strength of schedule

[thirdandlong]

I am a big fan of my local college team, Fresno State. Yesterday Tennessee cleaned our proverbial clock. Going in I was hoping that we would make it respectable, and in fact took all the action I could with that "ridiculous"<--my emphasis) 21 point line. The 4th quarter interception return turned the tide against the spread, but really didn't make the game look any more respectable. I was disappointed, but was pretty realistic about it. Tennessee is a HUGE step up in competition for Fresno, so the fact that our "bend but don't break" defense managed to not break much in the second half was a good sign to me. Our defensive backs looked spectacular, and allowed the team to really stack the box to slow down the Volunteer running game in the second half. Well sorta slow it down anyway. I thought the fact that there were mostly Freshman/Redshirt Freshman starters for both lines was a bit of a good sign for upcoming seasons. Yesterday they were boys against men, but in a season or two they should be good.

In any case the annoying thing to me is that "fans" here don't like the fact that we schedule Tennessee and Oklahoma and such. They don't like being out classed. They would rather roll over Pacific or South Louisianna State and such. They criticise the coach Pat Hill for continually posting 4 loss seasons, and not winning the bowl games. They seem to forget that the previous coach left the cupboard more than just bare(2 and 8 in his final year), and that Hill turned the program around on a dime. In any case I am just amazed that folks criticize the program for scheduling tough. I would rather lose to Tennessee and Oklahoma than run over New Mexico State any day. One problem is that those guys won't schedule a Fresno State. After nearly beating UCLA two years in a row, they won't give our AD the time of day. USC, forget that, we were the Hicks that beat them in the Freedom bowl. Not gonna chance that. I am actually glad that the next tier up is not afraid of scheduling "Mid Majors".

In any case this was more of a rant than a question, but would you guys rather see your team schedule hard or soft?

Just wondering what the attitudes

[Nyarlahotep]

I'd rather see a strong schedule.

[Easy Mac]

same here. D1-AA Furman at Clemson Saturday... come and support the purple and white continue Clemson's scoreless run... remember, FU is nationally ranked, and Clemson's been outscored by around 100 points in their last 3 games against ranked teams.

[kcchief19]

It depends. In Fresno State's case, scheduling Tennessee and Oklahoma is to me ridiculous. Not only are those two games guaranteed loses (neither team is an overrated patsy like a Maryland) but the losses could get ugly and shatter the team's confidence the rest of the season. If you want to schedule one to build some character, give the team some excitement to play in a big-time atmosphere and cash a check, then schedule one of those games, but not both AND Oregon State.

You go 0-3 in those games, and suddenly you have to go 7-2 the rest of the way to get to a bowl game. You lose at Colorado State and Hawaii and your margin for error is gone.

You don't have to play some Sun Belt patsies. Go find a low-tier BCS team (Northwestern, Baylor) or a middle of the road mid-major (Ball State, South Florida) that will challenge your team while still giving you a chance to win. Then go play Oklahoma for fun. Strength of schedule only plays a factor if you plan on being a top 10 team and need help getting into the BCS title game.

As a Missouri fan, sure I enjoyed watching Missouri play big out of conference games. I would have enjoyed wathching Missouri play in a bowl game more, however. Tough scheduling cost Larry Smith his job. In his final season, he played Michigan State and Clemson. Lost both of those and the season was all downhill from there.

Personally, I think that schedule is way too tough for Fresno State. It's going to make for a tough season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't have much problem with teams who schedule one patsy along the way. It gives you a chance to get some playing time for the reserves & youngsters, see them in actual game time. Beyond that though, I'd far rather see teams schedule to their own level or above.

[TroyF]

I'm with Jon. One patsy is fine. When you start playing two or three in a given year, I lose respect for the entire program. Some examples this year include Kansas State, Texas and Oklahoma State.

K-State - UMASS, Troy State, McNeese State. (I don't count Marshall, they are a borderline top 25 teams most years)
Texas - New Mexico State, Rice, Tulane
Oklahoma State - Wyoming, SMU, Southwest Missouri State, La-Lafayette

Texas and K-State are downright horrific. The sad thing is that 95% of the time there will not be a penalty for the way they schedule. Win the big games in conference, you go to the title game. It's one of the few things I hate about college football.

I hope the Buffs continue with the tough non-conference schedule every year. If we'd played the K-State or Texas schedule last year, we would have finished with two losses (both to Oklahoma) before heading into the bowl game. (instead of the four we had)

I'll take the difficult non-conference schedule anyday of the week.

One quick note: Texas is playing Ohio State next year. They are making an effort to improve the schedule. They also used to play a difficult non-conference schedule. I don't know what's happened the last 5 years or so, but I'm glad they are making an effort to make it better.

TroyF

[thealmighty]

What happened to Texas, according to my brother-in-law UT freak, is that lots of the schedule is done, sometimes, 5-10 years in advance. Remember, Texas was not very good 7-8 years ago, so the teams they scheduled were not, either. Now that they are good again, they are trying to upgrade the schedule, as Troy said. (again, according to my b-i-l)

[tucker342]

As TroyF said, one easy game is fine(for Iowa that's next week against Buffalo). But, K-State is pathetic... didn't they play two div-2 teams last year? It also goes the other way as well, if you're a mid-major schedule one hard game, otherwise you're going to have a hard time winning enough games to get to a bull game....

[sterlingice]

I hate defending the purple power pussies, but they are one of the few teams actually punished for a weak schedule. A lot of teams have crappy schedules and see no retribution and most of those teams are in much weaker conferences (*cough* Miami *cough* Florida State *cough* although this year they both have decent non-conference schedules with two tough teams). Hasn't Kansas State won at least 9 games something like 11 of the last 12 years? How many major bowl games do they have? They have been branded as having a crappy schedule and no one will even bother looking any more (see below).

Remember K-State already played Cal, too, and have 15 games- they had a scheduling snafu as someone dropped out and then scheduled another couple of games instead to make sure they had enough. Most teams have 3 non-conference games and their 3 best teams are Marshall, Cal, and UMass- that's not such a bad non-conference schedule. Sure, it's not Tennessee, Oklahoma, and New Mexico State but it's not awful.

SI

[TroyF]

Sorry Sterling, but it is horrible. They only had Cal on the schedule as an extra game. They KNEW exactly what they were getting with Cal. I give K-State credit for turning the program around. Still, how hard is it to win 9 a year when you know you're going to run out the non-conference schedule with 3 definate wins?

The schedules are done four or five years in advance. With that in mind, I do cut certain teams some slack knowing this. As for Texas, there isn't any real excuse no matter how far you go back. North Texas, Tulane, Houston and North Carolina last year. Only Carolina could have been considered a tough game for Texas even in the lean years. They also bought their way out of a game at Hawaii. (Hawaii made the mistake of getting to good to play) Even when Texas was winning 7 or 8 games a year, they were still TEXAS. A team with a long tradition that could have played most anyone in the country. It's been a designed decision to do what they've done. Again, thankfully, they are trying to improve on that.

TroyF

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by kcchief19
It depends. In Fresno State's case, scheduling Tennessee and Oklahoma is to me ridiculous. Not only are those two games guaranteed loses (neither team is an overrated patsy like a Maryland) but the losses could get ugly and shatter the team's confidence the rest of the season. If you want to schedule one to build some character, give the team some excitement to play in a big-time atmosphere and cash a check, then schedule one of those games, but not both AND Oregon State.

You go 0-3 in those games, and suddenly you have to go 7-2 the rest of the way to get to a bowl game. You lose at Colorado State and Hawaii and your margin for error is gone.



Well I would have rather they split Oklahoma and Tennessee over two different seasons, because as you say they are guaranteed losses. I really did think they would be in the game with Tennessee. I am the eternal optimist, and the bulldogs have a history of playing over their heads in those types of games. The deal was that this was the season they both(OU and Tennessee) had openings for Fresno. If you want to play with the big dogs, you can't always pick and choose. One thing that is different this year, is that Hill has been openly saying that the team is focusing on the regular season. Making statements along the lines of we are not allowing ourselves to overlook the regular season schedule this season. Saying that most folks regard Fresno as being the best team in the WAC the couple of years, but they have managed two losses in each of those years. I kinda think he is acknowledging that they will be darn lucky to come out of the Non Conference schedule .500

It was funny you mentioned Larry Smith, cause I almost mocked him in my initial post. He was fired at USC after losing to Fresno in the freedom bowl. Going into the game he gave FSU absolutely no respect. He only scheduled two real practices before the bowl game. He actually bragged about it. "only working them hard enough to get the job done". For completely underpreparing his team for a bowl game, I consider him one of the biggest all time idiots in college football.

[Honolulu Blue]

It depends on what hat I'm wearing. If I'm playing TCY, I schedule cupcakes all the way because those wins are extremely important and I'll worry about strength of schedule elsewhere.

If I'm the AD, I would generally follow the scheduling of my local team which I happen to like (Notre Dame, MAC team, home & home against team(s) we should be able to beat).

As a fan, wins against good teams are great, but I'd rather beat a bad team than lose "with dignity" to a vastly superior one.

[sooner333]

Well, I think playing Oklahoma and Tennessee in the same season away from home...by choice no less...is pretty much a hard thing to put a team through. BUT...on Fresno's behalf, they were supposed to play Oklahoma State on the road, no slouch, but not quite Oklahoma. Anyway, Oklahoma State dropped the game so they could play one of their terrible teams, and Oklahoma decided to pick them up last minute. Options were fairly low, and Fresno State needed someone to play. They'll get in the neighborhood of $550-600k for their troubles, the exact figure was reported last week in the Oklahoman.

Meanwhile, while OU plays @ Bama and vs. UCLA this season. Next year, the Sooners have decided to pay Bowling Green something like $500,000 to play in Norman. They outbid Auburn by $200,000 so that they would get out of their previous contract. I wouldn't be surprised to see Auburn forced to play a 1-AA team because of the lack of time to get another 1-A school to come on such short notice. And that is the nature of the beast in college football scheduling.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by sooner333
I wouldn't be surprised to see Auburn forced to play a 1-AA team because of the lack of time to get another 1-A school to come on such short notice.

Well judging by their latest performance, I think Auburn might not be too upset about adding a I-AA team to their schedule :D

[Buzzbee]

I have no problem with a team like Fresno scheduling tough non-conference games. Everyone talks about "guaranteed losses" but wasn't it Fresno who started off 2001 with wins against Colorado, Oregon State, and Wisconsin? Those games helped boost Fresno's reputation, and I'm willing to bet helped recruiting. Going into the season, I would imagine most people felt like at least 2 of those 3 were guaranteed losses.

If Fresno loses to Tenn and Ok, even if they get blown out, they have simply lived up to expectation. BUT, if they WIN, then it is a huge boost. Also, having those tough teams on the schedule helps recruiting. Most people believe that the ACC has become a better conference because of Florida State. Not because Florida State made them better, but because the programs had to, and were able to, recruit better players to compete.

Also, Fresno gets a much better payout for playing Tenn and OK as compared to Pacific and such. Allows for better equipment, training rooms, staff, etc. The only downsides as I see it, as mentioned earlier in the thread, are player confidence and having enough wins to qualify for a bowl.

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by sooner333
Well, I think playing Oklahoma and Tennessee in the same season away from home...by choice no less...is pretty much a hard thing to put a team through. BUT...on Fresno's behalf, they were supposed to play Oklahoma State on the road, no slouch, but not quite Oklahoma. Anyway, Oklahoma State dropped the game so they could play one of their terrible teams, and Oklahoma decided to pick them up last minute. Options were fairly low, and Fresno State needed someone to play. They'll get in the neighborhood of $550-600k for their troubles, the exact figure was reported last week in the Oklahoman.


Ahh the cowboys dropped us. I thought we were supposed to play them this year. When I saw Oklahoma on the schedule, I figured I had been confused and OK State would be next year. I hate it when we get ducked.

Buzzbee

I have no problem with a team like Fresno scheduling tough non-conference games. Everyone talks about "guaranteed losses" but wasn't it Fresno who started off 2001 with wins against Colorado, Oregon State, and Wisconsin?

It was, although I think it was Colorado State, not Colorado. Like I said going into the season I figured we would be able to compete with Tennessee. That was based on last years slide, I just expected it to continue. Instead we were clearly outclassed, the only brightspot being our defensive backfield. Fresno was completely unable to move the ball. There were injuries to the starting QB, and two returning starters on the OL. That left Fresno with a QB with about three quarters of experience, and 4 Offensive Linemen who played, not started, their first games in D1 against the Volunteers. So maybe Fresno could have put up a field goal or two if everyone were healthy, but I doubt they could have mustered much more. In fact the difference in level of play was so HUGE, that I am left to hope that Tennessee is vastly underrated this season.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by thirdandlong
It was, although I think it was Colorado State, not Colorado. Like I said going into the season I figured we would be able to compete with Tennessee. That was based on last years slide, I just expected it to continue. Instead we were clearly outclassed, the only brightspot being our defensive backfield. Fresno was completely unable to move the ball. There were injuries to the starting QB, and two returning starters on the OL. That left Fresno with a QB with about three quarters of experience, and 4 Offensive Linemen who played, not started, their first games in D1 against the Volunteers. So maybe Fresno could have put up a field goal or two if everyone were healthy, but I doubt they could have mustered much more. In fact the difference in level of play was so HUGE, that I am left to hope that Tennessee is vastly underrated this season.

Man, that year ticked me off. Fresno started off, what, 7-0 or something and could barely crack the top 10. It was pretty clear that they weren't getting a sniff of respect because they weren't from a power conference. At that point, it was clear that the voters want nothing to do with a team from a non-BCS conference. They did the most they could possibly do with one of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country but got hosed. They looked like they lost interest in the season at that point and coughed up a couple of silly conference games they would have won just because they knew that even if they won out they wouldn't make a major bowl. It would have been nice to see the WAC get in on a $10M pot for a BCS bowl.

SI

[TroyF]

Originally posted by thirdandlong


It was, although I think it was Colorado State, not Colorado.

No, it was Colorado. In Boulder. That game cost CU the Rose Bowl.

TroyF

[kcchief19]

Well, I'm the last person who ever defend K-State's scheduling, but there is an asterisk this year. When scheduling their 4 out of conference games, they were working on getting into the BCA game against Cal, but they had to schedule as though they weren't. Then someone dropped out and they had to scramble to schedule a fourth game at the last minute when pretty much every other D-I school was scheduled and had to schedule another I-AA team. And Cal and Marshall are good teams.

A team like K-State has another problem in that no one will play them, and certainly not a one-for-one. K-State can only get a big-time team on their schedule if they give away two home games for one home game. That's not smart nor fair.

That being said, K-State will continue to be penalized for their schedule at BCS time. If they lose a game, their season is over because with their SOS they can't overcome a loss.

[MrBug708]

One problem is that those guys won't schedule a Fresno State. After nearly beating UCLA two years in a row, they won't give our AD the time of day. USC, forget that, we were the Hicks that beat them in the Freedom bowl


Piss poor attitdues like these are reasons why UCLA doesn't schedule you. Pat Hill, your lying arse coach went to the Media and said that the California schools were too scared to play FSU. Well, that's fine and dandy, but we were one year removed from playing you guys for 2 years. We also played in 1995. Now, UCLA has played a traditionally strong OOC, why would we want to play you guys EVERY YEAR! You aren't Notre Dame, Florida, or another tradition powerhouse, you are Fresno State. Keep in mind schedules are made 5, 6, 7 years in advance. UCLA gains nothing from playing Fresno State every year. As for "nearly" beating UCLA, that is indeed true, but one of those games was sandwhiched between UCLA beating 2 Top 3 teams in the nation.

Pat Hill is a liar and FSU can burn in hell for all I care. I mean, it's in Fresno. Bakersfield North. Have fun sucking it up in the WAC when Hill gets offered a job at a major Div 1 program


There, my rant is done. No personal offense to you thirdandlong, but Hill is a moron

[MrBug708]

And Cal.......are good teams.

*snicker*

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Piss poor attitdues like these are reasons why UCLA doesn't schedule you. Pat Hill, your lying arse coach went to the Media and said that the California schools were too scared to play FSU. Well, that's fine and dandy, but we were one year removed from playing you guys for 2 years. ........Pat Hill is a liar and FSU can burn in hell for all I care. I mean, it's in Fresno. Bakersfield North. Have fun sucking it up in the WAC when Hill gets offered a job at a major Div 1 program


There, my rant is done. No personal offense to you thirdandlong, but Hill is a moron

Well Hill says that California schools won't schedule Fresno because he TRIES to schedule them, and they won't. UCLA was the exception to that. I think UCLA actually scheduled the dogs three consecutive years or three out of four years. What Hill said after losing the last game was that he was disapointed we didn't get it done on the field because "UCLA has made it clear they won't schedule us again while I am coaching here.". Call it Fresno State not being a power house, or call it ducking a possible loss from a lower prestige school. You say tomato I say Tomato. (That loses something when it is written).

As for Pat Hill being a liar or a moron. That is just too funny to respond to. All he has done is build up a team that was sucking in the WAC into a team in well not the national spotlight, but certainly on the national map. Sounds like the work of your protypical moron to me. You know he aint' playing TCY. He is actually getting it done on the field.

As for him moving on to a major D1 program. You are most likely right. If he gets anywhere in the PAC 10, which is where I think he is destined, I will look forward to him burying the bruins annually.

Regarding Fresno being Bakersfield North. Everyone knows that Bakersfield is Fresno South.

Regarding my piss poor attitude. I managed a number of posts in this thread, and didn't manage to insult anyone but Larry Smith. Can't say the same for you. Now who has the piss poor attitude? Could it be the haughty Bruin fan? Oh in case you were a graduate...that means arrogant.

[MrBug708]

As for Pat Hill being a liar or a moron. That is just too funny to respond to. All he has done is build up a team that was sucking in the WAC into a team in well not the national spotlight, but certainly on the national map.

Fresno State had one pretty good year. They are a good program that beats up a weak conference. Marshall, Tulane, and BYU come to mind as instances

As for him moving on to a major D1 program. You are most likely right. If he gets anywhere in the PAC 10, which is where I think he is destined, I will look forward to him burying the bruins annually.

How will he accomplish this? He can't take Prop-48 players, which he excels at taking from the HS ranks. The California PAC-10 schools dont take any, the other programs take one a year

I think UCLA actually scheduled the dogs three consecutive years or three out of four years. What Hill said after losing the last game was that he was disapointed we didn't get it done on the field because "UCLA has made it clear they won't schedule us again while I am coaching here.". Call it Fresno State not being a power house, or call it ducking a possible loss from a lower prestige school.

Why would UCLA schedule a non conference game with Fresno State every year? It's not up the the level of USC-ND, Florida-FSU, CU-CSU, and other nonconference games. UCLA's next run of minor California schools are SDSU. Maybe in 10 years when our schedule is finish with Oklahoma, ND, OSU, Michigan, Tennessee, BYU, Bama, Miami, and other notable schools in the past 7 years and up coming years is free. Until then, keep whining to the media

[thirdandlong]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Fresno State had one pretty good year. They are a good program that beats up a weak conference. Marshall, Tulane, and BYU come to mind as instances

A good program that Hill built from nearly the ground up. Yes the WAC is a weak conference, that is why Fresno state is really only noted for what it has done out of conference. That is playing more prestigiuos schools, and competing with them not just that one season. Well there have been few exceptions like the Tennessee debacle Saturday, but hey we beat the spread=).


Originally posted by MrBug708
Why would UCLA schedule a non conference game with Fresno State every year? It's not up the the level of USC-ND, Florida-FSU, CU-CSU, and other nonconference games. UCLA's next run of minor California schools are SDSU. Maybe in 10 years when our schedule is finish with Oklahoma, ND, OSU, Michigan, Tennessee, BYU, Bama, Miami, and other notable schools in the past 7 years and up coming years is free. Until then, keep whining to the media [/B]

We don't want to play UCLA every year. The point that Hill made was that after two close games with UCLA, the Bruins AD made it clear they wouldn't be scheduling the Bulldogs in the forseeable future. Fresno didn't want to play UCLA the next year. They wanted to schedule them 5 or 7 years down the road. And he wasn't whining to the media when he said it. He was in the post game Press Conference saying why the loss was so disappointing. He certainly doesn't lament about it daily.

Originally posted by MrBug708

How will he accomplish this? He can't take Prop-48 players, which he excels at taking from the HS ranks. The California PAC-10 schools dont take any, the other programs take one a year.

[/B]


Hill is one hell of a coach. He has gotten more done with less than most coaches from the bigger D1 schools.

[MrBug708]

Like I said, he takes Prop 48 players. Marginal academics but pretty good skills.

If Hill were to think before opening his mouth, he'd realize that UCLA has 3 OOC games in 2007, including two MWC teams. The other being the Fighting Irish. In 2008, we already have a WAC, MWC, and a SEC team. 2009, we have a SEC, WAC team, and an open date probably for a major conference team.

UCLA's schedule is full, dunno why Pat Hill can't realize that teams only play 3-4 OOC games a year, not every team can schedule FSU