good laugh, check out the post on nafoom grading the SEC non-conference schedules. Let me make clear that I in no way thing MSU's is tough, by the way.
If y'all want a
- Thread starter KurtRambis4
- Start date
If
you think OM's is anything better than a C (to suggest an A is 17ing laughable, at best), then you're being a homer. Boise State 2014 is not Boise State 2006/2007. Then Presbyterian, Memphis, and ULL? A/B? Give me a break.
you think OM's is anything better than a C (to suggest an A is 17ing laughable, at best), then you're being a homer. Boise State 2014 is not Boise State 2006/2007. Then Presbyterian, Memphis, and ULL? A/B? Give me a break.
Sometimes
I get extremely bored.
ETA: Some Corso wannabe grades OM's non-conf schedule as a A-/B+
I get extremely bored.
ETA: Some Corso wannabe grades OM's non-conf schedule as a A-/B+
I agree that OM is not an A, but Boise and ULL are pretty good games. Boise finished with an 8-5 record last year, and they beat the toughest team on your non-conf schedule by 53 points. They lost their coach and qb i think, but return a lot from last year.
ULL has the great Hud, so how can you as a State fan discount that game?
ULL has the great Hud, so how can you as a State fan discount that game?
Yeah, every other team in the conference except the Miss. teams and Vandy play a power (respectable) team. I consider State's trip to USA in Week 3 equivalent to playing Boise on a neutral field for the first game. Maybe a B--**
Hey I heard Presbyterian is supposed to be bad *** this year!
We get to see the showdown with the Freezus Baptist and the the Blue Hose of Presbyterian!!
We get to see the showdown with the Freezus Baptist and the the Blue Hose of Presbyterian!!
Hey, I like weak OOC schedules. Under the current format, there is little reason to schedule tough unless you get a good cash payout for it, and even then, not so much.
Big OOC games are for the fans only, not for the program's benefit.
My proposal in both the East and West threads on Nafoom was to eventually go to a 10 game schedule with 8 league games and 2 P5 opponents in non-conference.
That would be a solution for essentially cutting the lesser leagues completely off. You'd get extra off weeks. The TV deals would be a little bit sweeter of a sell. The ability to expand the playoff would be easier. The downside is you'd have some solid teams going 5-5 at times, but I think it would be good for balance, and I think it would be good for increasing cross-regional exposure.
On the downside, it could be bad for the SEC, since it would give other leagues an opportunity to put more chinks in our armor, but if the playoff is in place and expanded to 8, 12, or 16 teams, that would work itself out.
Huh? Surely you aren't calling USM the toughest team on our schedule? Yeah, our OOC schedule is very weak. I'm not denying that. But playing AT South Alabama is a much tougher test than USM. Hell, they beat ULL (in your words, a "pretty good game" for y'all) by more than three touchdowns- and they also played Tennessee within a touchdown last year.
ETA: Another poster beat me to it.
I think you're
missing the point. I wasn't suggesting anything related to how any team should schedule. I was just commenting on the thread where someone graded OMs schedule (A-/B+). That is just stupid.
missing the point. I wasn't suggesting anything related to how any team should schedule. I was just commenting on the thread where someone graded OMs schedule (A-/B+). That is just stupid.
Let me preface
this with reiterating that I in no way think MSU's nonconf schedule is tough. However, you say a team is "pretty good" because they beat our "toughest" nonconf team's ***, but that another team (USA) beat one of the teams last year that you also mention as being "pretty good" (ULL) on your schedule.
The point was that OM's nonconf schedule is a C, at best. To suggest otherwise would just involve being a homer and/or dumb.
this with reiterating that I in no way think MSU's nonconf schedule is tough. However, you say a team is "pretty good" because they beat our "toughest" nonconf team's ***, but that another team (USA) beat one of the teams last year that you also mention as being "pretty good" (ULL) on your schedule.
The point was that OM's nonconf schedule is a C, at best. To suggest otherwise would just involve being a homer and/or dumb.
I'll agree with that. His rating for our schedule was a homer rating. I had the same thought, but I didn't express it in the thread. Personally, I like our OOC schedule because it SHOULD be a 4-0 slate, and we should get it with at least one good exposure game (Boise in Atlanta) mixed in.
To me, under the current set up, the number one goal of non-conference play should be to end up 4-0. That should come before everything else. Then, after that, you can look to how you can mix it up and still end up 4-0. We're having some good fortune with the Boise game. When we originally had them on our schedule, it was 2011 in Oxford. That Boise team would've destroyed our 2011 team to open the season. This year, we should be able to beat them by 2 scores and still get a touch of national respect for a quality win.
Ole Miss's OOC Schedule is an A.
They have a schedule that they should go 4-0 against. That puts them at a minimum of B+. Having a school with good name recognition that is not as good as their usual reputation (Boise) puts them at an A.
Out OOC schedule is a B. We have a schedule that we should go 4-0 against but playing @ USA, when they played UT close last year, drops us to a B.
I saw it and kind of chuckled at the A/B ranking. I think you have it about
right with C. USA down there scares me a little because they are kind of like the USM of old. I was surprised none of their other posters called him out for that ranking.
right with C. USA down there scares me a little because they are kind of like the USM of old. I was surprised none of their other posters called him out for that ranking.
Last edited: