Not trying beat a dad horse but even Richard Cross agrees with me...

[Political Hack]

playing rice will make us smarter. maybe playing GaTech will help legitimize their engineering program.

[Johnson85]

Do you even remember who beat who in the natl championship game two years ago?

Yes, but even for people that don't, I think they remember that teams played each other and who won. A lot of fans probably don't remember that UGA beat Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl (unless they were pissed that it was a shitty matchup), but I think fans do remember that Utah beat Alabama, even if they don't remember what bowl it was or what year it was. I think serious football fans probably remember that Miss. State beat the shit out of Michigan in a bowl game. Probably nobody remembers that we beat Wake Forrest. Nobody remembers that Crooms beat UCF. Nobody will remember if we beat Rice. Nobody will remember if UM beats Ga Tech.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

The funny thing about Cross's argument- I would be willing to bet that Rice is better than the 6-6 Pittsburgh team that Ole Miss beat last year- and in a crappier bowl. But that didn't stop their momentum to landing the best recruiting class in the history of mankind.

I think most everyone is missing the point simply because the original post mentioned Richard Cross. The point Bogey is trying to make is all about perception. It has nothing to do with the fact that Rice is probably better than Pitt was last year or GT is this year. The point is that beating either of those schools, which have more than 10 fans (seriously, did ya'll see that game last weekend? I think they had half of Rice's stadium tarped off, and it was for a championship), is always considered to be a better win than beating a team like Rice. Conversely, losing to Rice would be much much more damaging than losing to GT or Pitt, despite Rice probably having the better team.

As much as this board bitches about the Ole Miss spin, you'd think that we'd have learned by now that perception = reality a lot of the time. That's the same argument gravedigger is having about the scheduling - PERCEPTION.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

I think he just meant that there should be some mid-level beatable BCS teams to pick from to play. Indiana was just an example. Our fans could make trips for certain Big 12, ACC, or AAC teams and if you schedule it right you could still have 7 home games a year. Just have your other 3 nonconference games at home when it's your turn to do the traveling part of a home-and-home. I personally would like to see a mid-road BCS team sometimes, rather than mostly all either top 10 teams (OSU) or SWAC or Sun-Belt schools. Check out our non-con schedule for the next couple years. Not much to look at. I fully understand the "we need to beat the SEC teams and that will give us recognition" argument. But we do have 4 non-conference games a year, and for the past few years the 4 have either been really tough (09 with GT and Houston, 2013 with OSU being a top 15 team and a 10-win Bowling Green), or really soft (2012 and 2014 with all cupcakes). Basically just throw in one beatable brand name a year. For the BCS team, we don't need the Ritz-Carlton, but I would prefer no Super 8 either. If I'm Scott I look at between 4-8 and 7-5 BCS teams and call one for a home and home.

[smootness]

I think most everyone is missing the point simply because the original post mentioned Richard Cross. The point Bogey is trying to make is all about perception. It has nothing to do with the fact that Rice is probably better than Pitt was last year or GT is this year. The point is that beating either of those schools, which have more than 10 fans (seriously, did ya'll see that game last weekend? I think they had half of Rice's stadium tarped off, and it was for a championship), is always considered to be a better win than beating a team like Rice. Conversely, losing to Rice would be much much more damaging than losing to GT or Pitt, despite Rice probably having the better team.

As much as this board bitches about the Ole Miss spin, you'd think that we'd have learned by now that perception = reality a lot of the time. That's the same argument gravedigger is having about the scheduling - PERCEPTION.

The problem is, nobody around the country cares about the Liberty Bowl or Music City Bowl or Compass Bowl, and they don't care who you play in those games. Whether we were playing GT in the MCB or Rice in the Liberty, nobody cares. People care about most of the BCS bowls (not even all of these) and maybe the CFA or Cotton or Cap. One depending. Once you get past that, it's just another filler bowl game; some people may watch some of it, but they'll forget about it within a day unless something crazy happens.

It's the same argument as scheduling Indiana in the OOC schedule. Nobody cares about Indiana, that's not considered a better win than beating Bowling Green or Rice.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

Agree with this. Most people have no clue that Bowling Green and Rice were 10-win conference champs. Even ones that do will be quick to point out that they're in weak conferences. I might put money on Rice or Bowling Green to beat Georgia Tech. But perception-wise, better brand name gets more recognition than better team. For fans that follow football, they will recognize that a win over Rice or Bowling Green is very respectable. For the casual fan (probably 60-70% of fans), they won't recognize the name and will just assume a team like Rice or Bowling Green sucks since they don't know much about them and probably don't know what state they're in.

But we're bowling again. That's the main thing that matters.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

Drop the Indiana. Let's make it TCU. Beatable now (they went 4-8), recognizable name, BCS school, close enough that some of our fans could go if it was a home and home. 2 things it accomplishes:
1. Solid out-of-conference win over a recognizable name. Good enough to not be a cupcake, but not so good that we shouldn't win the game (like Oklahoma St.). You could still schedule 3 other cupcakes and not end up on one of those "most laughable out-of-conference schedule" lists.
2. Davis Wade is about as full as it would be for an SEC game. I know more casual fans would be much more likely to go to watch MSU/TCU than MSU/Jackson St. or South Alabama.

[smootness]

Drop the Indiana. Let's make it TCU. Beatable now (they went 4-8), recognizable name, BCS school, close enough that some of our fans could go if it was a home and home. 2 things it accomplishes:
1. Solid out-of-conference win over a recognizable name. Good enough to not be a cupcake, but not so good that we shouldn't win the game (like Oklahoma St.). You could still schedule 3 other cupcakes and not end up on one of those "most laughable out-of-conference schedule" lists.
2. Davis Wade is about as full as it would be for an SEC game. I know more casual fans would be much more likely to go to watch MSU/TCU than MSU/Jackson St. or South Alabama.

We tried this with Georgia Tech, Oregon, and even Houston. Problem is, by the time we played them, they were freaking good and they beat us.

You can't guarantee what a team will look like 3 years down the road when these things are usually set up. TCU, with Gary Patterson at the helm, would be just as likely to be a top 15 team again by the time they came around as a 4-6 win team.

Heck, we even sort of tried it with Southern Miss (a lot of college football fans know they've been a good program); they won 12 games 2 years ago and almost made a BCS bowl. Now they've won 1 in the last 2 years and everybody is considering them one of the 'cupcakes' on our schedule that we need to avoid scheduling 4 of.

It's simply not that easy to try to set up schools who aren't too bad but also not too good.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

I think he just meant that there should be some mid-level beatable BCS teams to pick from to play. Indiana was just an example. Our fans could make trips for certain Big 12, ACC, or AAC teams and if you schedule it right you could still have 7 home games a year. Just have your other 3 nonconference games at home when it's your turn to do the traveling part of a home-and-home. I personally would like to see a mid-road BCS team sometimes, rather than mostly all either top 10 teams (OSU) or SWAC or Sun-Belt schools. Check out our non-con schedule for the next couple years. Not much to look at. I fully understand the "we need to beat the SEC teams and that will give us recognition" argument. But we do have 4 non-conference games a year, and for the past few years the 4 have either been really tough (09 with GT and Houston, 2013 with OSU being a top 15 team and a 10-win Bowling Green), or really soft (2012 and 2014 with all cupcakes). Basically just throw in one beatable brand name a year. For the BCS team, we don't need the Ritz-Carlton, but I would prefer no Super 8 either. If I'm Scott I look at between 4-8 and 7-5 BCS teams and call one for a home and home.

Not to mention, the entire point of that would be to get our brand out there on a wider level. It's easier to spread the brand by playing a home and home with NC State, Duke, Kansas, Baylor, etc... than it is playing Morgan State at home every year. We can spread the brand playing teams like Ok. State as well, but it helps to win the games.

[CJDAWG85]

If OKST hadn't choked against OU, then we played 4 conference champions this year. That's crazy.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

We tried this with Georgia Tech, Oregon, and even Houston. Problem is, by the time we played them, they were freaking good and they beat us.

You can't guarantee what a team will look like 3 years down the road when these things are usually set up. TCU, with Gary Patterson at the helm, would be just as likely to be a top 15 team again by the time they came around as a 4-6 win team.

Heck, we even sort of tried it with Southern Miss (a lot of college football fans know they've been a good program); they won 12 games 2 years ago and almost made a BCS bowl. Now they've won 1 in the last 2 years and everybody is considering them one of the 'cupcakes' on our schedule that we need to avoid scheduling 4 of.

It's simply not that easy to try to set up schools who aren't too bad but also not too good.

If the mid-level team happens to be good when we play them, then so be it. Let's win anyway. The point is not to schedule cupcakes. The point is to spread the brand that is MSU football, while also scheduling a winnable game. One of those teams being "up" when we play does not change the point of playing them, it's just bad luck.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

If the mid-level team happens to be good when we play them, then so be it. Let's win anyway. The point is not to schedule cupcakes. The point is to spread the brand that is MSU football, while also scheduling a winnable game. One of those teams being "up" when we play does not change the point of playing them, it's just bad luck.

Agreed. And I like our chances against teams like GT, Houston, and West Virginia now as opposed to the Croom years or Dan's first year here. Heck, we had a 10-win Houston team with Case Keenum beat in 09 if not for a bogus call about Tyson Lee crossing the scrimmage line on a pass. I agree you can't tell the future and schedules are made out a few years in advance. But you can see who would probably be a mid-road BCS team and give it a shot and hope they don't turn into a powerhouse or pull a USM.

[CJDAWG85]

Agreed. And I like our chances against teams like GT, Houston, and West Virginia now as opposed to the Croom years or Dan's first year here. Heck, we had a 10-win Houston team with Case Keenum beat in 09 if not for a bogus call about Tyson Lee crossing the scrimmage line on a pass. I agree you can't tell the future and schedules are made out a few years in advance. But you can see who would probably be a mid-road BCS team and give it a shot and hope they don't turn into a powerhouse or pull a USM.

Or the phantom holding call on Dixon's 65 yd TD run in the 2nd Half.

[Coach34]

One problem you have is that other mid to lower level schools in the bigger conferences dont want a tough game OOC either.

Baylor played Wofford, Buffalo, and ULM in the OOC
K-State played N. Dakota State, ULL, and UMass
Texas Tech played SMU, Stephen F Austin, and Texas St
Kansas played South Dakota, Rice, and La Tech
Iowa played Iowa St, N. Illinois, W. Michigan, and Missouri St
Minnesota played UNLV, N. Mexico St, W. Illinois, and San Jose St
NC State played La Tech, Richmond, C. Michigan, and E. Carolina
Duke played Navy, Troy, NC Central, and Memphis

programs like ours that fight so hard to go bowling regularly- dont overschedule. It's not just us

[smootness]

If the mid-level team happens to be good when we play them, then so be it. Let's win anyway. The point is not to schedule cupcakes. The point is to spread the brand that is MSU football, while also scheduling a winnable game. One of those teams being "up" when we play does not change the point of playing them, it's just bad luck.

But you just said that part of the point is to schedule a winnable game. If the mid-level team happens to be good when we play them, then that makes the game much less winnable. That is what I'm saying. No one seems to want to schedule really good teams, everyone wants either a cupcake or a mediocre BCS conference team. Well, it's much easier to schedule cupcakes than it is mediocre BCS teams and avoid having them be really good by the time you play them.

Sure, it would be back luck, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still hurt us.

[CJDAWG85]

The funny thing about seeing all of those OOC schedules is that a lot of people from other conferences complain about the SEC's OOC schedule.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

Good point about other BCS schools being in the same boat. Probably hard to find a brand name team that is very beatable, at an attractive enough series and payout deal.
I just feel like there is room for out-of-conference scheduling improvement if it can be done.

Last 4 years and next year OOC:
Memphis, Alcorn St, Houston, UAB
Memphis, LA Tech, UAB, TN Martin
Jackson State, Troy, South AL, Middle TN
Oklahoma St, Alcorn St, Troy, Bowling Green
USM, UAB, South AL, TN Martin

Not many games to get our fanbase pumped about. 1 BCS opponent in 5 years, and that opponent was a top 15 opponent in the first game of the year at a neutral site. Prior to that, Templeton was matching us up against top 25 teams (WVU, GT) but we had a golf-cart driver for a coach. It's been a wrong place at the wrong time kind of deal for us, but we are M-State.
We absolutely need 4 winnable games while keeping this bowl streak alive. BUT, it should include the occasional game where we are only a few point favorite, not a 20+ point favorite (Sunbelt/SWAC schools) or a 15 point underdog (OSU).

Some combination of [SWAC (JSU or Alcorn), Sun-Belt (USA or Troy), C-USA (UAB, Tulane, or USM), BCS low or mid-level (TCU, UNC, Houston, Memphis, Illinois, VA Tech, etc.)] to get to 4 games would be the ideal OOC schedule for most years to me. I know it's tough to get things laid out right, but we should be able to do that at least every 2-3 years.

[cubswillwinitonedaydawg]

If your previous point "The problem is, nobody around the country cares about the Liberty Bowl or Music City Bowl or Compass Bowl, and they don't care who you play in those games" is true, then the difference between 6-7 wins isn't that big a deal. So this year, since we got to 6 even with a top-15 lidlifter and numerous injuries, it didn't really matter cause we got to 6 wins. I think now that our program is having some sustained success, we could be able to expect 3-5 SEC wins most years. So we could afford to throw in a toss-up non-conference. We win it, good. Solid win, bigger crowd, still 4 OOC wins and just need 2 SEC wins for a bowl. You lose it, have to hope like this year that we win at least 3 SEC games.

I feel much better about BCS opponents being winnable games now than I did about 5 years ago. We need 3 should-be-easy wins, but I don't see the problem throwing one toss-up or slightly favored type game in there if we can. This year we were a 15 or so point underdog. Stricklin had a decent idea, but got a little too greedy.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

But you just said that part of the point is to schedule a winnable game. If the mid-level team happens to be good when we play them, then that makes the game much less winnable. That is what I'm saying. No one seems to want to schedule really good teams, everyone wants either a cupcake or a mediocre BCS conference team. Well, it's much easier to schedule cupcakes than it is mediocre BCS teams and avoid having them be really good by the time you play them.

Sure, it would be back luck, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still hurt us.

Winnable does not mean auto-win. Remember the whole point is about exposure. If we have a home and home with NC State and we go over there and show out, that helps us tremendously, both with perception of our program from folks over there and potential recruits who may suddenly see MSU as a place they could go. We do absolutely nothing to help ourselves by scheduling Troy, Memphis, South Alabama and Jacksonville State each year, other than potentially increasing out bowl destination (which is the other point - better bowl = better exposure, even if most people nationally don't care about the game)

[The Croom Diaries]

Beating Rice and beating GA Tech would essentially be one in the same this year - us and OM are in the SEC and are expected to beat non-SEC teams of similar status. But if we lose it would hurt worse than losing to GT just based on perception of the programs, regardless of who is actually the better opponent. Getting a win only really matters if it's a big win. Like when OM beat a 11-1 Texas Tech team in '08 and it gave them all the hype for the following season. Or when we whipped Michigan and got hyped up for 2011. I don't think it does much for recruiting so much as the way pundits view the program, if it's trending up or down, and specifically the following year's team.