Michigan pulls out of Arkansas series

[ericd7633]

Did USC finish 3rd the year they played Alabama or the year Alabama scheduled USC?

What's your point? USC finished 3rd last year, hardly a "down" USC.

 

[TBBishop]

What's your point? USC finished 3rd last year, hardly a "down" USC.

The point which is there is a HUGE difference between scheduling USC when they are #3 in the country and scheduling USC when they haven't sniffed a ranking in 2 seasons and just happened to get good again the season of the game. Very similar to what people said, and were correct about, with Michigan scheduling Colorado. Only difference was the chance was greater that USC would be good by the time the game came. I'm fairly sure the poster wasn't saying USC was down last year, certainly not by the end of the season. Which of course is another point. USC at the beginning of the season looked terrible and Bama just simply dismatled them. Game doesn't happen the same in January but it didn't happen in January and I have to believe that you know how disingenuous you're being with that "finished 3rd" statement.

 

[7Samurai13]

The point which is there is a HUGE difference between scheduling USC when they are #3 in the country and scheduling USC when they haven't sniffed a ranking in 2 seasons and just happened to get good again the season of the game. Very similar to what people said, and were correct about, with Michigan scheduling Colorado. Only difference was the chance was greater that USC would be good by the time the game came. I'm fairly sure the poster wasn't saying USC was down last year, certainly not by the end of the season. Which of course is another point. USC at the beginning of the season looked terrible and Bama just simply dismatled them. Game doesn't happen the same in January but it didn't happen in January and I have to believe that you know how disingenuous you're being with that "finished 3rd" statement.

Do you say the same about Michigan scheduling one of the worst P5 programs since the dawn of the BCS in Colorado?

 

[TBBishop]

Do you say the same about Michigan scheduling one of the worst P5 programs since the dawn of the BCS in Colorado?

"Very similar to what people said, and were correct about, with Michigan scheduling Colorado."

 

[TBBishop]

Do you say the same about Michigan scheduling one of the worst P5 programs since the dawn of the BCS in Colorado?

"Only difference was the chance was greater that USC would be good by the time the game came."

I should have added this to my last post too.

 

[socaljim242]

Do you say the same about Michigan scheduling one of the worst P5 programs since the dawn of the BCS in Colorado?

Thats the thing. You can schedule a Colorado four years prior and they might be not so good or theres a chance the could be decent. But you took the chance and it turned out to be a win for the fans.You Schedule Mercer or Chattanooga and you can sleep well knowing they will still be high school teams when you play them. Thats The SEC OCC scheduling pussyness in a nutshell.

 

[ericd7633]

The point which is there is a HUGE difference between scheduling USC when they are #3 in the country and scheduling USC when they haven't sniffed a ranking in 2 seasons and just happened to get good again the season of the game. Very similar to what people said, and were correct about, with Michigan scheduling Colorado. Only difference was the chance was greater that USC would be good by the time the game came. I'm fairly sure the poster wasn't saying USC was down last year, certainly not by the end of the season. Which of course is another point. USC at the beginning of the season looked terrible and Bama just simply dismatled them. Game doesn't happen the same in January but it didn't happen in January and I have to believe that you know how disingenuous you're being with that "finished 3rd" statement.

Only the Bama/USC game was scheduled when USC was coming off finishing the year in the top 20(July of 2014). And they began the 2014 season ranked in the top 15 and finished that year in the top 20. Also, USC was ranked at the end of the 2015 season heading into the bowl game. So your "sniffed" ranking is an idiotic statement.

 

[TBBishop]

Only the Bama/USC game was scheduled when USC was coming off finishing the year in the top 20(July of 2014). And they began the 2014 season ranked in the top 15 and finished that year in the top 20. Also, USC was ranked at the end of the 2015 season heading into the bowl game. So your "sniffed" ranking is an idiotic statement.

It really wasn't an idiotic statement at all. I had no clue exactly when it was scheduled or where USC finished the year before the game was scheduled. The point was correct. There is a difference if you schedule a team thats good when you schedule them and one that you schedule when they suck and they happen to be good when you play them. Do you disagree that there is a difference? OK, then, my original question was this:

"Did USC finish 3rd the year they played Alabama or the year Alabama scheduled USC?"

The sensible answer to the question would have been "they began the 2014 season ranked in the top 15 and finished that year in the top 20". Not "What's your point? USC finished 3rd last year, hardly a "down" USC." Ya dig?

 

[socaljim242]

Only the Bama/USC game was scheduled when USC was coming off finishing the year in the top 20(July of 2014). And they began the 2014 season ranked in the top 15 and finished that year in the top 20. Also, USC was ranked at the end of the 2015 season heading into the bowl game. So your "sniffed" ranking is an idiotic statement.

The only problem I have with that game was where it was played and that it was just a one time deal. A home and home would have been great regardless of the outcome. You can't tell me Alabama or USC need any extra money they made off one game. If Bama was so worried about money they should consider playing OCC teams who are big enough to travel and bring a fan base to Tuscalusaa. I bet the economy there would benifit way more from USC bringing 25 thousand to 30 thousand fans and staying in the hotels , visiting the bars for two three days than what they got for playing in Jerry World and what they make when Mercer or Chattanooga come to town.

 

[ericd7633]

It really wasn't an idiotic statement at all. I had no clue exactly when it was scheduled or where USC finished the year before the game was scheduled. The point was correct. There is a difference if you schedule a team thats good when you schedule them and one that you schedule when they suck and they happen to be good when you play them. Do you disagree that there is a difference? OK, then, my original question was this:

"Did USC finish 3rd the year they played Alabama or the year Alabama scheduled USC?"

The sensible answer to the question would have been "they began the 2014 season ranked in the top 15 and finished that year in the top 20". Not "What's your point? USC finished 3rd last year, hardly a "down" USC." Ya dig?

You said USC hadn't sniffed the rankings in 2 years, when that's factually not accurate. They finished 2014 in the top 20(after finishing 2013 in the top 20), and had they won their bowl game they would have finished ranked in 2015. At no point was USC ever "down" when Bama scheduled them. If you schedule a game against USC you're scheduling aggressive. Therefore, what the other Michigan poster was indeed dumb.

 

[ericd7633]

The only problem I have with that game was where it was played and that it was just a one time deal. A home and home would have been great regardless of the outcome. You can't tell me Alabama or USC need any extra money they made off one game. If Bama was so worried about money they should consider playing OCC teams who are big enough to travel and bring a fan base to Tuscalusaa. I bet the economy there would benifit way more from USC bringing 25 thousand to 30 thousand fans and staying in the hotels , visiting the bars for two three days than what they got for playing in Jerry World and what they make when Mercer or Chattanooga come to town.

Bama sells out every home game. It doesn't matter who they play. Bama isn't worried about money.

 

[socaljim242]

Bama sells out every home game. It doesn't matter who they play. Bama isn't worried about money.

Of course they dont need it. But thats the excuse some bama fans here give for playing neutral site games instead of home and home.

 

[TBBishop]

You said USC hadn't sniffed the rankings in 2 years, when that's factually not accurate. They finished 2014 in the top 20(after finishing 2013 in the top 20), and had they won their bowl game they would have finished ranked in 2015. At no point was USC ever "down" when Bama scheduled them. If you schedule a game against USC you're scheduling aggressive. Therefore, what the other Michigan poster was indeed dumb.

OK, please understand what I'm saying. I did not say that it was a fact that USC had not sniffed a ranking in 2 seasons. Are you with me? My point was that IF, ok, IF USC was not good, and USC wasn't good for a period between Pete Carroll and the 2016-2017 season, IF USC was not good when Alabama scheduled them, it is different than scheduling them when they were good. Are you still with me? OK, now you say that USC was pretty good when Alabama scheduled them. I won't bother to look up what you said, try to prove you wrong or anything, I believe you. Which means you answered my legitimate question, which essentially was, was USC any good when Alabama scheduled them. The answer was "yes" they were pretty good when Alabama scheduled them. You misunderstood what I was asking, my guess is you thought I was being a smart ass when I was actually trying to find out if USC was any good at the time, and my guess is you also just misunderstood what the other Michigan poster was saying which was the basis of my question.

 

[7Samurai13]

Thats the thing. You can schedule a Colorado four years prior and they might be not so good or theres a chance the could be decent. But you took the chance and it turned out to be a win for the fans.You Schedule Mercer or Chattanooga and you can sleep well knowing they will still be high school teams when you play them. Thats The SEC OCC scheduling pussyness in a nutshell.

But again, the majority of your conference is still scheduling FCS schools. So it's not like we are comparing scheduling USC over Mercer. Look at Washington who had an FCS on their schedule last year. Very few teams schedule two P5 opponents in their OOC so you are complaining that Alabama scheduled a mid major over a team from what some consider the worst division in college football the past couple of seasons. Is playing a game against Kentucky or Vanderbilt that much more difficult than say a Western Michigan or Northern Illinois State?

 

[ericd7633]

OK, please understand what I'm saying. I did not say that it was a fact that USC had not sniffed a ranking in 2 seasons. Are you with me? My point was that IF, ok, IF USC was not good, and USC wasn't good for a period between Pete Carroll and the 2016-2017 season, IF USC was not good when Alabama scheduled them, it is different than scheduling them when they were good. Are you still with me? OK, now you say that USC was pretty good when Alabama scheduled them. I won't bother to look up what you said, try to prove you wrong or anything, I believe you. Which means you answered my legitimate question, which essentially was, was USC any good when Alabama scheduled them. The answer was "yes" they were pretty good when Alabama scheduled them. You misunderstood what I was asking, my guess is you thought I was being a smart ass when I was actually trying to find out if USC was any good at the time, and my guess is you also just misunderstood what the other Michigan poster was saying which was the basis of my question.

USC was good when they scheduled Bama. The other poster said USC was "down" which isn't accurate. Were they top 5 when they scheduled, no. But if you schedule USC odds are its going to be a tough game. Anytime you knowingly schedule a top 20 team(USC) for that matter, you're scheduling aggressively IMO.

 

[umichgradfan]

lol. USC finished 3rd in the country idiot.

Finish is not the same as start, idiot.

 

[socaljim242]

But again, the majority of your conference is still scheduling FCS schools. So it's not like we are comparing scheduling USC over Mercer. Look at Washington who had an FCS on their schedule last year. Very few teams schedule two P5 opponents in their OOC so you are complaining that Alabama scheduled a mid major over a team from what some consider the worst division in college football the past couple of seasons. Is playing a game against Kentucky or Vanderbilt that much more difficult than say a Western Michigan or Northern Illinois State?

You keep comparing Washingtons schedule as if the the rest of the conference schedules that way. Even fans PAC schools made fun of the schedule because it was so out of character for teams and even Husky fans didnt like it. Go look at PAC teams . Yes everyone gets a cup cake early but they also schedule better teams mixed in. You will find 9-10 PAC teams every year who go play decent OCC teams at their house. Thats every year. Go see how many the SEC teams go play at decent OCC house. Go see how many home games SEC teams get. The SEC teams ALL schedule much more crap teams than any other conference , they play decent OCC games only at neutral sites as the opener (in case they lose it doesnt harm them as much) and they use that extra game they get from not playing one more conference game to play a cup cake late in November when all other conferences are playing rivalry games.
You ask is playing Kentucky or Vanderbuilt that much more difficult than playing Western Michigan. Well it wouldn't be Kentucky and Vanderbuilt every year would it? Some times they might get Florida or Auburn and it could be at their house. Would that be harder than Mercer or Chattanooga at home? Like every time maybe ?
I remember when USC opened with san Jose State then idaho and fans in the stands were bitching. Bama fans seem to enjoy these crap teams because they value winning over everything. Which is fine but admit it and stop pretending that the SEC scheduling is the same as others.

 

[7Samurai13]

So only Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, and Cal have scheduled FCS opponents in the next two years. That's 75% of your conference. So yeah, most of your conference is scheduling FCS scrubs.

 

[ericd7633]

Finish is not the same as start, idiot.

You said they were "down". USC was neither "down" when they played them or when they scheduled them. Yes you're an idiot.

 

[socaljim242]

So only Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, and Cal have scheduled FCS opponents in the next two years. That's 75% of your conference. So yeah, most of your conference is scheduling FCS scrubs.

As apposed to all of the SEC every year? All home OCC games if not neutral site? How many of those above are also going on the road to play P5 teams in the same season? Now how many SEC teams will do that. I'll give you a hint , very few. It's like Rosie O'Donnell calling out someone for eating a donut.

games against FCS

• SEC: 14 in 2016, 13 in 2015 (one wasn’t played), 14 in 2014, 14 in 2013, 15 in 2012, 12 in 2011, 11 in 2010, 11 in 2009, 9 in 2008 and 9 in 2007, for a total of 122.
• • Pac-12: 8 in 2016, 8 in 2015, 8 in 2014, 9 in 2013, 9 in 2012, 8 in 2011, 7 in 2010, 4 in 2009, 2 in 2008 and 2 in 2007, for a total of 65