GREAT JOB AD woolard

[Joe]

2006 Auburn non-conference schedule - Washington State, Buffalo, Tulane and Arkansas State (all at home)

2005 Auburn non-conference schedule - Georgia Tech, Ball State and Western Kentucky (all at home)

Wow, I'm blown away.  None of those schedules compares with @ Penn State, @ Miami, UCF and FAMU, which was USF's schedule just this past season.

USFFan

Auburn also played LSU, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina...

However there WON'T be anymore schedules like last season Woolard has said he's going to schedule what he believes is more reasonable...

Auburn's 2006 schedule also includes: LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama...which does count for something...Washington State was signed years ago when Price was still there. They were a good team then. We signed UNC and Kansas recently, when we knew they were terrible programs.

[Joe]

Because we're trying to spread out the tougher games so that we avoid seasons like this one, which seems to be your biggest problem.  If we played both Miami and Fl*rida in 2009, we'd have a relatively weaker schedule in 2010.  Now we play one major team every season through 2013.  

Honestly, I think you're ******** about all of this just to hear yourself ***** about it.  I personally think Woolard did a smart thing in moving that game, and I'm much happier with him looking into scheduling 1 for 1's with other BCS schools than taking lopsided games with stronger opponents.  

USFFan

No it was moved so we didn't have to play both teams in the same year....We could find someone to fill that 2010 spot...we have 5 available.

[USFFan]

Auburn also played LSU, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina...

However there WON'T be anymore schedules like last season Woolard has said he's going to schedule what he believes is more reasonable...

Auburn's 2006 schedule also includes: LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama...which does count for something...Washington State was signed years ago when Price was still there. They were a good team then. We signed UNC and Kansas recently, when we knew they were terrible programs.

It's like I'm talking to a wall.  Didn't we just cover that the AD doesn't schedule those conference games and that USF can't control the conference component of their schedule?  

Feel free to keep arguing your point, because I think I've refuted it well enough...

USFFan

[Rabbi Bull]

either way we don't control how our schedule ends up, its all in the conferences hands and in the AD's hands, so whining on here is going to get nothing accomplished except for the same agruments being repeated over and over again

[Bullpride08]

So now you're pissed off that we're not in the SEC?  The USF athletic director doesn't schedule conference games, only non-conference games.  Seems to me that Woolard did a better job of scheduling those non-conference games than Auburn's AD did in 2004.  

Right now, USF is guaranteed a BCS bid if they win the Big East conference, which has to be Leavitt and Woolard's #1 goal.  Once we show we can do that regularly, then and only then will we be in a position to schedule with a national championship in mind.  

USFFan

Might want to stop now fan.  He works this into such a tither he begins contradicting himself.  

Joe it's getting ridiculous this giving a mulligan to any big conference team that has an easy conference, but shame on USF, or twisting the scheduling so only USF looks like they're ducking.  This is the way of the BCS, you schedule to win and you schedule to win your conference.  USF will never get an at-large BCS game so it isn't worth trying to crucify themselves just to win.  After it was all said and done no one was going to accuse WVU of having the toughest schedule, OOC games against Maryland, Vtech, Wofford, and ECU--- I don't think that would be considered a power schedule by 'joe's standards'.  Yet they went to the Sugar Bowl, and the funniest thing happened, they beat the crap out of UGA-- the SEC champion.  

The only way OOC scheduling makes any difference is if USF was worried about getting an at-large bid to a BCS game.  That would never happen unless we had an OOC schedule of Ohio State, Texas, UF, USC, and Notre Dame, beat them all and went on to win the conference, go undefeated and ranked #1.  Aside from something absolutely asinine like that USF will never, ever, never get an at-large bid anytime soon.  At-large bids go to to big money attendance schools like Notre Dame, or Texas...USF isn't going.  The only reason a team truly worries about it's OOC schedule in a way to schedule such that it's deemed one of the hardest SOS is if they're trying to garner a shot at an at-large bid, or they're looking for money for traveling to those big schools.  Other than that USF should just worry about scheduling games that work.

By the way joe...you're getting very ridiculous now.  You act like Texas, Tennesee, and Cali schedule those type of tough games all the time.  There are some epic OOC games that get played every year but those are the exception not the norm.  Sure Texas traveled to OSU---which is truly rare for them, but they also played Rice, and LA-LA.

[Bullpride08]

Auburn also played LSU, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina...

However there WON'T be anymore schedules like last season Woolard has said he's going to schedule what he believes is more reasonable...

Auburn's 2006 schedule also includes: LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama...which does count for something...Washington State was signed years ago when Price was still there. They were a good team then. We signed UNC and Kansas recently, when we knew they were terrible programs.

So Auburn gets credit for their conference slate but we don't get any for playing WVU, or UL.  Spare me the UL hasn't beaten anyone, it's all about perception, that's the crux about your whole argument and the perception around the nation is UL is a good team.  WVU beat the crap out of the best team in the SEC.

We actually signed UNC the year they went to a bowl game and beat Miami-- check it out before talking out of your arse again.  We signed kansas last year, and do correct me if I am wrong but I believe they went to a bowl game last year.

Yeah, that's signing them when they're down.  

Hey here's the big joe quandary we play Auburn in 2007, and you say they have some of the toughest OOC schedules year-in and year-out...do we increase that perception or decrease it?  Meaning does by virtue of having USF on their schedule does that weaken or strengthen their perception?   Here's one better for you, Auburn signed us about four years ago when we were a fledgling 1-A program, so, at the time were they signing US when we were down?

[Joe]

I never discredited WVU or UL...in fact I just thre Pitt in as an outside darkhorse, but you cannot look me with a straight face and say that the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big 12(to a lesser extent) schedules aren't harder than the BE.

That great that Kansas went to a bowl game, but they've been to 2 in the last 10 years, and have had 1 winning season in that time. If it weren't for Baylor, they'd be the worst program in the Big 12 the last 10 years.

I dunno how the Auburn game will be perceived. It should be on ESPN, so hopefully positively. With a few open games in 2007, I am hoping we'd add another team like Purdue or Wisconsin somewhere along those lines.

1 - I-AA team

1 - Small D-I

1- Mid Major or low BCS team

2 - mid to higher BCS teams

That gives us 2 good OCC games, with 2 hard in conference and 1-2 other in conference games that are testers. That gives you 5-6 harder games and 6-7 games that we are favored in.

[Joe]

Bein...

One more thing. We didn't have 12 games until 2002...those years almost every top program played what could be seen as a big game. Schools like Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida State, USC, Alabama, and Tennessee have signed major games through 2014.

So no, it won't be a rarity anymore. The schools have taken the "home game" excuse away by adding the 12th game leading to what will be a lot more intersectional games.

[Bullpride08]

I never discredited WVU or UL...in fact I just thre Pitt in as an outside darkhorse, but you cannot look me with a straight face and say that the SEC/Big 10/ACC/Big 12(to a lesser extent) schedules aren't harder than the BE.

That great that Kansas went to a bowl game, but they've been to 2 in the last 10 years, and have had 1 winning season in that time. If it weren't for Baylor, they'd be the worst program in the Big 12 the last 10 years.

I dunno how the Auburn game will be perceived. It should be on ESPN, so hopefully positively. With a few open games in 2007, I am hoping we'd add another team like Purdue or Wisconsin somewhere along those lines.

1 - I-AA team

1 - Small D-I

1- Mid Major or low BCS team

2 - mid to higher BCS teams

That gives us 2 good OCC games, with 2 hard in conference and 1-2 other in conference games that are testers. That gives you 5-6 harder games and 6-7 games that we are favored in.

They're harder joe because they play one another, not because of egregiously more difficult OOC than us.  I can look you with a straight face and believe that we do have a difficult conference schedule.  Not as daunting as the SEC/B10/ACC et al, however that doesn't lessen our BCS impact so why go out and make it much worse?  Auburn, UGA, and many others in those big conferences have weaker schedules then we do, partly because they've got to travel on the road in the SEC.  We've got to go to back-to-back road contests against UL, and WVU, some would say that's a pretty daunting task.

Again, teams are good only when 'you say they are' so we're living completely in the 'joe world of perception'.  Kansas thinks they've turned the corner, we're not playing the 2002 Kansas team that went 2-10 we're playing.  They have been to two bowl games in ten years, but that 1995 team went 10-2 in the B12.

The joke of it all is I would contend we already have the breakout you've suggested.

1. 1-AA team- McNeese State

2. Small DI- FIU

3.  Mid-Major/small BCS- UCF clearly falls under this category.

4.  two mid-majors or higher- You may not like it but UNC definitely falls under this category, and Kansas probably falls a bit more in #3, but recent resurgents could prove them to be worthy of #4.

When programs in the BCS schedule they take into account their conference schedule.  For example, this year, not only are we a young team, but we're also forced to play the two best conference opponents on the road so it makes perfect sense to schedule appropriately.  We clearly meet your criteria for an annual scheduling, but your judging it strictly on your own personal opinions.  Maybe Kansas could be replaced with say a Purdue, but honestly I wouldn't want to go anymore potent than that on a schedule and if you think we should then you've got to get better acquianted with this team and program.

[Bullpride08]

Bein...

One more thing. We didn't have 12 games until 2002...those years almost every top program played what could be seen as a big game. Schools like Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida State, USC, Alabama, and Tennessee have signed major games through 2014.

So no, it won't be a rarity anymore. The schools have taken the "home game" excuse away by adding the 12th game leading to what will be a lot more intersectional games.

Actually joe, a big article was written in which it states that the 12 games will actually LESSEN the likelihood of more epic events.  The reason is the NCAA also softened many of the rules for example the rule for a victory over a qualified 1-AA team is only given as an exemption for bowl eligiblity every four years has been dropped and now every year one 1-AA victory counts.  The SOS no longer counts in the BCS polls.  There are more rules.  

Basically teams like Auburn make more dollars bringing Buffalo, and USF to their home then they do by scheduling USC on the road.  We shall see but no one expects a big jump in the big out-of-conference games.  In fact, many expect to see more teams from the BCS conferences to start annualizing a 7th home game, thus increasing their revenue further.