KSTATE football 2017

[DQ12]

That's a very nice schedule.  I really don't get Chingon's FCS gripe.  Would it make a difference if it was some bottom feeder FBS team like Texas State? 

Going on the road and playing a passable P5 opponent is a "good enough" OOC schedule, and there's really no reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than "good enough," other than fans' fleeting, selfish desires to see entertaining football.

Can FCS teams be better than the worst FBS team?  Sure.  But its the intention that bothers me.  I think the Big Ten has the right idea.

I don't think I am negative on KSU, in fact I think we are good enough as a program to no longer have to schedule like we did when our program was coming off of decades of misery.   KU, ISU and Tech are programs that need to duck good opponents and try to pad wins to reach a bowl game.  I mean we are talking about possibly winning the conference next year.  If we truly have a team that is great why wouldn't you want to try to grab high-exposure wins?   When would be a better time? 

I don't think its selfish at all for fans to want to see their teams play interesting OOC opponents or to see entertaining football.  In fact is a bit bewildering to me that one would think it is.  I think it's more selfish for fans to demand meaningless glorified scrimmages so they can brag to the waitress at BWW about a ten win season three years ago.

I want to see KSU play (and hopefully beat) good teams. I don't like the notion that scheduling Stanford was a bad idea and that if we only scheduled "smarter" this was really a 10 win team.  I believe getting 1 high-exposure OOC win is better for the KSU football program than going undefeated OOC for six years in a row against over-matched opponents.

It is selfish.  And silly, stan.  And my word, what I would do for an accessible BWW to visit and brag to the waitress about CATS football. 

In any event, there's just no practical reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than what we have.  None.  Seasons like we expect next year's to be don't come around for K-State all that often, so why put it in jeopardy scheduling a tougher OOC than we need to?  Maybe you value just being in those high-profile September games, but to me, they're just an unnecessary risk for a team with playoff aspirations. Washington, with their OOC slate of Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State, is laughing all the way to the CFP.  Meanwhile, OU fans can take solace that they...lost to two good opponents in September.  I'm sure they're thrilled.

And not for nothing, but we are going on the road to a 6 or 7 win SEC opponent next year.  This isn't the powderpuff schedule of the 90s. 

[kso_FAN]

I want to see KSU play (and hopefully beat) good teams. I don't like the notion that scheduling Stanford was a bad idea and that if we only scheduled "smarter" this was really a 10 win team.  I believe getting 1 high-exposure OOC win is better for the KSU football program than going undefeated OOC for six years in a row against over-matched opponents. 

FWIW, I do not think Standford was a bad idea. I'm glad that we have finally moved to regularly scheduled home and homes with P5 schools. I do think that our athletic department/football program needs the other 2 guaranteed OOC home games and that's going to mean 1 FCS and 1 low level FBS. I'm fine with that and it has absolutely nothing to do with guaranteed wins, maximizing football home games for revenue is a must for K-State.

[420seriouscat69]

Well, as a recruit, you already know that there's going to be at least one P5 opponent on your non-con schedule going to K-State. Then, as a 2nd year player you get to look forward to possibly catching some time on the field vs a pud opponent and showcasing your skills.  Some of you are over thinking this.

FWIW, I don't know anyone who was upset by us having Stanford on the schedule. More excited than anything. They were also excited to get this team some wins heading back home and gaining momentum for conference play.

[ChiComCat]

That's a very nice schedule.  I really don't get Chingon's FCS gripe.  Would it make a difference if it was some bottom feeder FBS team like Texas State? 

Going on the road and playing a passable P5 opponent is a "good enough" OOC schedule, and there's really no reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than "good enough," other than fans' fleeting, selfish desires to see entertaining football.

Can FCS teams be better than the worst FBS team?  Sure.  But its the intention that bothers me.  I think the Big Ten has the right idea.

I don't think I am negative on KSU, in fact I think we are good enough as a program to no longer have to schedule like we did when our program was coming off of decades of misery.   KU, ISU and Tech are programs that need to duck good opponents and try to pad wins to reach a bowl game.  I mean we are talking about possibly winning the conference next year.  If we truly have a team that is great why wouldn't you want to try to grab high-exposure wins?   When would be a better time? 

I don't think its selfish at all for fans to want to see their teams play interesting OOC opponents or to see entertaining football.  In fact is a bit bewildering to me that one would think it is.  I think it's more selfish for fans to demand meaningless glorified scrimmages so they can brag to the waitress at BWW about a ten win season three years ago.

I want to see KSU play (and hopefully beat) good teams. I don't like the notion that scheduling Stanford was a bad idea and that if we only scheduled "smarter" this was really a 10 win team.  I believe getting 1 high-exposure OOC win is better for the KSU football program than going undefeated OOC for six years in a row against over-matched opponents. 

I don't have a problem nixing FCS teams.  If we play FIU instead of Missouri St, I could care less.  I would have a problem with playing OU's unnecessary schedule and missing the playoffs because of it.  Scheduling like we used to is already over with Stanford/Vandy/Mississippi St. 

I don't care at all about scheduling Stanford being the difference between 8 or 9 wins.  I care about the difference between the playoffs and a NY6 or an NY6 and the Alamo.  Everything else is just a consolation prize.

[CHONGS]

That's a very nice schedule.  I really don't get Chingon's FCS gripe.  Would it make a difference if it was some bottom feeder FBS team like Texas State? 

Going on the road and playing a passable P5 opponent is a "good enough" OOC schedule, and there's really no reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than "good enough," other than fans' fleeting, selfish desires to see entertaining football.

Can FCS teams be better than the worst FBS team?  Sure.  But its the intention that bothers me.  I think the Big Ten has the right idea.

I don't think I am negative on KSU, in fact I think we are good enough as a program to no longer have to schedule like we did when our program was coming off of decades of misery.   KU, ISU and Tech are programs that need to duck good opponents and try to pad wins to reach a bowl game.  I mean we are talking about possibly winning the conference next year.  If we truly have a team that is great why wouldn't you want to try to grab high-exposure wins?   When would be a better time? 

I don't think its selfish at all for fans to want to see their teams play interesting OOC opponents or to see entertaining football.  In fact is a bit bewildering to me that one would think it is.  I think it's more selfish for fans to demand meaningless glorified scrimmages so they can brag to the waitress at BWW about a ten win season three years ago.

I want to see KSU play (and hopefully beat) good teams. I don't like the notion that scheduling Stanford was a bad idea and that if we only scheduled "smarter" this was really a 10 win team.  I believe getting 1 high-exposure OOC win is better for the KSU football program than going undefeated OOC for six years in a row against over-matched opponents.

It is selfish.  And silly, stan.  And my word, what I would do for an accessible BWW to visit and brag to the waitress about CATS football. 

In any event, there's just no practical reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than what we have.  None.  Seasons like we expect next year's to be don't come around for K-State all that often, so why put it in jeopardy scheduling a tougher OOC than we need to?  Maybe you value just being in those high-profile September games, but to me, they're just an unnecessary risk for a team with playoff aspirations. Washington, with their OOC slate of Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State, is laughing all the way to the CFP.  Meanwhile, OU fans can take solace that they...lost to two good opponents in September.  I'm sure they're thrilled.

And not for nothing, but we are going on the road to a 6 or 7 win SEC opponent next year.  This isn't the powderpuff schedule of the 90s. 

OU fans who complain about not getting into the playoff because of their schedule are delusional.  OU didn't deserve to sniff the playoffs.   They beat (maybe) 2 good teams this year.  I know I have a different underlying opinion on this than most:  I think a playoff spot should be earned, but I think many see it a something that is lost.  OU didn't miss out on a chance to get into the playoffs, they didn't win enough games to earn it.

[ChiComCat]

Whether OU deserved it or not is irrelevant to me.  They would've gotten it if they played our schedule.  If we made the national title game after the 2012 season, I couldn't care less that Alabama was better than both us and Notre Dame.

[420seriouscat69]

Whether OU deserved it or not is irrelevant to me.  They would've gotten it if they played our schedule.  If we made the national title game after the 2012 season, I couldn't care less that Alabama was better than both us and Notre Dame.

This

[DQ12]

OU fans who complain about not getting into the playoff because of their schedule are delusional.  OU didn't deserve to sniff the playoffs.   They beat (maybe) 2 good teams this year.  I know I have a different underlying opinion on this than most:  I think a playoff spot should be earned, but I think many see it a something that is lost.  OU didn't miss out on a chance to get into the playoffs, they didn't win enough games to earn it.

I don't know if they're delusional or not.  You can't win a NC without a ticket to the CFP -- so just getting there is the goal.  A pillowy soft OOC schedule was good enough for Washington to get in.  If UW had to play Ohio State and Houston in the OOC would they still be 11-1 and in the CFP?  Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

Not to mention, SOS-wise, going forward, a Big 12 playoff contender will (likely) have played one of the top two teams in the conference twice -- that's at least 10 P5 opponents on your conference schedule alone.  Ohio State and Alabama, by comparison played 10 P5 teams total this season.  Clemson and UW played 11.  Clemson (South Carolina State), UW (Portland State) and Alabama (Chatanooga) all played FCS opponents this year too fwiw.

Anyhow, I think (and I imagine you'd agree) that there's a balance to be struck between OU's 2016 schedule and Washington's 2016 schedule.  I think K-State's schedule next year strikes that balance well enough.  I understand the aesthetics of the FCS game irks you, but to me, I view Central Arkansas as the practical equivalent of a San Jose, Idaho, or New Mexico State. 

[MakeItRain]

We're playing an SEC bowl team on the road and we're having a discussion about how easy our schedule is? Man, gE is as reliable as a Rolex. Times may change but poster scripts are always there, like a warm blanket on a cold night.

[420seriouscat69]

We're playing an SEC bowl team on the road and we're having a discussion about how easy our schedule is? Man, gE is as reliable as a Rolex. Times may change but poster scripts are always there, like a warm blanket on a cold night.

This

[kso_FAN]

We're playing an SEC bowl team on the road and we're having a discussion about how easy our schedule is? Man, gE is as reliable as a Rolex. Times may change but poster scripts are always there, like a warm blanket on a cold night.

[CHONGS]

Whether OU deserved it or not is irrelevant to me.  They would've gotten it if they played our schedule.  If we made the national title game after the 2012 season, I couldn't care less that Alabama was better than both us and Notre Dame.

That's why I said:
"I know I have a different underlying opinion on this than most:  I think a playoff spot should be earned, but I think many see it a something that is lost. "

I get it, I do. It would have been great to get in in 2012. 

[That_Guy]

I would just love a replay of the 2003 Big 12 championship.

Ted Sims ain't walking through that door.

One of my favorite 'Cats of all time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

As things stand, the oklahomas are the 2 losses.  My gut says either or both of Vandy and W.Virginia could be adequate (>.500), but they could both be inadequate too for all I know (time zones).

If our team is actually pretty good next year, we will beat Oklahoma State. We will probably still lose to OU, though.

[Trim]

As things stand, the oklahomas are the 2 losses.  My gut says either or both of Vandy and W.Virginia could be adequate (>.500), but they could both be inadequate too for all I know (time zones).

If our team is actually pretty good next year, we will beat Oklahoma State. We will probably still lose to OU, though.

Objection, relevance.

I considered OSU not measuring up, mainly b/c of the vague stuff I'd heard about Gundy to Baylor, in that it could mean maybe there's strife or that Gundy knows his OSU squad will suck next year.  But as that all fizzled out, I assume for now they'll be fine.

[Big Sam]

I have to note that there are better things then spotlight games in September.  They are the spotlight games that come up in October and even November.  Those are pretty awesome and garner far more attention with recruits and casual fans around the nation.

[Rage Against the McKee]

As things stand, the oklahomas are the 2 losses.  My gut says either or both of Vandy and W.Virginia could be adequate (>.500), but they could both be inadequate too for all I know (time zones).

If our team is actually pretty good next year, we will beat Oklahoma State. We will probably still lose to OU, though.

Objection, relevance.

I considered OSU not measuring up, mainly b/c of the vague stuff I'd heard about Gundy to Baylor, in that it could mean maybe there's strife or that Gundy knows his OSU squad will suck next year.  But as that all fizzled out, I assume for now they'll be fine.

I don't think Gundy has it anymore. He has barely managed to hang on for victory against some pretty substandard KSU teams these past few years.

[Winters]

I have to note that there are better things then spotlight games in September.  They are the spotlight games that come up in October and even November.  Those are pretty awesome and garner far more attention with recruits and casual fans around the nation.

link?

[Skipper44]

As things stand, the oklahomas are the 2 losses.  My gut says either or both of Vandy and W.Virginia could be adequate (>.500), but they could both be inadequate too for all I know (time zones).

If our team is actually pretty good next year, we will beat Oklahoma State. We will probably still lose to OU, though.

Objection, relevance.

I considered OSU not measuring up, mainly b/c of the vague stuff I'd heard about Gundy to Baylor, in that it could mean maybe there's strife or that Gundy knows his OSU squad will suck next year.  But as that all fizzled out, I assume for now they'll be fine.

I don't think Gundy has it anymore. He has barely managed to hang on for victory against some pretty substandard KSU teams these past few years.

Oh, Gundy has been sashaying around telling anybody that will listen that he is better than what T. Boone deserves but if the CMU loss this year couldn't sink him (and it didn't) I don't see it happening.

While we are on the topic of OSU, why in the sam hell are they playing at Southern Alabama?  In the same season they are going to Pitt?!?! 

['taterblast]

@ Vandy and two puds is a perfect non-con. what is wrong with some of you?

[420seriouscat69]

@ Vandy and two puds is a perfect non-con. what is wrong with some of you?

Nothing at all. Enjoy Nashville, folks!

[wetwillie]

@ Vandy and two puds is a perfect non-con. what is wrong with some of you?

Cucks

[HerrSonntag]

That's a very nice schedule.  I really don't get Chingon's FCS gripe.  Would it make a difference if it was some bottom feeder FBS team like Texas State? 

Going on the road and playing a passable P5 opponent is a "good enough" OOC schedule, and there's really no reason to have an OOC schedule any tougher than "good enough," other than fans' fleeting, selfish desires to see entertaining football.

Can FCS teams be better than the worst FBS team?  Sure.  But its the intention that bothers me.  I think the Big Ten has the right idea.

I don't think I am negative on KSU, in fact I think we are good enough as a program to no longer have to schedule like we did when our program was coming off of decades of misery.   KU, ISU and Tech are programs that need to duck good opponents and try to pad wins to reach a bowl game.  I mean we are talking about possibly winning the conference next year.  If we truly have a team that is great why wouldn't you want to try to grab high-exposure wins?   When would be a better time? 

I don't think its selfish at all for fans to want to see their teams play interesting OOC opponents or to see entertaining football.  In fact is a bit bewildering to me that one would think it is.  I think it's more selfish for fans to demand meaningless glorified scrimmages so they can brag to the waitress at BWW about a ten win season three years ago.

I want to see KSU play (and hopefully beat) good teams. I don't like the notion that scheduling Stanford was a bad idea and that if we only scheduled "smarter" this was really a 10 win team.  I believe getting 1 high-exposure OOC win is better for the KSU football program than going undefeated OOC for six years in a row against over-matched opponents. 

I don't have a problem nixing FCS teams.  If we play FIU instead of Missouri St, I could care less.  I would have a problem with playing OU's unnecessary schedule and missing the playoffs because of it.  Scheduling like we used to is already over with Stanford/Vandy/Mississippi St. 

I don't care at all about scheduling Stanford being the difference between 8 or 9 wins.  I care about the difference between the playoffs and a NY6 or an NY6 and the Alamo.  Everything else is just a consolation prize.

Whether OU deserved it or not is irrelevant to me.  They would've gotten it if they played our schedule.  If we made the national title game after the 2012 season, I couldn't care less that Alabama was better than both us and Notre Dame.

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when they said "I could care less" but meant "I couldn't care less"

Like, maybe they heard it wrong once and just started saying it that way.  Or, maybe they'd never thought about what the saying means.

Seeing this, juxtaposed by only a few fleeting moments and posts, sickens me beyond words.  May the lord have mercy on your soul, ChiCat.

[ChiComCat]

Sometimes I reread and catch myself Herr, sometimes not so much