing that something this obvious would have to be said.

[cheewgumm]

Relax, I'm on your side buddy.


jesus man, grow a pair of balls. we aren't likely to win, but we'd get more respect around the conference by playing a tough game against bama/lsu than beating 4 cupcake non-conference opponents. hell, 90% of ole miss's respect from last year was keeping bama reasonably close and playing lsu tough. and half our damn fanbase would rather go play sw texas st 4 times in the non-conference schedule and sit our best players against the lsu's and bama's of the conference. you know what program isn't any better than ours but is on the rise and not acting like bitches about playing good non-conference teams? OLE MISS. meanwhile we pee our britches at the idea of a decent non-conference opponent and automatically start figuring out how it's gonna cost us 6 Ws like 6 Ws is something to be proud of.

[dawgs]

Had we had 2 cupcake games to start the season, we would've been much better prepared for Auburn. We'd be 4-0 with the CBS game against LSU.

Give me 4 cupcakes all day long.

right because that approach worked so well last year. #7-0 #webelieve

hilarious that kicking the shit out of tulane or memphis would have made us better prepared. that would have just masked our problems that would have been exposed against auburn.

sure we aren't gonna be competing for many BCS bowls/playoff spots where SoS matters, but to me, i'm far more excited about playing a ok st type game to start the season than i'd be about playing a 6-6 pitt team in another low level bowl after another 6 W season with 4 cupcakes, kentucky, and whatever down SEC program we catch while getting the dogshit kicked out of us by everyone half decent.

[Barking 13]

it's like people don't realize that good competition breeds success, much in the same way that competition for a starting spot can push both players to be better. yeah we lost, ok move along. beating jackson st or whoever in week 1 wouldn't make us a better team.

Just like in competitive bass fishing.. you can rule your club, but jump on up there and fish against them BASS or FLW boys and see what happens... If you can consistently hang with them then you can probably say you are good...

[Coach34]

right because that approach worked so well last year. #7-0 #webelieve

hilarious that kicking the shit out of tulane or memphis would have made us better prepared. that would have just masked our problems that would have been exposed against auburn.
.

the problems we had last year wouldnt have been fixed by playing a tougher schedule and being 5-2 instead of 7-0 headed to Bama. All it would have meant is that we would have ended up 6-6 and playing in Birmingham instead of playing in the Gator Bowl with an 8-4 record.

Last year was abnormal- we had Auburn and Tenn scheduled last year- two traditional SEC power teams

Gator Bowl > Shitty Bourbon Bowl bid

[dawgs]

What's more exciting? Watching us play Kansas State, lose, but not be as bored as you would watching us beat Alcorn?.....OR, watching us beat the shit out of Alcorn, be bored, but be excited to watch a bowl game at the end of the year, and not be bored watching IT.

What some of u forget is that it is worth putting up with a boring win if you will get your non-boring OOC contest on New Year's Day BECAUSE you scheduling that boring loss. Give me a boring win and then Michigan in a gator bowl, over Kansas State in an exciting loss and no bowl game because of that loss.

1) if we only get to a bowl because we played 4 cupcakes, then we have 6 Ws, we aren't gonna be playing a NYD bowl with 6 Ws.

2) i don't get excited about crappy bowls. sure i watched the music city bowl against fellow crappy 6-6 wake forest, but if i had had something else worthwhile going on (tickets to a good concert, a friend inviting us over for a dinner party, whatever you can come up with that you enjoy), i wouldn't have ditched it to stay home and watch msu in a crappy bowl. why? because it's not exciting. now obviously the gator bowl v. michigan was exciting because we hadn't been bowling in a few years, especially not a NYD bowl, and we were playing one of the great all time CFB programs. and the gator bowl v. NW was decent, but a bit of a let down considering how our season ended (not the bowl per se, just the vibe around our team). maybe it's just me, but i was far more excited about the ok st game to start the year than i would have been about whatever crappy bowl it might have cost us.

[bocfarm]

maybe it's just me, but i was far more excited about the ok st game to start the year than i would have been about whatever crappy bowl it might have cost us.

This!

4 cupcakes and 2-6 in conference and honestly, you don't deserve to go to a bowl game. Meanwhile the fans with a nutsack are screaming to DM & Staff to BEAT SOMEBODY WORTH A SHIT!!!! That's how you define a good program not going 2-6 and playing another shitty team in a terrible bowl game

[dawgs]

the problems we had last year wouldnt have been fixed by playing a tougher schedule and being 5-2 instead of 7-0 headed to Bama. All it would have meant is that we would have ended up 6-6 and playing in Birmingham instead of playing in the Gator Bowl with an 8-4 record.

Last year was abnormal- we had Auburn and Tenn scheduled last year- two traditional SEC power teams

Gator Bowl > Shitty Bourbon Bowl bid

pay attention to what i was responding to. i responded to a post stating "Had we had 2 cupcake games to start the season, we would've been much better prepared for Auburn. We'd be 4-0 with the CBS game against LSU." i merely disagreed with that and pointed to last year as an example that playing and beating crappy teams doesn't better prepare you for the bama's and lsu's of the world. if anything, hypothetically, maybe russell doesn't get hurt against uab or tulane and we wouldn't have had the dak starting at auburn. and who knows, maybe we wouldn't have moved the ball as well as we did and lost by more.

[CadaverDawg]

1) if we only get to a bowl because we played 4 cupcakes, then we have 6 Ws, we aren't gonna be playing a NYD bowl with 6 Ws.

2) i don't get excited about crappy bowls. sure i watched the music city bowl against fellow crappy 6-6 wake forest, but if i had had something else worthwhile going on (tickets to a good concert, a friend inviting us over for a dinner party, whatever you can come up with that you enjoy), i wouldn't have ditched it to stay home and watch msu in a crappy bowl. why? because it's not exciting. now obviously the gator bowl v. michigan was exciting because we hadn't been bowling in a few years, especially not a NYD bowl, and we were playing one of the great all time CFB programs. and the gator bowl v. NW was decent, but a bit of a let down considering how our season ended (not the bowl per se, just the vibe around our team). maybe it's just me, but i was far more excited about the ok st game to start the year than i would have been about whatever crappy bowl it might have cost us.

You're missing a key point...nobody cares what the hell YOU or I care about. It's about what is best for the program, not what's best for Mr. I don't want to be bored. Playing tough competition doesn't do SHIT for our program except give us a worse record and a shittier bowl, or no bowl at all.

Not trying to say "you" personally don't matter, but "we" don't matter...it's what will help us in recruiting and what will propel e program, and losing doesn't do that...no matter how you slice it. We, as fans, will support the team as long as we are winning (and should even when we're losing), so we really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Or shouldn't, when it comes to scheduling games, as long as we have home games to attend

[CadaverDawg]

This!

4 cupcakes and 2-6 in conference and honestly, you don't deserve to go to a bowl game. Meanwhile the fans with a nutsack are screaming to DM & Staff to BEAT SOMEBODY WORTH A SHIT!!!! That's how you define a good program not going 2-6 and playing another shitty team in a terrible bowl game

Well, try recruiting to a Lower tier SEC program by having to say..."well no Mr. 4 star recruit, we didn't go bowling...but did you see us get our ass whipped in the opener? It was on a pro field against a good team!! Yippee!" [recruit walks out]

[Political Hack]

you have to be good at knowing when "you're there." We're not there. We were close but this schedule will set us back one, possibly two years.

[CadaverDawg]

you have to be good at knowing when "you're there." We're not there. We were close but this schedule will set us back one, possibly two years.

Exactly. And by default, if in doubt...we ain't "there"

[dawgs]

Well, try recruiting to a Lower tier SEC program by having to say..."well no Mr. 4 star recruit, we didn't go bowling...but did you see us get our ass whipped in the opener? It was on a pro field against a good team!! Yippee!" [recruit walks out]

if a 4* recruit is considering us seriously over programs like bama, lsu, florida, and uga, then he knows what he's getting into and our lack of bbva bowl trophies isn't going to sway him either way.

[dawgs]

You're missing a key point...nobody cares what the hell YOU or I care about. It's about what is best for the program, not what's best for Mr. I don't want to be bored. Playing tough competition doesn't do SHIT for our program except give us a worse record and a shittier bowl, or no bowl at all.

Not trying to say "you" personally don't matter, but "we" don't matter...it's what will help us in recruiting and what will propel e program, and losing doesn't do that...no matter how you slice it. We, as fans, will support the team as long as we are winning (and should even when we're losing), so we really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Or shouldn't, when it comes to scheduling games, as long as we have home games to attend

i live 2000+ miles away and usually only make it home for 1 game a year, if that. i'll never come back for a game against alcorn st or mtsu or tulane. however, i'd strongly consider coming back for our home game of a home and home with a quality program, so my dollars can speak for themselves.

i'd also wager to say bbva and liberty bowls aren't exactly program builders once you are past year 1 or 2 of a HC's tenure.

"hello mr. 4* recruit, did you watch us beat the c-usa champion 20-14 in the liberty bowl?!?! wasn't that amazing? we ended up 7-6 on the year and lost to the decent opponents on our schedule by an average of 20+ ppg, but we went bowling! we are on the rise bayyybeee!"

[CadaverDawg]

i live 2000+ miles away and usually only make it home for 1 game a year, if that. i'll never come back for a game against alcorn st or mtsu or tulane. however, i'd strongly consider coming back for our home game of a home and home with a quality program, so my dollars can speak for themselves.

i'd also wager to say bbva and liberty bowls aren't exactly program builders once you are past year 1 or 2 of a HC's tenure.

"hello mr. 4* recruit, did you watch us beat the c-usa champion 20-14 in the liberty bowl?!?! wasn't that amazing? we ended up 7-6 on the year and lost to the decent opponents on our schedule by an average of 20+ ppg, but we went bowling! we are on the rise bayyybeee!"

Ole Miss and their top 5 class disagrees. By the way, they had several top croots there.

[cheewgumm]

They out-recruited us when we beat them 45-0.

At least according to the rankings...how do you explain that?


Ole Miss and their top 5 class disagrees. By the way, they had several top croots there.

[Political Hack]

They out-recruited us when we beat them 45-0.

At least according to the rankings...how do you explain that?

it's clearly because they played a more difficult schedule that year than we did.****

[cheewgumm]

Oh no...its obvious their going to bowls EVERY year...they are growing their program.


it's clearly because they played a more difficult schedule that year than we did.****

[Todd4State]

i live 2000+ miles away and usually only make it home for 1 game a year, if that. i'll never come back for a game against alcorn st or mtsu or tulane. however, i'd strongly consider coming back for our home game of a home and home with a quality program, so my dollars can speak for themselves.

i'd also wager to say bbva and liberty bowls aren't exactly program builders once you are past year 1 or 2 of a HC's tenure.

"hello mr. 4* recruit, did you watch us beat the c-usa champion 20-14 in the liberty bowl?!?! wasn't that amazing? we ended up 7-6 on the year and lost to the decent opponents on our schedule by an average of 20+ ppg, but we went bowling! we are on the rise bayyybeee!"


Our how many sell outs in a row also speak for themselves. As does the half full Reliant Stadium.

[Todd4State]

Oh no...its obvious their going to bowls EVERY year...they are growing their program.

OK- well, we could cheat our ass off and get put on probation aGAIN. Or we could actually try to build a sustainable team for a change.

[CadaverDawg]

They out-recruited us when we beat them 45-0.

At least according to the rankings...how do you explain that?

I explain it by saying, if they can beat us in recruiting when we ARE bowling...how bad can they bury us if we're not??

It's amazing that you guys are saying it is better for our program to play and lose to OSU than to play a weaker team and have a winning record and play in a bowl game. It absolutely blows my mind at how ridiculous some of our fans can be. Can you not read that statement and see how silly that is?

If you're a recruit, would you rather play for a winning team or a losing team? Because 7-6 is a winning record, and 5-7 is a losing record. Also, would you rather feel confident that you will be going to some out of town location for a bowl game and getting some SWAG at the end of the year? It's absolutely a ridiculous argument.

I feel like we spend most of our time on this board arguing about two things that are damn near indisputable and are really NO argument at all...Prescott at QB, and a weaker OOC is better for our program.

[cheewgumm]

We're not all assuming we are going to lose those games.



I explain it by saying, if they can beat us in recruiting when we ARE bowling...how bad can they bury us if we're not??

It's amazing that you guys are saying it is better for our program to play and lose to OSU than to play a weaker team and have a winning record and play in a bowl game. It absolutely blows my mind at how ridiculous some of our fans can be. Can you not read that statement and see how silly that is?

If you're a recruit, would you rather play for a winning team or a losing team? Because 7-6 is a winning record, and 5-7 is a losing record. Also, would you rather feel confident that you will be going to some out of town location for a bowl game and getting some SWAG at the end of the year? It's absolutely a ridiculous argument.

I feel like we spend most of our time on this board arguing about two things that are damn near indisputable and are really NO argument at all...Prescott at QB, and a weaker OOC is better for our program.

[gravedigger]

I cannot live with the chance that our one moment in time, if everything comes together and we are good enough to be in the NC game, that we are denied because a number of people who vote use our non conference schedule to put us on the outside looking in. Dont say it cannot happen because it very well could. Bama, LSU Florida, Georgia, and the other nationally respected teams, no. But MSU, UK, Ole Miss, Vandy....you better believe they would bump us for another school if both had a loss. ESPECIALLY IF our non conference schedule looked like it did last year.

I'm not a fan because of a hope we can string together a number of years going to bowls. I'm a fan because of the chance, no matter how small, that we can win it all. I cant see any other reason to be a fan.

But also dont get me wrong.....I'm not advocating lining up anyone currently in the top 20. I say look at the bottom of the big 12, the acc, the big 10, and the pac 12. Surely this is mutually beneficial with a home and home.

Make the other 3 non conference games an in state school, Tulane or Memphis (or both) and one major conference team like Indiana, Kansas, Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Washington State, Rice, SMU, nc state, unc, Texas Tech, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, West Virginia, Virginia. Yea, we'll be unlucky and catch them when they are good. We'll be just as lucky at other times.

With the Networks paying so much money and having so much influence, they will become the biggest enemy of any school playing 4 patsies. It's just the way it is. They are using it as a top story EVERY single week. The first time this controversy comes up in selecting the 4th team to be in the playoff, they are going to hammer it harder, and dont think for a second the sec will be exempt because of it's NC's. They fewer snoozefest and more options for interesting matchups. Interconference television games that they can get broader audiences from. They will villify any school that backs down.

In the end, if we miss out on a bowl this year because we played OSU and lost, I'll be dissapointed. But that would be short term compared to being bumped from the NC game because we CHOSE to play an extra patsy that only provided a meaningless number in the win column.

[Political Hack]

so grave, do you think four top ten teams is enough or should it be five?

[dawgs]

I explain it by saying, if they can beat us in recruiting when we ARE bowling...how bad can they bury us if we're not??

It's amazing that you guys are saying it is better for our program to play and lose to OSU than to play a weaker team and have a winning record and play in a bowl game. It absolutely blows my mind at how ridiculous some of our fans can be. Can you not read that statement and see how silly that is?

If you're a recruit, would you rather play for a winning team or a losing team? Because 7-6 is a winning record, and 5-7 is a losing record. Also, would you rather feel confident that you will be going to some out of town location for a bowl game and getting some SWAG at the end of the year? It's absolutely a ridiculous argument.

I feel like we spend most of our time on this board arguing about two things that are damn near indisputable and are really NO argument at all...Prescott at QB, and a weaker OOC is better for our program.

i think that in year 5 of a HC's tenure, we should either be to the point we aren't scared to play 1 pretty good OOC opponent out of 4. and if we are still scared, then it's time to serious consider whether the HC is right for the program. 5 years is plenty of time to build the program to that point. ole miss went on the road and beat TEXAS in year 2 of freeze. yeah they caught them in a bad season, but just beating that name on the road does wonders for perception among the general public, recruits, and the media. and ole miss could have probably paid a few million dollars to back out of the home and home and instead scheduled north texas or something crap and guaranteed a W, but they didn't back down. and knowing your coaches, admin, and fans expect you to be able and go out and beat a good team does wonders for your confidence. if any of our players read any of the msu boards over the summer, they all saw how 75% of the fanbase was scared shitless and didn't believe they'd win the game.

[LiterallyPolice]

I explain it by saying, if they can beat us in recruiting when we ARE bowling...how bad can they bury us if we're not??

It's amazing that you guys are saying it is better for our program to play and lose to OSU than to play a weaker team and have a winning record and play in a bowl game. It absolutely blows my mind at how ridiculous some of our fans can be. Can you not read that statement and see how silly that is?

If you're a recruit, would you rather play for a winning team or a losing team? Because 7-6 is a winning record, and 5-7 is a losing record. Also, would you rather feel confident that you will be going to some out of town location for a bowl game and getting some SWAG at the end of the year? It's absolutely a ridiculous argument.

I feel like we spend most of our time on this board arguing about two things that are damn near indisputable and are really NO argument at all...Prescott at QB, and a weaker OOC is better for our program.

I completely agree that, for the most part, weaker OOC is better for out PROGRAM as it stands right now. What you are failing to see is that from the perspective of some fans, who are looking to be entertained, they would rather see us play a good team early in the season in a high profile game (a game that, I might add, we may win) with the risk being a loss bumps us down in the bowl pecking order, possibly to no bowl at all.

With that said, OSU was a reach this year, especially considering our tough SEC schedule.

[CadaverDawg]

I completely agree that, for the most part, weaker OOC is better for out PROGRAM as it stands right now. What you are failing to see is that from the perspective of some fans, who are looking to be entertained, they would rather see us play a good team early in the season in a high profile game (a game that, I might add, we may win) with the risk being a loss bumps us down in the bowl pecking order, possibly to no bowl at all.

With that said, OSU was a reach this year, especially considering our tough SEC schedule.

No. I am seeing it... I just don't think the right decision is to sacrifice the betterment of the program so that a few fans can have an exciting loss to watch instead of a boring win. But I see what you're saying, I just don't agree with those opinions.

[CadaverDawg]

i think that in year 5 of a HC's tenure, we should either be to the point we aren't scared to play 1 pretty good OOC opponent out of 4. and if we are still scared, then it's time to serious consider whether the HC is right for the program. 5 years is plenty of time to build the program to that point. ole miss went on the road and beat TEXAS in year 2 of freeze. yeah they caught them in a bad season, but just beating that name on the road does wonders for perception among the general public, recruits, and the media. and ole miss could have probably paid a few million dollars to back out of the home and home and instead scheduled north texas or something crap and guaranteed a W, but they didn't back down. and knowing your coaches, admin, and fans expect you to be able and go out and beat a good team does wonders for your confidence. if any of our players read any of the msu boards over the summer, they all saw how 75% of the fanbase was scared shitless and didn't believe they'd win the game.

Who said anybody is "scared" to play better opponents. Just because a game is more 50/50 than 99/1, doesn't make us "scared". I wasn't "scared" to play OSU...I just knew that it would be more of a toss up and less of a guaranteed win, therefore there was a great chance (50% or more) that we would lose and it could keep us from bowling. That doesn't mean I'm scared to play them, it means I'm being realistic. That's what some of you fail to realize.

[CadaverDawg]

We're not all assuming we are going to lose those games.

Well based on our history, every time we DO play those tougher OOC opponents, we typically lose. Unless we catch them at the right time like we did Texas during the Sherrill years, and like OM did with Texas this year. But a majority of the time, by scheduling a tougher OOC team, you're scheduling a loss. But even if it isn't a loss, there's still a greater chance at a loss, and when you're playing 5 Top 12 teams a year, why in the bloody hell would you want to make your schedule EVEN TOUGHER? It literally makes no sense.

Do you guys realize that we already have a tougher schedule after SEC play than most ANY OTHER CONFERENCE team in America....yet you think we should make it TOUGHER? Think about how ridiculous that sounds. That would even be crazy if we were Alabama. Especially since we currently play a schedule twice as hard as Alabama and their fans aren't griping about playing Georgia Southern.

[MemphisDawg]

I'm not reading through 100 posts but again here is mine.

As long as you are ok with NEVER beating A&M Bama LSU or any other top teir sec team then keep scheduling cupcakes. We will win those and prolly split every year with OM Auburn Arky and other east team.

Then in out best season win all four of those and at best go 9-3. Then go ahead and schedule all cupcakes.

If you want hopes at making Atl and becoming a nationally reps pecked team then we need to keep scheduling harder games put pressure on the coaches. If they can't win then make changes. Eventually you will find the right combo and maybe compete for Atl and Playoffs.

[Political Hack]

How does beating a top shelf BCS conference school help us make the SECCG?

Wouldn't staying healthy and beating our SEC opponents be more of a priority? This "playing Oklahoma State helps us against Bama" BS is only BS.

[CadaverDawg]

I'm not reading through 100 posts but again here is mine.

As long as you are ok with NEVER beating A&M Bama LSU or any other top teir sec team then keep scheduling cupcakes. We will win those and prolly split every year with OM Auburn Arky and other east team.

Then in out best season win all four of those and at best go 9-3. Then go ahead and schedule all cupcakes.

If you want hopes at making Atl and becoming a nationally reps pecked team then we need to keep scheduling harder games put pressure on the coaches. If they can't win then make changes. Eventually you will find the right combo and maybe compete for Atl and Playoffs.

Haha, ridiculous. Yea so much pressure that nobody will ever want to coach here bc THOSE ARE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

[cheewgumm]

If everyone believes ok state is a sure loss, then bama and lsu are sure losses as well. Given that we should just rest our good players and prepare for it ut Martin and Arkansas .

[Coach34]

I'm not a fan because of a hope we can string together a number of years going to bowls. I'm a fan because of the chance, no matter how small, that we can win it all. I cant see any other reason to be a fan.
.

72 years for us....51 years for anybody outside of the "Big 6"

Thats how long between SEC Titles- and that gap is wider now, it's not narrowing.

We do not have a chance to win the SEC title as long as the SEC is putting 4 and 5 teams in the top 10. The SEC has to come back to us for us or OM, Kentucky, etc to have a chance at the title (1998 is a perfect example). If the SEC heavyweights will cycle back like they did in the late 1990's- we have a chance then. But with the way money has grown and the SEC has morphed into this Super Power- our window is gone.

If you cant be happy with a Miss State team winning 8 games- no matter if he played a juco schedule- then you will spend the rest of your life unhappy.

[cheewgumm]

I honestly wouldn't even watch if I felt this way. The only reason I watch is the thought that we can compete.

I do wonder what everyone's thoughts would be if ole miss beat bama. Would they go " oh it can be done." Or would they claim that this is the retarded fruit of ole miss' building their program over time ?


72 years for us....51 years for anybody outside of the "Big 6"

Thats how long between SEC Titles- and that gap is wider now, it's not narrowing.

We do not have a chance to win the SEC title as long as the SEC is putting 4 and 5 teams in the top 10. The SEC has to come back to us for us or OM, Kentucky, etc to have a chance at the title (1998 is a perfect example). If the SEC heavyweights will cycle back like they did in the late 1990's- we have a chance then. But with the way money has grown and the SEC has morphed into this Super Power- our window is gone.

If you cant be happy with a Miss State team winning 8 games- no matter if he played a juco schedule- then you will spend the rest of your life unhappy.

[Coach34]

I honestly wouldn't even watch if I felt this way. The only reason I watch is the thought that we can compete.

I do wonder what everyone's thoughts would be if ole miss beat bama. Would they go " oh it can be done." Or would they claim that this is the retarded fruit of ole miss' building their program over time ?

Reality is a bitch. 72 years is a long damn time. 51 years since anybody outside the Big 6- that's just as telling. That's a shit ton of evidence on my side- what you got on your side?

And even if a miracle happened and OM beat Bama- they would still have to go thru LSU, A&M, State, Auburn, and Georgia or SC in the SEC title game. It's one thing to pull an upset- but you still have to beat 3-4-5 top 10 teams to do it- not just 1.

[gravedigger]

To answer your question directly.....4 is fine for now. BUT......


I think there should be super conferences ultimately. 8 of them to be exact. 16 teams in each conference. Notre Dame can go play with themselves if they don't like it.


Edited to add: the championship would then be the result of the 8 conferences playing each other in a tournament.

[cheewgumm]

I bet stand bury is at home reading this screaming " where were these lowered expectations for my program?!?!?'"

[gravedigger]

I'll reverse it then. If you can compromise your shot at all the marbles for the safety of placing, well, you'll guarantee that you never experience true happiness.

My happiness as a State fan does not depend on bowl games or a string of them or a conference championship. My happiness as a fan is that my team play the best it can and never take it's eyes off the real prize.

Do that and the outcomes are fine with me.

Perhaps it's just my competitive spirit. When I was 12, I didn't believe Tom Seaver could strike me out and I would have loved to have had the shot to prove it. I would have given up just about anything to prove it.

I'm 46 with a spare tire and I still believe it. I just cant imagine any legitimate player on any team that won a national championship thinking, "I'm sure glad we played South Alabam instead of OSU, otherwise we may not have gotten here".

[Todd4State]

To the "let's play someone like Kansas crowd"- if we played them or someone like Duke- we're going to have to have a return game somewhere like Topeka, KS and that's going to cost us a home game. There was a time where we would play about six home games. Playing seven home games is a big component in this as well- that's an extra game for recruits to go to and for MSU to make money. Troy on the other hand- we get two home games, only one road game and we save money as far as things like travel and what we would have to pay Troy to play them vs. Kansas. Not a for or against playing someone like Kansas- but just something to keep in mind.

[codeDawg]

Reality is a bitch. 72 years is a long damn time. 51 years since anybody outside the Big 6- that's just as telling. That's a shit ton of evidence on my side- what you got on your side?

And even if a miracle happened and OM beat Bama- they would still have to go thru LSU, A&M, State, Auburn, and Georgia or SC in the SEC title game. It's one thing to pull an upset- but you still have to beat 3-4-5 top 10 teams to do it- not just 1.

It's really simple. You have to spend money to win in football today. Our athletic budget is next to last over UM or last behind them depending on who you ask. The top 6 athletic budgets are guess who? The ones that have been winning all the championships. Now add A&M in there and boom. When Alabama falters A&M will be there to pick up the pieces.

UM is succeeding because they are running and exploitative program. They run an offense that exploits weaknesses in modern defenses and they recruit in a way that exploits the NCAA's inability to enforce violations. Talent + scheme = wins. One of the two of these things will catch up with them financially soon because they are poor. Either Freeze will leave for money or the NCAA will catch up because they don't matter to the league financially.

Both UM and MSU can best hope to run a program that is consistent and deep. Every few decades a 1998 will happen and you have to be ready to take what you can get, but we won't compete year in and year out.

Like Coach said, if you are expecting anything more, expect to be disappointed.

[cheewgumm]

Damnm, we should jsut skip the LSU game. Hopeless.


It's really simple. You have to spend money to win in football today. Our athletic budget is next to last over UM or last behind them depending on who you ask. The top 6 athletic budgets are guess who? The ones that have been winning all the championships. Now add A&M in there and boom. When Alabama falters A&M will be there to pick up the pieces.

UM is succeeding because they are running and exploitative program. They run an offense that exploits weaknesses in modern defenses and they recruit in a way that exploits the NCAA's inability to enforce violations. Talent + scheme = wins. One of the two of these things will catch up with them financially soon because they are poor. Either Freeze will leave for money or the NCAA will catch up because they don't matter to the league financially.

Both UM and MSU can best hope to run a program that is consistent and deep. Every few decades a 1998 will happen and you have to be ready to take what you can get, but we won't compete year in and year out.

Like Coach said, if you are expecting anything more, expect to be disappointed.

[Todd4State]

I'll reverse it then. If you can compromise your shot at all the marbles for the safety of placing, well, you'll guarantee that you never experience true happiness.

My happiness as a State fan does not depend on bowl games or a string of them or a conference championship. My happiness as a fan is that my team play the best it can and never take it's eyes off the real prize.

Do that and the outcomes are fine with me.

Perhaps it's just my competitive spirit. When I was 12, I didn't believe Tom Seaver could strike me out and I would have loved to have had the shot to prove it. I would have given up just about anything to prove it.

I'm 46 with a spare tire and I still believe it. I just cant imagine any legitimate player on any team that won a national championship thinking, "I'm sure glad we played South Alabam instead of OSU, otherwise we may not have gotten here".

It's not about "fear". It's about doing what is best for MSU. Playing Michigan in the Gator Bowl and beating the ever living crap out of them > playing Michigan at the Big House in week two and beating the ever living crap out of them. Why? More exposure and money with a bowl vs. a regular season game.

And let's actually pull a 2004 Auburn before we start talking about BCS scenarios- which would not have happened under the current playoff system. Simply put with the new system- we go 13-0 or 12-1 we're in playoffs with my model of scheduling.

[Todd4State]

How does beating a top shelf BCS conference school help us make the SECCG?

Wouldn't staying healthy and beating our SEC opponents be more of a priority? This "playing Oklahoma State helps us against Bama" BS is only BS.

As I said yesterday- that theory is only valid if you are in a weak conference. We are not in a weak conference.

You hear that from high school coaches- for example, Madison Central's district is extremely weak. They knew that they were going to have to play South Panola- so they play a difficult non-district schedule. If the MHSAA woke up tomorrow and decided to make a super conference with MC, South Panola, Olive Branch, Tupelo, Meridian, Biloxi, Brandon, and Oak Grove- I guarantee you MC's out of district schedule would be Canton, Ridgeland, Germantown, and Grenada.

[gravedigger]

Fear? Please explain. I didn't use the word or insinuate it in anything I said. Fear is a part of every true challenge and quite necessary though.

[Todd4State]

The guys talking about wanting to play Oklahoma State to prove that we aren't "scared" are probably the same guys that would step in the cage vs a MMA fighter to prove that they aren't scared.

The end result is the same- they get their ass kicked and no one cares that they got their ass kicked even though the hope in their mind is that people will somehow think they are tough.

[SPMT]

Lets be honest. When you a 6-9 win team, SOS means absolutely zero. The 1 and only moment SOS means anything is if you're trying to get in the 4 team NC playoff.

Absolutely!

[gravedigger]

You don't step in the ring or the batters box to prove anything. You do it to accept the challenge. Perhaps that is the root of the whole debate. It's the difference in being thought of by some else as the best and actually being the best.

The two are worlds apart.

[Barking 13]

We are going to win all of those big games one day..... if you don't think so, just go ahead and move on to Tuscaloosa... but I am a realist also... I love MSU and always will, no matter who they play. Like I've said before, I was around and had season tickets when Rockey was picking grass in the first quarter. Talk about no hope! But now, with the talent, facilities, etc. we have, if you can't have the guts to schedule one freaking OOC game that is a good payday, that you actually have the tools to win, you might as well pull out of the SEC and move to the Sunbelt. You win that one and it may propel you to actually overacheiving and winning games people who never give MSU any respect (ESPN etc.) say you are going to lose... as far as I can remember, it's always been "wait til next year". Well, it's next year.. and so what if we had a hard game. (that was winnable) Get over it...

[smootness]

Haha, ridiculous. Yea so much pressure that nobody will ever want to coach here bc THOSE ARE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

This is hilarious coming from you.

[codeDawg]

Damnm, we should jsut skip the LSU game. Hopeless.

I hope you are just being an ass instead of being dumb enough to not realize the difference between realistic expectations of a program and enjoyment of an individual football game.

[dawgs]

Well based on our history, every time we DO play those tougher OOC opponents, we typically lose. Unless we catch them at the right time like we did Texas during the Sherrill years, and like OM did with Texas this year. But a majority of the time, by scheduling a tougher OOC team, you're scheduling a loss. But even if it isn't a loss, there's still a greater chance at a loss, and when you're playing 5 Top 12 teams a year, why in the bloody hell would you want to make your schedule EVEN TOUGHER? It literally makes no sense.

Do you guys realize that we already have a tougher schedule after SEC play than most ANY OTHER CONFERENCE team in America....yet you think we should make it TOUGHER? Think about how ridiculous that sounds. That would even be crazy if we were Alabama. Especially since we currently play a schedule twice as hard as Alabama and their fans aren't griping about playing Georgia Southern.


games like oregon and byu at the end of the sherrill era and wvu and gt during the croom years (and year 1 of mullen) don't really count. those were some of our worst teams we've fielded in the last 20 years. it's as much as they caught us at a great time as us catching them at a bad time.

[dawgs]

To the "let's play someone like Kansas crowd"- if we played them or someone like Duke- we're going to have to have a return game somewhere like Topeka, KS and that's going to cost us a home game. There was a time where we would play about six home games. Playing seven home games is a big component in this as well- that's an extra game for recruits to go to and for MSU to make money. Troy on the other hand- we get two home games, only one road game and we save money as far as things like travel and what we would have to pay Troy to play them vs. Kansas. Not a for or against playing someone like Kansas- but just something to keep in mind.

it's lawrence, not topeka.

and if msu and kansas played a home and home, neither would pay each other unless someone backed out of the deal. you only pay out when you are getting more home games (i.e. 2-for-1 or paying alcorn st to play in starkville).

[dawgs]

It's not about "fear". It's about doing what is best for MSU. Playing Michigan in the Gator Bowl and beating the ever living crap out of them > playing Michigan at the Big House in week two and beating the ever living crap out of them. Why? More exposure and money with a bowl vs. a regular season game.

And let's actually pull a 2004 Auburn before we start talking about BCS scenarios- which would not have happened under the current playoff system. Simply put with the new system- we go 13-0 or 12-1 we're in playoffs with my model of scheduling.

i disagree. in week 2 michigan was highly regarded than they were by the time the gator bowl rolled around with a dead man walking HC. if we roll into the big house and replicated our gator bowl performance, it gives us an early high profile W and might have given us enough momentum to pull off the auburn and/or arkansas games and go to a better bowl against a better team.

[cheewgumm]

if we lose, because they are almost certains its gonna happen.


I hope you are just being an ass instead of being dumb enough to not realize the difference between realistic expectations of a program and enjoyment of an individual football game.

[CadaverDawg]

i disagree. in week 2 michigan was highly regarded than they were by the time the gator bowl rolled around with a dead man walking HC. if we roll into the big house and replicated our gator bowl performance, it gives us an early high profile W and might have given us enough momentum to pull off the auburn and/or arkansas games and go to a better bowl against a better team.

Or since we were playing poor enough to lose to Auburn early in the season, we could have easily LOST to Michigan and had a decent 7 win season after that, and ended up in the liberty Bowl. We can "if" and "but" this thing to death....but we only have history and current facts to go off of. And history is that we lose most of those games. And facts are that we DO NOT NEED THEM in order to have a high SOS or to even get into a BCS Championship game if we are ever fortunate enough to win all of our games. So why make it tougher? Who's to say the year we scheduled Oklahoma State, we won every single game after that first game, and that very "tough OOC" game kept us from the national Championship? See how easy that is.

[CadaverDawg]

games like oregon and byu at the end of the sherrill era and wvu and gt during the croom years (and year 1 of mullen) don't really count. those were some of our worst teams we've fielded in the last 20 years. it's as much as they caught us at a great time as us catching them at a bad time.

They "don't count"? Why, because we sucked? Well I hate to break it to you, but we could be staring at a 4-5 win season THIS year, so that kinda kills your argument doesn't it? If we didn't need to schedule those tough OOC games then, why would we need to now? And besides, a lot of those games are scheduled way in advance, so we didn't know that Oregon would be strong, Houston would be strong, WVU would be strong, etc. but we KNEW OSU would be strong, so that decision made even less sense than normal.

[dawgs]

They "don't count"? Why, because we sucked? Well I hate to break it to you, but we could be staring at a 4-5 win season THIS year, so that kinda kills your argument doesn't it? If we didn't need to schedule those tough OOC games then, why would we need to now? And besides, a lot of those games are scheduled way in advance, so we didn't know that Oregon would be strong, Houston would be strong, WVU would be strong, etc. but we KNEW OSU would be strong, so that decision made even less sense than normal.

they "don't count" in the way that when vandy would go get the shit kicked out of them by michigan or someone and then you'd hear people saying things like "the big 10 is 1-0 against the sec!!1!11!!11" doesn't count. if we'd played those teams in 97-00 or 2010, i feel like we'd be looking back saying "we normally do pretty well in these kinda games".

*i don't subscribe to the idea that a completely or partially different group of players and a completely or partially different coaching staff in previous seasons has any bearing on what our current players and coaching staff does in a game. just because there's a correlation does not mean there's anything tangible causing it. losing to oregon in '01-'02 has no bearing on whether we'd lose to ok st in 2013.

[CadaverDawg]

they "don't count" in the way that when vandy would go get the shit kicked out of them by michigan or someone and then you'd hear people saying things like "the big 10 is 1-0 against the sec!!1!11!!11" doesn't count. if we'd played those teams in 97-00 or 2010, i feel like we'd be looking back saying "we normally do pretty well in these kinda games".

*i don't subscribe to the idea that a completely or partially different group of players and a completely or partially different coaching staff in previous seasons has any bearing on what our current players and coaching staff does in a game. just because there's a correlation does not mean there's anything tangible causing it. losing to oregon in '01-'02 has no bearing on whether we'd lose to ok st in 2013.

Kinda like OSU's win over us will be no big deal if we finish 4-8 or 5-7 this year? I agree. But will it "count"...YES. It won't be a big win for them, but will be a big loss for us, because it could keep us from bowling and from being considered a "winning" program. Not to mention we can't tell recruits we have been to 4 straight bowls, etc.

Just agree to disagree I guess.

[dawgs]

Or since we were playing poor enough to lose to Auburn early in the season, we could have easily LOST to Michigan and had a decent 7 win season after that, and ended up in the liberty Bowl. We can "if" and "but" this thing to death....but we only have history and current facts to go off of. And history is that we lose most of those games. And facts are that we DO NOT NEED THEM in order to have a high SOS or to even get into a BCS Championship game if we are ever fortunate enough to win all of our games. So why make it tougher? Who's to say the year we scheduled Oklahoma State, we won every single game after that first game, and that very "tough OOC" game kept us from the national Championship? See how easy that is.

how can you give me a speech about ifs and buts when you have been talking about all the things that would have been different if we didn't play ok st this year?

it's year 5 and mullen is getting laps run around him by freeze in year 2. and look at kentucky and what stoops is doing on the cruitin trail and soon kentucky will be running laps around us too. i want to find out if mullen has the balls to get it done or not, i don't want to set him up for "success", if he can't cut it, then find someone who can. freeze and stoops (and franklin) are moving forward with the 4 programs usually keeping us company in the bottom of the sec, while i see us regressing on the field. and it's not like vandy, ky, or OM had much of a streak streak to pitch recruits, definitely a much worse streak that we had to pitch them. the last thing i wanna do is beat my chest over bbva bowls and the 13th or 14th best cruitin class in the sec, so let's get someone else in here if mullen can't step up his game.

i guess my point is that maybe we don't NEED to schedule ok st, but we sure as hell shouldn't be bitching about it like yall are. the extra bowl practices and the bowl streak hasn't really helped us thus far, so why should i think a 4th straight bowl (and a crappy bowl at that) will suddenly pay off big dividends? therefore, i don't see the ultimate risk of playing ok st to be that risky. going 5-7 and missing a bowl v. going 6-6 and making the bbva or liberty or independence bowl just doesn't have much material affect on the program moving forward imo, and if anything forces us to take a real look at the program instead of hiding behind the facade of a "successful" season.

[cheewgumm]

I realize this wont sway anyone, and it could be coach speak..but Matthew Stevens must be reading Elitedawgs becuase he asked Mullen about opening with Ok State:

"Mullen still has a very high opinion of what opening up vs. Oklahoma State in Houston did for the program. Says team has improved each week."

[Political Hack]

I realize this wont sway anyone, and it could be coach speak..but Matthew Stevens must be reading Elitedawgs becuase he asked Mullen about opening with Ok State:

"Mullen still has a very high opinion of what opening up vs. Oklahoma State in Houston did for the program. Says team has improved each week."

Funny, I thought he would've taken that chance to rip our AD, SEC, city of Houston, Advocare, and his players. I'm shocked he said something positive instead.

[cheewgumm]

Were you the one that said our loss to Auburn proved that playing Ok State did not help us? I need to look back and find who that was that took one game (Auburn) and came to that conclusion.


Funny, I thought he would've taken that chance to rip our AD, SEC, city of Houston, Advocare, and his players. I'm shocked he said something positive instead.

[maroonmania]

What's more exciting? Watching us play Kansas State, lose, but not be as bored as you would watching us beat Alcorn?.....OR, watching us beat the shit out of Alcorn, be bored, but be excited to watch a bowl game at the end of the year, and not be bored watching IT.

What some of u forget is that it is worth putting up with a boring win if you will get your non-boring OOC contest on New Year's Day BECAUSE you scheduling that boring loss. Give me a boring win and then Michigan in a gator bowl, over Kansas State in an exciting loss and no bowl game because of that loss.

The other point is that there ARE teams somewhere between OSU and Alcorn. I think we can all accept at this point that we will play one FCS school per year so that's a moot point. But with the other 3 I'm fine with playing all non-BCS conference schools but if we do include a BCS team it should be one that is not at the top of their conference. In some year's past we scheduled BCS teams enough in advance that they were much better than expected by the time we played them. However, we scheduled the OSU game only 10 months before the game. We knew what we were getting.

[Political Hack]

Were you the one that said our loss to Auburn proved that playing Ok State did not help us? I need to look back and find who that was that took one game (Auburn) and came to that conclusion.

don't think that was me, but it is a relevant argument since we've only played two BCS teams to this point and lost to both. Okie State apparently did not help us beat Auburn. They also left us with several key injuries.

[cheewgumm]

nmj


don't think that was me, but it is a relevant argument since we've only played two BCS teams to this point and lost to both. Okie State apparently did not help us beat Auburn. They also left us with several key injuries.

[Political Hack]

no. Auburn helped us get ready for LSU.

[CadaverDawg]

no. Auburn helped us get ready for LSU.

Haha, using their own argument against them...nice. I must say, it's much more fun to have Hack on my side in an argument.

[cheewgumm]

Ok so playing better opponent helped. Welcome aboard.

[Coach34]

I'm just trying to figure out if I can claim victory if we beat LSU.

Coach34- 8/19/2013:

"Coach's big prediction???? State finally beats LSU in 2013- stuck in between Georgia and Fla for them- and we have the week off to get ready. Mullen gets his sig win the haters will finally acknowledge."

[SheltonChoked]

Last year we were 11 in the bcs before Alabama. If we won out we would have played ND. Why do we need to play a harder ooc?

[CadaverDawg]

Last year we were 11 in the bcs before Alabama. If we won out we would have played ND. Why do we need to play a harder ooc?

Because it's Boring watching us beat Troy!!!11!1!1!1!1!1!!!! I wanna see summa dem really good teams!!!!1!1!1!! It'll make us better to play dem gooduns!!!1!1!! We WOULD HAVE gone underfeated had we played more gooduns OOC last year!!111!1!

***

You're absolutely 100% correct

[Coach34]

Last year we were 11 in the bcs before Alabama. If we won out we would have played ND. Why do we need to play a harder ooc?

how can this be? We played a weakass schedule???

[dawgs]

don't think that was me, but it is a relevant argument since we've only played two BCS teams to this point and lost to both. Okie State apparently did not help us beat Auburn. They also left us with several key injuries.

so we'd have been better off against auburn with russell playing QB instead of dak? got it.

[Political Hack]

so we'd have been better off against auburn with russell playing QB instead of dak? got it.

yes. zero percent chance we win that game with Dak.

it's higher than that with TR.

[dawgs]

Last year we were 11 in the bcs before Alabama. If we won out we would have played ND. Why do we need to play a harder ooc?

i'm not looking at this from the perspective of us competing for a title anytime soon, i've long ago accepted it'll be a cold day in hell before msu every has a shot at a title.

but there are 2 schools of thought when building a program. you can take the florida st approach and play anyone, anywhere, and bust your ass to get to the point of beating them. or you can take the kansas st approach of playing as many cupcakes as you can pay to play you. i think we are somewhere in between the 2 and there's nothing wrong with that. nothing at all.

[dawgs]

yes. zero percent chance we win that game with Dak.

it's higher than that with TR.

did you watch the same tyler russell i did at the end of last season and at the start of the ok st game? how can any sane person think our offense is better with russell than dak at this point?

and for a team with "zero percent" chance of winning the game with dak, we were a few conservative playcalls down the stretch/overly conservative D on the final drive from winning the game. if we play that game 10 times @ auburn with dak QBing, i think we'd win about half the time.

[gravedigger]

And let's actually pull a 2004 Auburn before we start talking about BCS scenarios- which would not have happened under the current playoff system.


2 problems with this quote

1. Lets actually be burned first? Really? When this happened as recently as 2004? You think MSU can afford to 'learn a lesson?'
2. It damn sure can happen. MSU wins all but one game against, say, LSU (insert Bama, A&M, Auburn, Georgia, Florida if need be). Who, as we've all seen before, will most certainly be defined as having a down year right after we beat them. THEN they take that with the 4 cupcakes and whala.......ANY team in the country with a legit argument to be in the top four will leapfrog us. Make it the championship game and it's sure to happen.

Fact is, our university has moved on from the 'make any bowl you can at any cost' stage. Our fans may not have. But our team has to set a higher goal based on what division of what conference we play in. Birmingham, Memphis and Nashville are consolation prizes and not very good ones at that. If we schedule to make them as a higher priority than being in the hunt for the top 4, then we are exactly what Jim Carmody once called us....."Big time losers".

No great athlete ever thought the way our fans seem to. And thank goodness. If our players ever adopt this "4 cupcakes because I'm a realist" attitude, we wont have another winning season.

[Political Hack]

did you watch the same tyler russell i did at the end of last season and at the start of the ok st game? how can any sane person think our offense is better with russell than dak at this point?

and for a team with "zero percent" chance of winning the game with dak, we were a few conservative playcalls down the stretch/overly conservative D on the final drive from winning the game. if we play that game 10 times @ auburn with dak QBing, i think we'd win about half the time.

Dak played. We lost. Game's over. Zero percent.

I think Tyler would've picked that porous secondary apart, but hopefully my opinion doesn't hurt your feelings too bad.

[CadaverDawg]

Dak played. We lost. Game's over. Zero percent.

I think Tyler would've picked that porous secondary apart, but hopefully my opinion doesn't hurt your feelings too bad.

0% chance. Game's over, he didn't play, we lost, Zero percent.

[Coach34]

how can any sane person think our offense is better with russell than dak at this point?
.

I've wondered the same thing myself numerous times

[smootness]

Dak played. We lost. Game's over. Zero percent.

That is an awful argument.

[CadaverDawg]

That is an awful argument.

We haven't agreed a ton lately, smoot....but I agree with this 100%

[Political Hack]

We haven't agreed a ton lately, smoot....but I agree with this 100%

100% chance we didn't beat Dak with Auburn. Not sure how you can argue against that. pretty definitive there.

[Todd4State]

2 problems with this quote

1. Lets actually be burned first? Really? When this happened as recently as 2004? You think MSU can afford to 'learn a lesson?'
2. It damn sure can happen. MSU wins all but one game against, say, LSU (insert Bama, A&M, Auburn, Georgia, Florida if need be). Who, as we've all seen before, will most certainly be defined as having a down year right after we beat them. THEN they take that with the 4 cupcakes and whala.......ANY team in the country with a legit argument to be in the top four will leapfrog us. Make it the championship game and it's sure to happen.

Fact is, our university has moved on from the 'make any bowl you can at any cost' stage. Our fans may not have. But our team has to set a higher goal based on what division of what conference we play in. Birmingham, Memphis and Nashville are consolation prizes and not very good ones at that. If we schedule to make them as a higher priority than being in the hunt for the top 4, then we are exactly what Jim Carmody once called us....."Big time losers".

No great athlete ever thought the way our fans seem to. And thank goodness. If our players ever adopt this "4 cupcakes because I'm a realist" attitude, we wont have another winning season.

Yes, we can afford to "learn a lesson". What happened in 2004 has only happened ONCE in the entire BCS history. Literally the only other time something similar would have happened would have been 1978 I think. If we happen to have a dream season- it's even less likely to happen to us because as it is with then taking four teams in a playoff, the teams in question those two years would have still would have had a shot to play for the National Title.

Ironically, the last time we played Oklahoma State was 1999- the year the media constantly bashed our schedule. We can't totally control media perception. If we play four really tough teams, they'll probably nitpick the homecoming team we play or say that the SEC is "down". Other than the AD stepping up and promoting us and our players better- something that we have constantly failed to do.

And as far as your last comment- I'm sure Gen. Pickett's soldiers thought they could take that hill before they were all mowed down in Gettysburg. The players don't control the schedule. It's up to the AD to put them in a position to succeed. Just because you have Navy SEALS doesn't mean you do something to make their mission more difficult because the Army commanders want to be entertained more or because you want to prove how tough the SEALS are. The military puts them in the best position that they can to succeed- if at all possible.

[CadaverDawg]

100% chance we didn't beat Dak with Auburn. Not sure how you can argue against that. pretty definitive there.

You're right, we "didn't beat Dak with Auburn".

[Political Hack]

You're right, we "didn't beat Dak with Auburn".

the one time I'm actually wrong and you at I'm right.