bleedorange0037
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
- Messages
- 15,045
- Likes
- 1,646
Not only do we need to keep these, but if we ever hope to win another national title we need to add another BIG OOC game. Playing Uconn doesn't count either. Just because a team is a BCS of FBS school doesn't mean they are good enough to be considered a quality win.
i don't think schools in the sec should look to make their schedules harder.
it's not fear of competition, it's the imbalance of schedules across the country.
why should sec schools make their schedules harder until schools from other leagues play tougher schedules?
has anyone seen ohio state's schedule this season?
We need to start winning again and making bowls regularly before starting to worry about winning another national title, really
Agree. If you're playing more than 1 mid level BCS school OOC, you're nuts. Teams like Florida, UGA and SC that have built in OOC rivalries should be playing all directional schools.
we play fsu and the sec and that's enough.
this year we have miami too.
just makes no sense when there are other schools that literally have a two game schedule.
this is ohio state's schedule next season.
buffalo
sd state
@cal
famu
wisconsin
@northwestern
bye
iowa
penn state
@purdue
bye
@illinois
indiana
@michigan
I get so sick of this "conference is hard enough as it is" argument. First of all lets look at the schedule last year. Florida and Georgia will generally be tough games. Scar is on the rise so that has been a tough game and of course we all know Vandy had their best season since reconstruction. Kentucky and Mizzou stunk, and State went 1-5 after playing us. So out of 8 conference games, 3 were easily winnable at UT's historic levels and Vandy should always be an assumed win. So that leaves 4 out of 12 games each year that you can expect to be difficult (Bama, Georgia, Florida, and SCAR). So is 4 games really too much to be difficult?
My preference would be to go to 9 conference games, that leaves you with room for 1 BCS opponent (Oregon, Notre Dame, etc), 1 regional matchup (I would like to play teams like Memphis, MTSU, WKU, and other 1-A paty's on a somewhat regular basis), and then one more that can be a big game or a UAB-type game.
Not only that, but for those who say the conference schedule is too hard, would you be complaining when the home schedule included just 4 conference games and 3 crappy games? Lets take last year. Homes games with Florida and Alabama are typically going to be good games. But then you play UK and Mizzou in conference (both crappers) and then Troy, Akron, and Georgia State? Yes, that is 7 home games but 3 of them are going to be played in front of 20,000 empty seats because the match up is boring.
I understand not playing 12 BCS-level opponents, but the argument that the conference is too difficult for OOC games, I don't buy it.
Oh ok so we should schedule 4 FCS teams so we can win 6 games a year and make a bowl so we can act like were getting better. Yah who cares about ACTUALLY getting better when we could just pretend we are because we beat up on cupcakes.
Sorry but its more embarrassing beating up cupcakes and bragging about how many games we win than losing to real teams.
Correct, this is Vandy and UK logic. Willy Daunic in Nashville had said for years that Vandy needed to follow UKs model of 4 cupcakes, then you can go 2-6 in conference and still get to a bowl.
Is that what the fanbase wants? 4 easy ooc wins, then beat uk and vandy and you're in a bowl? No thanks. At least the last 2 years we had ooc wins against bcs conference opponents.
Here are the major OOC opponents from the 90's.
90 Colorado, ND
91 Louisville, UCLA and ND
92 none
93 Louisville
94 UCLA
95 ECU
96 UCLA
97 UCLA
98 Syracuse
99 ND
I may have missed a couple as I did this from memory.