Tech Ranked 53rd in Strength of Schedule

[Easydawg]

Check this out. Comments? I think we have the toughest in the WAC. That says alot.

http://www.inside99.net/2004/sos/index.htm

[rockdog]

That is something. We are also only like 6 spots down from LSU, who plays in the SEC! It looks as if only Houston and BYU have harder schedules for non-BCS teams.

[HogDawg]

So, Louisiana Tech's schedule was ranked # 53. Let's see if we recognize any of the schools at the bottom?



100. Tulane
101. TCU
102. Connecticut
103. San Jose State
104. Utah
105. Tulsa
106. Buffalo
107. Louisiana-Monroe
108. Central Michigan
109. North Texas
110. New Mexico State
111. UTEP
112. Nevada
113. Middle Tennessee
114. Hawaii
115. Louisiana-Lafayette
116. Boise State
117. Navy


Wow. There sure are allot of familiar faces in the botom 17. Look at UNT. They think they are so hot, and they've got one of the easiest schedules in all of football (just as I've always said.) And UTEP is pathetic.

HD

[hookdown]

Looks like there are 7 current or future WAC teams there. Wonder how many body bag games are on their schedules? I say trade the money for wins (or at least the chance of a win)! Reduce the UM/UT games to no more than 1 per year. Play the the lower level BCS teams like Baylor, Vanderbilt, Kansas, etc. At least there is the possibility of a win. Probably would mean more to the program than $$$$.

[BOSTON]

Our schedule is tough....no doubt! We need to give Boise some crap....having only lost 3 or 4 games in 3 years, but having the 2nd easiest schedule in the entire NCAA is not something to celebrate.

[MADDAWGNBAMA]

Looks like UNT has it usual list of "tomato cans" on its schedule...real impressive.
________
SL90

[Rooster]

Looks like UNT has it usual list of "tomato cans" on its schedule...real impressive.

It doesn't matter, they are winning and we are not. Do ya'll remember when we lost to USC in the last game of the season in 1999 I think? We were ranked #25 going into that game. USC beat us like a drum. We were 8-3 after the loss. Some say we didn't go to a bowl game that year b/c of the last game of the year loss to USC. Well, even if we would have won, we probably would have stayed home b/c we were independent. Getting to my point: Out of our 8 wins, NONE of those 8 teams had a winning record. Not many people remember that. People remember winning. Who cares about the damn strength of schedule. Would you rather be 5-7 w/ the 20th hardest schedule w/ no bowl game, or be 8-4 or 9-3 and be playing somewhere in a bowl. The only reason we have to play these hard ass games is b/c we have no $$$$$$. We need to chalk up wins. Marshall did it that way, and now North Texas is. Why in the hell don't we?

[EJ]

What good is having a tough schedule if we do not have the staff to adequately prepare for these tough games?

[JAY]

say we played two body bag games in 2005 and 2006, say against two sec teams and they each paid us $600,000. thats 1.2 mil.

what if we played a home and home with ulm those two years instead of those two body bag games. how much would we make off of a 20,000+ attendence home game and a road game to ulm? if we only make $200,000 for the ulm series, then i can see playing the body bag games. but if we make $500,000+ off of the ulm series, i would rather take less money and get the two wins.

does anyone know what the difference in earnings is?

[Cool Hand Clyde]

10,000 fans at $20 a pop = $200,000

If I understand the concessions situation, the athletic department makes no money.

Therefore, your point is well made, Jay.

Unless there are corporate sponsors lined up with hundreds of thousnads of dollars, a ULM game is a money loser compared to going on the road.

UL-X.....Just Say No

[arkstfan]

If the schedule criteria remains in place playing two SEC games isn't likely to be feasible unless one of them is Arkansas at Little Rock or Alabama at Birmingham (I assume Bama is in no hurry to schedule Tech for some reason).

To get five I-A home games you are looking at 4 WAC home games, 4 WAC road games with three games left. One needs to be a I-A at home to get the 5th game, one needs to be the other leg of a home-home with a I-A, either paying them back for their trip to Ruston or in anticipation of their returning the game the next year. That leaves just one slot to play a non-returned SEC game, until 2008 when you get another 12 game season.

[MADDAWGNBAMA]

Rooster,


I'd rather beat Oklahoma State, Alabama, Michigan State any day of the week rather than racking up wins against "tomato cans." UNT went to a bowl game and had there tails handed to them by Memphis which is hardly a perennial power. You are right about one thing...we do remember wins like the great wins over bigtime opponents and non-Tech fans remember those wins too. You tell me who in Alabama cares about a big win over ULM? But they do remember us spanking Dubose and the Crimson Tide. BTW recruits follow that stuff too.
________
Mazda rx-2 picture

[DallasDog]

You have a point Mad, but recruits also pay attention to lots of losing seasons. Unless we happen to be the biggest school recruiting them, most won't play for the occassional upset they will go to a school where the will win 7 or 8, maybe more games each season with a shot at a bowl. I don't want to play a bunch of softies either, but as a coach I do think we need to maybe have 1 or 2 strong BCS teams on a schedule in one year. We could play some of the lighter weight BCS schools also for less cash and a chance to win. I just think we are killing our men for cash not wins right now, and that is a disservice to them.

[MADDAWGNBAMA]

I agree DDog that we should limit the number of top 5 teams we choose to play each year. This is the last year of our deal with Miami and Tennessee was a one time deal so hopefully JO will be able to lighten the schedule up a bit after this season.
________
BUY SILVER SURFER

[glm47]

You have a point Mad, but recruits also pay attention to lots of losing seasons. Unless we happen to be the biggest school recruiting them, most won't play for the occassional upset they will go to a school where the will win 7 or 8, maybe more games each season with a shot at a bowl. I don't want to play a bunch of softies either, but as a coach I do think we need to maybe have 1 or 2 strong BCS teams on a schedule in one year. We could play some of the lighter weight BCS schools also for less cash and a chance to win. I just think we are killing our men for cash not wins right now, and that is a disservice to them.

we're doing it because it's the easiest way to make money. No major thought has to go into it and no one has to work too hard.