https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...dule-strength/
No need for them to announce the 2026 MSU schedule. I'm sure it will be:
Bama
LSU
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
UGA
Tennessee
Florida
Auburn
Printable View
https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...dule-strength/
No need for them to announce the 2026 MSU schedule. I'm sure it will be:
Bama
LSU
Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
UGA
Tennessee
Florida
Auburn
Our permanent opponents will probably be Ole Miss, Texas A&M, and Kentucky, but it's possible that Auburn gets in there.
Any guesses on our 3 permanents? Obviously Ole Miss, I am hoping Kentucky, and then I am sure Bama or Texas or someone like that. It may be more like OM, Bama, and LSU.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Alabama and LSU have other priorities. Texas will take Arkansas as their third probably (after Oklahoma and Texas A&M)Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
That will be interesting. If they really are focusing on SOS, then they should pair off a number of "have not" programs so the "have" schools maximize SOS. Stick us with Vandy, OM, and SC or Arkansas so we don't hurt the SOS of the "real" programs. I'm certain that will work out.****Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
It's already been reported/rumored that there are 8 "more prestigious" programs in the conference and 8 "lesa prestigious" programs, and everyone will get 2 opponents in their own tier and 1 in the other tier.
So for example, Auburn definitely gets Georgia and Alabama, so their 3rd will be someone like Vanderbilt or us, or Arkansas, etc.
We will get Ole Miss for sure. I predict A&M for our more prestigious opponent, but it could be Auburn. For our 3rd, we'll get stuck with someone, and I suspect Kentucky.
The wrinkle in this is that a couple years ago, Tennessee was in the less prestigious half, meaning Alabama could have Auburn, LSU (highest rated game most years), and Tennessee, but is that fair? I would say still yes because they never have to play themselves, but they'll argue they should drop LSU for someone weaker. Not sure if the networks will want that though.
Also- schools will be required to play 1 game against a team in a P4
Oh, we'll get screwed while OM gets Vandy, LSU and us. I'd bet we get Bama as one of the two other than OM.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
I'd take the barn, but obviously would rather have Vandy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
I'd rather swap Aub for TAMU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
We should be ecstatic if that is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Yep - 3 teams that we should be able to beat at least half the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
KY - we lead 26-24 all time
A&M - we are 8-9 all time, 5-5 over last 10 in SEC play
OM - we are close 50/50 since games returned to campus in '91
BFTGE is 17-17 since going back to campus in 91Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
The SEC owes us a reasonable schedule for once. I understand it's the SEC and you can't avoid everyone like Bama, Georgia, Texas, and LSU but playing as many playoff teams as we are going to this year is setting us up- and pretty much anyone else- for failure.
The second thing is MSU is going to have to be a little bit smarter with their P4 opponent. The first thing is don't schedule opponents 10 years out. And I'm just randomly making this up as an example but Texas Tech might be a 3-9 team when we schedule them but when we actually play them they might be a 10-2 team on the road. Also scheduling teams out that far in advance pretty much eliminates the possibility of us playing in a Kickoff Classic. And if we're going to play people like Purdue, Wake Forest, or Rutgers- yeah MSU is going to have to pay.
We have Minnesota the next 2 seasons I think.
We are cooked in football.
So we can go 3-9 every year in the SEC and thank them for the nice check that doesn't help us get better or we can go 7-5 to 9-3 in the Sunbelt and go to a bowl every year with the odd chance of winning the league at 10-2 and making a playoff. But everyone thinks we are better off going 3-9 just so we can say we are a Bottom 4 team in the prestigious SEC. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
SEC: Hey State here is your 2-10 to 3-9 schedule every year but enjoy your nice check and make sure you spend it all on 2 and 3 star athletes and Inexperinced head coaches!!!
Some loser posts in here.
The issue here is that if we don?t stay in the SEC we will eventually be left out and moved to a 2nd tier league. Over the next 5 to 10 years there are only going to be two conferences with either 20 or 24 teams. We need to make sure we stay put in order to secure our future. It won?t happen until the ACC splits, but that will be coming soonQuote:
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious
Just biding time until full rev share and some type of collective bargaining.
This is going to happen anyway if State doesn't make a commitment financially. Going 3-9, 4-8, 5-7 on the regular is going to turn fans off. In a poor state like Mississippi they are already turning the fans off with ticket prices, NIL, Portal, and Coaches salaries. Once the attendance drops below 35,000, it isn't going to matter about SEC prestige. But I think my previous post may have been misinterpreted as I would prefer to move out of the SEC. Absolutely not! But I also don't want to watch my favorite college team have losing records just so the fans can stick out their chest and say, BUT.... SEC BABY!!! That is bull crap. WIN or find a place where you can win! Don't be the whipping boy and lovable loser!! THAT is a LOSER mentality!Quote:
Originally Posted by PGHBulldogBG
Just WIN BABY!!
Every "less prestigious" school in the Power Four, including a bunch of SEC and Big 10 schools, need to be united in support of a Super League that has 70-80 schools, not 40-48 and certainly not even fewer than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PGHBulldogBG
I just looked at the list of 136 FBS football schools (Delaware & Missouri State joined this year).Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
There are at least 50 schools that have no business in the Top layer of football. There are another 20 that are borderline unqualified. That next tier, that includes some SEC, ACC, Big12 and B1G schools have other successful programs besides football that should keep them in strong consideration for a Super League. I guarantee you a Super League with 40 schools would NOT include State! Legacy SEC will not mean crap when the powers put that league together!
I agree with this. If they were drafting the top 40 schools we would not be a part of it. If that?s the route they go then we are out of luck, but if they keep the SEC and Big 10 together we need to stay put. If they do disperse the conferences that is at least further down the road. I don?t really know if that will happen in the near future, but I?m confident college football will split into several tiers where only the top tier 2 conferences get to compete for a real NCQuote:
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious
We will not be left out of SEC anything. That's not even a concern.
I like the idea of 72: 8 divisions of 9 teams, all of which who play a round robin (leaving room for 4 out-of-division games) and send 16-32 teams to the playoffs. Maybe you go 73 and keep Notre Dame as Independent, or maybe even 76 and include the service academies (since they do bring good ratings).Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainObvious
The real intriguing question is whether you have some kind of promotion/relegation and let the teams earn their spot in the 72/76 fairly, or just lock out everyone forever. It would be fair and exciting, but we just can't support it as a school for obvious reasons.
Truth! but you can't tell dumbasses on this board that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
https://fishofgold.net/wp-content/up...up_francis.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
check out our SEC record and then we are adding another P4. Facts gonna fact
Usual suspects, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
The best thing that could happen for MSU when that happens is 65 man roster limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Lowering roster limits is absolutely the best way to make college football more competitive. That's why I was so flustered when they actually raised the roster numbers. And raising roster limits just cost the schools more money and doesn't bring in a cent more. Also, football is the only college sport with bloated roster numbers in comparison to the other sports. I was a big proponent of dropping the 85 to at least 75 even before NIL and the transfer portal were a thing. And I agree that having to play 10 Power 4 games out of 12 each year is going to be tough on us. Holiday plans will be easier though given we will be in less bowl games. I wonder how they are even going to fill all the bowl slots going to this format. Will definitely be less SEC teams making it to 6-6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
If bowls exist in 10 years, I bet they'll fully drop the 6-6 requirement and just let whoever wants to play in one do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
It’s a rough time on the board when C34 is the voice of reason. I jest…but in all seriousness. Why is there any reason to believe the SEC is going to kick us out? The Bama, Tex, and LSUs of our conference wouldn’t ask to replace us with someone who will compete every year?
There will not be a move to go to a 65 roster. Why would the SEC want to even the playing field? They in no want Vandy to be even with Texas.
That aint happening
I just wish they would go back to 85. 105 on scholarship is completely ridiculous and unsustainable for everyone not in the P4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State