Can a samrt guy give me the readers digest version of the 6-1-1 SEC schedule?

I wish the SEC would go to a 9 game schedule, that UT would play one other power program annually, and then have two buy-a-win games against Sun Belt, MAC and in-state schools and I would be happy.

 

the primary reason the pac-12 does a 9 game (despite what they say) is that pac-12 teams generally don't sell out non conference games and the 9 game schedule is better for tv revenue. The sec has little incentive to do it for those reasons and obviously one more conference game makes running the table even more difficult. hard for me to imagine the coaches and ADs would go for it.

 

Our OOC schedule for the past two years was always terrible. Backing out of UNC was chicken shit, but it's not like UNC was a marquee opponent. This was a hole long before we knew we'd suck those years. But the 2010 schedule didn't get dumbed down, and the 2013 and beyond haven't been dumbed down yet. So I'm not sure why we should see this as an alarming trend instead of as a disappointing blip. Especially when the chicken shit AD responsible for backing out against UNC is no longer here.

edit: Looking back at past schedules, I note that we had a similar blip in 2000 (OOC was Southern Miss, Louisiana-Monroe, and Memphis) between 1999 and 2001 games with Notre Dame (and before the 2002/03 series with Miami). Right now, we're between 2010 and 2013 games with Oregon, so it's a similar pattern at the very least.

 

Agree. I was proud of us not having done it for my lifetime prior to 2010, and I would like to get back to not doing it. I also liked the Fresno State, Marshall, Southern Miss, etc. I even liked back when we opened the season with Texas Tech and UCLA consecutively.

 

UNC was ranked and thriving under Davis when we dropped them. We bought that game to avoid a loss, plain and simple. 2000 was a one year abomination that also occurred in an 11 game season.

We have dropped the toughest game and made the weakest game even weaker. Justify it however you want, but it is chicken shit.

 

I'm not you sure read my post. That or you're responding to something that wasn't in my post. I'm not denying that buying out was chicken shit or that we did it to avoid a loss (but if you want to look at relative strength at the time of the buyout, it's worth noting that UNC was our second toughest OOC game of 2011). I am denying that we scheduled UNC as a marquee opponent, and I'm denying that I've seen evidence that soft scheduling (and buying out of the exciting games we have scheduled) is a trend that is going to continue.

 

I read your post. You are trying to defend chicken shitness without actually having to defend it. UNC was absolutely scheduled as a marquee game. Butch had them building, and it had a lot of regional ties against one of the power teams from the ACC. That is why we dropped it. We didn't want to play what looked to be a power team from the ACC.

You certainly have a trend of weaker scheduling with the 1aa teams last year and this. At the stronger end, I hope you won't see any trend continue. I hope you'll have an AD who wonders why he's supposed to send hundreds of thousands of dollars to Norman in order to avoid an embarrassing blowout in the hopes of spending Christmas in Memphis and decides not to do it.

 

If you had any evidence to support this opinion, I might take it more seriously. I've been against the dropping of UNC from the start. I haven't said a damn thing to defend it. I'm just stating facts.

We've been over the weaker end and agree. But there's no correlation between people who schedule FCS schools and people who duck out of marquee games. The stronger end is where you seem to expect something that I don't see reason to expect.

 

I don't really understand what you are saying, but this has probably been beaten to death. I think it is moderately shameful that we play 1aa teams on a yearly basis. I find it tremendously shameful that we dropped UNC because they were too tough to play. I hope these things do not continue to happen under the new AD.

 

Tennessee has done that lately, but I'd say we've usually done well with OOC scheduling.

We've been far more willing to challenge good teams and play road games than most.

 

Unfortunetely, unless you have to sell tickets, you have zero incentive to schedule tough non conference games anymore. The polls ranks almost soley on record. Look at stanford that was ranked higher than oregon despite oregon blowout out stanford at home. All because oregon lost to LSU. The football coaches also know that fans want bowls and a great way for a mediocre coach to make bowls is to make sure teh schedule is cupcake (see jeff tedford).

 

No we haven't. Please see the OOC schedules of just about any other BCS football power.

I have no problem playing one premier OOC game and three guys that range from "they suck" to "be careful, they aren't terrible."
That is exactly the formula we used for most of recent history. I think that is the way it should be. It aggravates me that we changed from that very good recipe.

 

This is true, but there is also an odd fact. Every national champion of the BCS era except one (Oklahoma 2000) has played at least one top notch OOC game. I haven't run the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of BCS participants have done the same. The power programs play power games. When they are good enough to win them, they go on to great things. When they aren't quite good enough, they still have a shot at their conferences. When they get blown out at home in record setting fashion in those games, at least their fans got to see a really good Oregon team.

The game doesn't really hurt you. It does pit you against top notch competition. It does give you exposure to different styles and areas of the country and different TV networks. It's an overall positive, which is why you see just about every other power program doing it.

 

Compared to the other SEC teams, I'd say we have. Especially considering future schedules.

 

I agree on all points. I'm not sure what makes you think I was defending dropping UNC. I've claimed, in this thread, that both those things are shameful. That's why I asked if you were responding to someone other than me. My comment was that we never thought UNC was marquee. We added Cincy and NC State because UNC wasn't good enough to carry our OOC schedule by themselves. So 2011/12 were always years without a marquee opponent. I think that comment is what made you think I was defending dropping UNC. But that we dropped them because we were afraid of a team we didn't even consider that good is even more shameful, not less.

Also, I'll still believe Dave Hart drops Oklahoma and Oregon when I see it. He's not Hammy.

 

I don't think we had until very recently. We've got plenty of big boys on our futureschedule.

I only remember us dropping anyone except for UNC.