Why do certain SEC teams get 4 cupcake teams on their schedule?

You could go one step further and wonder about SEC East teams that get to play Vandy and Kentucky every year. The schedules never will be balanced and really a lot of their scheduling becomes about becoming bowl eligible. There's not that much to gain from a difficult schedule, but there's a lot to lose.

The three you referenced are in the process of attempting to create some sort of faux relevance on a national scale. Thus, pay for 4 easy wins in your efforts to fool yourself.

I think every Power 5 team should have to play at least 10 Power 5 teams.

You never know how good a team is going to be when you schedule them.... I mean who knew Jacksonville State would be so tough, LOL.

GP for Bama said:

I think every Power 5 team should have to play at least 10 Power 5 teams.

Click to expand...

I said before that schedules will never be balanced and this statement kind of proves that point. We can argue that this should be required, ok sure... but your statement seems to indicate that all Power 5 teams are created equal, they are not.

If you play 8 ACC teams, then you can throw 2 Big 12 teams on top of that and claim you met the requirements. But what if those two teams are Iowa State and Kansas? What about the fact that you know, they're playing ACC teams? This overly simplistic view of things can never work. Even in the case of Missouri or Miss. State, they're not playing easy schedules, they're just playing easier schedules than other SEC teams. There's a difference.

theballguy said:

I am wondering why is it that some SEC teams get 4 cupcake teams on their schedule? These are Ole Miss, Miss State and Missouri. All three of these teams were rated high nationally last season and probably will be again this season. I would think it would be time for them to step it up or maybe I'm missing something ...


Looking at the following teams:




Missouri (may be something of a stretch with BYU but not really)

• Southeast Missouri State
• Arkansas State
• Connecticut (Conf-USA I think?)
• BYU (independent)

I could almost understand if teams like Vandy, UK and maybe even USCe were doing this but I would think the land mass teams would have a little more pride and ambition in their scheduling. I'm curious to get some insight from others who may know why this is.

Click to expand...

BYU is a seriously high-quality opponent. Not disagreeing with the premise, but they're consistently a good team that would likely do well in any conference, including the SEC. Just sayin'.

theballguy said:

I am wondering why is it that some SEC teams get 4 cupcake teams on their schedule? These are Ole Miss, Miss State and Missouri. All three of these teams were rated high nationally last season and probably will be again this season. I would think it would be time for them to step it up or maybe I'm missing something ...


Looking at the following teams:


Ole Miss

• Tennessee-Martin
• Fresno
• New Mexico State
• Memphis

Miss State

• Southern Miss
• Northwestern State (not Northwestern of the B1G)
• Troy
• Louisiana Tech

Missouri (may be something of a stretch with BYU but not really)

• Southeast Missouri State
• Arkansas State
• Connecticut (Conf-USA I think?)
• BYU (independent)

I noticed in other seasons that aTm played 4 cupcake schools but that seems to be a thing of the past.


On another extreme, South Carolina is only playing The Citadel and UCF though they are playing 2 ACC teams.


I could almost understand if teams like Vandy, UK and maybe even USCe were doing this but I would think the land mass teams would have a little more pride and ambition in their scheduling. I'm curious to get some insight from others who may know why this is.

Click to expand...

Missouri schedule looks pretty good to me. They deserve the most credit they are just now getting used to playing an SEC schedule so all teams on there schedule are new so tough for them. The Mississippi schools will get tested in the West this year so they are fine to me also. Some would say a tough schedule prepares you for the the playoffs. Others would say a tough schedule makes you vulnerable in the post season. For my viewing pleasure I enjoy watching the big boys play each other. SOS is so in the eye of the beholder.

DocCrimson said:

BYU is a seriously high-quality opponent. Not disagreeing with the premise, but they're consistently a good team that would likely do well in any conference, including the SEC. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it...DITTO

Mystical said:

For my viewing pleasure I enjoy watching the big boys play each other.

Click to expand...

I don't care one tiny bit about viewing pleasure. If I just want to be entertained I can watch a movie, I don't watch Alabama football to be entertained, I'm a fan, I don't want Alabama to play close games. I want them to blow every single team out, I want it to be "boring". 2013 Auburn game was big boys playing each other with lots of entertainment value... hated it.

But your statements get into something else, the idea that a fan can just sit there relaxing in the couch and come up with what should occur on the field. These guys are smashing into each other, they're getting beat up out there, they have physical limits. A fan can sit on their butt and watch football all day, it's not like most football players are physically capable of playing football all day. The difference between what some fans who just want to be entertained want, and what football players can physically withstand and still perform at a high level are very different. There's tons of examples of people at high level of sports deliberately trying not to overexert themselves.

If it's a boxer, he's going to space his fights out and pick opponents carefully. If it's a race horse, they might skip some major events to keep the horse well rested. If it's baseball they might sit a player once a week to rest, if it's basketball they tend to make sure they get time off at the end of the third quarter. This principle applies all across sports, so why on earth shouldn't it apply to football? Of course it does, you want to give your player's a break when possible, and if a fan wants to push a team beyond its limits just to be entertained, well that fan doesn't have the best interest of the team at heart.

Edit: I wanted to state that I get your point, you want big games, you want big showdowns, most fans do, but the truth is those games are obstacles to championships. I think honestly fans need to retrain themselves. I saw people get up and leave the MTSU game as soon as Alabama put it away, and I'm thinking wait, you only want to watch Alabama play if they might lose? Isn't that perverse?

KrAzY3 said:

I don't care one tiny bit about viewing pleasure. If I just want to be entertained I can watch a movie, I don't watch Alabama football to be entertained, I'm a fan, I don't want Alabama to play close games. I want them to blow every single team out, I want it to be "boring". 2013 Auburn game was big boys playing each other with lots of entertainment value... hated it.

But your statements get into something else, the idea that a fan can just sit there relaxing in the couch and come up with what should occur on the field. These guys are smashing into each other, they're getting beat up out there, they have physical limits. A fan can sit on their butt and watch football all day, it's not like most football players are physically capable of playing football all day. The difference between what some fans who just want to be entertained want, and what football players can physically withstand and still perform at a high level are very different. There's tons of examples of people at high level of sports deliberately trying not to overexert themselves.

If it's a boxer, he's going to space his fights out and pick opponents carefully. If it's a race horse, they might skip some major events to keep the horse well rested. If it's baseball they might sit a player once a week to rest, if it's basketball they tend to make sure they get time off at the end of the third quarter. This principle applies all across sports, so why on earth shouldn't it apply to football? Of course it does, you want to give your player's a break when possible, and if a fan wants to push a team beyond its limits just to be entertained, well that fan doesn't have the best interest of the team at heart.

Click to expand...

Yes your feeling are quite known on this board by now. If you think back to why most of the people on this board first became a fan, I can almost assure you that for 90% of us it was not watching our beloved Tide beat Citadel 100-0. It was the great games against Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Auburn and even Penn State. Why do we love the players? It's because of how they came through in the clutch in the biggest games. My Granddad loved Billy Neighbors and spoke fondly of him playing on both sides of the ball. He cried when news broke of Billy's death even though he had never met the man. How about the 1989 Penn State victory where we won 17-16. In that game Thomas Rayam blocked a field goal and Syran Stacey ran the ball in with a minute left. Than you have the Deuce who came up big so many times on the way to the championship in 92. Mount Cody blocking the field goal to preserve and undefeated season against Tn. So many great moments but none of them occurred in a blow out against a lesser opponent. No one loves Alabama more than I do. I fell in love with Alabama because of the heart the team showed in the big games. The reason we are must see TV for even the casual fan is because we have historically played in the biggest games. There is no wrong way to support the Tide. Just support us. I love that we have committed to playing a tough out of conference game every year. I know some would rather we not and they are entitled to their opinion.

I know several of our fans who complained of only a "handful" of interesting games during the time we won three NCs in four years, and then the same people complained that all the close finishes and late comebacks last year were nerve-wracking.

But scheduling is a total crap shoot. There are some Power 5 teams (Kansas, Wake Forest, Purdue, etc.) that are just awful. Scheduling those guys doesn't excite me as much as playing some of the good non-power 5 schools.

And timing matters. Several years ago, Southern Miss was a team a lot of big schools feared. Then they became a joke. On flip side, Memphis was just awful for many years and now they're pretty good and dangerous. When you schedule games several years out, you never know what you'll get (unless you go totally to the bottom of the barrel).

I really think that the required combination of a nine game conference schedule plus a conference championship game clears out much of the inequality in scheduling. It ensures that all teams get multiple tough tests, teams can't avoid as many tough teams in their own leagues by quirks on the sched, and you have to win at least 3 conference games to make a bowl.

GP for Bama said:

I think every Power 5 team should have to play at least 10 Power 5 teams.

Click to expand...

That would make Indiana and Wake Forest very popular.

theballguy said:

High-quality, yes. Seriously high-quality? I'm not sure they would do well week-in/week-out in the SEC ... ACC? Almost certainly. But as someone mentioned too, you don't know who they will be when you play them since these things are scheduled a year or more beforehand.

Click to expand...

If they were given the spotlight of one of those conferences, along with the finances, and joined in with everyone else and relaxed some admission for athletes they'd be a top tier team. So it's apples and oranges. I think they'll beat Missouri.

That being said, answering your question is fairly easy. It boils down to just a few factors.

1. Strength of Schedule.

Some teams fear their schedule as is, and thus they don't want to schedule tough ooc teams. They feel they need every opportunity possible to catch a break.

2. They Schedule WAY in Advance

Sometimes a game looks REALLY good on paper a few years in advance but then turns in to a dud. Whether it's a tough mid major you scheduled who fell off, or a Power 5 team who never got good, you can't account for who a team will be when you play them.

3. You have no OOC rivalry.

Some teams (USCe, UF, UGA) have natural ooc rivals who are typically good. They have a built in "out" on not having a super easy schedule.

5. Marketability

Some lower level teams in the SEC might have a tough time finding good matchups. Especially since the new craze is neutral site games, those games are reserved for top programs. Unless you're willing to go home and home, you might be stuck paying lower end schools to visit. This also gives a team 8 home games most times, which puts more money into the school's pocket.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

the SEC passed a rule that you have to schedule one ooc team from the power five or Notre Dame or BYU. it starts next year for all teams in the SEC

Tidewater said:

That would make Indiana and Wake Forest very popular.

Click to expand...

Beating up on my Deacs... but yeah, it's deserved...

theballguy said:

High-quality, yes. Seriously high-quality? I'm not sure they would do well week-in/week-out in the SEC ... ACC? Almost certainly. But as someone mentioned too, you don't know who they will be when you play them since these things are scheduled a year or more beforehand.

Click to expand...

I "seriously" stand behind my initial comment. Historically, I'd put them above Miss, MSU, Arky, Mizzou, A&M, UK, Vandy, and USCe. They're just below Auburn or LSU historically, which is pretty darned good. (I feel a little dirty saying that). UF, UT, UGA, and the good guys are a solid notch or two above that, but that's good enough to "hang" in the conference.