[FarmBoy]

In case you missed it, Bowlsby signed an extension to the Northwestern series, so we're now playing them in 2021 and 2022 (in addition to '15, '16, '19, and '20.)

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aaa.html

Does this strike anyone else as lazy scheduling? I mean, why further the regularity of the meetings? By the end of this series we will have played as many games against NU in an 8 year period as we played them in 100 years before that.

I like having variety in the non-SJSU and non-Notre Dame series. I guess Northwestern has a nice "fit" given the academic orientation of the two schools (though I don't know if NU has academic standards for its football players), but there's no need to create any new rivalries, given that we have C.al, Neuter Dame, and U.SC.

Not that we have to make the schedule any tougher than it is, given the 9 game Pac 12 schedule and our guaranteed annual game with USC, but I wouldn't mind targeting a bigger football power for our non-conference schedule. I with we could bring Texas or even an SEC power into the rotation.

[FarmBoy]

In case you missed it, Bowlsby signed an extension to the Northwestern series, so we're now playing them in 2021 and 2022 (in addition to '15, '16, '19, and '20.)

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aaa.html

Does this strike anyone else as lazy scheduling? I mean, why further the regularity of the meetings? By the end of this series we will have played as many games against NU in an 8 year period as we played them in 100 years before that.

I like having variety in the non-SJSU and non-Notre Dame series. I guess Northwestern has a nice "fit" given the academic orientation of the two schools (though I don't know if NU has academic standards for its football players), but there's no need to create any new rivalries, given that we have C.al, Neuter Dame, and U.SC.

Not that we have to make the schedule any tougher than it is, given the 9 game Pac 12 schedule and our guaranteed annual game with USC, but I wouldn't mind targeting a bigger football power for our non-conference schedule. I with we could bring Texas or even an SEC power into the rotation.

[OutsiderFan]

I think it makes great sense to play Northwestern from a strategic standpoint.  Stanford sells itself on academics first and foremost.  It only helps strengthen the brand when you can play and beat other such schools trying to compete for the same athletes.

Stanford has California, U.S.C., UCLA, and Notre Dame locked in on the schedule.  Adding Northwestern adds to the roster of quality academic institutions on the schedule.  Playing Duke does too.  The only school with a high academic profile Stanford hasn't played is Vanderbilt.  That would be a series that would be great for Stanford, especially considering Stanford pulls a lot of recruits from Georgia.  Playing as SEC school should be a priority, and Vandy is the one that fits Stanford.  I wouldn't mind seeing Stanford play Alabama or LSU, but they are not a cultural fit in any way shape or form.  Save playing them for the playoffs.

Stanford has proven it can compete for Pac-12 and National Championships playing in the Pac-12, so why not schedule these academic powerhouses in the OOC slate.  Traditionally, they aren't as strong as Stanford in football, save for maybe Notre Dame, so it's not like Stanford would be giving itself too many very tough to win games. 

Playing San Jose State does nothing for Stanford other than give it an easy win.  It proves nothing.  You may easily beat Duke too, but at least you can use that in recruiting.

[OutsiderFan]

I think it makes great sense to play Northwestern from a strategic standpoint.  Stanford sells itself on academics first and foremost.  It only helps strengthen the brand when you can play and beat other such schools trying to compete for the same athletes.

Stanford has California, U.S.C., UCLA, and Notre Dame locked in on the schedule.  Adding Northwestern adds to the roster of quality academic institutions on the schedule.  Playing Duke does too.  The only school with a high academic profile Stanford hasn't played is Vanderbilt.  That would be a series that would be great for Stanford, especially considering Stanford pulls a lot of recruits from Georgia.  Playing as SEC school should be a priority, and Vandy is the one that fits Stanford.  I wouldn't mind seeing Stanford play Alabama or LSU, but they are not a cultural fit in any way shape or form.  Save playing them for the playoffs.

Stanford has proven it can compete for Pac-12 and National Championships playing in the Pac-12, so why not schedule these academic powerhouses in the OOC slate.  Traditionally, they aren't as strong as Stanford in football, save for maybe Notre Dame, so it's not like Stanford would be giving itself too many very tough to win games. 

Playing San Jose State does nothing for Stanford other than give it an easy win.  It proves nothing.  You may easily beat Duke too, but at least you can use that in recruiting.

[terry]

According to a website that keeps track of NCAA football schedules, Stanford's future non-conference opponents are:

2012
at NotreDame
San Jose State
Duke

2013
NotreDame
San Jose State
at Army

2014
at NotreDame
Army
UCDavis [Added based on article linked in my post below]

2015
NotreDame
at Northwestern

2016
at NotreDame
Northwestern
Rice (site TBA)

2017
NotreDame
Rice (site TBA)

2018
at NotreDame

2019
NotreDame
at Northwestern

2020
Northwestern

2021
at Northwestern

2022
Northwestern

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

[terry]

According to a website that keeps track of NCAA football schedules, Stanford's future non-conference opponents are:

2012
at NotreDame
San Jose State
Duke

2013
NotreDame
San Jose State
at Army

2014
at NotreDame
Army
UCDavis [Added based on article linked in my post below]

2015
NotreDame
at Northwestern

2016
at NotreDame
Northwestern
Rice (site TBA)

2017
NotreDame
Rice (site TBA)

2018
at NotreDame

2019
NotreDame
at Northwestern

2020
Northwestern

2021
at Northwestern

2022
Northwestern

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

[Extra Point]

San Jose is not on the schedule after next year. Does anyone know if this really is a permanent thing? I personally wouldn't miss them a bit. But, I would like to know.

[Extra Point]

San Jose is not on the schedule after next year. Does anyone know if this really is a permanent thing? I personally wouldn't miss them a bit. But, I would like to know.

[FarmBoy]

The whole "let's play other schools with good academic reputations" feels like a pre-Harbaugh mentality. We only get 3 out of conference games a year and to use one to play a "smart team bowl" feels like a waste. We're trying to build an elite football program, that should be your focus. Does it help recruit more to play Northwestern or tOSU? Would we help our BCS bowl bid more with a win over Vanderbilt or over Alabama (well, clearly losing to Alabama and tOSU won't help at all). If we're going to dream big, we should schedule big. And for the casual fan, I'd much rather see us play a variety of teams, and try to get some big boys on the schedule.

Of course, Northwestern is not to a team to overlook. And playing them a couple of times would be fun. But if it's not a premier program, I don't see the value in establishing a rivalry with them, except that it allows us to play a game every other year in the Big Ten's back yard, which we will have a decent chance of winning (assuming our program stays on its current course.) Maybe I undervalue being able to tell recruits in rust belt that your family and friends can catch a live game twice during your college career. If anything, we're already exposed to that region via the Neuter Dame series, so why not focus on getting a home-away series with a game in the south?

[FarmBoy]

The whole "let's play other schools with good academic reputations" feels like a pre-Harbaugh mentality. We only get 3 out of conference games a year and to use one to play a "smart team bowl" feels like a waste. We're trying to build an elite football program, that should be your focus. Does it help recruit more to play Northwestern or tOSU? Would we help our BCS bowl bid more with a win over Vanderbilt or over Alabama (well, clearly losing to Alabama and tOSU won't help at all). If we're going to dream big, we should schedule big. And for the casual fan, I'd much rather see us play a variety of teams, and try to get some big boys on the schedule.

Of course, Northwestern is not to a team to overlook. And playing them a couple of times would be fun. But if it's not a premier program, I don't see the value in establishing a rivalry with them, except that it allows us to play a game every other year in the Big Ten's back yard, which we will have a decent chance of winning (assuming our program stays on its current course.) Maybe I undervalue being able to tell recruits in rust belt that your family and friends can catch a live game twice during your college career. If anything, we're already exposed to that region via the Neuter Dame series, so why not focus on getting a home-away series with a game in the south?

[needle]

When was the last time Stanford lost a head-to-head recruiting battle with Northwestern? I don't think it happens very frequently. Among student-athletes with the strongest focus on academics, Stanford pretty much cleans up, or at least leaves other programs to battle for a distant second (by which I mean to say that lots of smart dudes go to their local football power, but I'm not sure any single school like this gets more than their fair share).

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

[needle]

When was the last time Stanford lost a head-to-head recruiting battle with Northwestern? I don't think it happens very frequently. Among student-athletes with the strongest focus on academics, Stanford pretty much cleans up, or at least leaves other programs to battle for a distant second (by which I mean to say that lots of smart dudes go to their local football power, but I'm not sure any single school like this gets more than their fair share).

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

[jayasena]

IMO, there's no need to schedule teams like Alabama and tOSU other than for bragging rights. We would have been in the national title game if we had won out in either of the past two years with OOC resumes of Sac State, Wake, ND and SJ State, Duke, ND. And that's a Stanford team 2-3 years removed from many consecutive losing seasons.

If we become consistently successful (not necessarily at the level of the last 2 years), we won't need OOC "credibility wins". And beating SC, ND and the northwest power du jour should be all the credibility we need.

[jayasena]

IMO, there's no need to schedule teams like Alabama and tOSU other than for bragging rights. We would have been in the national title game if we had won out in either of the past two years with OOC resumes of Sac State, Wake, ND and SJ State, Duke, ND. And that's a Stanford team 2-3 years removed from many consecutive losing seasons.

If we become consistently successful (not necessarily at the level of the last 2 years), we won't need OOC "credibility wins". And beating SC, ND and the northwest power du jour should be all the credibility we need.

[OutsiderFan]

IMO, there's no need to schedule teams like Alabama and tOSU other than for bragging rights. We would have been in the national title game if we had won out in either of the past two years with OOC resumes of Sac State, Wake, ND and SJ State, Duke, ND. And that's a Stanford team 2-3 years removed from many consecutive losing seasons.

If we become consistently successful (not necessarily at the level of the last 2 years), we won't need OOC "credibility wins". And beating SC, ND and the northwest power du jour should be all the credibility we need.

Exactly.  In 2012 Alabama has Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina on the OOC schedule, along with Michigan.  Stanford's conference schedule, plus N.D. is plenty tough enough.  It would be insane to schedule an Oklahoma or Texas or Georgia or Penn State on top of that. So why not Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Rice?

[OutsiderFan]

IMO, there's no need to schedule teams like Alabama and tOSU other than for bragging rights. We would have been in the national title game if we had won out in either of the past two years with OOC resumes of Sac State, Wake, ND and SJ State, Duke, ND. And that's a Stanford team 2-3 years removed from many consecutive losing seasons.

If we become consistently successful (not necessarily at the level of the last 2 years), we won't need OOC "credibility wins". And beating SC, ND and the northwest power du jour should be all the credibility we need.

Exactly.  In 2012 Alabama has Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina on the OOC schedule, along with Michigan.  Stanford's conference schedule, plus N.D. is plenty tough enough.  It would be insane to schedule an Oklahoma or Texas or Georgia or Penn State on top of that. So why not Northwestern, Duke, Vandy, Rice?

[yvonne]

A strong football power, not necessarily ND; an academic school from a major conference, and a local weak school seems about right to me. Northwestern isn't going to draw any worse than Michigan State or Purdue or any other mid-level Big Ten school.

[yvonne]

A strong football power, not necessarily ND; an academic school from a major conference, and a local weak school seems about right to me. Northwestern isn't going to draw any worse than Michigan State or Purdue or any other mid-level Big Ten school.

[terry]

Stanford reportedly will play UCDavis in 2014. I've revised my post above to add this game.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/24/4077475...ck-on.html

[terry]

Stanford reportedly will play UCDavis in 2014. I've revised my post above to add this game.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/24/4077475...ck-on.html

[terry]

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

I share some of the feelings about playing Northwestern so often. I like playing Northwestern sometimes, but I have a feeling I'll get bored with them when we see them 6 times in 8 years. I like some variety in the schedule. And I agree that playing them so often increases the chance that we will lose a game to them.

On the other hand, I like playing Duke, Rice, Tulane, or Vanderbilt. To me, the advantages of those games are:

- Stanford probably wins. That's a key issue for me. I'd rather play Duke or Tulane and win the great majority of those games, than play Alabama or Oklahoma and win probably fewer than half of those games. That's especially true as long as we have NotreDame on the schedule. Playing ND plus another strong non-conference opponent is too much. I think we need at least one Duke, Rice, Tulane, Vandy type of opponent every year (maybe two such opponents each year, depending on the future of the SJS slot on our schedule).

- Good exposure to recruits in areas that are important to our recruiting strategy -- the south and Texas.

- Good road trips for the fans. We had a great time at Duke this year. We enjoyed poking around the Duke and North Carolina campuses, then we extended our trip and visited Savannah and Hilton Head. Great fun. I plan to make the Army trip next year, and I will make the Northwestern trip at least once for sure. I definitely would make road trips to Tulane, Rice, and Vandy. Any of those is better than a road trip to Tuscaloosa (sorry Redrum), East Lansing, Iowa City, Waco, Norman, or South Bend for that matter (been there once, don't need to do it again). I have found that road trips are more fun when we win, so I like making road trips to see opponents like Duke, Tulane, etc.

- A chance for players from the south and Texas to play in front of their extended families. Chase Thomas had over 20 family members in attendance at Duke last fall.

[terry]

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

I share some of the feelings about playing Northwestern so often. I like playing Northwestern sometimes, but I have a feeling I'll get bored with them when we see them 6 times in 8 years. I like some variety in the schedule. And I agree that playing them so often increases the chance that we will lose a game to them.

On the other hand, I like playing Duke, Rice, Tulane, or Vanderbilt. To me, the advantages of those games are:

- Stanford probably wins. That's a key issue for me. I'd rather play Duke or Tulane and win the great majority of those games, than play Alabama or Oklahoma and win probably fewer than half of those games. That's especially true as long as we have NotreDame on the schedule. Playing ND plus another strong non-conference opponent is too much. I think we need at least one Duke, Rice, Tulane, Vandy type of opponent every year (maybe two such opponents each year, depending on the future of the SJS slot on our schedule).

- Good exposure to recruits in areas that are important to our recruiting strategy -- the south and Texas.

- Good road trips for the fans. We had a great time at Duke this year. We enjoyed poking around the Duke and North Carolina campuses, then we extended our trip and visited Savannah and Hilton Head. Great fun. I plan to make the Army trip next year, and I will make the Northwestern trip at least once for sure. I definitely would make road trips to Tulane, Rice, and Vandy. Any of those is better than a road trip to Tuscaloosa (sorry Redrum), East Lansing, Iowa City, Waco, Norman, or South Bend for that matter (been there once, don't need to do it again). I have found that road trips are more fun when we win, so I like making road trips to see opponents like Duke, Tulane, etc.

- A chance for players from the south and Texas to play in front of their extended families. Chase Thomas had over 20 family members in attendance at Duke last fall.

[fullmetal]

Recruiting exposure in the south and Texas is key.  Stanford has recently had a lot of contributing players from Texas (QB, FS, RB, OL, LB), and that pipeline needs to stay open.  Plus, you get Texas when they're down...but I suspect Texas's schedule may already be filled for the next decade.

[fullmetal]

Recruiting exposure in the south and Texas is key.  Stanford has recently had a lot of contributing players from Texas (QB, FS, RB, OL, LB), and that pipeline needs to stay open.  Plus, you get Texas when they're down...but I suspect Texas's schedule may already be filled for the next decade.

[stan01]

Depending on which self-proclaimed insider you listen to, Ifeadi Odenigbo either chose Northwestern over Stanford or didn't get into Stanford.  He will be a senior or redshirt junior in 2015.

[stan01]

Depending on which self-proclaimed insider you listen to, Ifeadi Odenigbo either chose Northwestern over Stanford or didn't get into Stanford.  He will be a senior or redshirt junior in 2015.

[Hank 91]

The Big-10 deal was inked after we had made the initial Northwestern deal, so I was pretty excited to see some interesting teams pop up on the schedule. Another four years of Northwestern does not strike me as interesting. Hopefully the gap in '18 and '19 will be filled with a home and home with someone else. (Michigan would be my dream choice. I'd book plane fare now to see the Cardinal in the Big House.)

[Hank 91]

The Big-10 deal was inked after we had made the initial Northwestern deal, so I was pretty excited to see some interesting teams pop up on the schedule. Another four years of Northwestern does not strike me as interesting. Hopefully the gap in '18 and '19 will be filled with a home and home with someone else. (Michigan would be my dream choice. I'd book plane fare now to see the Cardinal in the Big House.)

[CrazedZooChimp]

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

You know a lot of football schools could say the same thing about us, right?  I mean, 4 years ago we were worse than Northwestern is.

I also would be wary thinking of Vandy as a weak football school, I seem to recall seeing quotes from their coaches saying they're basically modelling themselves after our recent re-surgence, they play in the best conference in the country, and they came damn close to beating several highly respected SEC teams last year (their losses to Georgia, Arkansas and Florida were all by less than a touchdown, and they lost to Tennessee in OT).  I could see them getting steadily better in the near future, and getting more of those bright Southern recruits we've been snagging lately.

It should also be noted that teams like 'Bama or tOSU don't like to schedule home-and-homes, especially not with teams on the West Coast.  It's not as easy as just saying "we should play a football power!"

Anyway, I'm happy to be playing Northwestern, as Chicago is one of my favorite cities to visit (particularly in September).  And since the Notre Dame series isn't currently set to continue into the second half of the decade, I'd be happy to just replace them with NW...

[CrazedZooChimp]

I hate, Hate, HATE series with perennial football also-rans like Duke, Rice, Tulane or Vanderbilt for this reason: there is no upside. Lose and they can claim a recruiting advantage when they really have no ability to claim one right now.

Northwestern is definitely a step above that list. Fortunately, their program seems on a pretty firm foundation with Fitzgerald, but I don't think it's wise to play them more than a few years in a row (they have more potential to be crappy than, say, Michigan State).

You know a lot of football schools could say the same thing about us, right?  I mean, 4 years ago we were worse than Northwestern is.

I also would be wary thinking of Vandy as a weak football school, I seem to recall seeing quotes from their coaches saying they're basically modelling themselves after our recent re-surgence, they play in the best conference in the country, and they came damn close to beating several highly respected SEC teams last year (their losses to Georgia, Arkansas and Florida were all by less than a touchdown, and they lost to Tennessee in OT).  I could see them getting steadily better in the near future, and getting more of those bright Southern recruits we've been snagging lately.

It should also be noted that teams like 'Bama or tOSU don't like to schedule home-and-homes, especially not with teams on the West Coast.  It's not as easy as just saying "we should play a football power!"

Anyway, I'm happy to be playing Northwestern, as Chicago is one of my favorite cities to visit (particularly in September).  And since the Notre Dame series isn't currently set to continue into the second half of the decade, I'd be happy to just replace them with NW...

[terry]

The Big-10 deal was inked after we had made the initial Northwestern deal, so I was pretty excited to see some interesting teams pop up on the schedule. Another four years of Northwestern does not strike me as interesting. Hopefully the gap in '18 and '19 will be filled with a home and home with someone else. (Michigan would be my dream choice. I'd book plane fare now to see the Cardinal in the Big House.)

To clarify, Stanford and Northwestern already had four games scheduled from 2019 through 2022. The new agreement adds two games in 2015 and 2016. The Pac 12 vs. Big 10 scheduling agreement doesn't go into effect until 2017, so the newly added games in 2015 and 2016 don't seem to be part of that agreement.

Hank, some of us are old enough to remember what happened when Stanford last played in the Big House. Stanford got killed twice, losing 47-10 in 1973 and 51-0 in 1976. That 51-0 loss was the third worst defeat in Stanford history. Stanford did manage a 19-19 tie in 1975, which was viewed as a stunning result at the time. . . .

[terry]

The Big-10 deal was inked after we had made the initial Northwestern deal, so I was pretty excited to see some interesting teams pop up on the schedule. Another four years of Northwestern does not strike me as interesting. Hopefully the gap in '18 and '19 will be filled with a home and home with someone else. (Michigan would be my dream choice. I'd book plane fare now to see the Cardinal in the Big House.)

To clarify, Stanford and Northwestern already had four games scheduled from 2019 through 2022. The new agreement adds two games in 2015 and 2016. The Pac 12 vs. Big 10 scheduling agreement doesn't go into effect until 2017, so the newly added games in 2015 and 2016 don't seem to be part of that agreement.

Hank, some of us are old enough to remember what happened when Stanford last played in the Big House. Stanford got killed twice, losing 47-10 in 1973 and 51-0 in 1976. That 51-0 loss was the third worst defeat in Stanford history. Stanford did manage a 19-19 tie in 1975, which was viewed as a stunning result at the time. . . .

[FarmBoy]

First, I love the discussion on this topic.

Second, let me reiterate that my displeasure at the extension has anything to do with risking losing to Northwestern at some point or thinking them an unworthy opponent in any way. Over that last ten years, they have gone to more bowl games and won more games than Stanford (though just checking wikipedia, they're bowl results are terrible.) I'm mainly interested in seeing a variety of match ups for the sake of fan interest. I also don't like being pigeon holed as "an academic school that also plays good football". I don't want our program to be compared to Duke, Vandy and Northwestern. I want it to be compared to U.SC, ND, Oklahoma, etc. (at least based on accomplishments on the field, not on the police blotter)

Third, I guess I'm also of a different mentality. OOC scheduling to me doesn't need to fit the A, B, C mold everyone says is necessary to compete. I get that having a lesser team as the first game is smart to break in new players and get up to full speed hitting. But beyond that, I want to see Stanford out there against the best. Does swapping Duke for Michigan mean we're less likely to make the post season? Probably, but only on the margins in years when we were borderline to begin with.

Fourth, do we need to reassess if Neuter Dame is an "A" level competitor? They certainly have the potential to break through any given year. And whether they're BCS-bound, or borderline bowl eligible, they certainly bring media attention. But when I look at our schedule, I wouldn't mind getting another "A" team on board since ND is inconsistent the past 10 years.

(and yes, I recognize we're only 5 years removed from 1-11 and only 3 years of bowl eligible. but my thoughts philosophy above holds whether we're elite or just trying to get by.)

[FarmBoy]

First, I love the discussion on this topic.

Second, let me reiterate that my displeasure at the extension has anything to do with risking losing to Northwestern at some point or thinking them an unworthy opponent in any way. Over that last ten years, they have gone to more bowl games and won more games than Stanford (though just checking wikipedia, they're bowl results are terrible.) I'm mainly interested in seeing a variety of match ups for the sake of fan interest. I also don't like being pigeon holed as "an academic school that also plays good football". I don't want our program to be compared to Duke, Vandy and Northwestern. I want it to be compared to U.SC, ND, Oklahoma, etc. (at least based on accomplishments on the field, not on the police blotter)

Third, I guess I'm also of a different mentality. OOC scheduling to me doesn't need to fit the A, B, C mold everyone says is necessary to compete. I get that having a lesser team as the first game is smart to break in new players and get up to full speed hitting. But beyond that, I want to see Stanford out there against the best. Does swapping Duke for Michigan mean we're less likely to make the post season? Probably, but only on the margins in years when we were borderline to begin with.

Fourth, do we need to reassess if Neuter Dame is an "A" level competitor? They certainly have the potential to break through any given year. And whether they're BCS-bound, or borderline bowl eligible, they certainly bring media attention. But when I look at our schedule, I wouldn't mind getting another "A" team on board since ND is inconsistent the past 10 years.

(and yes, I recognize we're only 5 years removed from 1-11 and only 3 years of bowl eligible. but my thoughts philosophy above holds whether we're elite or just trying to get by.)

[yvonne]

Here's what BCS champion Alabama's schedule looked like last year.

vs Kent State
@ #23 Penn State
vs North Texas
vs #14 Arkansas
@ #12 Florida
vs Vanderbilt
@ Ole Miss
vs Tennessee
vs #1 LSU
@ Mississippi State
vs Georgia Southern
@ #24 Auburn

OOC: 3 weaklings (one of which was an FCS team) and one traditional power. There's no need to schedule all powerhouses. Moreover, in a system that chooses teams to play in the championship based largely on win-loss record, or more accurately, the absence of any losses, it make no sense whatsoever to schedule difficult out of conference opponents. Playing them is only going to increase the likelihood of tarnishing a perfect record.

Northwestern used to have an abominable record that included the nation's longest losing streak, but that's no longer the case, so I see no downside to playing them. I do, however, agree with Terry that playing one team too long will be very boring. In fact, that's how I feel about playing ND.

[yvonne]

Here's what BCS champion Alabama's schedule looked like last year.

vs Kent State
@ #23 Penn State
vs North Texas
vs #14 Arkansas
@ #12 Florida
vs Vanderbilt
@ Ole Miss
vs Tennessee
vs #1 LSU
@ Mississippi State
vs Georgia Southern
@ #24 Auburn

OOC: 3 weaklings (one of which was an FCS team) and one traditional power. There's no need to schedule all powerhouses. Moreover, in a system that chooses teams to play in the championship based largely on win-loss record, or more accurately, the absence of any losses, it make no sense whatsoever to schedule difficult out of conference opponents. Playing them is only going to increase the likelihood of tarnishing a perfect record.

Northwestern used to have an abominable record that included the nation's longest losing streak, but that's no longer the case, so I see no downside to playing them. I do, however, agree with Terry that playing one team too long will be very boring. In fact, that's how I feel about playing ND.

[washingtonismoney]

I can't agree, Yvonne. Just last fall this board was full of posts raging against the BCS computers for lowballing us.

Except, of course, had we finished undefeated, we would've done exactly what we wanted. And our fate for losing a game was not exactly terrible either. The BCS system doesn't particularly reward strength of schedule at the current moment; if we shift to a system where only the top four conference champions reach the playoffs, we may see more of an emphasis on interesting, competitive nonconference games. At the moment, there's really no reason besides pride and fan interest to schedule a nonconference game you think you might lose.

[washingtonismoney]

I can't agree, Yvonne. Just last fall this board was full of posts raging against the BCS computers for lowballing us.

Except, of course, had we finished undefeated, we would've done exactly what we wanted. And our fate for losing a game was not exactly terrible either. The BCS system doesn't particularly reward strength of schedule at the current moment; if we shift to a system where only the top four conference champions reach the playoffs, we may see more of an emphasis on interesting, competitive nonconference games. At the moment, there's really no reason besides pride and fan interest to schedule a nonconference game you think you might lose.

[FarmBoy]

In case you missed it, Stanford has inked a deal to play UVA in a home and home series 2017-2018: http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aaa.html

In my opinion, this smacks of lazy scheduling. The AD's scheduling philosophy seems to be "let's find a school with a good academic reputation and schedule a home-and-home!" I've never watched a UVA football game in my life. I've never seen them play on national TV. I'm sure there are a fair number of UVA alumni working in SV, so this will put some butts in seats on game day.

I personally would prefer to see us play a game against Texas, Michigan, Georgia, etc. Georgia would be especially interesting, as we've had some good recruiting outcomes from that state over the past few years (though perhaps that's reason enough for them to not want to play us and further validate our presence on the ground.)

[FarmBoy]

In case you missed it, Stanford has inked a deal to play UVA in a home and home series 2017-2018: http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aaa.html

In my opinion, this smacks of lazy scheduling. The AD's scheduling philosophy seems to be "let's find a school with a good academic reputation and schedule a home-and-home!" I've never watched a UVA football game in my life. I've never seen them play on national TV. I'm sure there are a fair number of UVA alumni working in SV, so this will put some butts in seats on game day.

I personally would prefer to see us play a game against Texas, Michigan, Georgia, etc. Georgia would be especially interesting, as we've had some good recruiting outcomes from that state over the past few years (though perhaps that's reason enough for them to not want to play us and further validate our presence on the ground.)