Football Scheduling

[mullenman]

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?

[smootness]

I don't want our OOC schedule to beef up.

[MaroomerMill]

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.

[mullenman]

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.

[mullenman]

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.

[Hypnodawg]

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.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

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.

[mullenman]

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?

[confucius say]

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 greatly

[confucius say]

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.

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.

[mullenman]

At lease the Power 5 rule is in effect and we can all agree a power 5 team is a must

[dawgoneyall]

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.

[Really Clark?]

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?

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 all

Not to mention our weak schedule got us ranked pretty high last year. For a while somewhere close to #1 I believe.

[Statefan]

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

[mullenman]

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.

[BiscuitEater]

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?

Ghostrider .. Please explain 'how' MSU spent 5 consecutive weeks as the #1 team in the country with our 'lacking schedule.'

[smootness]

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

Well, the obvious problem is, had we scheduled a Wisconsin and lost, we wouldn't have had a better record than them.

And we beat LSU and Auburn. That carries far more weight when comparing us to them than an OOC game.

[mullenman]

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

[FISHDAWG]

I would also like to hear that one ..... wind just shifted, I think I caught a molecule of bear scent

[Really Clark?]

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.

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.

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.