Weak MAC out of conference schedules

Bull_In_Exile · Post by **Bull_In_Exile** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:18 pm

As pointed out by ESPN and discussed on some other mac fan sites..

http://mac-smack.blogspot.com/

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:51 pm

Nobody can ever accuse BGSU of playing weak non conf skeds...year in and year out.

GO FALCONS!!! BEAT TROY!

h2oville rocket · Post by **h2oville rocket** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:12 am

Falconfreak90 wrote:Nobody can ever accuse BGSU of playing weak non conf skeds...year in and year out.

GO FALCONS!!! BEAT TROY!

BGSU plays weak non conf skeds year in and year out.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:35 am

h2oville rocket wrote:
Falconfreak90 wrote:Nobody can ever accuse BGSU of playing weak non conf skeds...year in and year out.

GO FALCONS!!! BEAT TROY!
BGSU plays weak non conf skeds year in and year out.

Well I'll be....someone did!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:05 am

We've had some years where I thought we could have scheduled a more challenging OOC schedule, but as a general rule I think we do a fairly decent job. We usually try to get at least one BCS team and at least one reputable non-BCS team on the schedule.

I would like to see us play more "money" games against the upper echelon of college football, but that's about all I can ask for. Go out and play a team that you're probably only going to beat once out of every 50 games. Those games are great for the budget, and if you do pull them out give you a season's worth of national headlines.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:18 am

According to Phil Steele, we are slated to play the toughest schedule in the MAC...no FCS teams, with a trip to a BCS team, very good Troy, improving Marshall on the road, and of course Boise.

And, as far as money games goes, on a recent ask the AD it was said that a result of our budget problems is that we will have to begin playing a money game every year. Michigan 2010 is a good example.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:02 am

orangeandbrown wrote:According to Phil Steele, we are slated to play the toughest schedule in the MAC...no FCS teams, with a trip to a BCS team, very good Troy, improving Marshall on the road, and of course Boise.

And, as far as money games goes, on a recent ask the AD it was said that a result of our budget problems is that we will have to begin playing a money game every year. Michigan 2010 is a good example.

Yes. This year's OOC schedule is something to get excited about! I also like that the AD has seen the money games as a good solution to the budget issues (or at least a step in the right direction). I definitely think BG does a pretty good job OOC.

The problem is that a lot of the conference has not shown a willingness to put together a good OOC schedule (or an ability to win with said schedule). If the MAC wants to get more respect in football they need to continue playing tough OOC games, even if it means they lose out on some home games. Of course it'd help if they WON a few of those tough OOC games too!

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:57 pm

The OOC sched. is tough. Then we get accused of playing a weak Conference schedule.

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:23 pm

I've railed for years about how we overschedule. Our non-conference slate has either a) beat us up physically and mentally or b) caused us to peak too early. Neither one is a positive.

I want a tough, reach-type game to motivate the players and get the casual fans excited. Unfortunately, we have 3 games where it will be extremely difficult to win (Mizzou, Troy and Boise) and just one toss-up, and that seems to happen just about every year.

Where's the "build the confidence" game or games that everyone else in the conference seems to regularly feast on besides us?

Ydfalcon · Post by **Ydfalcon** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:43 pm

JoeFalcon wrote:I've railed for years about how we overschedule. Our non-conference slate has either a) beat us up physically and mentally or b) caused us to peak too early. Neither one is a positive.

I want a tough, reach-type game to motivate the players and get the casual fans excited. Unfortunately, we have 3 games where it will be extremely difficult to win (Mizzou, Troy and Boise) and just one toss-up, and that seems to happen just about every year.

Where's the "build the confidence" game or games that everyone else in the conference seems to regularly feast on besides us?

The problem is, we are the "build the confidence" opponent for other teams in more games than we would have the opportunity to be the team whose confidence gets built.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:09 pm

This idea of us not playing easy enough teams early on to succeed later in the year is nonsense. You get MUCH more confidence from beating a good team than a bad one, especially if you do it in their house. Look at some of our early season victories the last few years, against Purdue, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh. Those were all great wins. We also had close calls against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Oklahoma in that same span. You mean to tell me that we'd end up with a better record in 2007 if we had played SEMO in week 1? Doubtful.

In the case of 2008, suspensions and players getting kicked off the team had a bigger impact on the year than playing the likes of Pittsburgh (who we beat) and Minnesota did. Hell, coaching had a much bigger impact too. Look at the games against Miami and Eastern Michigan. We lost those games because GB didn't get the players up for those games. He couldn't motivate our players for those "lowly" MAC teams if his life depended on it.

If anything, where our early season big wins have hurt us is that we've become overconfident as a result. All this season we probably figured "heh, we won at Pitt, EMU will be nothing. Ditto for Miami." And it ended up costing us a MAC Championship opportunity. I wouldn't be concerned about this happening under Clawson, he seems like much more of a disciplinarian than Brandon ever was.

Ydfalcon · Post by **Ydfalcon** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:10 pm

bgsufalcon24 wrote:This idea of us not playing easy enough teams early on to succeed later in the year is nonsense. You get MUCH more confidence from beating a good team than a bad one, especially if you do it in their house. Look at some of our early season victories the last few years, against Purdue, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh. Those were all great wins. We also had close calls against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Oklahoma in that same span. You mean to tell me that we'd end up with a better record in 2007 if we had played SEMO in week 1? Doubtful.

In the case of 2008, suspensions and players getting kicked off the team had a bigger impact on the year than playing the likes of Pittsburgh (who we beat) and Minnesota did. Hell, coaching had a much bigger impact too. Look at the games against Miami and Eastern Michigan. We lost those games because GB didn't get the players up for those games. He couldn't motivate our players for those "lowly" MAC teams if his life depended on it.

If anything, where our early season big wins have hurt us is that we've become overconfident as a result. All this season we probably figured "heh, we won at Pitt, EMU will be nothing. Ditto for Miami." And it ended up costing us a MAC Championship opportunity. I wouldn't be concerned about this happening under Clawson, he seems like much more of a disciplinarian than Brandon ever was.

Agreed

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:24 am

bgsufalcon24 wrote:If anything, where our early season big wins have hurt us is that we've become overconfident as a result. All this season we probably figured "heh, we won at Pitt, EMU will be nothing. Ditto for Miami." And it ended up costing us a MAC Championship opportunity. I wouldn't be concerned about this happening under Clawson, he seems like much more of a disciplinarian than Brandon ever was.

I remember a time when BG used to get up for the weak teams, simply to beat them harder, score more, and simply hammer them into their place. The reason was both because it was fun, and as players would correctly note, to do less, would be to show weakness in the eyes of the national and regional press.

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:58 pm

We've had the same scheduling philosophy for years and it has netted us zero conference championships. A change might not be the worst thing. I'm not talking about a bunch of cupcakes, but just a game or two where we're a legitimate favorite and don't have to play perfect in order to win.

With a new offense, defense and special teams, it would be nice to have a SEMO in Week 1 to work out the kinks, or maybe wedged between Missouri and Boise State. Ask most coaches and they'd tell you the same thing.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:42 pm

JoeFalcon wrote:We've had the same scheduling philosophy for years and it has netted us zero conference championships. A change might not be the worst thing. I'm not talking about a bunch of cupcakes, but just a game or two where we're a legitimate favorite and don't have to play perfect in order to win.

With a new offense, defense and special teams, it would be nice to have a SEMO in Week 1 to work out the kinks, or maybe wedged between Missouri and Boise State. Ask most coaches and they'd tell you the same thing.

If Clawson was here 28 years ago when this schedule was finalized, he may have done just that.

Schedule up. Always.