Interesting talk on Finebaum by Tim Brando. He's talking abt SEC teams playing ooc games and not getting up for their opponent. Said these games are bad for the fans and fanbases. Bc fans dont want to come and players play flat. I think he could be on to something.
Finebaum
- Thread starter OmarLittle
- Start date
If teams schedule bigger name schools and the fans want to come and the players get up for the game that's great. But then they lose that game and the fans won't come to the next game, the players won't get up and the coach gets fired.
You can look at it both ways but the sec is hard enough so give me cupcakes and flat performances all day as long as we win.
If a team isn't focused and plays flat- that's on the coach. Contrary to his belief, it is possible for a team to come out and play focused football, be vanilla and beat the ever living crap out of a team.
The thing is, even if you are Alabama, LSU, or Florida, etc. you can't play 10-12 tough games (defined as other BCS teams or top 25 mid majors such as Boise St.) and expect to survive the season and achieve in their case, the goal of playing for a NC. At some point, you have to develop depth and also rest players.
And I think he is wrong about people not wanting to watch those games. The proof is the people sitting in the stands. There is such a demand to watch SEC football, that we would sell out MSU/Millsaps if we played. The proof is the people that aren't going to the games paying 35 bucks to watch them on pay per view if that is the case.
The thing is, even if you are Alabama, LSU, or Florida, etc. you can't play 10-12 tough games (defined as other BCS teams or top 25 mid majors such as Boise St.) and expect to survive the season and achieve in their case, the goal of playing for a NC. At some point, you have to develop depth and also rest players.
And I think he is wrong about people not wanting to watch those games. The proof is the people sitting in the stands. There is such a demand to watch SEC football, that we would sell out MSU/Millsaps if we played. The proof is the people that aren't going to the games paying 35 bucks to watch them on pay per view if that is the case.
Screw brando and any other talking head that says this ********. They want marquee matchups for TV ratings but they don't have a rooting interest in any specific team. They'll load us up with kudos for playing texas, oregon, southern cal, wvu, nebraska, etc and they'll mock us when we go 5-7. 17 them.
It's not just a SEC thing
How many times has Ohio State or Michigan played some directional MAC school? How many times has USC played Hawaii? How many times has Texas played New Mexico or a directional Texas school?
EVERYONE that has a brain does it.
How many times has Ohio State or Michigan played some directional MAC school? How many times has USC played Hawaii? How many times has Texas played New Mexico or a directional Texas school?
EVERYONE that has a brain does it.
I didnt say I fully agree with him. Just on the playing flat part. That seems to be a theme nationwide to take an off day when playing lesser opponents.
It is more to it than than. If we played 2 huge OCC games already and were 2-2, how good is that for the fanbase? If we beat UK and are 5-0 the atmosphere will be there regardless of who those 5 teams were. 3-2, not so much.
If the SEC were to stop scheduling local FCS and non-AQ schools it would be a huge blow to most schools' athletic budgets. Most of you probably don't care but I don't want to see teams like Alcorn, UT-Martin, and FCS Southeast to go the way of University of New Orleans (somewhat storied baseball program bit the dust for financial reasons). I truly believe La Tech and ULM are having a lot of their success because of the money being given to them each year by SEC teams. Schools near the Big Ten don't have the same problem as low-budget "community based" schools like the ones around here.
Last edited:
all that is just stupid. You can't play badasses every week. The problem is the SEC has just risen to a level that means they will usually pound teams that arent BCS types. When fans get tired of watching their teams win- there's a problem.
Kentucky, State, Mississippi, Vanderbilt, A&M, Missouri, and others dont seem to have a problem with winning these games. If Bama, LSU, and the like want to load their schedules up, more power to them
Kentucky, State, Mississippi, Vanderbilt, A&M, Missouri, and others dont seem to have a problem with winning these games. If Bama, LSU, and the like want to load their schedules up, more power to them
Word to Finebaum & Tim Brando...
..I realize you are just 2 media clowns who like to stir the **** for ratings, but go ask UPig how scheduling LA-Monore turned out. That right there should shut your mouths concerning this "cupcake scheduling" topic, provided it is even possible to shut your mouths (which it isn't).
..I realize you are just 2 media clowns who like to stir the **** for ratings, but go ask UPig how scheduling LA-Monore turned out. That right there should shut your mouths concerning this "cupcake scheduling" topic, provided it is even possible to shut your mouths (which it isn't).
I don't think any one is advocating replacing Troy or mtsu with Texas and USC. But playing Iowa state, Virginia, Indiana, syracuse, or Colorado state would be good replacements. Not that they would help our SOS either, but they wouldn't destroy it and should decrease the media bitching. We don't have to out run the bear (media) just the fella next to us (teams trying to guarantee a weak bowl by scheduling cupcakes). My main gripe is the notion that if the day comes we do have our shot at all the marbles, I want to eliminate ANY team jumping us because they a are historically more nationally popular. Our schedule t this year leaves that possibility.
Some facts for the discussion...
Here is what I get out of the below attendance figures:
1) Playing quality BCS teams during the regular season has no positive impact on attendance and a negative impact on wins (we lost every single BCS OOC game we played dating back to 2002).
Average regular season wins during years where we scheduled BCS OOC opponents*: 4.0
Average regular season wins during years where we did not schedule BCS OOC opponents (full seasons only)**: 5.0
*6 seasons. All 12 games.
**4 seasons; 2 include 11 game seasons.
Average attendance / game during years where we scheduled BCS OOC opponents: 47,338
Average attendance / game during years where we did not schedule BCS OOC opponents: 50,607
2) From the 2002 - 2006 seasons, the number of home games seems to be the biggest factor in attendance / game. Regardless of BCS opponent, attendance / game went up during the 6 game years and down during the 7 game years. If I have to explain why this would happen, quit reading.
3) We see a big increase in attendance during 2007. Why? Besides only having 6 home games, we won 7 regular season games that year.
4) There's a big increase in 2009. Change in regime inspired the fans.
5) The increase in fans has been limited to roughly our max capacity in the seasons that followed the coaching change. Zero BCS OOC teams were scheduled during this span and we went to bowls in 2 of the 3 seasons.
6) No BCS OOC teams scheduled during the current season, yet we are 4-0 and continue to exceed 55k per game.
Bottom line: Fans want to see Ws. They don't care who they are against. If your team wins, your fans are happy and they show up. Brando is full of shite.
<tbody>
</tbody>
***I went back to 2002 to avoid stadium capacity differences before the 2002 season.
Here is what I get out of the below attendance figures:
1) Playing quality BCS teams during the regular season has no positive impact on attendance and a negative impact on wins (we lost every single BCS OOC game we played dating back to 2002).
Average regular season wins during years where we scheduled BCS OOC opponents*: 4.0
Average regular season wins during years where we did not schedule BCS OOC opponents (full seasons only)**: 5.0
*6 seasons. All 12 games.
**4 seasons; 2 include 11 game seasons.
Average attendance / game during years where we scheduled BCS OOC opponents: 47,338
Average attendance / game during years where we did not schedule BCS OOC opponents: 50,607
2) From the 2002 - 2006 seasons, the number of home games seems to be the biggest factor in attendance / game. Regardless of BCS opponent, attendance / game went up during the 6 game years and down during the 7 game years. If I have to explain why this would happen, quit reading.
3) We see a big increase in attendance during 2007. Why? Besides only having 6 home games, we won 7 regular season games that year.
4) There's a big increase in 2009. Change in regime inspired the fans.
5) The increase in fans has been limited to roughly our max capacity in the seasons that followed the coaching change. Zero BCS OOC teams were scheduled during this span and we went to bowls in 2 of the 3 seasons.
6) No BCS OOC teams scheduled during the current season, yet we are 4-0 and continue to exceed 55k per game.
Bottom line: Fans want to see Ws. They don't care who they are against. If your team wins, your fans are happy and they show up. Brando is full of shite.
| Season | BCS OOC Reg Season | Record | Attendance / Game | Home Games |
| 2002 | Oregon (away) | 3-9 | 48,291 | 6 |
| 2003 | Oregon (home) | 2-10 | 47,667 | 6 |
| 2004 | None | 3-8 | 43,792 | 7 |
| 2005 | None | 3-8 | 47,688 | 6 |
| 2006 | WVU (home) | 3-9 | 41,527 | 7 |
| 2007 | WVU (away) | 8-5 | 49,296 | 6 |
| 2008 | GaTech (away) | 4-8 | 43,453 | 6 |
| 2009 | GaTech (home) | 5-7 | 53,792 | 7 |
| 2010 | None | 9-4 | 54,999 | 7 |
| 2011 | None | 7-5 | 55,949 | 6 |
| 2012 | None | 4-0 | 55,460 | 3 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
***I went back to 2002 to avoid stadium capacity differences before the 2002 season.
Last edited:
An 8- or 16-team playoff would fix that. Not only would the importance of SOS rise (it's only mattered a couple of times in the entire BCS history), a team wouldn't risk destroying their whole NC chance with a tough OOC game.
Until the system changes to reward some kind of RPI or computer formula-based metric that emphasizes SOS and doesn't punish hard for a loss to a great team, nobody wants to risk a tough OOC game.
Until the system changes to reward some kind of RPI or computer formula-based metric that emphasizes SOS and doesn't punish hard for a loss to a great team, nobody wants to risk a tough OOC game.
Alabama was flat Saturday and they played an SEC team ... but one that was better than they thought.
I am starting to think that the SEC should go to a 9 game schedule. We would then be able to have more good games and a larger TV contract. Frankly, its just better for the game. I know people like going to bowl games, but a bowl game just isn't all that IMO. Plus, the extra TV money that would come from a 9th game, would hopefully makeup for any amount lost by having one or two fewer bowl teams. I love watching the NFL because all the games are competitive. In college football, Alabama and LSU only play 2 or 3 games a year that are competitive. How is that good for the sport in general?
What? Good lord this makes no sense. If anything, Arkansas's loss to ULM is a reason for BCS schools to schedule stronger. I'm not saying I agree wih Brando... I'm saying that your point was... well... What was your point?
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
I think you are wrong Todd....
a coach can attempt everything in the world to have his players focused and ready to play; however, in the end, it is on the players.
a coach can attempt everything in the world to have his players focused and ready to play; however, in the end, it is on the players.
And per Greg Byrne, we ran through a whole list of teams similar to, and including some of the ones you mentioned, and were turned down for home-and-homes by all of them. I'm not sure how to address that particular problem without winning our way to being a household name, but it does affect our scheduling options.
It doesn't matter how much effort the coach
puts into getting them ready, it's ultimately his job to have them ready and if they aren't, that eventually falls back on the head coach. That's why he's paid the big bucks. If the players don't perform, it falls back on him.
puts into getting them ready, it's ultimately his job to have them ready and if they aren't, that eventually falls back on the head coach. That's why he's paid the big bucks. If the players don't perform, it falls back on him.