Warning: wall of text
they have about as much to gain as an oregon, oklahoma state, west virginia or georgia tech...they might even have more of a reason. perhaps im overlooking the obvious, but what do these teams gain in playing us that say, an illinois or kansas doesnt gain? from a competitive play perspective, it should be right down their alley, which is clearly not the case since none of these schools are looking to exchange a home and home with us.
beating any sec team would be a big deal for them and its not like we are some juggernaut. we are the low hanging sec fruit and seemingly would entice somebody at some point to start up a conversation. i would think getting an sec scalp might be enough for them to step out of their comfort zone. obviously, this line of thinking is NOT how they operate as evidence by the lack of these type games for us, but to me, it makes sense. its not like they are stepping up to play an sec power, merely their equivalent in another big conference.
i get that they are looking for winnable ooc games, but that is exactly what we are, or in my mind, what we should be to them. im playing devils advocate a bit because there is obviously some reason these types of teams dont wanna play us, im just trying to wrap my head around it. its not like playing msu is a guaranteed loss for them yet these teams are looking at us like we are alabama or lsu and avoiding us like the plague.
since 2005:
lsu: washington, arizona st, arizona (toss up)
georgia: colorado, arizona st
tennessee: cal(might be pushing it), ucla (see cal), nc st
south carolina: unc, nc st, navy?,
kentucky: indiana
vandy:wake forest, duke, army?, northwestern, uconn?
ole miss: mizzou (ooc), wake forest
auburn: washington st, kansas st, (utah st?, new mexico st?)
arkansas: utah st?, rutgers
hell, i even left out some big east teams like temple, south florida, ucf, louisville (dont want to play them anytime soon), cincinatti, and didnt mention the some other well known, but lesser opponents.
meanwhile, since 2005, our ooc slate has either been feast (ie, **** nobody wants to see or stuff that doesnt push the needle): murray st, tulane, memphis, houston (well...), uab, jacksonville st, gardner-webb, la tech, mid tennessee, se la, jackson st, alcorn st, tenn-martin, south alabama, troy.
or fammine: west virginia, ga tech....and before that, it was oregon, byu?, and ok state....and now ok state again.
as far as ooc games go, we clearly are not doing what the rest of the sec is doing. Everyone is scheduling the warm-up games and cupcakes....i have no problem with that and encourage that. the one thing other sec schools are doing is scheduling branded schools that have a sizable following and national name recognition.
i didnt play with the numbers or manipulate things to sway...out of that admittedly short sample size, our fellow sec schools have proven they can get games with nc state (since someone mentioned it), arizona st, indiana, wake forest, duke, the armed forces school (diminishes my point a little, but they have name recognition), unc, washinton, washington st, colorado, northwestern....
to be fair, i think ga tech was a poor attempt to accomplish this same type scheduling, and maybe to a much lesser extent byu, but in both cases, we missed the mark of scheduling these types of games. since 2005, we largely schedule no-name creampuffs or directional schools or a team that ends up in the top 15. not good....we are missing something somewhere down the line.
and so the record is clear, im all for the guaranteed wins, but we can make things a little more interesting and still accomplish the same goal with smarter scheduling, but with our luck, we schedule washington state and by the time that home and home rolls around, they will be national championship contenders.
