Printable View
Fairly new to ED, so forgive me if this has been posted on previously. Has anyone else been disappointed with the future football schedules? I thought after OK State, even with an undesirable outcome, the schedule would beef up. With all due respect to the BYU's and CUSA's of the world, the schedule is still lacking.
KSTATE and Arizona are temporary powers imo.
Strategic move?
I don't want our OOC schedule to beef up.
I think we should beef it up moving forward. These two OOC games are a good start to what we have been use to recently. I always thought it would be cool to see a conference vs conference series one week or weekend similar to basketball IMO.
Call me a dreamer, but couldn't Mullen be pulling a Gary Patterson with an 11-1 or even 10-2 schedule in the next few years? SEC West didn't impress in bowls this year and I fear the committee could hold it against SEC teams. Outside of "Saint Nick's" that is.
I agree. I liked the Power 5 scheduling rule and hope it eventually leads to some home and home series. A conference vs conference series would be even better, nice thought.
I've always been a fan of scheduling real teams. We schedule 4 pansies in hopes to get 1 more game that we hope is a team worth playing. I'd rather just go ahead and schedule a season opener with a real team. You get the effect of a bowl game for free.
BYU, NC ST., KANSAS ST, & ARIZONA are the perfect type of opponents. We don't need to do anything more than that. The SEC schedule has enough marquee games.
Unless Arizona maintains it is current state, those are all teams that knock you out of top team consideration with a loss. You get a decent win if you beat em. Why not schedule big time teams from big time recruiting grounds?
Because your chances of winning diminish greatlyQuote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
This. You need two absolute pansies that can't beat your third team. Then one decent program like la tech or usm, and then one power 5 school that is solid but not elite. You go 11-1 with that and you will be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifyouonlyknew
At lease the Power 5 rule is in effect and we can all agree a power 5 team is a must
Right. Jump out of a plane enough times and the chute eventually won't open.
And we jump out of the plane often enough during our SEC schedule.
No point in taking excessive chances.
I'm not understanding your logic. You are afraid of losing to a mid level Power 5 school, knocking us out of a top ranking but prefer us playing a power house with a less chance of winning almost guaranteeing a loss and making you have to win more conference games to get a high ranking. That doesn't make sense at allQuote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Not to mention our weak schedule got us ranked pretty high last year. For a while somewhere close to #1 I believe.
Didn't people have Bama over us at 11-1 bc of their win over WVU? I think a decent OOC is good enough to be in the playoffs, but OOC will always be compared across conference teams that are making a case against each other for 1 playoff spot. For example, had we finished with a similar record as Bama, Auburn, or LSU we would have jumped because they beat WVU, KSU and Wisconsin and we played no one. Maybe we should have an OOC that is comparable to other schools in the conference in case we end up in a 11-1 or 10-2 tie with someone and won't be jumped over immediately -- that is, if we can be as consistent as those schools
You mention a #1 ranking, yet you say playing a power house guarantees a loss. I'm not understanding your logic.
Anybody can beat anybody. I think the risk-reward is much greater playing a power house than a mid level. This is the 2015 version of MSU, not 2005. Time to think bigger.
Ghostrider .. Please explain 'how' MSU spent 5 consecutive weeks as the #1 team in the country with our 'lacking schedule.'Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Well, the obvious problem is, had we scheduled a Wisconsin and lost, we wouldn't have had a better record than them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Statefan
And we beat LSU and Auburn. That carries far more weight when comparing us to them than an OOC game.
With Bama's schedule, they made the playoff with an 11-1 record. With the schedule MSU played, there was never any serious thought of getting in the playoff with an 11-1 record. That fits into the category of lacking if you ask me. While the 3 week run of LSU, Aubbie, and TAMU was impressive at the time, they all finished 8-5 i believe
I would also like to hear that one ..... wind just shifted, I think I caught a molecule of bear scent
No I said almost guaranteeing a loss and historically I am right. If we stay at our level now or elevate even higher, then we have a better chance obviously. But even Bama has a much greater chance to lose against an Ohio State, FSU, Oregon, etc and they are elite themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
And 2014 disproves your theory completely. The risk-reward does not guarantee a higher ranking even if you beat an elite team. We got to #1 without having to do so. Therefore the risk does not warrant playing a big time team. And even a loss doesn't guarantee you are out, Ohio State lost to a very average VA Tech team and still won the title.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Ohio State made it with a loss to Va Tech. A 6-6 ACC school. All of our up coming opponents have had as good or better recent success. Your theory doesn't hold.
Call me crazy, but this thread was started by 2 Ole Missus fans. They ain't fooling me, good plan though...talk to each other to make it seem legit.
Anyone wanting to beef up a schedule consisting of Bama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, and Ark plus East teams, is nuts.
Look at our schedule vs the weaker schedule OM has this season...we should schedule as weak of an OOC schedule as we are allowed, bc we don't need any help from OOC opponents to beef up our SOS.
I forgot the part about no serious discussion about us getting in the playoff at 11-1. Did you completely miss the week leading up to the EB where we were still #4 and multiple pundits, ESPN, etc discussing our chances vs TCU, Baylor, and OSU. Which one of us were going to make it in and which ones where out of the playoff? You missed a lot during the month of November for a State fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
No, you don't. Going to a bowl game gives you an extra month of practice time (a lot of which is focused on developing the younger players) and it makes for a much easier sell to recruits. It is incredibly important that we continue to go to bowls every year.....that should be the number one goal when it comes to scheduling. We play multiple top 10 teams every year in some of the toughest environments in college football......there is no reason to make the regular season schedule any tougher than it already is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnodawg
Well that settles it. I and everyone else who agreed with my point of view must be a black bear. I'll refrain from opening anymore logic based discussions. I'll stop hoping MSU aspires to continue be in the playoff discussion year in and year out. I'll just take what is given to me and attack anyone who has a contrary point of view.
Seriously. I said I hoped State would play a beefier schedule. Forgive me for thinking MSU wouldn't lose as many as it would win playing college football's elite.
Done.
Our schedule will be plenty tough with the addition of the new power 5 games. Can't imagine anyone would want more than that.
I don't mind you posting as much as you want. Your logic is just completely faulty and the immediate past results of last year destroys most of your thinking. Of course you didn't address any of that. You just proclaim your thought to be logical, despite the facts disproving it. And we were in the playoff discussion as of the last game of the season by more than just the fans, the pundits, media, etc. But don't let those facts get in your way of faulty logic either. Also, I think several that disagreed with you actually aspire to be national champions. Your opinion about our aspirations is like the rest of your logic in this thread, illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Sounds like you just became a fan this year. We have to schedule at least 1 Power5 game each year. That, plus an SEC west schedule pretty much assures that we don't get penalized for SOS.
Any chance you're a Will Clark fan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
I think your wish will come true.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
No keep posting. I like different view points. But, only one person agreed with you, not "everyone else." And to dispel the claim that you are a bear, try using "we" or "our" instead of "state" and "msu." In all of your posts on this thread, you use state and msu instead of we. That is suspicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Nope. We were number one. If we had beaten Bama and then won the Egg Bowl we would have been in the BCS playoff. I don't think the committee will hold one year against the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
This guy gets it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwolf
Our goal should be to have seven home games a year. I don't like the power five rule- I don't like the SEC telling us what to do and how to do it because Nick Saban didn't like our schedule.
If Memphis ever joins the Big 12 we should play them. If the service academies are approved by the SEC (which they are for Vanderbilt at least so there is precedent), we should schedule them home and home as well.
I would be fine with a schedule like this:
Jackson State/Alcorn/Valley (assuming they meet the standards for a win to count towards a bowl of course)
Army/Navy/Air Force
Tulane/Memphis/USM/Louisiana Tech/South Alabama
Sun Belt team
And before I get railed about USM- I think we should play them twice every five to six years max.
Playing a power five team costs us more money than the way we have been scheduling. There's no doubt about that. Especially since every power five school KNOWS that we have to schedule at least one. If we went for someone like Wake Forest or Kansas, they would absolutely gouge us. Then there is the cost of not having a home game- and it's hard to put a number on that because there is so much money that goes to the Golden Triangle region on a football weekend. And then there are travel costs for the team, cheerleaders, band, university officials, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman
Exactly. Continue beating Auburn, LSU, and TA&M and you're in the mix. Those teams might slip now and then, but consistently winning two of those three and picking off another power west team now and then puts you in the national spotlight.Quote:
Originally Posted by CadaverDawg
Mullen wants to win the west. Do that, with the additional win over an Arizona or BYU and you're in the discussion as a national power program. This is what you build on.
Yes. It would help the trolling effort. Everybody refers to State in the third person some, but mostly in the first. Inevitably, they slip to way too much third person. It's really too easy to spot the average bear troll's backhanded negatively as they choose a seemingly benign topic to start commenting on with their inevitable user name that includes Mullen, *******, bullpup or some similar sheit. Check for members over a few posts and see if anybody is Mullen this or Mullen that Before picking your username.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
I hear we're picking up UAB as our 4th OOC game.***
I would love to play 1 SWAC team a year from MS/AL/LA, but mostly from Mississippi. Play 1 or 2 from Tulane, Memphis, Troy, LaTech, UL Monroe, Houston, GaState, etc... Then add a mid tier Power 5 school like Iowa, Arizona, Oregon St, Cal, Wake, North Carolina, BC, etc...
In short we need to think geographically about who we schedule. We should try to keep MS, LA, AL, GA, TX, and TN schools on our schedule. Maybe FL too. Then we should have 1 power five game out of region that would give us expanded exposure.
I like this and I want one pansie/cupcake scheduled before OM just like Bama and Auburn do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Political Hack
Yeah -- averaging a top 10 schedule difficulty over the past decade isn't nearly tough enough scheduling. We really need to get Ohio St and Oregon(back) in here**
I fully intended on being done. What can I say. I've been baited back.
First: The whole "we" thing. I've always been a believer that you have to earn the right to say "we" and "our". You have to pursue academics or athletics at a school in order to say "we" did this or "our" team did that imo. I don't think, though, that one has to attend that same school in order for it to his/her favorite team and be able to discuss it. I'm just not going to use "we" "our" "us" etc to discuss MSU when I didn't attend. It is what it is.
Second: Yes. I have Mullen as a part of my username. While Sherrill may have more wins, Mullen has surpassed him and any other coach of my generation. If the coach that follows Mullen continues his success, it will be due in large part to Mullen's contributions. Whether Dan leaves Starkvegas on good terms or not, I'll still be a Mullen man. Call it a man crush. Call it what you will.
Third: I appreciate those of you who read the entire thread before commenting. I am aware of the Power 5 rule.. I am disappointed in the teams we have schedule since it went into effect. Not impressed with NC State. I also did not mean, though I can see how it can be read that way, that everyone but one person agreed with me. Only that multiple posters liked the idea of scheduling big time OOC games. One of these was also brashly accused of being a black bear.
Fourth: To sum up my statements and likely be done with this thread (though not this site). I think in order to remain nationally relevant, state needs big OOC games. I do not think, even with an egg bowl win, state would have been given serious consideration for the playoff. 2 teams out of Baylor, TCU, and OSU would have needed to lose in order for that to happen. We know how that turned out. I didn't miss the month of November. I alluded to Gary Patterson..maybe that was missed. His Horned Frogs were #3 and smoked Iowa State (if memory serves..I know they won their finale by 50-ish), yet were dropped all the way to 6. Staying with the facts, State was likely not going to jump TCU with an Egg Bowl win. Mullen might have gotten them to 6th and TCU 7th, but no better. You just are not being realistic if you're saying State was going to be ahead of some combination of Baylor, FSU, OSU, and TCU and get into the playoff. I think bigger OOC games add exposure (to recruits, prospective students, media), widen (not lessen) your margin for error, grow your fan base, strengthen your SOS (which the committee considers and we should as well) and make more money. You don't have to pay a chump school. There are teams willing to play a home and home with State. Trump card: Texas went to TSUN. The revenue generated for the GTA by a Texas level program would far exceed that of JSU, MSVS, or even USM. It is my OPINION that State should continue expanding its footprint. Worst case scenario, evidently, is that State loses a game it is "supposed" to lose. Best case: State could jump a Baylor-type team that had a weak nonconference schedule and/or no conference championship.
We were in the playoff discussion- UNTIL we lost to Ole Missus. There is no telling what would have happened had we beaten Ole Missus in Oxford to finish 11-1. Not sure why your panties are in a wad BearShark?Quote:
Originally Posted by mullenman