Started By
Message
re: Future sched news - '24 M&W game on 4/20
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:38 pm to tmc94
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:38 pm to tmc94
I see their value in playing us, I just don't see why it is in our best interest to waste an OOC game on them when we can go to other schools and enter into a better scenario for ourselves
quote:feel lucky
I'm not even sure I know a single ASU alum
0
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:45 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
would you say that both sides are somewhat moving towards renewing the game
I think the biggest obstacles to a game are already out of the way (Dodds/Byrne). Since the folks making the decisions out of spite are now gone, I think things could happen at any time. It's just going to take both schools being in that frame of mind at the same time.
One thing to think about too is one of the biggest donors to their school (McCombs) and one of the biggest to ours (Mays) came about their money by a partnership. They are both friends and rivals. If they decide they want a game (and I think they might) it would happen fast.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:48 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
I mean what do we get out of playing tech, tcu, Baylor, etc? the only two programs id be ok with playing would be OU and texas. id much rather go and play schools from other P5 conferences than play Baylor in a home and home. or Christ forbid go to freaking lubbock
You know what Tech would be good for?
Replacing Arkansas for the Southwest Classic at JerryWorld.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:51 pm to Dr RC
id be ok with that. im fine with playing tech, much so over Baylor and tcu, I just don't want our program to ever set foot in Lubbock again
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:52 pm to tmc94
I didn't know that. interesting
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 4/25/14 at 2:50 pm to tmc94
quote:
Rivalry games sell tickets and generate buzz. Even if you don't see it as a rivalry, Baylor does
Contradictory statements.
Baylor bought somewhere around a mere 500 tickets for the last game they had against A&M at Kyle Field, notwithstanding the mere 90 miles between the schools and that they had future Heisman winner RG3 leading them to one of their best seasons to date.
They won't play A&M in anything, not even women's basketball (though both schools have strong programs).
At the next realignment they'll be C-USA bound, and that's only if C-USA gets desparate.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 3:12 pm to Quidam65
Would they even get into CUSA? They may end up in the Sun Belt b/c Rice, SMU, and Houston might try to block their entry into CUSA and AAC.
Posted on 4/25/14 at 3:16 pm to Quidam65
quote:if theyre lucky
At the next realignment they'll be C-USA bound
Posted on 4/25/14 at 6:05 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Contradictory statements.
not really. The game would generate buzz from local and even national media. It would sell tickets. I'm not saying Baylor would buy them, but the game would be hyped. It's irrelevant because it won't happen though.
This post was edited on 4/25/14 at 6:06 pm
Posted on 4/27/14 at 6:19 pm to tmc94
quote:
Based on things I've heard, I think they are going to stay at 8. There just isn't support for 9 unless the ESPN people step in and I don't think they will because I'm not sure it's really good from a tv perspective. But I'm sure they've delved into it in great detail as to all the various impacts.
I do expect some scheduling guidelines to be put in place though. I wish there was support for following the B1G rule of no FCS but I don't think there is. I think you'll see "guidelines" of at least 1 P5 opponent OOC per year and possibly other similar measures.
Looks like this is exactly how it played out as SEC just released a press release
Posted on 4/27/14 at 8:40 pm to tmc94
Couple of thoughts...
- maybe the SEC is positioning itself for the "big 5" split from the NCAA.
- wonder if they wanted the credit for a "legit" 9th game without adding another conference loss to the ledgers for SEC teams. In theory the SEC team would have an advantage over lesser opponents. But see last years bowl games to dispute that.
- this will change if the SEC is penalized in the playoffs.
- maybe the SEC is positioning itself for the "big 5" split from the NCAA.
- wonder if they wanted the credit for a "legit" 9th game without adding another conference loss to the ledgers for SEC teams. In theory the SEC team would have an advantage over lesser opponents. But see last years bowl games to dispute that.
- this will change if the SEC is penalized in the playoffs.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:39 am to Jobu93
SDS has a decent overview on the winners and losers to the scheduling decision. For the most part I agree with them but this one struck me as odd
Vandy and Wake Forest had a 7-year contract. They recently cancelled the final two game to move the UT game to rivalry weekend. But they've played Northwestern in recent years as well. They already have Ga Tech on the schedule for '16 even. I doubt they want to play Ohio State or something, but Vandy is a good opponent for a lot of schools.
Ole Miss just got done with a home/home with Texas. They don't have a '16 opponent but have GT scheduled already in 17/18. Kentucky plays Louisville (who is P5 now) every year so that's just dumb.
And so that leaves MSU and while they played OSU at neutral last year, I can sort of see the point. It's not exactly a destination opponent for anyone and they aren't near other P5 schools. I can see them having problems. But ffs, schools like Kansas have been willing to play home/home with Rice. There are quite a few P5 schools that MSU should be okay to work with so I don't think it's a big deal really.
quote:
The SEC mandated that every program play one opponent from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or Pac-12 starting in 2016. Several teams are set already like Florida, South Carolina and Georgia against ACC teams, and power teams like Alabama, Auburn and LSU will have no problem finding another opponent. But what happens to the foursome of Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt? They’re going to have trouble finding an opponent from a power conference that will actually play against them. The four will likely make calls to Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas and Kansas State, among others, but they’re somewhat limited in the teams they can call and the teams that will actually sign on for the game. These four teams will be interesting to watch for future scheduling.
Vandy and Wake Forest had a 7-year contract. They recently cancelled the final two game to move the UT game to rivalry weekend. But they've played Northwestern in recent years as well. They already have Ga Tech on the schedule for '16 even. I doubt they want to play Ohio State or something, but Vandy is a good opponent for a lot of schools.
Ole Miss just got done with a home/home with Texas. They don't have a '16 opponent but have GT scheduled already in 17/18. Kentucky plays Louisville (who is P5 now) every year so that's just dumb.
And so that leaves MSU and while they played OSU at neutral last year, I can sort of see the point. It's not exactly a destination opponent for anyone and they aren't near other P5 schools. I can see them having problems. But ffs, schools like Kansas have been willing to play home/home with Rice. There are quite a few P5 schools that MSU should be okay to work with so I don't think it's a big deal really.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 11:50 am to tmc94
I hate so called "journalist" that don't know what they are talking about. Not knowing that UK plays Louisville every year and that Louisville is in the ACC just makes me think that he just does not follow college football.
This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 11:52 am
Posted on 4/30/14 at 9:15 am to prisonpunk
I wonder if the SEC has already decided that two entries in a four-team playoff is not going to happen very often. Given the "diverse" make-up of the playoff selection committee, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a tacit understanding that as many conferences as possible should be represented.
If that's the case, then it makes sense for the conference to stay at 8 to maximize the # of bowl teams. Because even at 8, no one is suggesting the conference champ wouldn't virtually always be in the playoff.
If that's the case, then it makes sense for the conference to stay at 8 to maximize the # of bowl teams. Because even at 8, no one is suggesting the conference champ wouldn't virtually always be in the playoff.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 9:23 am to Mirthomatic
honestly I think what it comes down to is two things
- currently the SEC has the best SOS. And it's not even close. There's no need to make it harder for the playoffs, especially when you force at least 1 P5 game on everyone. It guarantees it won't slip.
- moving to 9 royally fricks over several schools. Anyone with a perm OOC rival (like UF-FSU) is then at 10 and they never ever can schedule any variety. It would likely mean the end of UF-Miami or USC-UNC or UGA-Clemson forever. We'd be in the same boat if we ever re-add the sips to the schedule. With 10 locked in games, you'd never see UCLA or Oregon come to Kyle. The last two games would always be buy home games.
- currently the SEC has the best SOS. And it's not even close. There's no need to make it harder for the playoffs, especially when you force at least 1 P5 game on everyone. It guarantees it won't slip.
- moving to 9 royally fricks over several schools. Anyone with a perm OOC rival (like UF-FSU) is then at 10 and they never ever can schedule any variety. It would likely mean the end of UF-Miami or USC-UNC or UGA-Clemson forever. We'd be in the same boat if we ever re-add the sips to the schedule. With 10 locked in games, you'd never see UCLA or Oregon come to Kyle. The last two games would always be buy home games.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 10:14 am to tmc94
quote:
- moving to 9 royally fricks over several schools. Anyone with a perm OOC rival (like UF-FSU) is then at 10 and they never ever can schedule any variety. It would likely mean the end of UF-Miami or USC-UNC or UGA-Clemson forever. We'd be in the same boat if we ever re-add the sips to the schedule. With 10 locked in games, you'd never see UCLA or Oregon come to Kyle. The last two games would always be buy home games.
Agreed. But if we are to stay at 8 conference games, I would hope we don't limit ourselves to just one P5 OOC opponent per year. I don't mind a cupcake or two, but three is too many.
And I'm not sure the UTx game is coming back, for the very reason you suggest: they're already at 9 conference games. Making another one permanent would lock them into 10. They wouldn't be able to schedule USCw in Mexico or Tokyo University in Timbuktu or whatever. (Though as the overall quality of the B12 sinks, they may have to look for ways to strengthen their schedule even more)
Posted on 4/30/14 at 12:27 pm to Mirthomatic
quote:
they're already at 9 conference games
No offense to the Big 12. I really don't have hate for them. But there are a number of flat out duds in the league from a perception standpoint. There really is only 1 big game they have and a few decent ones.
It's not like our schedule at all: LSU, Bama, Auburn, South Carolina...those are all unequivocally better than the 2nd best game they have. Arkansas may be. Ole Miss and MSU would probably be in the top half of their schedule. To me their schedule sucks with only 1 good OOC opponent. They really need to carry 2 at all times. Same with OU.
This is the same deal with FSU or Clemson honestly and why I think the ACC could still go to 9. The SOS issue matters so much more to them because of how weak their league is perceived to be. You can't risk the perception that the only P5 OOC game you played wasn't a top opponent, and you can't necessarily control that.
Honestly, if FSU had lost a game last year, would they have made even a 4-team playoff? Probably because Stanford (ranked #5) had 2 losses. But they would definitely have been behind Auburn, Bama, and Michigan State. It's a risk on their part to stand pat, especially in a year like last year when Florida is down. But when was the last 1-loss SEC team not in the top 4 of the BCS at the end? It doesn't matter to us. It does to them.
2013 (P5, 1-loss, not in top 4): Ohio State, Baylor, Louisville
2012: Kansas State
2011: none
2010: Stanford, Ohio State, Michigan State
2009: Florida (there were 4 undefeateds that year)
2008: USC, Texas Tech, Penn State
By league
Big 12 - 3 (2 champions)
B1G - 4 (2 champions)
Pac - 2 (2 champions)
ACC - none (and it's not bc they've done well)
SEC - 1 (0 league champs)
In most of these years, there were multiple SEC teams in the top 4. That doesn't mean it will be like that forever, but right now, the SEC is not the league that needs to change its scheduling philosophy.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:11 pm to tmc94
From a marketing/ratings perspective, I definitely agree that the B12 is crap outside OU/UTx. But from a competitive standpoint, I actually think the quality of teams is roughly on par with the other conferences. At least for now and the near future. Part of that is because the quality of coaching in the B12 is higher than what you find in many other leagues. Snyder, Briles, Gundy, and maybe now Kingsbury will give the conference, more often than not, a solid second tier for SOS purposes. Enough so that a hypothetical 1-loss UTx, if they're the champs of the B12, can expect to get into the playoff over a one-loss non-champ in the SEC. I think the makeup of the selection committee is going to see to that. And currently I think both the B1G and ACC are perceived to be inferior to the B12, football-wise.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 1:36 pm to Mirthomatic
Maybe. But the last 2 years a 1-loss Big 12 champ would have been left out for a 1-loss non-champ SEC school ('12 UF was ranked significantly higher than KSU and Bama significantly higher than Baylor last year). Neither of those are UTx/OU but it's clearly a problem.
I agree with you on perception vs reality but reality doesn't matter. This is a beauty contest and ignoring perception is in fact ignoring reality.
I agree with you on perception vs reality but reality doesn't matter. This is a beauty contest and ignoring perception is in fact ignoring reality.
Posted on 4/30/14 at 2:11 pm to tmc94
But it's difficult to extrapolate from previous years because the new playoff selection committee is not bound to follow the BCS formula. Or the AP voters. Looking at the composition of the committee, I think that spots were apportioned to ensure a certain level of protection for regional/conference interests. You may still see Bama going over Baylor, but I think UTx/OU would get the benefit of the doubt, even if "objectively" they have a weaker resume.
So long as that's the case, UTx may not want to lock in A&M on the schedule. Which is fine by me, as I have no desire to play them any time soon.
So long as that's the case, UTx may not want to lock in A&M on the schedule. Which is fine by me, as I have no desire to play them any time soon.
Page 10 of 27
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News