THE PAC 12 THREAD v.3

[Olyduck]

Is it me or doe SEC teams have a habit of backing out of games? I'm pretty sure USC has to play Idaho of something because of a school backing out. I dont ever recall USC wanting to drop a big name opponent and play some community college at home instead. I would have loved for the Alabama game be a home an home instead of lining Jerrys pockets. But I guess them gumps fear losing at home.

I think its just you. for the most part they full fill more than they cancel.

 

[wazzu31]

no I am pretty sure Auburn is solid on their commitments. UGA and A&M backed out on Oregon though

They've backed out twice on us, the only team that has held their commitment is Wisconsin and even they pushed their return trip back.

 

[socaljim242]

I think its just you. for the most part they full fill more than they cancel.

Thats the thing. I dont recall USC backing out of scheduled games but I see SEC teams do it every year. They full fill more than they cancel is hardly saying something good. Didn't a&M back out of playing oregon recently?

 

[trojanfan12]

If money is the reason why fans wont see two games its a piss poor reason. Both programs make enough.SC can go to BC and Hawaii but somehow a home and home with Bama doesn't make sense?

I would prefer the home and home too and agree that SC and Bama make plenty. But since when does anyone turn down more money? Jerrah pays big bucks.

 

[RegentDenali]

tSEC was playing the cupcake game for years. They've been forced kicking and screaming to book mandatory games with P5 opponents with the tSEC rule change. But the rule was not a reaction to the cupcake fest they love. It's because they knew with the playoff criteria not based on ESPN and pollster bias, they would need more quality SOS to get in.

They'll still try to game the system by hunting for the mediocre to doormats of the P5 confs for their mandatory bookings. I'm sure Bama fans will be thumping their chests when they book home and aways or neutral site games with teams like Colorado and Kansas, but that's how they roll over there.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Is it me or doe SEC teams have a habit of backing out of games? I'm pretty sure USC has to play Idaho of something because of a school backing out. I dont ever recall USC wanting to drop a big name opponent and play some community college at home instead. I would have loved for the Alabama game be a home an home instead of lining Jerrys pockets. But I guess them gumps fear losing at home.

This is true, USC was scheduled to play A & M but when the joined the SEC, they backed out.. Now we will all hear from the riffraff how USC is playing weak 2015 OOC schedule

 

[BeaverShaver]

one timing to consider, is I believe usc has never played a d2 school

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

one timing to consider, is I believe usc has never played a d2 school

You mean Div-1AA... All Conf top 5 and Mid Majors are Div-1A.. FCS as we know them are Div-1AA

 

[BeaverShaver]

You mean Div-1AA... All Conf top 5 and Mid Majors are Div-1A.. FCS as we know them are Div-1AA

I realize this, but let's face it, they are d2 schools. let's not get caught up in technicalities.

 

[BeaverShaver]

one timing to consider, is I believe usc has never played a d2 school

one thing to consider, not one "timing"

my point is that USC has never resorted to scheduling d2 schools. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have never done it

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

I realize this, but let's face it, they are d2 schools. let's not get caught up in technicalities.

no technicalties, it is what it is,, If you're going to call it a pig, it better look like a pig, Get with the program!

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

BTW, I get you're meaning

 

[4down20]

tSEC was playing the cupcake game for years. They've been forced kicking and screaming to book mandatory games with P5 opponents with the tSEC rule change. But the rule was not a reaction to the cupcake fest they love. It's because they knew with the playoff criteria not based on ESPN and pollster bias, they would need more quality SOS to get in.

They'll still try to game the system by hunting for the mediocre to doormats of the P5 confs for their mandatory bookings. I'm sure Bama fans will be thumping their chests when they book home and aways or neutral site games with teams like Colorado and Kansas, but that's how they roll over there.

Since 2008 Alabama has scheduled:

2008: 1st game to start the season vs #9 Clemson neutral site.
2009: 1st game to start the season vs #7 Virginia Tech neutral site.
2010 and 2011: 2nd game of the season home and home with Penn St. Also played @Duke in 2010
2012: 1st game to start the season vs #8 Michigan neutral site.
2013: 1st game to start the season vs Virginia Tech(followed in week 2 by In conference Texas A&M who had Manziel at the time).
2014: 1st game to start the season vs WVU, who was played very good football until their QB got hit in the head and they finished the year on a slide.

In 2007 we played Florida St @ Florida St, but it wasn't until week 5.
In 2006 we played Duke, didn't matter it was a losing season anyway.

Before 2006 we had 11 game schedules. So since 12 games schedules there hasn't been a single year that Alabama didn't play a P5 team.

And we have Wisconsin scheduled for the first game next year on a neutral site, who might be in the top25, and then USC in 2016 to start the season.

So basically, we start every year with a high quality opponent. Not sure what your complaining about. There were 3 teams in the 14 team SEC that weren't scheduling P5 games already. Miss St, Texas A&M, Vandy.

So yeah man, we are thumping our chests over teams like Colorado, Kansas and Illinois.

 

[socaljim242]

Siroad2008 Alabama has scheduled:

2008: 1st game to start the season vs #9 Clemson neutral site.
2009: 1st game to start the season vs #7 Virginia Tech neutral site.
2010 and 2011: 2nd game of the season home and home with Penn St. Also played @Duke in 2010
2012: 1st game to start the season vs #8 Michigan neutral site.
2013: 1st game to start the season vs Virginia Tech(followed in week 2 by In conference Texas A&M who had Manziel at the time).
2014: 1st game to start the season vs WVU, who was played very good football until their QB got hit in the head and they finished the year on a slide.

In 2007 we played Florida St @ Florida St, but it wasn't until week 5.
In 2006 we played Duke, didn't matter it was a losing season anyway.

Before 2006 we had 11 game schedules. So since 12 games schedules there hasn't been a single year that Alabama didn't play a P5 team.

And we have Wisconsin scheduled for the first game next year on a neutral site, who might be in the top25, and then USC in 2016 to start the season.

So basically, we start every year with a high quality opponent. Not sure what your complaining about. There were 3 teams in the 14 team SEC that weren't scheduling P5 games already. Miss St, Texas A&M, Vandy.

So yeah man, we are thumping our chests over teams like Colorado, Kansas and Illinois.

What a bunch of crap. Alabama has played three road
d out of conference games in ten years. Every year plays two sometimes three
Community colleges all at home and one of them is usually the second to last regular season game.

 

[trojanfan12]

one thing to consider, not one "timing"

my point is that USC has never resorted to scheduling d2 schools. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they have never done it

This is correct. There are 3 schools that have never done this. USC, UCLA and Notre Dame.

 

[trojanfan12]

Since 2008 Alabama has scheduled:

2008: 1st game to start the season vs #9 Clemson neutral site.
2009: 1st game to start the season vs #7 Virginia Tech neutral site.
2010 and 2011: 2nd game of the season home and home with Penn St. Also played @Duke in 2010
2012: 1st game to start the season vs #8 Michigan neutral site.
2013: 1st game to start the season vs Virginia Tech(followed in week 2 by In conference Texas A&M who had Manziel at the time).
2014: 1st game to start the season vs WVU, who was played very good football until their QB got hit in the head and they finished the year on a slide.

In 2007 we played Florida St @ Florida St, but it wasn't until week 5.
In 2006 we played Duke, didn't matter it was a losing season anyway.

Before 2006 we had 11 game schedules. So since 12 games schedules there hasn't been a single year that Alabama didn't play a P5 team.

And we have Wisconsin scheduled for the first game next year on a neutral site, who might be in the top25, and then USC in 2016 to start the season.

So basically, we start every year with a high quality opponent. Not sure what your complaining about. There were 3 teams in the 14 team SEC that weren't scheduling P5 games already. Miss St, Texas A&M, Vandy.

So yeah man, we are thumping our chests over teams like Colorado, Kansas and Illinois.

The post you quoted said nothing about Alabama specifically. But since you brought it up:

In 2006, you also played Louisiana-Monroe and Florida International.
In 2007, you also played Western Carolina and Louisiana-Monroe (you also played Houston, but they sometimes have a pulse).
In 2008, you also played Western Kentucky and Arkansas St. (you also played Tulane, but they sometimes have a pulse).
In 2009, you also played Florida International, North Texas and Chattanooga.
In 2010, you also played San Jose St. and Georgia St.
In 2011, you also played Kent St., North Texas and Georgia Southern.
In 2012, you also played Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina.
In 2013, you also played Georgia St. and Chattanooga (you also played Colorado St., but they sometimes have a pulse).
In 2014, you also played Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss., and Western Carolina.

Next year you will also play Middle Tennessee, Louisiana-Monroe and Charleston Southern. In 2016 you also have Western Kentucky and Kent St. on the schedule.

Every one of those games was or will be a home game.

Before you give the tired old "are we supposed to schedule nothing but top teams OOC?" No, but you also have no business scheduling teams with hyphenated names and directional schools. Even more Tulane's, Houston's and Colorado St.'s would be an improvement.

 

[4down20]

The post you quoted said nothing about Alabama specifically. But since you brought it up:

Yes, he mentioned bama specifically. Read it again.

Before you give the tired old "are we supposed to schedule nothing but top teams OOC?" No, but you also have no business scheduling teams with hyphenated names and directional schools. Even more Tulane's, Houston's and Colorado St.'s would be an improvement.

I'm not in favor of FCS schools, but it doesn't mean a damn thing really. It'll hurt the SoS a little, but Tulane or FCS doesn't really matter as far as being anything of significance. This is 99% just people looking for anything to complain about.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yes, he mentioned bama specifically. Read it again.



I'm not in favor of FCS schools, but it doesn't mean a damn thing really. It'll hurt the SoS a little, but Tulane or FCS doesn't really matter as far as being anything of significance. This is 99% just people looking for anything to complain about.

1.) You're correct, my bad.

2.) I disagree. Tulane or an FCS school does or at least, should, make a difference, imo. Tulane is D-1 and actually has a pulse once in awhile. The fact that scheduling schools like Tulane more often would actually improve your OOC SOS says a lot.

Also, it's not 99% of the people "looking for anything to complain about." A top team like Alabama scheduling a one off, neutral site game vs. a good team and 3 absolute cupcakes at home, while not having it counted against them, gives them an advantage. That's a valid complaint.

In 2016, Alabama will play USC, Western Kentucky and Kent St. USC will play Alabama, Utah St. and Notre Dame. After that 1st game, which team is more likely to have an OOC game that can cost them a shot in the cfp?

Hopefully, now that we have a committee deciding what teams play in the cfp, we will start to see teams pay a price for this kind of scheduling.

You're an Alabama fan and it's not my place to tell Alabama how to schedule. I will say though, that if USC starts scheduling like that, I'll be pissed. Perhaps, if and when that type of scheduling starts costing teams a spot in the cfp, it will stop.

 

[4down20]

1.) You're correct, my bad.

2.) I disagree. Tulane or an FCS school does or at least, should, make a difference, imo. Tulane is D-1 and actually has a pulse once in awhile. The fact that scheduling schools like Tulane more often would actually improve your OOC SOS says a lot.

Also, it's not 99% of the people "looking for anything to complain about." A top team like Alabama scheduling a one off, neutral site game vs. a good team and 3 absolute cupcakes at home, while not having it counted against them, gives them an advantage. That's a valid complaint.

In 2016, Alabama will play USC, Western Kentucky and Kent St. USC will play Alabama, Utah St. and Notre Dame. After that 1st game, which team is more likely to have an OOC game that can cost them a shot in the cfp?

Hopefully, now that we have a committee deciding what teams play in the cfp, we will start to see teams pay a price for this kind of scheduling.

You're an Alabama fan and it's not my place to tell Alabama how to schedule. I will say though, that if USC starts scheduling like that, I'll be pissed. Perhaps, if and when that type of scheduling starts costing teams a spot in the cfp, it will stop.

It would be better, but the difference here is extremely minimal.

I've been more upset that the team we start the season with the past 2 years haven't been better.

 

[trojanfan12]

It would be better, but the difference here is extremely minimal.

I've been more upset that the team we start the season with the past 2 years haven't been better.

At least the attempt was made and that's good enough, imo. Va. Tech and West Virginia are usually pretty good, top 25 caliber teams. Them not being up to snuff at the time of the game isn't Alabama's fault.

It's much less likely that those teams are going to end up being cupcakes than it is that some traditional cupcake or FCS school is going to be good enough to win or even present much of a challenge.