True on that point. And I have no complaints with scheduling a Syracuse, Clemson, or the Beavers, as they are clearly going to be ranked in the same top 50. Rest assured, I get no more exciited about Syracuse, Clemson, or the Beavers than I do for Miami, Marshall, etc. I expect to beat any team that comes into Tiger Stadium on any given Saturday.
I can't believe I'm reading this bellyaching over potentially scheduling a Clemson or a Syracuse or an Oregon State. Many LSU fans have bemoaned the weak OOC schedule for years, complaining that we never play the Florida States, Michigans, USCs of the college football world. Although we consistently play a very tough SEC schedule, and there is a very tough stretch of road games next year, we currently only have Houston and Troy State scheduled for OOC games. And coming off a national championship just nine days ago, one would think that LSU fans would be ready to play anyone – OU, OSU, Michigan, Miami, even USC. But some here are saying we should stay away from opponents like Clemson, instead scheduling MAC teams. Haven’t we learned a lesson from the last month and a half, during which we were lucky to barely squeak by USC in terms of schedule strength? If we have the opportunity to schedule Clemson and Bowden, Jr. to start the year, certainly to be televised nationally, why not? We are the defending national champions; let’s act like it and play anyone.
I will be glad when we get over this "WE MUST HAVE 7 HOME GAMES" deal. This is killing our ability to schedule good teams. With the increase in ticket prices, I would think in a few years we would be able to afford to have only 6 home games. This would give us the opportunity to play two big names a year (one at home, and one on the return road game).
The reason some people would like to see upper tier MAC or Conf USA teams instead of a Clemson or Syracuse is because the MAC team will probably end up with the better record by years end. This would help our SOS for BCS and computer purposes more than playing a 5-6 Syracuse or Clemson team. I'll be happy as long as it's not a Div I-AA school.
Hornet, you got my angle on the upper tier MACs. There was no belly-aching over scheduling any of the teams listed, as SOLA noted. You have to be smart in your scheduling. Scheduling a perennial top 5 anywhere in your schedule can knock you out of the NCG if you lose it. It can seriously elevate you, but the damage could be irreversible. Additionally, LSU, OU, and USC all proved that you only need an average schedule to get to the NCG. If you bump up your average schedule just a little bit using your OOC games, you can melt several points off your SOS.
Personally I would like us to take on Clemson. It could be the Battle for Death Valley. Whoever wins takes the name and the other one (Clemson) can stick to, Stadium with a Lucky Rock. Plus, I hate the Bowdens and would love to kick the crap out of him.
You are just not accepting reality when posting something like this. The meetings last week among AD's and coaches have shown that the BSC will not add an extra game to the Bowls as the coaches don't want it and the AD's are trying to add the 12 regular season game as a rule instead of just in years when the calendar let's it happen and 90% of the AD's want to add an 8th home game in order to bring in MORE money. The only ones that don't want to add the 8th home game are the schools that need to travel for revenue. Your thoughts are to take money away. That will not happen I assure you. We all have to remember that football pretty much supoports all sports at 99% of all colleges and many of the programs still end up in the red every year. It has nothing to do with anything but money and it always will. USC and some of these other very rich schools may be able to afford to do that but we cannot. The other PAC 10 teams can do it as they actually make more money on the road when they play a large stadium program and than they do at home.
cajdav1 is right here. If I recall the numbers correctly, LSU nets about 3 million per home game. A road game will get you 300-400,000. When you include your travel expenses, LSU eats up a signfiicant portion of those funds, so the net loss is fairly significant to LSU, on the order of 2.5 million, by trading a home game for an away game.
Then explain to me why some other big schools are capable of playing home and away series with big schools? Not all of them are during 12 game seasons.
I don't think you are hearing bellyaching, just people who do not refuse to ignore the facts. We can get these schools to play at our place without a return visit and financilly that is what we need to happen. The only way I think we could have any shot at scheduling a reptitive series with another real good BCS team would be to try and set up a nuetral site scenario similar to UGA and UF as well as OU and UT. The OU/UT Dallas game is ni jepeordy right now unless the city of Dallas and the Fair organizers come up with some more dough. The uGA/UF game though got past all of that stuff a few years ago when the stadium in Jacksonville went through all of the upgrades and the city came up with the Big Bucks to keep it there. Of course we have to remember that is an SEC contest and as long as they split the revenue each year in half then they get the same benefit as playing every other year at home. For LSU to be able to do this it would have to net them at least 3 to 4 million each year I think.
