Schedule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dantheman4248

Individual player NFL talent doesn't equate to better overall teams. Just use 2018 MSU as a solid example of that.

As for recency, I'd say 2013-2015 was the "peak" of the SEC and now we're on a downward trend as a whole from that. Last year we may have had 15 first rounders but we had 7 just plain bad teams. Compare with 2014 when the entire West was full of good teams with Vanderbilt as the only objectively bad team. Kentucky was a 4 pt loss to Louisville away from being the 13th bowl eligible team that year.

---

While individual players don't equate to it necessarily,if you have one. But your MSU 18 is a terrible example. It led to the best defense in the country and only an idiot as a head coach kept us from being a legit sec championship contender. Fact is you have to have elite talent in at least some spots to compete. You can't name a team that's won an sec championship Wo it. We had elite had numerous spots!! Minus the head coach....

Don't get me wrong though... I like leach, and I think he'll win here. I just don't think it's this year. I do wanna see us recruit defense better though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Don't get me wrong though... I like leach, and I think he'll win here. I just don't think it's this year. I do wanna see us recruit defense better though

---

I don't think the reason we aren't getting defensive guys is Bc of leach. I think it's just the state is bad. Heck the saving grace right now IS ML and that's helped us get the offensive class we have. Thank goodness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

Projected win totals per Action Network
Georgia 8.29
Alabama 7.89
Florida 7.66
TexasA&M 7.63
LSU 7.51
Auburn. 7.03
Ole Miss 5.12
Kentucky 4.73
Tennessee 4.67
SouthCarolina 4.09
Missouri 2.75
Mississippi State 2.35
Arkansas 0.96
Vanderbilt 0.33

...

Saw this on SPS

ETA... they have a 16-pt dog to OM. They have no credibility after I saw that.

---

That's 17'n hilarious!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaroonFlounder

Fowler talked about how SEC should stay with 10-game SEC when things get back to normal AND keep the 1 P5 opponent every year. That leaves only 1 game vs a smaller school.

Jeez. We'd never win more than 4 or 5 in a season if that comes to be.

---

I'd be OK with that if they could come up with a system that leveled the playing field somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

I'd be OK with that if they could come up with a system that leveled the playing field somehow.

---

They would have to get every other P5 conference to agree to do the same thing as the SEC IMO.

I'd actually like to see a 15 game regular season. 11 conference games, 3 OOC games against another D1 team- doesn't matter if it's P5 or G5 and then one FCS team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

I don't think the reason we aren't getting defensive guys is Bc of leach. I think it's just the state is bad. Heck the saving grace right now IS ML and that's helped us get the offensive class we have. Thank goodness

---

Correct.
Worse year on the defensive side of the ball for In state talent that I can remember.. and juco as well..
next year is suppose to be pretty good on that side of the ball Let’s see how the staff does .
We have recruited defensive players well over the last decade.. CML just needs to continue that..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I've made my mind up that I'm going to give the defense a pass this year & hope to see the Leach offense really grow & develop as the year progresses.

I feel that you can recruit enough good defensive players at MSU that the Leach program won't be held hostage, long term by a bad defense, & thus I won't be too concerned if it sucks this year.

My happiness this year will be based almost fully on the offense & toughness & organization of the team.

Anything good that we do on defense is gravy to me

---

totally agree with this .... Let's not forget perspective here. While we aren't necessarily in a rebuilding year - we are however in a Re-Design year with a new coach and staff and heading in a new offensive direction and should temper our expectations.... the key here is to implement and then improve. Even Saban got kicked around his 1st year at Bama and we all know he was already a winning coach ... this is a crazy year with a schedule packed with more competition than what we are used to .... at best, we need to view this season as a benchmark to measure progress ...... and as a GIFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

I'd be OK with that if they could come up with a system that leveled the playing field somehow.

---

Only real way to level the playing field would be to reduce the number of scholarships but nobody will even talk about that. Instead everything is about NIL and further payments to players which is just going to further widen the divide between the elite power programs and everybody else.

We can lose to anybody on our schedule with the exception of Vandy. Keep that in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bothrops

We can lose to anybody on our schedule with the exception of Vandy. Keep that in mind.

---

Arkansas?

Pretty much every team in the SEC can lose to the vast majority of their schedule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Arkansas?

Pretty much every team in the SEC can lose to the vast majority of their schedule

---

Yep. Arkansas is desperately looking for that 30 game slump buster and are dangerous for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

It will be crazy & none of our predictions have even touched on the idea that players for every team will miss games.

Like, what if Kellen Mond & Bo Nix don't play against us because they have COVID? What if Costello doesn't play againt Mizzouri?

---

If it is late in the season (like Missouri), then we will not have a huge drop off. Leach has a QB throw a pass to all the eligible receivers, each snap of practice. If 5 guys are in the pattern, Costello, Schrader, Rodgers, Mayden and Burnett will all throw a pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bothrops

Yep. Arkansas is desperately looking for that 30 game slump buster and are dangerous for us.

---

So because they are desperate, they are scary? Is Vandy not also desperate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Ok I'll take LSU and give you the money line 5-1. How much you want ?

---

I don't bet money Brett but I do feel like that could be our upset game mainly due to them not being well prepared for our Offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

If you will read HIs post he was talking about us winning the game..... so the money line was the proper one.... don't take line bets for the most part. But I will take the +16 vs the rebels that I saw today!!

---

No what I said was we aren't just going to give them the game. I think it could be close and we have a chance at a W

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbell

No what I said was we aren't just going to give them the game. I think it could be close and we have a chance at a W

---

Which you just repeated. "we have a chance at a W"..... And i'm saying no we don't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbell

I don't bet money Brett but I do feel like that could be our upset game mainly due to them not being well prepared for our Offense.

---

just go watch wsu film, it's not like ML is gonna change it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Which you just repeated. "we have a chance at a W"..... And i'm saying no we don't

---

Ok - well I will make an exception for you - $50 to you if we lose (guaranteed money). $1000 to me if we win. Easy money for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Only real way to level the playing field would be to reduce the number of scholarships but nobody will even talk about that. Instead everything is about NIL and further payments to players which is just going to further widen the divide between the elite power programs and everybody else.

---

Amen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Only real way to level the playing field would be to reduce the number of scholarships but nobody will even talk about that. Instead everything is about NIL and further payments to players which is just going to further widen the divide between the elite power programs and everybody else.

---

Correct.

What’s funny is that the best players should want reduced schollies as that offers them a much greater chance of getting paid.

In order to ever pay college athletes, schools have to lean up and reduce Title 9 issues

I predict there will not be an undefeated team in the SEC. If there is a play off there will be a three lose team in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

I predict there will not be an undefeated team in the SEC. If there is a play off there will be a three lose team in it.

---

I believe you're right Jack. Bama will lose at least one game. And I hope that game is on 10/31.

who knows with bama... they are not discussing any players opting out.. instead keeping it in house Saban said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Correct.

What?s funny is that the best players should want reduced schollies as that offers them a much greater chance of getting paid.

In order to ever pay college athletes, schools have to lean up and reduce Title 9 issues

---

If the SEC/P5 can remove themselves from the NCAA or get greater autonomy, maybe there could be a system where the number of new scholarships (not the total number) is increased to 30, BUT you lose 1 the following year for every conference game you win this year. So at least the teams at the bottom of the standings get some kind of way to catch back up. So this year, we could bring in 27, while Arkansas brings in 30 and LSU brings in 22. This is me spitballing, and I haven't done any kind of long-term analysis on what this would mean, but it seems like it would nudge the teams toward parity without forcing it.

You're never going to make Vanderbilt as attractive as Alabama to the elite recruits, but you can at least give them more chances to find 3-star diamonds and coach them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

If the SEC/P5 can remove themselves from the NCAA or get greater autonomy, maybe there could be a system where the number of new scholarships (not the total number) is increased to 30, BUT you lose 1 the following year for every conference game you win this year. So at least the teams at the bottom of the standings get some kind of way to catch back up. So this year, we could bring in 27, while Arkansas brings in 30 and LSU brings in 22. This is me spitballing, and I haven't done any kind of long-term analysis on what this would mean, but it seems like it would nudge the teams toward parity without forcing it.

You're never going to make Vanderbilt as attractive as Alabama to the elite recruits, but you can at least give them more chances to find 3-star diamonds and coach them up.

---

Going to be impossible I think to get any sort of parity that people view as fewer opportunities for kids to go to school. DOesn't matter if the total number of scholarships offered across the SEC are the same; people will view Joe Bob not getting a scholarship to his state school b/c they only offer 22 while Arkansas offers 27 to people who are not Joe Bob as inequitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Going to be impossible I think to get any sort of parity that people view as fewer opportunities for kids to go to school. DOesn't matter if the total number of scholarships offered across the SEC are the same; people will view Joe Bob not getting a scholarship to his state school b/c they only offer 22 while Arkansas offers 27 to people who are not Joe Bob as inequitable.

---

That doesn't really bother me. If you live in Montana, the Dakotas, Maine, or New Hampshire, your state school doesn't offer as many football scholarships as most state schools. If you live in Alaska or Vermont, your state school doesn't even have college football scholarships to begin with.

So I may be lost. But are y?all saying reducing scholarships will create more parity against the big boys? Seriously we would pick up better athletes but so would they. Fewer scholarships means the big boys still get the elite. We in turn get the next group and then the non power 5 gets stronger on players we can?t develop. So you still have the elite being elite. Us still at a talent deficit and the non power 5 becoming stronger.
I like that it can help the non power 5 and lower divisions but it still leaves us in the middle weaker because we still can?t close the gap while we lose the developmental players that have kept us competitive

Parity meh. E same people that want parity in football to improve our position which it probably still wouldn't, would be raising hell if baseball made it where bama could compete w us. Put your big boy drawers on and make the most of what you have. We will never be a national contender year in year out. Once in a blue moon? Dan proved that's possible.

Also you are taking opportunities away from talented players because there are less opportunities. Either way you are keeping power to the blue bloods. Giving fewer athletes more power and eliminating the opportunities for the diamonds who may mature later and give up their dreams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Parity meh. E same people that want parity in football to improve our position which it probably still wouldn't, would be raising hell if baseball made it where bama could compete w us. Put your big boy drawers on and make the most of what you have. We will never be a national contender year in year out. Once in a blue moon? Dan proved that's possible.

---

This is dead on.
On another note, put your big boy drawers on and take the bet I offered you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbell

This is dead on.
On another note, put your big boy drawers on and take the bet I offered you.

---

What bet? I must've missed it
ETA. Ha hell no. I'm not taking less than what I can get in Vegas. But I'll take 100 from you and I'll put up 500. Just like my original bet or I'll even let you go 50-250your call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

What bet? I must've missed it
ETA. Ha hell no. I'm not taking less than what I can get in Vegas. But I'll take 100 from you and I'll put up 500. Just like my original bet or I'll even let you go 50-250your call.

---

You said there is no chance. I'm literally offering you free money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

So because they are desperate, they are scary? Is Vandy not also desperate?

---

Yeah...a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgcap

So I may be lost. But are y?all saying reducing scholarships will create more parity against the big boys? Seriously we would pick up better athletes but so would they. Fewer scholarships means the big boys still get the elite. We in turn get the next group and then the non power 5 gets stronger on players we can?t develop. So you still have the elite being elite. Us still at a talent deficit and the non power 5 becoming stronger.
I like that it can help the non power 5 and lower divisions but it still leaves us in the middle weaker because we still can?t close the gap while we lose the developmental players that have kept us competitive

---

Picked this response to reply to but so many in this chain I disagree with. First, its not about making the elite not be the elite because the best football programs will always be the best programs no matter the scholarship count. Its about closing the gap to make things a little more competitive. Right now there are truly only about 8-10 programs out of the 120+ in FBS that have ANY realistic chance to win a NC. If you reduced say from 85 to 75 scholarships total and took 10 away from Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Georgia, etc. and distributed those guys out to other programs it would close the talent gap a bit. That's all anyone is saying. Those elite programs would still be the best but the margin would shrink a bit and make college football more competitive overall (which should make it a better overall product). More parity in the NFL is what makes it the great product that it is today. And football should only need the scholarships needed to field a complete team, it should not be a 'scholarship program'. And those scholarships should not be lost anyway, they should be taken from the fat football programs and moved to scholarship starved programs like men's baseball. I mean college baseball players don't deserve opportunities as well? Additional scholarships in that sport would make it a better quality product as well as more players would go to college rather than sign pro. And its the glut of football scholarships for men that cause all the Title IX issues anyway where there are a ton of women's programs needed to try and balance out the scholarship count where men get none. For example, men soccer players don't deserve ANY opportunities? Bottom line is college football is not very competitive across the board currently and things like NIL is just going to make it even worse because it will just be one more reason for the best prospects to ONLY go to the highest profile programs with the largest fanbases. I mean who really wants to see a football game, even between two P5 programs, where the point spread going in is well over 20? Nobody really, but there are a bunch of those.