Rebels completely 17'd the 2009 football schedule

[FlabLoser]

New opponent is N Arizona. And not on the date they wanted. So now they get two D-II teams and 11 consecutive weeks of football.

2009 is the Rebels best chance in decades to shine. And now they get to try it with one less chance for a D-I win. Pardon me while I laugh my *** off.

 

[FlabLoser]

New opponent is N Arizona. And not on the date they wanted. So now they get two D-II teams and 11 consecutive weeks of football.

2009 is the Rebels best chance in decades to shine. And now they get to try it with one less chance for a D-I win. Pardon me while I laugh my *** off.

 

[patdog]

Only 1 home game in the first 5 weeks of the season, then 6 home games in 7 weeks. For the vast majority of fans who go to only the home games, that's gonna suck.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

Johnny Vaught knew that Rebel-nation wouldn't care how they got a win, just that they won. So, they used to schedule UT-Chattannooga every year....and it counted as a Conference game. the UTC coach was an old Vaught buddy and loathed UT-Knoxville, so they would schedule their game for the week before the UT game, and UTC would run the exact same offense and defense that UT ran so the Rebs could practice on the scheme.

It's not coincidence that UM didn't schedule Auburn for 17 straight seasons, and rarely played Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and GA Tech (then in the SEC and a powerhouse).

Reb-nation's schedule for 2009 must be in JV's memory.

 

[RebelBruiser]

You're not exactly correct on that. We only played them 12 times in Vaught's 24 seasons as head coach, and I know they didn't count as a conference game every one of those 12 years. We did play Arkansas almost every year as an OOC team, and they were a very good program back then. We also played Houston, Tulane, and Memphis State fairly often in our OOC schedule.

As for Bama, they wouldn't play us in Oxford for a while. They wanted Tuscaloosa only, which is the main reason we didn't play them for many years. We finally got them on the schedule for each of Vaught's last 6 seasons. And we played LSU in Baton Rouge 18 times in Vaught's 24 seasons. We only played them in Oxford 3 times and 3 times in Jackson.

Back then the SEC didn't have any scheduling policy, and they didn't control the schedule, so the richer programs (like Bama and LSU) could treat fellow conference members like small guys and play them only at home if they wanted. Also, it didn't guarantee that every school would get the same number of conference games scheduled.

Florida wasn't good back then. Georgia Tech left the conference in 1964.

From looking at our schedules, it looks like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, MSU, Tennessee, and LSU were the most common SEC opponents we had from those years. Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida all played us at times, but it wasn't as often, because they weren't forced to play us by the conference.

 

[Toag Redloh]

I wish we would do it.

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's the other thing. People don't realize how little SOS matters in college football. We're so trained on the basketball way of thinking where RPI is such a big deal, that we fail to see how much it pays to have a weak schedule in college football, at least if you're in a big conference. If you're in the WAC or MWC and want an argument for getting in the national title game, you will have to go out and schedule some powerhouse programs OOC and beat them. If you're in a conference like the Big 12 or SEC, you just need Ws. Even for those teams competing for a BCS bowl or the national title game, SOS is a very small factor in that decision. Let's take Ohio State last year and assume they had beaten Penn State. The fact that they played USC and lost would've sent them to the Rose Bowl instead of the national title game. Had they played Miami (OH) instead of USC (in this hypothetical where they beat PSU), they'd have been in the national title game.

I'm still not happy that we have two 1AAs, but my ideal OOC schedule would typically include one 1AA, and the rest of the teams from CUSA or the Sun Belt.

If you need an example, Arkansas would've been in a bowl game last year had they played North Texas instead of Texas. To take that further, Arkansas in 2007 played 4 cream puffs for their OOC schedule, and they went 8-4 with a Cotton Bowl bid. Had they played Texas or someone else OOC and lost, they'd have been 7-5 and likely headed to the Music City Bowl instead.

 

[vhdawg]

...to date, Georgia Tech has never played a game inside the state of Mississippi.

 

[DOGRX]

The Auburn 2004 team may disagree with you.</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

The Auburn 2004 team may disagree with you.</p>

Probably not, considering that the reason they missed out on the national title game is because two BCS conference teams that started the year ahead of them in the polls never lost.

I don't care who Auburn played, they weren't going to jump Oklahoma and USC as long as they kept winning. SOS was used as an excuse, but the reality of the situation is that the pre-season polls were the real reason Auburn missed out on the national title game. USC was No. 1 in both preseason polls. Oklahoma was No. 2 in both, and both teams stayed in those same two top spots all season. Auburn was 17 and 18 in both respectively. Auburn made up some ground on both USC and OU, but all year in 2004, the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the country (USC and OU) were exactly the same. The polls never changed, because the polls operate in a way that they don't typically punish a team unless they lose. It wasn't until USC beat OU in the national title game that Auburn was given the chance to jump to No. 2 in the polls.

It had nothing to do with SOS, and it had everything to do with OU and USC going undefeated from the pre-season 1 and 2 spots in the poll.

 

[Croomcream]

across Scott field with the cheerleaders and Bully hanging on the doors and runners maybe they will change their minds and come to Starkvegas for a game of chicken!!! Say it ain't so!!!

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Mathematically speaking. So, SOS isn't even an excuse at all.

 

[Toag Redloh]

SOS isn't all that, it just boils down to bad luck. When all things are equal, like those 3 teams were in terms of record, you get into the subjective side. OU and SC had been good the year before, were 1 and 2 all year, and SC had smoked Auburn for the last two years at both venues. SC had just come off an AP Title and Oklahoma had played in the BCS game the year before with a returning Heisman QB. Just bad luck for Auburn.</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

If you'll remember, Auburn was pre-season Top 5 in 2003. They stumbled out of the gates 0-2 with losses to SC and Georgia Tech OOC, and they finished the year 8-5 with a Music City Bowl win.

Essentially they lost out on their shot at the 2004 national title by underachieving in 2003. It's not fair that it happened that way, but that's what happens when 3 teams from BCS conferences go undefeated. The odds of that happening are slim, as it's the only time it has happened since the BCS began, and even more, there has only been one BCS team to go undefeated in the regular season in the last 3 seasons (Ohio State 2006).

 

[Toag Redloh]

I guess it's because the talking heads have to have something to talk about. 2004 is the ONLY year where the BCS has failed to put a game together that we all want to see. You can make the arguement for who got the second slot in each title game, but you can't really argue that the BCS has NOT crowned a deserving National Title winner. Those games like UT/USC wouldn't even have half the shot of existing they do now before the BCS and we'd also have twice the controversy.

And the Mark May's keep on with "the system's flawed" and "what can we do". WTF, this isn't rocket science. College sports are all subjective and always will be. It's a bunch of people's opinion where tournaments/bowl games take place, seeds, hosts, who gets in, etc. It never ends. The controversy over #1 and #2 would turn into the 2 teams getting left out if they went to a playoff.

 

[GloryDawg]

You're not exactly correct on that. We only played them 12 times in Vaught's 24 seasons as head coach, and I know they didn't count as a conference game every one of those 12 years. We did play Arkansas almost every year as an OOC team, and they were a very good program back then. We also played Houston, Tulane, and Memphis State fairly often in our OOC schedule.

As for Bama, they wouldn't play us in Oxford for a while. They wanted Tuscaloosa only, which is the main reason we didn't play them for many years. We finally got them on the schedule for each of Vaught's last 6 seasons. And we played LSU in Baton Rouge 18 times in Vaught's 24 seasons. We only played them in Oxford 3 times and 3 times in Jackson.

Back then the SEC didn't have any scheduling policy, and they didn't control the schedule, so the richer programs (like Bama and LSU) could treat fellow conference members like small guys and play them only at home if they wanted. Also, it didn't guarantee that every school would get the same number of conference games scheduled.

Florida wasn't good back then. Georgia Tech left the conference in 1964.

From looking at our schedules, it looks like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, MSU, Tennessee, and LSU were the most common SEC opponents we had from those years. Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida all played us at times, but it wasn't as often, because they weren't forced to play us by the conference.

The Obama tatic of diverting attention away from the subject at hand. Face it you AD screwed up and screwed your fans in the process.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Yea, with any playoff, whether it's a 2 team playoff (which is what we have today) or a 64/65 team playoff like basketball, there will always be an argument that this team or that team should've gotten in. However, if you look at basketball, the argument about which teams got snubbed is basically an argument over who gets to hang a banner for just being there. The teams that get left out of the NCAA tourney really don't have an argument that they might be the best team in the country. However, in football, there are many times where teams 3, 4, or even 5 in football do have a legit argument that they might really be the best team in the country.

Obviously you couldn't do a 64 team playoff in football, but if you did an 8 team playoff, team 9 would have much less of an argument that they are really the best team in the country than team 3 has today in our current 2 team playoff.

 

[Henry Kissinger]

Auburn was tied with Oklahoma at 2 in week 12. There's a really good chance that if Auburn had scheduled a tough team it would have jumped.

 

[Todd4State]

it's a one game playoff, but a playoff nonetheless.

 

[Toag Redloh]

very informative

 

[Todd4State]

Auburn was tied with Oklahoma at 2 in week 12. There's a really good chance that if Auburn had scheduled a tough team it would have jumped.

Oklahoma played 3-8 Houston, a 11-3 Bowling Green team that went to the GMAC Bowl that year, and 5-6 Oregon.

USC played 10-3 ACC East Champ Virginia Tech in Maryland, 5-6 BYU in Provo, 4-7 Colorado State and 6-6 Notre Dame which played in a bowl.

Auburn played 5-6 Lousiana-Monroe, The Citadel, and 6-6 Louisiana Tech

While some of the name teams that USC and OU played had down years, it is still obvious that they had a more difficult schedule than Auburn.

 

[HammerOfTheDogs]

You're not exactly correct on that. We only played them 12 times in Vaught's 24 seasons as head coach, and I know they didn't count as a conference game every one of those 12 years. We did play Arkansas almost every year as an OOC team, and they were a very good program back then. We also played Houston, Tulane, and Memphis State fairly often in our OOC schedule.
Tulane and Memphis sucked, while Houston became a power in the mid-60's.

As for Bama, they wouldn't play us in Oxford for a while. They wanted Tuscaloosa only, which is the main reason we didn't play them for many years. We finally got them on the schedule for each of Vaught's last 6 seasons. And we played LSU in Baton Rouge 18 times in Vaught's 24 seasons. We only played them in Oxford 3 times and 3 times in Jackson.
Pretty convenient, to miss out on playing them in your "glory years" of 1954-63.

Back then the SEC didn't have any scheduling policy, and they didn't control the schedule, so the richer programs (like Bama and LSU) could treat fellow conference members like small guys and play them only at home if they wanted. Also, it didn't guarantee that every school would get the same number of conference games scheduled.

Florida wasn't good back then. Georgia Tech left the conference in 1964.
You still didn't play them in your "glory years"...Florida wasn't the power they are now, but they were still a good team.

From looking at our schedules, it looks like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, MSU, Tennessee, and LSU were the most common SEC opponents we had from those years. Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida all played us at times, but it wasn't as often, because they weren't forced to play us by the conference.

So, all Vaught had to do was get his team up for two games a year-Tennessee and LSU. He knew which side his bread was buttered on.

 

[RebelBruiser]

The Obama tatic of diverting attention away from the subject at hand. Face it you AD screwed up and screwed your fans in the process.

No, I was just responding to a post. Our AD did screw up. First, he screwed up for not having the schedule complete a year ago. And after that he screwed up because if he was going to have to schedule a second 1AA, he should've been able to find one that was available on September 12. He said they were in contact with 25-30 schools throughout the process. To me that's not nearly enough to just settle for filling your November open date so we have to play 11 straight weeks.

A poster on Nafoom did a quick internet search and found about 4 1AA schools that needed another game on the schedule that also had the Sept. 12 date available. That's just lazy on Boone and Hartwell's part that they couldn't do a simple internet search to come up with a list of teams. They had been saying for a couple weeks that they knew they were going to have to settle for a second 1AA opponent. That's fine. I really don't think that part will hurt us one bit. What will hurt us is playing 11 weeks in a row without an off week. They had a few weeks to find out who was available on Sept. 12, and they couldn't even do that.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Not saying we had tough schedules, just that your original statement was incorrect.