Auburn to play Georgia State in 2021

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

In the rare defense of A4E, I will give him this. In regards to future scheduling, all teams are going to have to be more aggressive. Last year really isn't a good barometer to look at as teams were locked into their schedules long before they knew what to expect from the committee. Moving forward, I believe the committee will expect at least 10-of-12 games to be against BCS level competition.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 already play nine conference games plus at least one tough non-conference game (and in some cases, two).

The Big 12 Champions were punished for their non-conference schedule, so I believe that you will see their conference mandate at least one good non-conference game like the SEC now does. However, this will give them 10 BCS league games compared to the SEC's nine.

If the SEC is to keep up long term, then scheduling changes will have to be made. The league may be "tough enough", but it's not the be all, end all of college football. Besides, the league got to this high point by looking forward and not resting on it's laurels. There is a reason Slive pushed for 9 conference games and at some point, that decision by coaches to only play eight will bite an SEC Champion in the butt.

[AU64 10,122]

In the rare defense of A4E, I will give him this. In regards to future scheduling, all teams are going to have to be more aggressive. Last year really isn't a good barometer to look at as teams were locked into their schedules long before they knew what to expect from the committee. Moving forward, I believe the committee will expect at least 10-of-12 games to be against BCS level competition.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 already play nine conference games plus at least one tough non-conference game (and in some cases, two).

The Big 12 Champions were punished for their non-conference schedule, so I believe that you will see their conference mandate at least one good non-conference game like the SEC now does. However, this will give them 10 BCS league games compared to the SEC's nine.

If the SEC is to keep up long term, then scheduling changes will have to be made. The league may be "tough enough", but it's not the be all, end all of college football. Besides, the league got to this high point by looking forward and not resting on it's laurels. There is a reason Slive pushed for 9 conference games and at some point, that decision by coaches to only play eight will bite an SEC Champion in the butt.

Possibly but it's a business..... and flying all over the country looking for "name" opposition when there are plenty of opportunities in the region of our fans and recruits.......well, that is hard to justify ..except to please a few fans who IMO, aren't looking at the entire picture.

The power five conference schedules are tough enough and considering that FSU played in a weak conference and played a couple weak OOC opponents and yet made it to the playoff tells me that the only time a Western Carolina game matters is if a team has a tough win against one of those cupcakes...or has a couple losses elsewhere.

With the increased costs of scholarships in years to come...money will be an even larger component in the scheduling process. JMO

[cooltigger21 0]

In the rare defense of A4E, I will give him this. In regards to future scheduling, all teams are going to have to be more aggressive. Last year really isn't a good barometer to look at as teams were locked into their schedules long before they knew what to expect from the committee. Moving forward, I believe the committee will expect at least 10-of-12 games to be against BCS level competition.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 already play nine conference games plus at least one tough non-conference game (and in some cases, two).

The Big 12 Champions were punished for their non-conference schedule, so I believe that you will see their conference mandate at least one good non-conference game like the SEC now does. However, this will give them 10 BCS league games compared to the SEC's nine.

If the SEC is to keep up long term, then scheduling changes will have to be made. The league may be "tough enough", but it's not the be all, end all of college football. Besides, the league got to this high point by looking forward and not resting on it's laurels. There is a reason Slive pushed for 9 conference games and at some point, that decision by coaches to only play eight will bite an SEC Champion in the butt.

Possibly but it's a business..... and flying all over the country looking for "name" opposition when there are plenty of opportunities in the region of our fans and recruits.......well, that is hard to justify ..except to please a few fans who IMO, aren't looking at the entire picture.

The power five conference schedules are tough enough and considering that FSU played in a weak conference and played a couple weak OOC opponents and yet made it to the playoff tells me that the only time a Western Carolina game matters is if a team has a tough win against one of those cupcakes...or has a couple losses elsewhere.

With the increased costs of scholarships in years to come...money will be an even larger component in the scheduling process. JMO

As of right now it's only going to be conference champions, unless something screwy happens. The SEC champion is getting in to the playoff in most years. You could have the odd year where there is an upset in the conference championship game where a 3 loss team ends up winning but that would be rare. The schedule will come into play in future years when the playoff expands beyond the current 4 team format into 6 or 8 teams.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

In the rare defense of A4E, I will give him this. In regards to future scheduling, all teams are going to have to be more aggressive. Last year really isn't a good barometer to look at as teams were locked into their schedules long before they knew what to expect from the committee. Moving forward, I believe the committee will expect at least 10-of-12 games to be against BCS level competition.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 already play nine conference games plus at least one tough non-conference game (and in some cases, two).

The Big 12 Champions were punished for their non-conference schedule, so I believe that you will see their conference mandate at least one good non-conference game like the SEC now does. However, this will give them 10 BCS league games compared to the SEC's nine.

If the SEC is to keep up long term, then scheduling changes will have to be made. The league may be "tough enough", but it's not the be all, end all of college football. Besides, the league got to this high point by looking forward and not resting on it's laurels. There is a reason Slive pushed for 9 conference games and at some point, that decision by coaches to only play eight will bite an SEC Champion in the butt.

Possibly but it's a business..... and flying all over the country looking for "name" opposition when there are plenty of opportunities in the region of our fans and recruits.......well, that is hard to justify ..except to please a few fans who IMO, aren't looking at the entire picture.

The power five conference schedules are tough enough and considering that FSU played in a weak conference and played a couple weak OOC opponents and yet made it to the playoff tells me that the only time a Western Carolina game matters is if a team has a tough win against one of those cupcakes...or has a couple losses elsewhere.

With the increased costs of scholarships in years to come...money will be an even larger component in the scheduling process. JMO

I would argue that it's less about pleasing a few of our fans and more about pleasing the networks. Those cross-country games between powers mean big ratings, which then means more money for the schools in TV rights. If the PTB really cared about fan experience, then they wouldn't schedule the playoffs as all bowl games, making it nearly impossible for the average fan to attend both games if they make the championship.

Also, FSU got in because they went undefeated in a Power 5, but they were punished for their schedule and close games by being seeded 3rd. This sent them to California instead of playing closer to home in the Sugar Bowl.

[subterranean_jack 112]

1) Ire is not about scheduling Georgia State. It's about scheduling Idaho, San Jose State, and Jacksonville State.... then scheduling Georgia State. Okay, I can live with Idaho, San Jose State, and Georgia State, but Jacksonville State is just weak when Troy, South Alabama, maybe UAB again at some point in the future, and just about any Sunbelt, C-USA, or Mountain West team is available. If you're going to claim to be a national title contender, then schedule like one.

2) As a long-term season ticket holder, so many "throw-away" games is just not good value for our hard-earned money. Getting Georgia and Alabama at home is a great ending, but it is slim pickings up until that point.

3) It's about the money. It's only about the money. It's always only going to be about the money as long as Jay Jacobs is AD. The only way to fight this is to stop buying season tickets, and that just isn't going to happen. Jacobs knows that and if you think he cares, then you simply haven't been paying attention. It's all about the money, stupid.

4) Clemson. Good God Almighty, do we really have to play these jokers again two out of the next three years? When did Clemson become Auburn's greatest OOC rival? Granted the game in 2016 might actually benefit the winner in the national title race, but if we have to play this team again after 2017 over the subsequent 20 years then Auburn fans are going to drive like lemmings off a cliff. Jacobs' scheduling simply shows an utter lack of imagination and a total contempt for season ticket holders. The new video screen and the stadium improvements are window-dressing to distract the fans. It's long past time to schedule like a title contender if you want to be perceived as a title contender. Every game does not have to be against a top 20 team, but it is obvious any real effort is lacking.

5) It's not all about winning the SEC championship, just mostly. Granted the SEC champion for the foreseeable future is a playoff shoo-in. However, it is really so inconceivable that both division winners are undefeated, one team wins in OT by a single point, then the runner-up is still a consideration for a playoff slot. Just because conference champions only made it into the playoff in Year 1 does not mean that will always be the case. It just worked out that way last year. So, who do you think the committee will select? A team that intentionally scheduled a lower division opponent like Jacksonville State or a team that defeated a team from a power conference even if it is a Purdue or Washington State. A couple of easier games is reasonable but three when you're one of the top programs in the country is an indication of something else.

If we weren't discussing an SEC team, then how would you chose? The SEC is the best football conference and has been for a decade, but it isn't the end all be all for perpetuity. Ohio State proved that. Pretty soon it won't matter as much what league you play in but the wins on your resume. After the long SEC run in the title game, the SEC isn't going to receive the benefit of a doubt. Scheduling but also the teams that you've beaten is going to be the new standard. We all wanted a playoff and this is it. The time to either start playing for a championship or dropping to a lower division is coming fast.

[WarTiger 3,907]

1) Ire is not about scheduling Georgia State. It's about scheduling Idaho, San Jose State, and Jacksonville State.... then scheduling Georgia State. Okay, I can live with Idaho, San Jose State, and Georgia State, but Jacksonville State is just weak when Troy, South Alabama, maybe UAB again at some point in the future, and just about any Sunbelt, C-USA, or Mountain West team is available. Speculation since you have no idea who is actually available at the time those games were scheduled nor do you know who was contacted. HIGHLY possible that some schools told us NO. If you're going to claim to be a national title contender, then schedule like one. Our scheduling is no different than any other team in the country. EVERY single school out there considered to be a "title contender" schedules multiple rent a win games and they always will.

2) As a long-term season ticket holder, so many "throw-away" games is just not good value for our hard-earned money. Getting Georgia and Alabama at home is a great ending, but it is slim pickings up until that point. Only thing in this post I agree with. Hoping to see the uga, uat games return to opposite years at home.

3) It's about the money. It's only about the money. It's always only going to be about the money as long as Jay Jacobs is AD. The only way to fight this is to stop buying season tickets, and that just isn't going to happen. Jacobs knows that and if you think he cares, then you simply haven't been paying attention. It's all about the money, stupid. Of course money is a large part of it because no program can survive without money. It's not COMPLETELY all about the money though.

4) Clemson. Good God Almighty, do we really have to play these jokers again two out of the next three years? When did Clemson become Auburn's greatest OOC rival? Granted the game in 2016 might actually benefit the winner in the national title race, but if we have to play this team again after 2017 over the subsequent 20 years then Auburn fans are going to drive like lemmings off a cliff. Jacobs' scheduling simply shows an utter lack of imagination and a total contempt for season ticket holders. The new video screen and the stadium improvements are window-dressing to distract the fans. It's long past time to schedule like a title contender if you want to be perceived as a title contender. Every game does not have to be against a top 20 team, but it is obvious any real effort is lacking. This just sounds like whining to me. We play Arkansas, uat, ole miss, miss state, texas A&M, uga and lsu every year and nobody complains about that. First you complain about scheduling then we schedule a legit team from a power 5 conference, people complain about that too. You can't have it both ways.

5) It's not all about winning the SEC championship, just mostly. Granted the SEC champion for the foreseeable future is a playoff shoo-in. However, it is really so inconceivable that both division winners are undefeated, one team wins in OT by a single point, then the runner-up is still a consideration for a playoff slot. Just because conference champions only made it into the playoff in Year 1 does not mean that will always be the case. It just worked out that way last year. So, who do you think the committee will select? A team that intentionally scheduled a lower division opponent like Jacksonville State or a team that defeated a team from a power conference even if it is a Purdue or Washington State. A couple of easier games is reasonable but three when you're one of the top programs in the country is an indication of something else. Honestly I don't see this near as big of a deal as your portraying it to be. IIMO, those games are a wash and mean next to nothing to setting one team about the other. Conference schedule is way more important and the collective strength of that conference top to bottom.

If we weren't discussing an SEC team, then how would you chose? The SEC is the best football conference and has been for a decade, but it isn't the end all be all for perpetuity. Ohio State proved that. Ohio State didn't prove anything. They won ONE game. That's all. ONE game doesn't prove anything. Pretty soon it won't matter as much what league you play in but the wins on your resume. After the long SEC run in the title game, the SEC isn't going to receive the benefit of a doubt. Pure speculation with no foundation for accuracy. Scheduling but also the teams that you've beaten is going to be the new standard. MAYBE, but again, more speculation. But, for an SEC team that is already taken care of given the overall strength of the conference. We all wanted a playoff and this is it. Actually not everybody wanted a playoff so that's not true. The time to either start playing for a championship or dropping to a lower division is coming fast. That's completely ridiculous and extreme and has no place in reality.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

I think Georgia State has the resources to become a major player in football in the next 5-10 years, I have no doubt they will pass Georgia Tech in the next few years.

[subterranean_jack 112]

1) Ire is not about scheduling Georgia State. It's about scheduling Idaho, San Jose State, and Jacksonville State.... then scheduling Georgia State. Okay, I can live with Idaho, San Jose State, and Georgia State, but Jacksonville State is just weak when Troy, South Alabama, maybe UAB again at some point in the future, and just about any Sunbelt, C-USA, or Mountain West team is available. Speculation since you have no idea who is actually available at the time those games were scheduled nor do you know who was contacted. HIGHLY possible that some schools told us NO. If you're going to claim to be a national title contender, then schedule like one. Our scheduling is no different than any other team in the country. EVERY single school out there considered to be a "title contender" schedules multiple rent a win games and they always will. I think if you look at LSU's schedules in the past 5-10 years you will find that not EVERY single school does this. Most PAC12 schools and some BIG10 schools don't do it either. The majority of SEC schools, yes. But, with the scrutiny of the entire resume, not just what conference you play in, over time this will hurt SEC schools in years when there is the possibility that more than a single SEC team could get into the playoff. Some schools hold themselves to a higher standard. My stance is that no SEC team has any business playing a FCS team, unless it is a situation like Samford and you want to honor an esteemed alumnus like Pat Sullivan or your team is REALLY bad over a long span.

2) As a long-term season ticket holder, so many "throw-away" games is just not good value for our hard-earned money. Getting Georgia and Alabama at home is a great ending, but it is slim pickings up until that point. Only thing in this post I agree with. Hoping to see the uga, uat games return to opposite years at home.

3) It's about the money. It's only about the money. It's always only going to be about the money as long as Jay Jacobs is AD. The only way to fight this is to stop buying season tickets, and that just isn't going to happen. Jacobs knows that and if you think he cares, then you simply haven't been paying attention. It's all about the money, stupid. Of course money is a large part of it because no program can survive without money. It's not COMPLETELY all about the money though. Obiously not completely about the money as far as fans, players, and coaches go. But, when you are scheduling games with Alabama A&M and Jacksonville State, it is only about the money for the person doing the scheduling. Not complaining about scheduling in-state schools, but, if you are going to schedule in-state schools, then why not Troy and South Alabama instead.

4) Clemson. Good God Almighty, do we really have to play these jokers again two out of the next three years? When did Clemson become Auburn's greatest OOC rival? Granted the game in 2016 might actually benefit the winner in the national title race, but if we have to play this team again after 2017 over the subsequent 20 years then Auburn fans are going to drive like lemmings off a cliff. Jacobs' scheduling simply shows an utter lack of imagination and a total contempt for season ticket holders. The new video screen and the stadium improvements are window-dressing to distract the fans. It's long past time to schedule like a title contender if you want to be perceived as a title contender. Every game does not have to be against a top 20 team, but it is obvious any real effort is lacking. This just sounds like whining to me. We play Arkansas, uat, ole miss, miss state, texas A&M, uga and lsu every year and nobody complains about that. First you complain about scheduling then we schedule a legit team from a power 5 conference, people complain about that too. You can't have it both ways. Not complaining about playing a team of the quality of Clemson. I'm not even sure we should be playing an OOC game against a team as good as Clemson. I'm just tired of playing Clemson. There are 125 FBS teams. Jay Jacobs has the Clemson AD on speed-dial, and everyone is just sick of playing them.

5) It's not all about winning the SEC championship, just mostly. Granted the SEC champion for the foreseeable future is a playoff shoo-in. However, it is really so inconceivable that both division winners are undefeated, one team wins in OT by a single point, then the runner-up is still a consideration for a playoff slot. Just because conference champions only made it into the playoff in Year 1 does not mean that will always be the case. It just worked out that way last year. So, who do you think the committee will select? A team that intentionally scheduled a lower division opponent like Jacksonville State or a team that defeated a team from a power conference even if it is a Purdue or Washington State. A couple of easier games is reasonable but three when you're one of the top programs in the country is an indication of something else. Honestly I don't see this near as big of a deal as your portraying it to be. IIMO, those games are a wash and mean next to nothing to setting one team about the other. Conference schedule is way more important and the collective strength of that conference top to bottom. This is SEC homer thinking. If OOC scheduling was not a factor why would the SEC have mandated at least one OOC game be scheduled against a power 5 conference team. Future scheduling for a lot of schools is trending even further in this direction. In the future, two games against power 5 conference teams may be mandated to combat 9-game conference schedules some leagues play. Most may believe winning the SEC will always be enough, but, depending on the composition of the playoff committee, SEC teams are not going to be given the benefit of a doubt by default.

If we weren't discussing an SEC team, then how would you chose? The SEC is the best football conference and has been for a decade, but it isn't the end all be all for perpetuity. Ohio State proved that. Ohio State didn't prove anything. They won ONE game. That's all. ONE game doesn't prove anything. Pretty soon it won't matter as much what league you play in but the wins on your resume. After the long SEC run in the title game, the SEC isn't going to receive the benefit of a doubt. Pure speculation with no foundation for accuracy. Scheduling but also the teams that you've beaten is going to be the new standard. MAYBE, but again, more speculation. But, for an SEC team that is already taken care of given the overall strength of the conference. We all wanted a playoff and this is it. Actually not everybody wanted a playoff so that's not true. The time to either start playing for a championship or dropping to a lower division is coming fast. That's completely ridiculous and extreme and has no place in reality. Sorry, but this is more SEC homer thinking. The Big10 representative beat the best the SEC had to offer and handed them their butt in the 2nd half. That's two straight years the SEC has not won the national title. The SEC's run was impressive, but it is over. Doesn't mean an SEC won't win it this year, but there are some teams out there capable of beating the SEC champion. I don't have any interest in whether or not Ohio State fields a football team, but you have to respect the way they handled Alabama... with a third-string QB no less. One can argue that the SEC just hasn't been as good the past two seasons, at least not as dominant on the national landscape. That's mostly due to early defections to the NFL. And BTW Ohio State did not schedule an FCS school in 2014. Probably helped them a little to overcome the early loss to Virginia Tech and get into the playoff and probably prepared the team for later adversity that the SEC champion who scheduled Western Carolina couldn't handle.

Finally with the upwardly spiraling cost of fielding a FBS football team that will be all the excuse some administrators will need to either drop football or drop the team to a lower division. There has been speculation about the power 5 conferences creating their own division for 2-3 years now. But that's just speculation and it has no place on a forum for debate and discussion, if I understand correctly?

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't mind this game and I don't mind Clemson if it's not every year. Even if we don't go outside the general geography of the southeast, there are other teams to play. I think we can get games against some of the big 12 teams. That's not too far off for the fans.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I'd rather see Auburn play Georgia Tech ever few years instead of Clemson.

[augolf1716 21,200]

I'd rather see Auburn play Georgia Tech ever few years instead of Clemson.

:OnTheCan: :OnTheCan:

[AU64 10,122]

I'd rather see Auburn play Georgia Tech ever few years instead of Clemson.

:OnTheCan: :OnTheCan:

Calm down golf...he was just jerking your chain....so to speak.....

[lca408 366]

I'm all for playing Troy or South Alabama. I don't particularly see a huge problem playing Jax State or Alabama A&M, Samford, etc. simply because they are in-state schools. If we're going to schedule cupcakes (and we will, without a doubt, still schedule them) then we might as well keep the money in state if at all possible. The added advantage here is that scheduling a Troy would also benefit as far as attendance is concerned, because of the built in rivalry that would be there with Troy fans and the fact that the schools are relatively close - you'd almost guarantee a sellout or something close to it. I doubt you could sell out Samford, A&M, or Jax State but I bet attendance would be closer to capacity than it would be if we were playing Georgia State or Western Carolina.

At any rate, Auburn needs to play 2 P5 schools a year. 1 premiere game - like Louisville this year at a neutral site game, and 1 middle of the road P5 opponent like a Wake Forest, Indiana, or Purdue. Playing a second P5 school gives you a likely chance to win against a "name" opponent and potentially set up a relatively tame home-and-home - kinda like we have set up with Cal. The neutral site game is advantageous because not only does Auburn get the benefit of playing against and hopefully beating a top name P5 school on national TV, you don't have to worry about a return trip to their house and be in a tough situation in a year, possibly like 2014 where Auburn had to go to Manhattan, KS as well as the rest of its' road schedule in the SEC. The exception to this would be if Auburn could work out a home-and-home with someone like Notre Dame, where the fan experience of going to South Bend could not be denied.

So it's a slightly tougher situation than we currently have but it's much better for exposure of the program, more fun for the fans, a better chance to make more money in attendance, and it helps with anyone questioning the difficulty of a schedule at the end of the year.

[augolf1716 21,200]

I'd rather see Auburn play Georgia Tech ever few years instead of Clemson.

:OnTheCan: :OnTheCan:

Calm down golf...he was just jerking your chain....so to speak.....

When it comes to tech turds that was a very calm response for me

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Does anyone won't Auburn to pay Florida State in the Gator bowl to start the 2018 season? I'm hoping Jacobs will talk to FSU's AD and Jimbo about scheduling this game. IMO, this was always a great series iwhen it was Dye vs. Bowden in the 80s and early 90s.

[cooltigger21 0]

Does anyone won't Auburn to pay Florida State in the Gator bowl to start the 2018 season? I'm hoping Jacobs will talk to FSU's AD and Jimbo about scheduling this game. IMO, this was always a great series iwhen it was Dye vs. Bowden in the 80s and early 90s.

If FSU wants to play us then make it a home and home. No need for a "neutral site" game in their backyard.

[Maverick.AU 13,281]

So looks like FSU in the near future isn't a possibility. I really don't care who we play I just want diversity in OOC scheduling

@Warchant: FSU still working to play 'Bama in 2017, but sources tell Warchant that Auburn is off table. https://t.co/KB0QgeKF1q http://t.co/nOkhmVoPAC

[auburn4ever 1,266]

So Alabama doesn't have a problem playing Florida State in any stadium. Good for them for playing big name teams. Georgia State, Mercer and JSU are on Auburn's OOC schedules.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I really can't say I'm surprised that the one game with Florida State if off the table. I hear that Georgia Southern has some open dates on their future schedules.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,366]

Yawn

[augolf1716 21,200]

I really can't say I'm surprised that the one game with Florida State if off the table. I hear that Georgia Southern has some open dates on their future schedules.

They beat UF to tough but we are talking to the Blue Hens.......................Delaware

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Well that's good to know.