Home/Away Football Poll
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
because it makes for better road trips. Who wouldn't like going to a game in Gainsville, T-Town, Athens or other places that have great atmospheres. You drive all the way to Lexington and lose you are going to be more pissed off than if you drove all the way to Athens and lost.
Either that or 5 other fans didn't understand the poll.
Why would anyone want to play your toughest opponents at home? If you are looking at a guaranteed loss, you want that loss on the road, and you want to play opponents that you have a decent to better chance of winning against at home.
The only time this is reversed is if you have a very good team and you think you have a chance to run the table. Then you want the tough games at home, and you lesser competition on the road.
Its really not that hard to comprehend.
Why would anyone want to play your toughest opponents at home? If you are looking at a guaranteed loss, you want that loss on the road, and you want to play opponents that you have a decent to better chance of winning against at home.
The only time this is reversed is if you have a very good team and you think you have a chance to run the table. Then you want the tough games at home, and you lesser competition on the road.
Its really not that hard to comprehend.
I think Ronny needs to take a cue from Arod and just come clean.
Just admit that you were wrong, and that the rest of his posts were just attempts to support a ridiculous argument.
I think the other people posting No must not understand the question, either that or they don't understand sports.
Just admit that you were wrong, and that the rest of his posts were just attempts to support a ridiculous argument.
I think the other people posting No must not understand the question, either that or they don't understand sports.
1) more friends will be in town for the game day weekend,
2) I simply enjoy watching good football teams play the game, &
3) if I don't feel like going to the game(because we suck THAT bad), it's easier to sell the tickets
if we play an upper echelon team at home versus a lower echelon team.
2) I simply enjoy watching good football teams play the game, &
3) if I don't feel like going to the game(because we suck THAT bad), it's easier to sell the tickets
if we play an upper echelon team at home versus a lower echelon team.
From: 8dog [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 2:35 PM
To: dawgstudent
Subject: RE: </p>
</p>
its tough b/c you have to make sure people are voting on the basis of getting wins and not just seeing Bama, LSU and Tebow play</p>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 2:35 PM
To: dawgstudent
Subject: RE: </p>
</p>
its tough b/c you have to make sure people are voting on the basis of getting wins and not just seeing Bama, LSU and Tebow play</p>
I could see someone wanting to see Lebron/Kobe/Melo play in New Orleans and who cares if New Orleans wins.
I have never gone to an Ole Miss game, solely to watch another team's star player kick the **** out of Ole Miss. Now, of course it has happened, but that wasn't the reason I went to the game.
I have never gone to an Ole Miss game, solely to watch another team's star player kick the **** out of Ole Miss. Now, of course it has happened, but that wasn't the reason I went to the game.
He's obviously not as concerned as you are with getting 6 wins. He just wants the season to be as much fun as possible. While I don't feel this way, at least this is a reasonable stance, and I can see why someone would.
and told I have velcro shoes by someone too fat to tie his own shoes, I will say why I voted no.
First off, voting yes is a pessimistic attitude. Did anyone think OleMiss would beat LSU last year? Did anyone think MSU would beat Auburn in 2007? Did anyone think MSU in 2007 and OleMiss in 2008 would finish 8-4 and win a bowl? How do you know we will have no chance to beat those good teams at home next year? I guess since it's such a tough schedule we just shouldn't play those games and risk injuries.
Plain and simple, playing the hard teams at home gives you a better chance to beat them. I'll gladly trade a loss to Vandy or Kentucky on the road with a huge upset win at home over a top 20 team anyday.
I can understand why you might think it's better to have it the other way, but unless you are 100% sure the team will suck, then you want to play the good teams at home to give you a better chance to beat them.
First off, voting yes is a pessimistic attitude. Did anyone think OleMiss would beat LSU last year? Did anyone think MSU would beat Auburn in 2007? Did anyone think MSU in 2007 and OleMiss in 2008 would finish 8-4 and win a bowl? How do you know we will have no chance to beat those good teams at home next year? I guess since it's such a tough schedule we just shouldn't play those games and risk injuries.
Plain and simple, playing the hard teams at home gives you a better chance to beat them. I'll gladly trade a loss to Vandy or Kentucky on the road with a huge upset win at home over a top 20 team anyday.
I can understand why you might think it's better to have it the other way, but unless you are 100% sure the team will suck, then you want to play the good teams at home to give you a better chance to beat them.
....because we don't get to decide when and where to play who, or when anybody else is good. Or us, for that matter.
Every year we're going to play two groups of teams:
Group A: LSU, Alabama, Ole Miss
Group B: Auburn, Kentucky, Arkansas
Each year we'll play all of Group A at home and all of Group B on the road, or vice versa. In addition we'll play one semi-random East team at home, and the semi-random East team we played last year on the road.
You can't control when you play the random East teams, so the question becomes "If you're not supposed to be any good, would you rather play LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss at home, or Auburn, Kentucky, and Arkansas at home?"
To reframe the question again in terms of actual "product", ask yourself if you enjoyed the 2003 and 2005 home seasons more than the 2004 and 2006 home seasons. I personally thought they all sucked.
Every year we're going to play two groups of teams:
Group A: LSU, Alabama, Ole Miss
Group B: Auburn, Kentucky, Arkansas
Each year we'll play all of Group A at home and all of Group B on the road, or vice versa. In addition we'll play one semi-random East team at home, and the semi-random East team we played last year on the road.
You can't control when you play the random East teams, so the question becomes "If you're not supposed to be any good, would you rather play LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss at home, or Auburn, Kentucky, and Arkansas at home?"
To reframe the question again in terms of actual "product", ask yourself if you enjoyed the 2003 and 2005 home seasons more than the 2004 and 2006 home seasons. I personally thought they all sucked.
I wish I could be there when the Prince of Football Wisdom, OMLawdog, asks his coach Nutt if Nutt would rather play Bama @ home or Kentucky @ home if forced to make a choice.
I would laugh my *** off at the look on OMLawdog's face when Nutt gives OMLawdog the answer.
Anyway, Brutius, you make the most sense in this thread concerning this topic, but then, you are a liberal who voted for Obama. So that means, according to this board's dynamics, you wear at least one velcro shoe by default.
This doesn't really change your main point, but this particular season, those semi-random East teams you speak of make a huge difference. The home game is against the unquestionable favorite for the national championship, and the road team is against probable 5th or 6th place East team, Vandy. So, I don't think you can ignore that in this argument.
If you think you are going to be good, you want to play your tough games at home and your average to lesser opponents on the road. If you think your team is rebuilding you want the better teams on the road, and the teams that are comparable to you at home. This is not hard.
This is basic.
If Snead leaves after next year and we have a rebuilding year in 2010, I hope we play every average team at home and every good team on the road. That gives us the best chance to win football games.
This is basic.
If Snead leaves after next year and we have a rebuilding year in 2010, I hope we play every average team at home and every good team on the road. That gives us the best chance to win football games.
because your assumption that the team will be no good is flawed. How do you know that? How do you know we have no chance to beat one of those top 20 teams at home? You are assuming things are fact when they are just your opinion. Obviously if you somehow 100% knew you were going to lose, you would want to go ahead and lose those games on the road and play easier games at home. The problem is, you have no idea whether you will lose or not, that is as they say, why they play the games.
There is a chance that Ole Miss could go 0-12 next year, just like there is a chance MSU could go 12-0, so by your logic assuming that each school won't go winless and undefeated respectively is flawed.
Im not saying MSU doesn't have a chance to beat a Top 20 team next year, they could beat FL, LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss all at home. It is possible.
My opinion is that MSU has a better chance of running the table against, UPIG, AU, UK, Vandy at home.
That opinion is based off last year's performance, the current talent level on all of those teams.
The questions wasn't that it was certain that MSU would lose those games at home, it was that based on everything we know, MSU has a better chance against UPIG, AU, UK, Vandy than against FL, LSU, Bama, Ole Miss. Could this be wrong and Vandy and AU play for the SEC championship next year? Sure it is possible, but I think the chances are greater that Florida, LSU or Bama will be in the Title game. Im basing that on talent and coaching, though Miles is still a dumbass.
How about this, you give me FL, LSU, Bama and Ole Miss, I'll give you Upig, AU, UK, and Vandy and if my four win more games than your four you give me a 100 bucks. If your four wins more games, I give you 100 bucks.
Im not saying MSU doesn't have a chance to beat a Top 20 team next year, they could beat FL, LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss all at home. It is possible.
My opinion is that MSU has a better chance of running the table against, UPIG, AU, UK, Vandy at home.
That opinion is based off last year's performance, the current talent level on all of those teams.
The questions wasn't that it was certain that MSU would lose those games at home, it was that based on everything we know, MSU has a better chance against UPIG, AU, UK, Vandy than against FL, LSU, Bama, Ole Miss. Could this be wrong and Vandy and AU play for the SEC championship next year? Sure it is possible, but I think the chances are greater that Florida, LSU or Bama will be in the Title game. Im basing that on talent and coaching, though Miles is still a dumbass.
How about this, you give me FL, LSU, Bama and Ole Miss, I'll give you Upig, AU, UK, and Vandy and if my four win more games than your four you give me a 100 bucks. If your four wins more games, I give you 100 bucks.
you are the dumbest person here. You are randomly making stuff up and changing your arguments each time you type. Are you pulling a coach34 and just trying to be stupid on purpose to get a rise out of people or something?</p>
If you want a successful program, and you want to win the majority (i.e. more than 6) of your games, you want your hard games at home. End of story. If your goal is to only win 6, then you have a ****** goal and need to reassess your team.</p>
If you want a successful program, and you want to win the majority (i.e. more than 6) of your games, you want your hard games at home. End of story. If your goal is to only win 6, then you have a ****** goal and need to reassess your team.</p>
They are saying the same thing. Just because I like the Rebs you feel more comfortable telling me that Im stupid. Tell 8dog and DS and 70% of the board they are stupid.
How have I changed my argument? I have said the exact same thing every time. You treat each football team the same like Florida is the same as Vandy. Guess what, they aren't.
Why can't you accept the premise that a team that may not be as good as other teams on its schedule, and for that reason the schedule can determine whether or not a team is successful.
If you play all of your hard games at home and play your middle tier games on the road you will a very hard time winning games unless you are a good football team.. That is the bottom line. You must think MSU will be a good football team next year, DS, 8dog, myself think it will be a rebuilding year.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and this post just proves it. Imagine going 5-6 with a trip to Nashville on the line, do you want to play Ole Miss at home or on the road? What a tool.
Also, don't be scared to tell other MSU fans that they are idiots when they have the same opinion as me. Its interesting you haven't called DS or 8dog names for having the exact same opinion.
How have I changed my argument? I have said the exact same thing every time. You treat each football team the same like Florida is the same as Vandy. Guess what, they aren't.
Why can't you accept the premise that a team that may not be as good as other teams on its schedule, and for that reason the schedule can determine whether or not a team is successful.
If you play all of your hard games at home and play your middle tier games on the road you will a very hard time winning games unless you are a good football team.. That is the bottom line. You must think MSU will be a good football team next year, DS, 8dog, myself think it will be a rebuilding year.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and this post just proves it. Imagine going 5-6 with a trip to Nashville on the line, do you want to play Ole Miss at home or on the road? What a tool.
Also, don't be scared to tell other MSU fans that they are idiots when they have the same opinion as me. Its interesting you haven't called DS or 8dog names for having the exact same opinion.
You always have a much better chance to beat someone at home. Why would you want to play against a great team with their home field advantage? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Looking at the talent Crxxm has left Mullen with, I'm damn near 100% certain we will suck next year. That loss to Vandy or Kentucky you're so glad to trade is only going to increase our chances of beating Florida from a 5% chance to a 10% chance.Brutius said:
There's five ways you can get the five other East teams:
Florida, at Vanderbilt
Georgia, at Florida
South Carolina, at Georgia
Tennessee, at South Carolina
Vanderbilt, at Tennessee
Let's just take history as our basis and say that it doesn't really make it any easier or harder whether you play Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee at home or on the road. It's still Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee, and most years, that should be a tough game regardless. (Yes, I realize we've beaten Florida the last four times in 23 years that they came to Starkville, but that's like hitting the lottery; you can't expect it to happen.)
So four out of five years you're playing one of Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee, and the fifth year you hit the jackpot and get Georgia at home and Florida on the road. No benefit in that one case, definitely.
To look at the other side of the four out of five years, you're going to play home and home with South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Since conference expansion, MSU is 3-3 vs. South Carolina at home and 3-4 vs. South Carolina in Columbia. It's basically a coin-flip, and we're about equally likely to win whether it's home or away. We've only played Vandy four times in the last 17 years, and only lost the one in Nashville in 2004, so it's probably a little better than a coin flip.
So it boils down to one out of five years you're going to have a hellish SEC East schedule, and the other four years, you have one winnable game and one game against one of the powerhouses.
It really doesn't matter which one you get or when or where. It's all about the same. It still boils down to, would you rather have Auburn, Kentucky, and Arkansas at home, or LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss at home?
By the way, recent records against the other five SEC East teams (since the current rotation started in 2002, at least):
2008: 1-1
2007: 0-2
2006: 0-2
2005: 0-2
2004: 1-1
2003: 1-1
2002: 0-2
Florida, at Vanderbilt
Georgia, at Florida
South Carolina, at Georgia
Tennessee, at South Carolina
Vanderbilt, at Tennessee
Let's just take history as our basis and say that it doesn't really make it any easier or harder whether you play Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee at home or on the road. It's still Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee, and most years, that should be a tough game regardless. (Yes, I realize we've beaten Florida the last four times in 23 years that they came to Starkville, but that's like hitting the lottery; you can't expect it to happen.)
So four out of five years you're playing one of Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee, and the fifth year you hit the jackpot and get Georgia at home and Florida on the road. No benefit in that one case, definitely.
To look at the other side of the four out of five years, you're going to play home and home with South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Since conference expansion, MSU is 3-3 vs. South Carolina at home and 3-4 vs. South Carolina in Columbia. It's basically a coin-flip, and we're about equally likely to win whether it's home or away. We've only played Vandy four times in the last 17 years, and only lost the one in Nashville in 2004, so it's probably a little better than a coin flip.
So it boils down to one out of five years you're going to have a hellish SEC East schedule, and the other four years, you have one winnable game and one game against one of the powerhouses.
It really doesn't matter which one you get or when or where. It's all about the same. It still boils down to, would you rather have Auburn, Kentucky, and Arkansas at home, or LSU, Bama, and Ole Miss at home?
By the way, recent records against the other five SEC East teams (since the current rotation started in 2002, at least):
2008: 1-1
2007: 0-2
2006: 0-2
2005: 0-2
2004: 1-1
2003: 1-1
2002: 0-2