2015 Schedule poster....

[Eielson]

In general, you schedule games years in advance, so you can't time it to when a team is good or bad (although we have a knack for getting teams when they're down under Stoops...perhaps we should schedule tOSU so that we can crush their future), so you have to base it off of the overall outlook. Tulsa, in general, is a very good "mid-major" program, so I don't see why we wouldn't schedule them. We don't want to start our season off with a power-conference team, or even a team of BYU's caliber. You have to ease into it, or you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot once every 2-3 years. Tulsa is a team that we'll beat 19 times out of 20, yet they still have potential to add to our SOS.

Additionally, it's a very cost-effective "road-trip," and it allows the Tulsa families an opportunity to get to a game a lot easier. We've recruited decently in Tulsa, but we've let quite a few slip away over the years, and I have a hunch that if we played in Tulsa more often it would help us seal the deal on some of these guys.

Lastly, we're helping Tulsa by scheduling them, and helping Tulsa helps Oklahoma HS football, and by helping OK HS football we're helping ourselves.

In conclusion, I can't think of any reason NOT to schedule Tulsa. They shouldn't headline our non-conference, but Tulsa is usually our #2 opponent behind a Power-5 team, and that's teh way I think it should be.

[Salt City Sooner]

In general, you schedule games years in advance, so you can't time it to when a team is good or bad (although we have a knack for getting teams when they're down under Stoops...perhaps we should schedule tOSU so that we can crush their future), so you have to base it off of the overall outlook. Tulsa, in general, is a very good "mid-major" program, so I don't see why we wouldn't schedule them. We don't want to start our season off with a power-conference team, or even a team of BYU's caliber. You have to ease into it, or you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot once every 2-3 years. Tulsa is a team that we'll beat 19 times out of 20, yet they still have potential to add to our SOS.

Additionally, it's a very cost-effective "road-trip," and it allows the Tulsa families an opportunity to get to a game a lot easier. We've recruited decently in Tulsa, but we've let quite a few slip away over the years, and I have a hunch that if we played in Tulsa more often it would help us seal the deal on some of these guys.

Lastly, we're helping Tulsa by scheduling them, and helping Tulsa helps Oklahoma HS football, and by helping OK HS football we're helping ourselves.

In conclusion, I can't think of any reason NOT to schedule Tulsa. They shouldn't headline our non-conference, but Tulsa is usually our #2 opponent behind a Power-5 team, and that's teh way I think it should be.

I think there's an extremely good chance of that; maybe even starting next year.

[badger]

I think there's an extremely good chance of that; maybe even starting next year.

I'd rather play them in 2017, but I guess I'd take both years if that's the way things have to be

[Eielson]

I think there's an extremely good chance of that; maybe even starting next year.

Oh yeah. Whoops. Our guys are really on top of things.

Harbaugh is going to take over the conference sooner than expected. Maybe we can get a Michigan series lined up to ruin any chance of the Big 10 getting a playoff bid (I know...I'm kidding).

[badger]

I know we're all just having offseason fun, but I've read that the Michigan athletic director (and let's face it, Michigan as a whole) still thinks its the 90s and the UM brand is college football's strongest. As such, he reportedly told Texas when they were interested in a home and home that they told UT that they, as a national brand, "might" be interested in a 2-for-1, as in two at the Big House and one at UT's slightly smaller big house.

In general home-and-homes are less popular than they once were because athletic directors, not just the Michigan man, don't want to lose money by not being host to as many football games as possible. You build 100K+ stadiums, you damn well better not let them sit empty more than humanely possible in the fall! Travel to OU in exchange for a marquee home game next year... OR... make millions both seasons by hosting a here-and-here with the Central Michigan Chippewas? Hmmm...

EDIT: I should note that the UM's athletic director mentioned, Dave Brandon, got booted last fall and I think UT/UM home and home is back in the works. Not sure what the status is now

[KantoSooner]

When I look at places like Michigan, I tend to feel more sorry than anything else. It must be terribly hard to know that once you really had something going...and that then 'it' left. Never to return.
Sad, really.

[badger]

If it wasn't to the detriment of the conference you could say the same thing about UT and laugh. Will Texas ever be as big and bad as they all think they are once again? Not with whatever they trotted out at the spring game

[Tear Down This Wall]

In general, you schedule games years in advance, so you can't time it to when a team is good or bad (although we have a knack for getting teams when they're down under Stoops...perhaps we should schedule tOSU so that we can crush their future), so you have to base it off of the overall outlook. Tulsa, in general, is a very good "mid-major" program, so I don't see why we wouldn't schedule them. We don't want to start our season off with a power-conference team, or even a team of BYU's caliber. You have to ease into it, or you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot once every 2-3 years. Tulsa is a team that we'll beat 19 times out of 20, yet they still have potential to add to our SOS.

Additionally, it's a very cost-effective "road-trip," and it allows the Tulsa families an opportunity to get to a game a lot easier. We've recruited decently in Tulsa, but we've let quite a few slip away over the years, and I have a hunch that if we played in Tulsa more often it would help us seal the deal on some of these guys.

Lastly, we're helping Tulsa by scheduling them, and helping Tulsa helps Oklahoma HS football, and by helping OK HS football we're helping ourselves.

In conclusion, I can't think of any reason NOT to schedule Tulsa. They shouldn't headline our non-conference, but Tulsa is usually our #2 opponent behind a Power-5 team, and that's teh way I think it should be.

Tulsa has beaten us once since 1943, in 1996 when John Blake was mistakenly the head coach. We went from 1944-1978 without playing Tulsa. We're due for another 35 season stretch without them.

Add North Texas to the list of teams we can do without playing for another 35 seasons. Tulsa, North Texas, UTEP, Rice...the whole lot of them. Except for pointless Tulsa, we don't set up home-and-homes with either of them anyway.

Also, spare me the "cost effectiveness" argument. The AD and President were set on joining the Pac-12 back in 2011. So, apparently, cost wasn't an issue for a whole seasons worth of conference games on the West Coast and Mountain Time Zones - and, for every sport we field.

We can do without constantly scheduling flyspecks like Tulsa and North Texas.

[Eielson]

Tulsa has beaten us once since 1943, in 1996 when John Blake was mistakenly the head coach. We went from 1944-1978 without playing Tulsa. We're due for another 35 season stretch without them.

Add North Texas to the list of teams we can do without playing for another 35 seasons. Tulsa, North Texas, UTEP, Rice...the whole lot of them. Except for pointless Tulsa, we don't set up home-and-homes with either of them anyway.

Also, spare me the "cost effectiveness" argument. The AD and President were set on joining the Pac-12 back in 2011. So, apparently, cost wasn't an issue for a whole seasons worth of conference games on the West Coast and Mountain Time Zones - and, for every sport we field.

We can do without constantly scheduling flyspecks like Tulsa and North Texas.

You want to play 3 power-5 conference teams in the non-conference?

[badger]

There's a political reason to keep the non-conference payout checks in-state. If you're gonna pay $1 million to another school to get beat, might as well keep the money in-state.

If you want to play 3 power-5 conference teams in the non-conference... join a mid-major conference?

[Tear Down This Wall]

You want to play 3 power-5 conference teams in the non-conference?

I didn't say that. I said quit scheduling Tulsa. This year will mark the ninth time a Stoops team has played Tulsa, third year in a row, and four out of the past five seasons. It's too much.

There are plenty of other schools - Power 5 and non-Power 5 - who would be willing to come to Norman. Playing Tulsa this often - and, especially playing in Tulsa - is a complete waste of schedule space. Once or twice a decade is plenty.

As it is, they are on none of our future schedules past this season. Hopefully, it way stay that way for at least another decade. We have a reprieve until at least 2019 if the Future Schedules site is correct.

SEC counts BYU and Notre Dame as nonconference Power 5s already. Nothing wrong will variety and better competition.

I would gladly take low level Power 5s over the likes of Tulsa, North Texas, and UTEP. Examples: Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, the Arizonas, the Washingtons, Utah, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia, Purdue, Kentucky, etc.

[KantoSooner]

Okay, you're opening the door enough. Every year? probably too much. 1-2 per decade? Maybe a tad light to me, but whatever, we can work out the details.
And as to other low level power 5's, I'd concentrate on areas of recruiting interest. One we should not ignore is Arkansas. Many years, that would be a serious game, other times, a laugher, but generally a good recruiting state.

[Eielson]

I didn't say that...

SEC counts BYU and Notre Dame as nonconference Power 5s already. Nothing wrong will variety and better competition.

So 3 Power 5s, or two Power 5s + BYU/ND? What do you want other than Power 5s if Tulsa isn't acceptable? A home and home vs Boise State?

The problem with scheduling "lower-level" Power 5s is that you don't know when they'll be up or down. For instance, we recently played FSU, but they were nowhere near where they are now. We also scheduled Tennessee back around the time Manning was there, so I imagine we expected them to be much better. If we schedule a game against Miami in 5-10 years...would that be a top 5 showdown or a laugher? We have no clue.

We have to have a warm up game or two. Alabama and FSU nearly ruined their playoff bids by playing WVU and OSU in week 1, and those were lower-to-mid-level P5s this year.

[Tear Down This Wall]

So 3 Power 5s, or two Power 5s + BYU/ND? What do you want other than Power 5s if Tulsa isn't acceptable? A home and home vs Boise State?

The problem with scheduling "lower-level" Power 5s is that you don't know when they'll be up or down. For instance, we recently played FSU, but they were nowhere near where they are now. We also scheduled Tennessee back around the time Manning was there, so I imagine we expected them to be much better. If we schedule a game against Miami in 5-10 years...would that be a top 5 showdown or a laugher? We have no clue.

We have to have a warm up game or two. Alabama and FSU nearly ruined their playoff bids by playing WVU and OSU in week 1, and those were lower-to-mid-level P5s this year.

We're Oklahoma. We shouldn't be giving a f*ck whether any other school is up or down. We have the resources to get the coaches and players to compete with anyone in the country.

F-ing hell...we've got so many Texas Tech/Mike Leach ties now that our fanbase is beginning to think like them when it comes to scheduling!

Repeat: We're Oklahoma. We shouldn't be giving a f*ck whether any other school is up or down. We have the resources to get the coaches and players to compete with anyone in the country.

I could give a fat f*ck whether Illinois or Maryland is up or down. Put them on the schedule so we don't have to watch 52-0 drubbings of Tulsa and North Texas anymore. It proves nothing other than what we already know - Tulsa and North Texas suck.

Besides, we have recruited quite a bit in Illinois and on the East Coast over the past two decades. National exposure, in my book, is better than the little regional exposure you might get from beating the sh*t out of Tulsa and North Texas over and over and over and again and again and again.

AND

What if Illinois or Maryland, for instance, were having up years and we beat them? What looks better to the playoff committee: that we beat a Big 10 or Power 5 team that is going bowling, or that we beat a Tulsa or North Texas team who might accidentally have a good year every now and then and stumble into a crappy bowl?

Seriously, you all. Take your bloody hell "Oh my gosh, they might have an up year when we schedule them" bedwetting and move to Lubbock already.

[KantoSooner]

We've played North Texas what, once? Why are you fixated on them? The Chattanooga Mocs and West Central Loooziana Hobo's or what the eff they were were pretty awful as well.
Here's the gig: we want to play at home as much as possible. What with 9 conf games, and one being in Dallas always, we could have as few 4 conf home games. Then three OOC games. Now, if we schedule equals for each of those, you have to assume that they'll want home-and-homes. So at least one will be away. Maybe two.
Tulsa has been, I suspect, awfully convenient to slot in to resolve some jams over the years.

[Eielson]

We're Oklahoma. We shouldn't be giving a f*ck whether any other school is up or down. We have the resources to get the coaches and players to compete with anyone in the country.

F-ing hell...we've got so many Texas Tech/Mike Leach ties now that our fanbase is beginning to think like them when it comes to scheduling!

Repeat: We're Oklahoma. We shouldn't be giving a f*ck whether any other school is up or down. We have the resources to get the coaches and players to compete with anyone in the country.

I could give a fat f*ck whether Illinois or Maryland is up or down. Put them on the schedule so we don't have to watch 52-0 drubbings of Tulsa and North Texas anymore. It proves nothing other than what we already know - Tulsa and North Texas suck.

Besides, we have recruited quite a bit in Illinois and on the East Coast over the past two decades. National exposure, in my book, is better than the little regional exposure you might get from beating the sh*t out of Tulsa and North Texas over and over and over and again and again and again.

AND

What if Illinois or Maryland, for instance, were having up years and we beat them? What looks better to the playoff committee: that we beat a Big 10 or Power 5 team that is going bowling, or that we beat a Tulsa or North Texas team who might accidentally have a good year every now and then and stumble into a crappy bowl?

Seriously, you all. Take your bloody hell "Oh my gosh, they might have an up year when we schedule them" bedwetting and move to Lubbock already.

Like I said, two of the top 5 teams scheduled lower-level P5s, and it almost cost them their spot in the Playoffs. Some years you hit the ground running, and other years you get off to slow starts. Why risk a loss? One P5 is adequate. Three is absolute overkill. 9 conference games is grueling enough.

What looks good to the Playoff Committee is being undefeated. SOS will never be an issue for an undefeated OU, and probably won't matter for a 1 loss OU, either. If we ran the table after TCU, we would have been in the playoffs, and our non-conference wouldn't have mattered.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Like I said, two of the top 5 teams scheduled lower-level P5s, and it almost cost them their spot in the Playoffs. Some years you hit the ground running, and other years you get off to slow starts. Why risk a loss? One P5 is adequate. Three is absolute overkill. 9 conference games is grueling enough.

What looks good to the Playoff Committee is being undefeated. SOS will never be an issue for an undefeated OU, and probably won't matter for a 1 loss OU, either. If we ran the table after TCU, we would have been in the playoffs, and our non-conference wouldn't have mattered.

We're not p*ssies, that's why. Or, maybe we are going to be p*ssies until we replace Stoops. We've already p*ssified the offense and defense.

We shouldn't have the mindset of taking the path of least resistance. It's faggy and unbecoming a program like ours.

[BoulderSooner79]

Like I said, two of the top 5 teams scheduled lower-level P5s, and it almost cost them their spot in the Playoffs. Some years you hit the ground running, and other years you get off to slow starts. Why risk a loss? One P5 is adequate. Three is absolute overkill. 9 conference games is grueling enough.

What looks good to the Playoff Committee is being undefeated. SOS will never be an issue for an undefeated OU, and probably won't matter for a 1 loss OU, either. If we ran the table after TCU, we would have been in the playoffs, and our non-conference wouldn't have mattered.

Can't know what might have been, but judging by the committee's actions, I don't think so. If OU ran the table after TCU I think the most impact that would have had is to get TCU into the playoffs. Recall that the committee (rightly) put Baylor above TCU for winning the head-to-head. If we tie TCU for the conference and they win the head to head, they (also rightly) finish higher than we do. Maybe the OU brand is enough to get TCU into the dance in spite of the tOSU shellacking of Wisky. Or maybe it makes no difference and TCU/OU finish 5th and 6th respectively just like BU/TCU did.

I'm not claiming I know the right number, but tOSU got in despite losing to a mid-level P5 team and Baylor may have been omitted for not playing any. So the risk of playing them doesn't seem that bad. But since OU always plays at least 1, maybe that's enough. I just want OU to win the friggin' conference for a change.

[Eielson]

Can't know what might have been, but judging by the committee's actions, I don't think so. If OU ran the table after TCU I think the most impact that would have had is to get TCU into the playoffs. Recall that the committee (rightly) put Baylor above TCU for winning the head-to-head. If we tie TCU for the conference and they win the head to head, they (also rightly) finish higher than we do. Maybe the OU brand is enough to get TCU into the dance in spite of the tOSU shellacking of Wisky. Or maybe it makes no difference and TCU/OU finish 5th and 6th respectively just like BU/TCU did.

I'm not claiming I know the right number, but tOSU got in despite losing to a mid-level P5 team and Baylor may have been omitted for not playing any. So the risk of playing them doesn't seem that bad. But since OU always plays at least 1, maybe that's enough. I just want OU to win the friggin' conference for a change.

True...the WVU loss would have complicated things, and this was a weird year in general. I think it's bad practice to make knee-jerk decisions for the future based off of a weird season. Bottom line is that if OU wins conference outright and has 1 loss or less, we're getting in 9 out of 10 times, and the non-conference isn't likely to make a difference. Perhaps a 1 loss TCU gets the bid in the situation I mentioned, but I doubt that having beaten a lower-level P5 instead of Tulsa would have made much difference.

[Eielson]

We're not p*ssies, that's why. Or, maybe we are going to be p*ssies until we replace Stoops. We've already p*ssified the offense and defense.

We shouldn't have the mindset of taking the path of least resistance. It's faggy and unbecoming a program like ours.

Why wouldn't you take the path of least resistance if it leads to the same place?

I think our decisions should be based on what puts in the best position to win championships, and not whether or not people think we're p*ssies.