Woopig.net

Razorback Related => Razorback Discussion => Topic started by: radioman on February 05, 2012, 04:23:37 AM

Title: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: radioman on February 05, 2012, 04:23:37 AM
http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=7540242 (http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=7540242)

FSU is available this fall.  WVU dropped their game with the Noles.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: HoneyBakedPiglet on February 05, 2012, 05:56:31 AM
We already have a game scheduled on the 8th. Not sure I'd want to play back to back top 5 teams anyway.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: BASS on February 05, 2012, 10:31:54 AM
We already have a game scheduled on the 8th. Not sure I'd want to play back to back top 5 teams anyway.

considering the noles are a top 20 team that will be over-ranked by 15 spots, I'd love to play them, nice warm-up for bama and a win will impress the shit out of...everyone not from arkansas.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: big_pig on February 05, 2012, 12:26:23 PM
considering the noles are a top 20 team that will be over-ranked by 15 spots, I'd love to play them, nice warm-up for bama and a win will impress the shit out of...everyone not from arkansas.

Exactly. FSU is the national champions of preseason polling.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 05, 2012, 01:02:29 PM
Look here.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/2012-college-football-schedules.php
 (http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/2012-college-football-schedules.php)

Most PAC 12 & B10 teams are set for next yr.

Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: radioman on February 05, 2012, 03:07:57 PM
I don't care, who we schedule,  as long as it makes sense from a competition and/or recruiting basis.   We don't need another lame opponent.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 05, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
I don't care, who we schedule,  as long as it makes sense from a competition and/or recruiting basis.   We don't need another lame opponent.
Beat Bama and LSU and nobody will give a shit if it's a lame opponent or not. A tough schedule doesn't mean squat if you suffer 2 losses. The key is having a 0 or 1 in the L column.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Animal on February 05, 2012, 03:32:25 PM
I say no thanks, especially if it doesn't help us with recruiting. These types of games are scheduled years in advance for a reason. If fsu were to agree to fill in for ATM in the southwest classic...I might would feel different.

I do agree we need a harder noncon schedule each year to better prep for Bama, but there again we have them at home and almost beat what will be a similar type of Bama in 2010. We don't want to start up having to go to fsu and then to t town...that would be brutal IMO.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ArkGuy on February 05, 2012, 06:21:18 PM
We played A$M plus three chumps for n/c games, lost twice, and still finished #5 in the country.  We bea LSU, we probably finish #2.  We don't have a strength of schedule problem.

If Long wants a "name" n/c game, he can quit ducking texas.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Phat_Hawg on February 05, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
We played A$M plus three chumps for n/c games, lost twice, and still finished #5 in the country.  We bea LSU, we probably finish #2.  We don't have a strength of schedule problem.

If Long wants a "name" n/c game, he can quit ducking texas.

I know this is your soap box topic so I can understand they myopia but it's still interesting that you don't consider that Texas may be the ones ducking us.  YOu do know that it takes two teams to schedule a game?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Fairweather Hog Fan on February 05, 2012, 09:44:07 PM
Howling and shit has Oregon and Nebraska.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 05, 2012, 10:13:01 PM
Nebraska has stAte at home the week before our mutual open date in september.  Call me skeptical that long would agree to a sloppy 2nds with Nebraska after they play H&S the week before.  It really opens the comparisons & argument for playing them(stAte). 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pork Soda on February 06, 2012, 07:33:34 AM
Howling and shit has is a rent-a-win for both Oregon and Nebraska.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Phat_Hawg on February 06, 2012, 10:38:24 AM
Howling and aMm has is a rent-a-win for both Oregon and Nebraska.


Thank you.  I didn't think that it was difficult to figure out that AState is playing these games for the money like all Sun Belt teams do, not because they are so much braver than Arkansas in facing tough competitition.

Some of ya'll have turned into real dumbshits the last week or so.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 06, 2012, 10:46:22 AM
some teams that have the mutual early date open with us include;

boston college
clemson - plays auburn 1st week
Ga tech
Miami (fl)

cincinnati
rutgers
houston
Pitt

nebraska (plays stAte the week before)

Oklahoma
Okie lite
iowa state
K state
texas tech

Air Force
hawaii
fresno state
nevada
UNLV


those to start with.  possible decent matchups.  nothing that is earth shattering.

these are all 9/22 open dates.  If I were a betting man, to me it would be more advantageous to play this week & be off on the other open date since it's close to middle of the football season. 

10/20 is much better to be off.  feel free to discuss in this dead ass period now for football & sports.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Tusk till Dawn on February 06, 2012, 11:15:25 AM
some teams that have the mutual early date open with us include;

boston college
clemson - plays auburn 1st week
Ga tech
Miami (fl)

cincinnati
rutgers
houston
Pitt

nebraska (plays stAte the week before)

Oklahoma
Okie lite
iowa state
K state
texas tech

Air Force
hawaii
fresno state
nevada
UNLV


those to start with.  possible decent matchups.  nothing that is earth shattering.

these are all 9/22 open dates.  If I were a betting man, to me it would be more advantageous to play this week & be off on the other open date since it's close to middle of the football season. 

10/20 is much better to be off.  feel free to discuss in this dead ass period now for football & sports.

I wouldn't mind beating the aMm out of Rutgers. They tend be overly-covered by the East Coast media every year. It could help with exposure.

I would also like to see us stay away from Ga Tech. Their option offense scares me little bit, especially until I see how our linebacking corps will be next year.

BTW, nice efforting.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hognarok on February 06, 2012, 11:16:37 AM
some teams that have the mutual early date open with us include;

cincinnati
rutgers
Pitt
Oklahoma
Okie lite
iowa state
K State
texas tech


I'm assuming that these teams will not schedule anything else until they know the outcome of the WV-Big East lawsuits.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 06, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
I'm assuming that these teams will not schedule anything else until they know the outcome of the WV-Big East lawsuits.

Correct. Prolly will change in the next week or so. Schedules are set to come out soon.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: big_pig on February 06, 2012, 11:27:51 AM
We should bring in Kansas St.  I don't like having a losing record to them -- even if it does stretch back to the McKinley administration.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pork Soda on February 06, 2012, 11:39:14 AM

nebraska (plays stAte the week before)


Short of playing and losing to a total cream-puff or FCS school that week, I'm not sure I care all that much who we play.  It would be nice to schedule and beat a higher profile school for the extra exposure, but it isn't critical.  That will come with wins and with Knile and/or Tyler kicking ass and getting Heisman hype.  But I have to admit that the compare and contrast exercise would be hilarious if we played Nebraska that week, just for shits and giggles. 

I'm with Pale, though.  Having a losing record to Kansas State is unacceptable.  Any chance they make a BCS bowl this year, so we can start squaring that away?  chortle.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Das Uberschwein on February 06, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
I wish we could play Mizzou. Twice. They're not really an SEC program yet, righhh?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 06, 2012, 11:54:31 AM
some teams that have the mutual early date open with us include;

boston college
clemson - plays auburn 1st week
Ga tech
Miami (fl)

cincinnati
rutgers
houston
Pitt

nebraska (plays stAte the week before)

Oklahoma
Okie lite
iowa state
K state
texas tech

Air Force
hawaii
fresno state
nevada
UNLV


those to start with.  possible decent matchups.  nothing that is earth shattering.

these are all 9/22 open dates.  If I were a betting man, to me it would be more advantageous to play this week & be off on the other open date since it's close to middle of the football season. 

10/20 is much better to be off.  feel free to discuss in this dead ass period now for football & sports.

Nebraska was the first team I thought of when we had this problem.  Yes it opens up the howling shit but not if we beat them by 21 and they beat sTate by 21.

Clemson might be a decent matchup but don't want them if they are projected top 10.

Miami would be a great matchup and maybe we could get them back for that drubbing in the 80's.

Pitt has Long ties doesn't it?

Oklahoma would be a great win but I don't want anything to do with Okie light.

Texas Tech might be a good replacement for aTm.

Air force might be a great matchup.  I would love to see one of the service academies come to F'ville.


Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Das Uberschwein on February 06, 2012, 12:23:05 PM
Nebraska was the first team I thought of when we had this problem.  Yes it opens up the howling shit but not if we beat them by 21 and they beat sTate by 21.

Clemson might be a decent matchup but don't want them if they are projected top 10.

Miami would be a great matchup and maybe we could get them back for that drubbing in the 80's.

Pitt has Long ties doesn't it?

Oklahoma would be a great win but I don't want anything to do with Okie light.

Texas Tech might be a good replacement for aTm.

Air force might be a great matchup.  I would love to see one of the service academies come to F'ville.

That'd be pretty great, actually.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: TravelHog on February 06, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
Might as well scratch Clemson off that list. They're already playing 2 SEC teams next season, unless they want to get reacquainted with their SEC roots when we expand to 16 teams.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Das Uberschwein on February 06, 2012, 12:46:04 PM
Might as well scratch Clemson off that list. They're already playing getting the aMm kicked out of them by 2 SEC teams next season, unless they want to get reacquainted with their SEC roots when we expand to 16 teams.  :hmmm:

Fixt.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: wmr on February 06, 2012, 02:46:31 PM
How about Texas Tech in Arlington, and lower the damned ticket prices.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Turd F. on February 06, 2012, 02:56:05 PM
How about Texas Tech in Arlington, and lower the damned ticket prices.

I'd rather play Okie Light. We already compete in recruiting and it would be a better win for us than Texas Tech. It's sort of weird that we don't ever play OU or OSU even occasionally and they're not that far away.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hogeye_Pierce on February 06, 2012, 03:00:02 PM
I'd rather play Okie Light. We already compete in recruiting and it would be a better win for us than Texas Tech. It's sort of weird that we don't ever play OU or OSU even occasionally and they're not that far away.

Used to play the Okie Aggies all the time until Jimmy J became their coach and they started beating us on a fairly regular basis. That would be a good one to pick up again.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 06, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
I'd rather play Okie Light. We already compete in recruiting and it would be a better win for us than Texas Tech. It's sort of weird that we don't ever play OU or OSU even occasionally and they're not that far away.

It would be a lot more advantageous to play someone that is fairly close like OU or okie lite than an east coast team, unless they are going to Jerry world.  That way if you do a home/home there is a better possibility of going to the game, and travel isn't as bad for our boys.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: DirkPiggler on February 06, 2012, 03:25:11 PM
Used to play the Okie Aggies all the time until Jimmy J became their coach and they started beating us on a fairly regular basis. That would be a good one to pick up again.

Except that Jimmy was 0-2 against his alma mater while at Oklahoma State. 

We stopped playing OSU because they got tired of being treated like a cupcake.  Arkansas and OSU played 27 times between 1950 and 1980, with 24 of those games taking place inside the state of Arkansas.  When they started demanding home-and-home series Frank correctly told them to fuck off. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: SunshineSweaterman on February 06, 2012, 03:50:45 PM
I would love to see one of the service academies come to F'ville.

Whoever it is, I'm hoping we play in Jerryworld.  It's the best stadium, our fans travel well there, and it helps with recruiting Texas. 

Plus, I've made that trip every year and I want to go again.   :beer:

How about Texas Tech in Arlington, and lower the damned ticket prices.

Wow, you really sound like an Arkansas fan.   :D 

Cheaper tickets would be nice though.  I had a friend who went to the TCU game played there this season and the tickets were 1/2 what they were for the SWC.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: wmr on February 06, 2012, 04:02:07 PM
I've been to the SW Classic all three years.  I'll go whoever we play in Arlington because I always have a good time.

I think Texas Tech has a sorry fanbase, though, so I retract my previous statement.

Playing OSU there seems stupid since the campuses are only 3 hrs apart.

It would be nice to go to JerryWorld and not have already spent $300 before I walk in the gate.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hogeye_Pierce on February 06, 2012, 04:03:36 PM
Except that Jimmy was 0-2 against his alma mater while at Oklahoma State. 

We stopped playing OSU because they got tired of being treated like a cupcake.  Arkansas and OSU played 27 times between 1950 and 1980, with 24 of those games taking place inside the state of Arkansas.  When they started demanding home-and-home series Frank correctly told them to frick off.

Didn't necessarily mean to imply that we quit BECAUSE of JJ. Can't blame OSU for wanting to play more of the games in Stillwater but we were still the big dogs back then. They are much more of a "name" nationally now and we are still trying to regain our national status. I just think it would be a good matchup for JerryWorld.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 06, 2012, 04:04:50 PM
Whoever it is, I'm hoping we play in Jerryworld.  It's the best stadium, our fans travel well there, and it helps with recruiting Texas. 

Plus, I've made that trip every year and I want to go again.   :beer:

Wow, you really sound like an Arkansas fan.   :D 

Cheaper tickets would be nice though.  I had a friend who went to the TCU game played there this season and the tickets were 1/2 what they were for the SWC.

Personally I am against anymore big boys.  We've got plenty of them to get to the NC.  IF we are going to continue in Jerry World it unfortunately NEEDS to be a big name because it is the perfect place to have a showcase game.  How about Oklahoma in Jerry World?  Even if they are in a down year you still get respect for beating them and don't get dogged too bad if they beat you.  Okie light to me makes no sense because they aren't typically this good and aren't a "name", and they could beat us.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: SunshineSweaterman on February 06, 2012, 04:07:00 PM
Personally I am against anymore big boys.  We've got plenty of them to get to the NC.  IF we are going to continue in Jerry World it unfortunately NEEDS to be a big name because it is the perfect place to have a showcase game.  How about Oklahoma in Jerry World?  Even if they are in a down year you still get respect for beating them and don't get dogged too bad if they beat you.  Okie light to me makes no sense because they aren't typically this good and aren't a "name", and they could beat us.

There are plenty of teams we could play in Jerryworld that aren't necessarily "Big Boys." 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 06, 2012, 04:24:18 PM
Personally I am against anymore big boys.  We've got plenty of them to get to the NC.  IF we are going to continue in Jerry World it unfortunately NEEDS to be a big name because it is the perfect place to have a showcase game.  How about Oklahoma in Jerry World?  Even if they are in a down year you still get respect for beating them and don't get dogged too bad if they beat you.  Okie light to me makes no sense because they aren't typically this good and aren't a "name", and they could beat us.

respectfully gonna disagree.  Last year, (& in prior 2 yrs) aTm was one of our non conference opponents.  We are still playing 8 conference games & they are taking someone's place.  If we don't play a big name, we will have a slightly weaker schedule.  We need 1 tough non conference game.  Tulsa will not cut it.  Even the hoot would man up & play a texass or USC-w.  I also do not like cupcake city up until the culture shock of playing Gump U.  Any respectable D1 team is fine with me.  Ga tech, Fl state, Houston, Air Force (at least somewhat) would be fine.  Doesn't need to be any kind of rent a win.  It would be interesting to find out if Texass asked us to delay or if we asked them.  I would love to punch them in the gunt.  The fan draw for a big non conference game is gonna be way better than any rent a win too.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Arkansas Proud on February 06, 2012, 04:56:01 PM
Because the stupid computers rely solely on numbers, the best team to schedule is a crappy team that you know is going to be a win, yet finish with a good record.

Someone like Houston last year.  Like we did with Boise in '00 or '02.  Like normally Troy, Tulsa, etc.

Any team like that will play us at home, not demand a return game, and will strengthen our SOS numbers.

What you don't want is a crappy team that's going 0-12.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: DirkPiggler on February 06, 2012, 04:57:50 PM
Didn't necessarily mean to imply that we quit BECAUSE of JJ. Can't blame OSU for wanting to play more of the games in Stillwater but we were still the big dogs back then. They are much more of a "name" nationally now and we are still trying to regain our national status. I just think it would be a good matchup for JerryWorld.

Agree 100%.  I'd love to see that game. 

I just never pass up an opportunity to be a smart ass. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: chittlins on February 06, 2012, 05:23:26 PM
Agree 100%.  I'd love to see that game. 

I just never pass up an opportunity to be a smart ass.

Yeah, I was like 'What" when I read his post. That was because They wanted to go home and home.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: RazorbackDad on February 06, 2012, 05:24:05 PM
Whoever it is, I'm hoping we play in Jerryworld.  It's the best stadium, our fans travel well there, and it helps with recruiting

I've always thought the Southwest Classic name and game should continue.... Except now that A&M is out of the mix, Arkansas should rotate between old members of the SWC. 

I don't think any of those teams would want a long term series commitment (especially at the current ticket prices).  A&M was already getting buyers remorse over a 10 year deal.   But I bet the old SWC teams would like to at least play 1 game in Jerry World and could generate enough ticket sales for a 1-and-done scenario.  Besides, Tech, TCU, Houston, and Baylor would have been better teams on our schedule the last few years than the recent offerings.  Texas may not want to play and SMU and Rice may not be that strong, but overall it would be an interesting concept to get some or all of the old SWC matchups.

This type of setup would leave Arkansas with a decent "home" game against a mid-major team.  We'd maintain Texas exposure.  Ticket prices might be lowered.

 By the time the classic ended, a new wave of conference alignment may have begun and the Classic would be over.

BTW.... I'm of the opinion that Arkansas doesn't need to significantly strengthen its schedule.  This past year proved that if Arkansas takes care of SEC business, then that will be all that is necessary.  However, there's a catch-22.... If they want to take care of SEC business, then the probably need to upgrade their schedule, but it doesn't have to be significant.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ArkGuy on February 06, 2012, 06:29:01 PM
respectfully gonna disagree.  Last year, (& in prior 2 yrs) aTm was one of our non conference opponents.  We are still playing 8 conference games & they are taking someone's place.  If we don't play a big name, we will have a slightly weaker schedule.  ...

You're right, I momentarily forgot that.  We definitely don't need to go from A$M plus three rent-a-wins to 4 rent-a-wins.  And since the SW Classic was really only half of a home game, we could go to a home and home with someone and still net out the 7.5 home games we have had the past few years.

But, I think we'd get the same benefit from playing a 9 game SEC: play ALL of your intra-division opponents each year (6 games), a rival from the other side every single year, and two games from the rest of the other division, rotating so that every six years you play each twice. 9 games.

Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: RazorbackDad on February 06, 2012, 07:30:50 PM
respectfully gonna disagree.......

Kinder, gentler Woopig
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Rob on February 06, 2012, 09:05:39 PM
Let's rotate Rice, SMU, Baylor and Texas Tech.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 06, 2012, 09:13:37 PM
Kinder, gentler Woopig

I don't think anyone has ever respectfully done anything to me, but I'll take it.  I also didn't factor in losing aTm in the weight of the schedule.  Probably do need to add a team of significance for that.  Maybe if we add Oklahoma to the game, they will come to the SEC WEST next.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: MDEM on February 06, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
Let's rotate Rice, SMU, Baylor and Texas Tech.

Let's not. 

Who are you people afraid of?  Let's take on every motherfucker in the country early.  Michigan, Nebraska, USC, whoever.  Bring 'em on.

We play the best of the best every year.  What's one more decent game?

Bring. 

Them.

On.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 06, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Let's not. 

Who are you people afraid of?  Let's take on every motherfricker in the country early.  Michigan, Nebraska, USC, whoever.  Bring 'em on.

We play the best of the best every year.  What's one more decent game?

Bring. 

Them.

On.

I agree with this.   We will have to take care of business in the SEC-w, & if you ask BMFP, we didn't do it this year.  Beating good non conference teams helps with credibility.  We did have a good game against USC-e, but without the decent schedule, we won't get respect.  It only helps, & it gets more attention with the media.  No one cares about the scores when we play Troy, but everyone tunes in when we play a real team.  That is what will help with recruiting. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Big Sausage Pizza on February 06, 2012, 11:09:08 PM
We played A$M plus three chumps for n/c games, lost twice, and still finished #5 in the country.  We bea LSU, we probably finish #2.  We don't have a strength of schedule problem.

This, Exactly.  The Longhorn part, not so much.

Hope we don't schedule:
Baylor, or any other school form the Big 12
Boise State
The Citadel


But, if they want to throw Arkansas State in there... I'd be fine with that chit. At least over the next few years anyhow.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogsrunwild on February 07, 2012, 12:35:02 AM
Lets rotate Army, Air Force and Navy.  They would love it since that game would finance the rest of their season and the cadets/middies would freaking love to go.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Das Uberschwein on February 07, 2012, 01:42:03 AM
I'm still for playing Missouri*. Twice per year.

______

*again, not officially an SEC team until the conclusion of the hazing period
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Thin Red Swine on February 07, 2012, 06:14:09 AM
If we can't work something out with FSU, Rutgers or someone else who has an opening, Long should go to the SEC and ask them to open the purse strings.  The league could help pay the way out of a creampuff game of a BCS school that already has a full schedule.  The TV revenue can more than make up the payment.

Go after one of the following:

Iowa
Michigan St.
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Arizona St.
UCLA

Let's make a splash. 



Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Snorts on February 07, 2012, 07:02:07 AM
Cupcake.  We need cupcakes.

12-0 with several cupcakes beats the hell out of 11-1 or 10-2 with losses to any of the aforementioned teams.  I would rather see us blow out a cupcake than lose a spectacular game against a power.  Any day.

And fuck Arkansas State. They are not worth one single lost recruit, which would surely begin to happen if we validated them by scheduling them.  Let them build their program on their own, they shouldn't need us to do that.  We damn sure don't need them.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Rob on February 07, 2012, 07:04:21 AM
Let's not. 

Who are you people afraid of?  Let's take on every motherfucker in the country early.  Michigan, Nebraska, USC, whoever.  Bring 'em on.

We play the best of the best every year.  What's one more decent game?

Bring. 

Them.

On.
That was a joke to whomever said we should rotate old SWC foes...

I don't care who we play.  I would love a good showcase game.  I really wanted Nebraska.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 07, 2012, 07:30:56 AM
Cupcake.  We need cupcakes.

12-0 with several cupcakes beats the Starkville out of 11-1 or 10-2 with losses to any of the aforementioned teams.  I would rather see us blow out a cupcake than lose a spectacular game against a power.  Any day.

And frick Arkansas State. They are not worth one single lost recruit, which would surely begin to happen if we validated them by scheduling them.  Let them build their program on their own, they shouldn't need us to do that.  We damn sure don't need them.

If we had beaten LSU this year, we likely would have stayed below Alabama and LSU still.  They each had higher computer numbers because they each had better OOC wins.  LSU with Oregon & WVU, Bama with Penn St.  Arkansas had Texas A&M.  A&M having a shitty season could have kept us out of the national championship game, had we actually beaten LSU.

That's why I think we have to play a school that's at least respected.  Virginia Tech would be perfect, I think.  They're CONSISTENTLY overrated, so you know we'll get a nice bump from beating them. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Snorts on February 07, 2012, 09:04:32 AM
I think most years the good record will trump SOS.  This year was an anomaly, not likely to occur again in my lifetime.  Win em all, go 12-0, you won't need to worry about LSU and Bama, we beat them.  Start losing, you end up where you end up.  Things turned out well for us this year with 2 losses.  We were the highest ranked 11-2 team in the Country (Oregon was 12-2).  Being on the SEC insulates us from a lot of the SOS questions.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 07, 2012, 09:40:46 AM
I think most years the good record will trump SOS.  This year was an anomaly, not likely to occur again in my lifetime.  Win em all, go 12-0, you won't need to worry about LSU and Bama, we beat them.  Start losing, you end up where you end up.  Things turned out well for us this year with 2 losses.  We were the highest ranked 11-2 team in the Country (Oregon was 12-2).  Being on the SEC insulates us from a lot of the SOS questions.

Perhaps, but it's entirely plausible (to me), that LSU, Bama, and Arkansas could go 11-1 with each only losing to each other.  That means SoS will be a factor whether we like it or not.  That and timing, I suppose.  Losing to Bama early is bad, but not nearly as bad as losing to LSU late.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Law_Hawg on February 07, 2012, 09:42:57 AM

But, I think we'd get the same benefit from playing a 9 game SEC: play ALL of your intra-division opponents each year (6 games), a rival from the other side every single year, and two games from the rest of the other division, rotating so that every six years you play each twice. 9 games.



I think there should be a 9-game conference schedule now that there are 14 teams. 

I'm glad somebody else came out and said it first.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: krack1925 on February 07, 2012, 09:56:26 AM
If we want a foe that is highly ranked but not that good I say we play ND every fing year till the cows come home.  They suck but are top 25 EVERY FUCKING YEAR.  If you want to boost your power ranking without taking a real risk, look to god.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 07, 2012, 10:15:31 AM
If we want a foe that is highly ranked but not that good I say we play ND every fing year till the cows come home.  They suck but are top 25 EVERY fricking YEAR.  If you want to boost your power ranking without taking a real risk, look to god.

I'd make that trip.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Snorts on February 07, 2012, 10:21:24 AM
If we want a foe that is highly ranked but not that good I say we play ND every fing year till the cows come home.  They suck but are top 25 EVERY FUCKING YEAR.  If you want to boost your power ranking without taking a real risk, look to god.

Modified cupcake?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Southern Yeoman on February 07, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
I have the biggest sports jinx in the world.  Vikings, Braves, etc.  The Hogs have excelled recently in spite of me, and because I stop watching and go for a walk when they struggle in a game.  That usually reverses their poor play and seals the win.

If UA scheduled Ga Tech, I will guarantee the first game ever in which both teams lose.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pork Soda on February 07, 2012, 11:07:54 AM
Modified cupcake?

Fortified cupcake.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Thin Red Swine on February 07, 2012, 10:19:02 PM
Maybe since West Virginia bailed on FSU, we could get WVA now. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: wmr on February 08, 2012, 10:51:34 AM
Logically it will be a Big East team, since they will all have a game to make up once WVU officially is cleared for Big 12 play.

Louisville would be fun. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Tusk till Dawn on February 08, 2012, 10:53:29 AM
Logically it will be a Big East team, since they will all have a game to make up once WVU officially is cleared for Texas League play.

Louisville would be fun.

Do you know if BMFP left Louisville on good terms? Or we're they all pissy about it?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 08, 2012, 11:08:30 AM
Do you know if BMFP left Louisville on good terms? Or we're they all pissy about it?

If you ask the fans, every one of them would kill to have Petrino back.

If you ask the media, they all think he left their program in shambles because Kragthorpe immediately shit the bed, couldn't instill discipline, and ended up kicking some guys off the team.  Funny.  There were never any problems when Petrino was in charge.  There aren't any problems at Arkansas.  But, evidently, things were so bad that Kragthorpe got really shaken up about it.

 O0
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 08, 2012, 12:42:06 PM
Do you know if BMFP left Louisville on good terms? Or we're they all pissy about it?

They committed to building some multi million dollar project because of Petrino and were banking on him to be their lifetime coach. I'd imagine some there are pissy about it.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Clark on February 08, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
If you ask the fans, every one of them would kill to have Petrino back.

If you ask the media, they all think he left their program in shambles because Kragthorpe immediately shit the bed, couldn't instill discipline, and ended up kicking some guys off the team.  Funny.  There were never any problems when Petrino was in charge.  There aren't any problems at Arkansas.  But, evidently, things were so bad that Kragthorpe got really shaken up about it.

 O0
I c wot u did thar.

Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 08, 2012, 01:03:12 PM
More sins of bobby petrino.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: big_pig on February 08, 2012, 02:30:38 PM
evidently, things were so bad that Kragthorpe got really shaken up about it.


I c wot u did thar.



More (parkin)sins of bobby petrino.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 08, 2012, 02:36:33 PM


 :maundoed: Well done.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: raisinsnacks on February 08, 2012, 08:50:06 PM
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html

In addition, both people said, Rutgers is close to finalizing a home-and-home deal with Arkansas, starting this fall. Rutgers would play at Arkansas this year, with the Razorbacks coming to Rutgers Stadium in 2013, becoming the first SEC team to play in Piscataway.

The home-and-home contingency plans with Syracuse, as well as Rutgers' game with Arkansas, could fall through if Boise State is fast-tracked into the Big East, however. That is still considered a long shot because of the timing, with Boise expected to play one more season in the Mountain West.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Count Porkula on February 08, 2012, 08:52:17 PM
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html

In addition, both people said, Rutgers is close to finalizing a home-and-home deal with Arkansas, starting this fall. Rutgers would play at Arkansas this year, with the Razorbacks coming to Rutgers Stadium in 2013, becoming the first SEC team to play in Piscataway.

The home-and-home contingency plans with Syracuse, as well as Rutgers' game with Arkansas, could fall through if Boise State is fast-tracked into the Big East, however. That is still considered a long shot because of the timing, with Boise expected to play one more season in the Mountain West.

sweet!!  fake tans and hair gel for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Southern Yeoman on February 08, 2012, 08:56:19 PM
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html

In addition, both people said, Rutgers is close to finalizing a home-and-home deal with Arkansas, starting this fall. Rutgers would play at Arkansas this year, with the Razorbacks coming to Rutgers Stadium in 2013, becoming the first SEC team to play in Piscataway.

The home-and-home contingency plans with Syracuse, as well as Rutgers' game with Arkansas, could fall through if Boise State is fast-tracked into the Big East, however. That is still considered a long shot because of the timing, with Boise expected to play one more season in the Mountain West.
YGBSM
See, everybody thinks we're backwoods, but they look to our billfold to pull their sorry ass out of a hole.
Good Lord, an SEC team playing in New Jersey.  The end is near.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Vito Porkleone on February 08, 2012, 08:57:02 PM
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html

In addition, both people said, Rutgers is close to finalizing a home-and-home deal with Arkansas, starting this fall. Rutgers would play at Arkansas this year, with the Razorbacks coming to Rutgers Stadium in 2013, becoming the first SEC team to play in Piscataway.

The home-and-home contingency plans with Syracuse, as well as Rutgers' game with Arkansas, could fall through if Boise State is fast-tracked into the Big East, however. That is still considered a long shot because of the timing, with Boise expected to play one more season in the Mountain West.

This is only so Vincenzo can get some home cooking in '13.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: 'Riffic on February 08, 2012, 09:13:09 PM
If you ask the fans, every one of them would kill to have Petrino back.

If you ask the media, they all think he left their program in shambles because Kragthorpe immediately aMm the bed, couldn't instill discipline, and ended up kicking some guys off the team.  Funny.  There were never any problems when Petrino was in charge.  There aren't any problems at Arkansas.  But, evidently, things were so bad that Kragthorpe got really shaken up about it.

 O0

The vast majority of Louisville fans I know HATE Petrino.  However, the few halfway knowledgeable ones I know would kill for him & were in the minority of wanting him to stay when he left. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: wmr on February 08, 2012, 10:35:42 PM
Big East, makes sense, sort of.  Rutgers could be a pretty fun trip if you like NYC.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Razor B on February 08, 2012, 11:12:47 PM
Big East, makes sense, sort of.  Rutgers could be a pretty fun trip if you like NYC.

I know I'll be making the trip.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 08, 2012, 11:19:39 PM
I'll definitely make the trip.  O0
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: SoldierSooie on February 08, 2012, 11:34:23 PM
Big East, makes sense, sort of.  Rutgers could be a pretty fun trip if you like NYC.

I might be going there for grad school this fall. If so, seeing the hogs there in '13 would be tits.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: HOGGLY WOGGLY on February 08, 2012, 11:55:38 PM
Petrino wants revenge for 2006.  :evil:
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: HOGGLY WOGGLY on February 09, 2012, 03:16:01 AM

From the twatters

Ascolese11 vin ascolese
Just found out it looks like Rutgers will be on our schedule ! Haha wow beat em by 90 and then I can go home for the weekend haha
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Tusk till Dawn on February 09, 2012, 12:00:23 PM
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/02/rutgers_could_play_football_ho.html

In addition, both people said, Rutgers is close to finalizing a home-and-home deal with Arkansas, starting this fall. Rutgers would play at Arkansas this year, with the Razorbacks coming to Rutgers Stadium in 2013, becoming the first SEC team to play in Piscataway.

The home-and-home contingency plans with Syracuse, as well as Rutgers' game with Arkansas, could fall through if Boise State is fast-tracked into the Big East, however. That is still considered a long shot because of the timing, with Boise expected to play one more season in the Mountain West.

I wouldn't mind beating the aMm out of Rutgers. They tend be overly-covered by the East Coast media every year. It could help with exposure.

I would also like to see us stay away from Ga Tech. Their option offense scares me little bit, especially until I see how our linebacking corps will be next year.

BTW, nice efforting.

Called that play brotha :shocker:
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: subliznime on February 09, 2012, 12:33:01 PM
Perhaps, but it's entirely plausible (to me), that LSU, Bama, and Arkansas could go 11-1 with each only losing to each other.  That means SoS will be a factor whether we like it or not.  That and timing, I suppose.  Losing to Bama early is bad, but not nearly as bad as losing to LSU late.
Are you even reading what snorts is writing? He is talking about 12-0 not 11-1. At 12-0 hes right you beat bama you beat lsu. At 12-0 sos doesnt mean shit.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 09, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
http://arkansasnews.com/2012/02/09/report-arkansas-rutgers-nearing-deal-for-two-games/ (http://arkansasnews.com/2012/02/09/report-arkansas-rutgers-nearing-deal-for-two-games/)

More smoke about us & Rutgers.   This via a link from the EsPin's
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Green_Lanternn on February 09, 2012, 01:38:09 PM
Rutgers sounds good.  Opens up new recruiting area and would be a great road trip.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: NotoriousPIG on February 09, 2012, 01:47:33 PM
As exciting as a big game in a large city sounds I'd much rather play someone like Northwestern than Rutgers for a couple of reasons

1.  I live about 15 minutes away from Evanston
2.  College football is much bigger in the midwest (75% of NYC doesn't know where Rutgers is)
3.  I'd much rather recruit the midwest although competition is tougher
4.  NU is a much better opponent and Evanston is hella easy to get to compared to Piscataway for Hog fans

But since NU is not even a possibility I will no find a screen door and fist myself threve times.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Tusk till Dawn on February 09, 2012, 02:01:58 PM
As exciting as a big game in a large city sounds I'd much rather play someone like Northwestern than Rutgers for a couple of reasons

1.  I live about 15 minutes away from Evanston
2.  College football is much bigger in the midwest (75% of NYC doesn't know where Rutgers is)
3.  I'd much rather recruit the midwest although competition is tougher
4.  NU is a much better opponent and Evanston is hella easy to get to compared to Piscataway for Hog fans

But since NU is not even a possibility I will no find a screen door and fist myself threve times.

Seems like some stud defensive have come out of that area the last few years. I think Florida's gotten a couple.

Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: clintcommander on February 09, 2012, 02:04:08 PM
Hog Trough vs Jersey Shore... I like it.

Either way, if Hog fans travel, somebody is gonna get their ass beat.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 09, 2012, 03:16:29 PM
Big East, makes sense, sort of.  Rutgers could be a pretty fun trip if you like NYC.

This is going to be a badass road trip.  I love Manhattan.  Stay in Times Square and take a train over to the game.  I'm amped even though it is 2 years away.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: LashHog on February 09, 2012, 03:32:13 PM
http://arkansasnews.com/2012/02/09/report-arkansas-rutgers-nearing-deal-for-two-games/ (http://arkansasnews.com/2012/02/09/report-arkansas-rutgers-nearing-deal-for-two-games/)

More smoke about us & Rutgers.   This via a link from the EsPin's
I don't know why people always do this. One report comes out, and then all the local news folks started writing blogs referencing that report and suddenly everything thinks these are more sources. All this link says is that a NJ news source reported this, which we already knew. You might as well post a link to this thread and call it another source, since it also contains the report from NJ.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogggdadi on February 09, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
I don't know why people always do this. One report comes out, and then all the local news folks started writing blogs referencing that report and suddenly everything thinks these are more sources. All this link says is that a NJ news source reported this, which we already knew. You might as well post a link to this thread and call it another source, since it also contains the report from NJ.
(http://www.freefoto.com/images/33/15/33_15_15---Fire-Flame-Texture_web.jpg)
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: UAClassof81 on February 09, 2012, 03:40:36 PM
When's the last time we played somewhere up north?  I know we've played all over Texas and the rest of the south, but haven't all the yankee teams we've played come to us or played us in a bowl? 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Show-Me Hog on February 09, 2012, 03:44:24 PM
But since NU is not even a possibility I will no find a screen door and fist myself threve times.

I see what you did there.....you slipped out of that one pretty well.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pig on February 09, 2012, 03:46:14 PM
Boise is up north.
edit - my bad - played them in Little Rock.  They are further north than Northern Illinois.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ArkGuy on February 09, 2012, 03:49:58 PM
When's the last time we played somewhere up north?  I know we've played all over Texas and the rest of the south, but haven't all the yankee teams we've played come to us or played us in a bowl?

This is a great trivia question.  Not only do we not play Yankee teams up north, we rarely play them anywhere, other than bowls.

We played Northwestern and Navy in Little Rock in the late 70's/early 80's.

We may not have played a game that far north since the Taft Administration.

EDIT:  I see we lost at Fordham in 1940.  We may not have traveled farther north than St. Louis since then.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: hogfan58 on February 09, 2012, 03:56:09 PM
I'm not booking my trip until Duckman confirms we're playing them.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pig on February 09, 2012, 04:05:53 PM
After 2 minutes of research on http://www.hogdb.com, found:
 Wisconsin in Madison (1912)  Lost 64-7
 Fordham in New York (1940)  Lost 7-27
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Nukinhawg on February 09, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
If this turns out to be true I am starting a Nukinhawg and Mrs Nukinhawg to New Jersey/New York football vacation fund.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Mike Slive on February 09, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Well here ya go LR!  :stache:
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cotte on February 09, 2012, 06:39:40 PM
This is a great trivia question.  Not only do we not play Yankee teams up north, we rarely play them anywhere, other than bowls.

We played Northwestern and Navy in Little Rock in the late 70's/early 80's.

We may not have played a game that far north since the Taft Administration.

EDIT:  I see we lost at Fordham in 1940.  We may not have traveled farther north than St. Louis since then.

Now that was a fat President.
Title: Hogs playing football in New Jersey?
Post by: Olive Branch Hog on February 10, 2012, 03:09:51 PM
I guess this is an upgrade over New Mexico.

http://blogs.nwaonline.com/slophouse/2012/02/09/rutgers-could-be-hogs-12th-opponent-in-2012/ (http://blogs.nwaonline.com/slophouse/2012/02/09/rutgers-could-be-hogs-12th-opponent-in-2012/)

Title: Re: Hogs playing football in New Jersey?
Post by: wmr on February 10, 2012, 03:10:37 PM
rmpl.

http://woopig.net/board/index.php?topic=78823.75
Title: Re: Hogs playing football in New Jersey?
Post by: Olive Branch Hog on February 10, 2012, 03:15:15 PM
rmpl.

http://woopig.net/board/index.php?topic=78823.75

Crap. I scanned but didn't read.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: radioman on February 16, 2012, 06:09:29 PM
I wonder why it is taking so long to announce this.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Cerdo on February 17, 2012, 07:13:44 AM
I wonder why it is taking so long to announce this.
Probably because they still can't even figure out a conference schedule yet up there in the fricked up Big Least.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/syracuse-ad-refuses-play-rutgers-twice-2012-161018098.html;_ylt=At2_1ApzkjFmfAS3S7VXiFgcvrYF
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 17, 2012, 07:19:43 AM
Evidently Reece Davis tweeted something about Arkansas & Florida St playing...I'd rather have Rutgers.  I think we would beat FSU, but you just never know. They've got Bama'esque talent on their defense.  It would definitely be a challenge.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 17, 2012, 08:43:27 AM
Evidently Reece Davis tweeted something about Arkansas & Florida St playing...I'd rather have Rutgers.  I think we would beat FSU, but you just never know. They've got Bama'esque talent on their defense.  It would definitely be a challenge.
2 days ago he tweeted that 'FSU had contacted Boise, Arkansas, Wyoming, OU, TxAM and others about a game. No takers as of yet.'
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Rob on February 17, 2012, 08:53:29 AM
2 days ago he tweeted that 'FSU had contacted Boise, Arkansas, Wyoming, OU, TxAM and others about a game. No takers as of yet.'
We would have to move games around.  Boise has now pussed out twice?  Us and FSU...I guess they don't want to play anyone, anywhere, anytime...
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Death By Sooiecide on February 17, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
Matt Jones just tweeted that it is a done deal.

We play Rutgers September 22 in Fayetteville
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: FayettenamHog on February 17, 2012, 10:12:21 AM
Matt Jones just tweeted that it is a done deal.

We play Rutgers September 22 in Fayetteville

there's also this:

Robbie Neiswanger
Arkansas also announces sites for games. The Arkansas-LSU game will be played in Fayetteville. Arkansas-Texas A&M still TBD
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: UAClassof81 on February 17, 2012, 10:14:22 AM
Friday or Saturday?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: FayettenamHog on February 17, 2012, 10:25:58 AM
Friday or Saturday?

they have it listed as Saturday, but they do that every year until CBS "officially" moves it to Friday. not sure if that changes now that it's in Fayetteville or not, I wouldn't think so.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: wmr on February 17, 2012, 10:26:55 AM
CBS always announces moving it to Friday.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Rob on February 17, 2012, 10:31:40 AM

FEBRUARY 17, 2012 |  BY MATT JONES
FAYETTEVILLE - Arkansas will play its 2012 football game against LSU at Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville in November, the school announced Friday.

The game between the two schools has been played in Little Rock the last nine times when the Razorbacks were the home team. Arkansas and LSU haven’t met in Fayetteville since 1992.

The game, currently scheduled for Nov. 24, will likely be moved to Nov. 23 to accommodate a national TV audience, though that determination has yet to be made. The Razorbacks and Tigers have met on the Friday after Thanksgiving 16 times since 1994 with the game televised by CBS.

“Playing the LSU game at Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium directly benefits our program in a number of ways including most importantly providing an additional 20,000 Razorback fans an opportunity to cheer on our team and in this great rivalry game,” Arkansas athletics director Jeff Long said in a release. “By re-arranging the rotation and playing the regular season finale in Fayetteville, it will also prevent our team from a competitive disadvantage of traveling three straight weekends in the most crucial part of the season.

“Playing on campus will also allow our football program the recruiting advantage of hosting prospects for a game that has traditionally carried conference and national implications.”

As a result of moving the game against the LSU, Arkansas will face Ole Miss at War Memorial Stadium on Oct. 27. The Razorbacks are under contract to play two games, including one conference game, in Little Rock through the 2016 season. In addition to Ole Miss, Arkansas will play Louisiana-Monroe there on Sept. 8.

The Razorbacks also announced a two-year home-and-home series against Rutgers on Friday. Arkansas will host Rutgers on Sept. 22 in Fayetteville and will travel to the Scarlet Knights’ campus in Piscataway, N.J. on Sept. 21, 2013.

2012 Arkansas Football Schedule

Sept. 1 – Jacksonville State (Fayetteville)

Sept. 8 – Louisiana-Monroe (Little Rock)

Sept. 15 – Alabama (Fayetteville)

Sept. 22 – Rutgers (Fayetteville)

Sept. 29 – Texas A&M (College Station, Texas or Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas)

Oct. 6 – Auburn (Auburn, Ala.)

Oct. 13 – Kentucky (Fayetteville)

Oct. 20 – Bye

Oct. 27 – Ole Miss (Little Rock)

Nov. 3 – Tulsa (Fayetteville)

Nov. 10 – South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.)

Nov. 17 – Mississippi State (Starkville, Miss.)

Nov. 24 – LSU (Fayetteville)

You can follow Matt Jones on Twitter @NWAMatt.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: APhiOHog on February 17, 2012, 10:42:37 AM
Jacksonville State
LA-Monroe (in LR)
Bama

I know this has been discussed, but FUCK ME I do not like the looks of that.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: The Cowboy Tiger on February 17, 2012, 10:46:10 AM
there's also this:

Robbie Neiswanger
Arkansas also announces sites for games. The Arkansas-LSU game will be played in Fayetteville. Arkansas-Texas A&M still TBD

i lol'd

and Rutgers is going to get fucked up real bad.  Captain Obvious reporting for duty.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: LashHog on February 17, 2012, 11:15:19 AM
Jacksonville State
LA-Monroe (in LR)
Bama

I know this has been discussed, but FUCK ME I do not like the looks of that.
Everyone keeps saying this...even though we didn't look any better against LSU(who was inferior to Bama, IMO) after playing a full SEC schedule.

Bama was badass and we weren't...that's all that matters. Bring em on this year...we'll be well prepared just like we were 2 years ago and hopefully this year our running game and defense are improved enough to close it out.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 17, 2012, 12:06:15 PM
I don't like moving the LSU game but agree that it is the smartest move.  I also think we need to be playing our cupcake on the hill before we play bama.  I still have my doubts about a sellout the day after thanksgiving.  They ought to keep it on Saturday.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ManBearHog on February 17, 2012, 12:10:58 PM
Jacksonville State
LA-Monroe (in LR)
Bama

I know this has been discussed, but FUCK ME I do not like the looks of that.

It's a lot better than

cupcake
cupcake
cupcake
Bama on the road

This actually bodes well for us because it will be Bama's first true road game.  They have Michigan in Dallas, then a cupcake at home then they come to Fayetteville.  That young D of theirs will get rattled.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Swine Bluff on February 17, 2012, 12:16:35 PM

EDIT:  I see we lost at Fordham in 1940.  We may not have traveled farther north than St. Louis since then.
My grandfather played in that game. Long time on a train, followed by a beatdown.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pigproquo on February 17, 2012, 12:22:03 PM

“Playing the LSU game at Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium directly benefits our program in a number of ways including most importantly providing an additional 20,000 Razorback fans an opportunity to cheer on our team and in this great rivalry game,” Arkansas athletics director Jeff Long said in a release. “By re-arranging the rotation and playing the regular season finale in Fayetteville, it will also prevent our team from a competitive disadvantage of traveling three straight weekends in the most crucial part of the season.


I don't mind moving the game to RRS so much, but this statement really shows how little Long knows about Razorback Football history.  Ask the coaches and players if they feel "competitively disadvantaged" when they play in Little Rock.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: LashHog on February 17, 2012, 12:25:11 PM
I don't mind moving the game to RRS so much, but this statement really shows how little Long knows about Razorback Football history.  Ask the coaches and players if they feel "competitively disadvantaged" when they play in Little Rock.
I'm guessing Long has talked to the coaches about this a lot more than you have.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: APhiOHog on February 17, 2012, 12:32:09 PM
Everyone keeps saying this...even though we didn't look any better against LSU(who was inferior to Bama, IMO) after playing a full SEC schedule.

Bama was badass and we weren't...that's all that matters. Bring em on this year...we'll be well prepared just like we were 2 years ago and hopefully this year our running game and defense are improved enough to close it out.

Yes, but there were other circumstances surrounding that LSU game that may also have played a role.

And yes, Bama was just simply better last year. But there will be a time that they aren't. Hell, that time might be next season. I'd much rather have a Rutgers under our belt at that point than 2 nobodies, especially if Bama is playing somebody "real" the first 2 weeks. If they aren't, then I guess it's a wash.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 17, 2012, 02:35:10 PM
I don't mind moving the game to RRS so much, but this statement really shows how little Long knows about Razorback Football history.  Ask the coaches and players if they feel "competitively disadvantaged" when they play in Little Rock.

Yeah - there have been a few random statements from select players and coaches over the years, all positive, about LR.  SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISSSSSE.  WTF do you people EXPECT them to say? "LR sucks. I wish we didn't have to keep playing down there."

 :suicide:

And yes, having to travel 3 consecutive weeks IS a competitive disadvantage.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: uagrad89 on February 17, 2012, 02:47:59 PM
I'm guessing Long has talked to the coaches about this a lot more than you have.

 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Yeah, why would it be a competitive disadvantage to pack up the entire football department and move it 200 miles? Which is the same process (though shorter distance) as packing it up and moving it to, say, Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, Gainesville, etc. I guess to some people away games aren't considered a competitive disadvantage.

Fortunately for us, it seems our AD and head coach do realize this and have the guts to start taking the steps to do something about it. I don't mind the high school stadium getting Ole Miss and the likes of Louisiana Monroe until the current contract expires, but after that, I hope that like every other school that used to do it they realize the tremendous waste of resources it is to play home games at an away location.

I like the addition of Rutgers, but I personally wouldn't mind seeing us play Boise, even on a home-and-home (yeah, I know). I would like to be the team that shuts them up for a couple of years and gets them out of the national championship race early. Boise crowed about beating Georgia last year, who was pedestrian at best. And if we lost, well, that would suck, certainly, but it's about time someone stepped up and defended college football and knocked pretenders like this out of the conversation.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: LashHog on February 17, 2012, 02:53:44 PM
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Yeah, why would it be a competitive disadvantage to pack up the entire football department and move it 200 miles? Which is the same process (though shorter distance) as packing it up and moving it to, say, Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, Gainesville, etc. I guess to some people away games aren't considered a competitive disadvantage.

Fortunately for us, it seems our AD and head coach do realize this and have the guts to start taking the steps to do something about it. I don't mind the high school stadium getting Ole Miss and the likes of Louisiana Monroe until the current contract expires, but after that, I hope that like every other school that used to do it they realize the tremendous waste of resources it is to play home games at an away location.
The same goes for you. I'm sure they "realize" much more about what it costs and what advantages or disadvantages come with it. Long and Petrino have done pretty much everything right so far, so if they choose to play two games in LR I'm gonna say there is a reason for it. When they choose to move the LSU game to fayetteville, clearly there is a reason for that as well.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ocelot_ark on February 17, 2012, 03:37:35 PM
We TRIED to schedule a game with Boise. They didn't want any part of us.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: The Cowboy Tiger on February 17, 2012, 08:52:02 PM
We TRIED to schedule a game with Boise. They didn't want any part of us.

they knew that they'd get the tom cruise water-mic-in-the-face treatment.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: shithead on February 17, 2012, 09:34:32 PM
I don't mind moving the game to RRS so much, but this statement really shows how little Long knows about Razorback Football history.  Ask the coaches and players if they feel "competitively disadvantaged" when they play in Little Rock.

Jesus Christ, some of you fuckers can't comprehend English worth a shit. Nobody said they feel competitively disadvantaged when they play in LR. What he said is, and I fucking QUOTE:

"it will prevent our team from a competitive disadvantage of traveling three straight weekends in the most crucial part..."

For fucks sake, if you're going to bitch about something at least be honest with regards to what you're bitching about.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: TexZilla on February 18, 2012, 01:15:53 PM
I'm in the camp that wishes WMS was no longer part of the schedule.  those folks should get with the Cotton Bowl and Tulane Stadium about having a Mexican minor league soccer tour or something.  Shitty stadiums from before the Korean War, at the earliest, do nothing for recruiting.

On the other hand, I think having the A&M game in Cowboys Stadium is a huge recruiting boon, and better than a home and home.  Being able to tell recruits they will get to play in JerryWorld every year is a big plus.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 18, 2012, 01:32:19 PM
Jesus Christ, some of you frickers can't comprehend English worth a aMm. Nobody said they feel competitively disadvantaged when they play in LR. What he said is, and I fricking QUOTE:

"it will prevent our team from a competitive disadvantage of traveling three straight weekends in the most crucial part..."

For fricks sake, if you're going to bitch about something at least be honest with regards to what you're bitching about.
Funny that it wasn't a 'competitive disadvantage' in '98, '00 or '08 when we had 2 road games prior to LSU in LR and beat the Corndogs every time (only other time it happened was '96 and we lost to LSU in LR then). Just say the truth: it's so we can get 20k more at one of our biggest games and we could bring in recruits to campus if necessary. Any other reason is BS.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: shithead on February 18, 2012, 01:58:15 PM
Funny that it wasn't a 'competitive disadvantage' in '98, '00 or '08 when we had 2 road games prior to LSU in LR and beat the Corndogs every time (only other time it happened was '96 and we lost to LSU in LR then). Just say the truth: it's so we can get 20k more at one of our biggest games and we could bring in recruits to campus if necessary. Any other reason is BS.

1) I wasn't arguing the veracity of Long's position. I was pointing out that the previous poster completely misrepresented Long's position. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) Regarding Long's quote, I would argue that it IS a competitive disadvantage for us. We just happened to overcome it. You can't tell me LSU does not have an inherent advantage when the UA is traveling 3 weeks straight.







And the extra 20,000 seats doesn't hurt, either.

 ;D
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Phat_Hawg on February 18, 2012, 07:15:32 PM
I still have my doubts about a sellout the day after thanksgiving.  They ought to keep it on Saturday.

Yeah, no way a possible match-up of top 5 teams sellout.  Only LSU has the type of quality program to consistently sell-out a day after Thanksgiving game. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Sweet River Baines on February 18, 2012, 07:55:35 PM
Yeah, no way a possible match-up of top 5 teams sellout.  Only LSU has the type of quality program to consistently sell-out a day after Thanksgiving game.

The USC-e game between two top 10 teams last season wasn't a sell-out.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 18, 2012, 08:36:20 PM
Yeah, no way a possible match-up of top 5 teams sellout.  Only LSU has the type of quality program to consistently sell-out a day after Thanksgiving game.
Sure a top 5 matchup that late in the season is an easy sell.  Now if we would happen to lose to (God forbid), Bama and USC-e, then it will be a little harder to fill up the place. The Bama game, with ESPiN Gameday in town, will still have a larger crowd.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Phat_Hawg on February 18, 2012, 11:06:00 PM
The USC-e game between two top 10 teams last season wasn't a sell-out.

That's what I'm saying, we suck as a program.  We seriously need to lower expectations around here.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: cooter on February 19, 2012, 12:07:49 AM
That's what I'm saying, we suck as a program.  We seriously need to lower expectations around here.

Bazinga??
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pumpkin Escobar on February 19, 2012, 12:31:52 AM
That's what I'm saying, we suck as a program.  We seriously need to lower expectations around here.
 

I get the feeling that some would be ok if we moved to the Big East and played all our home games at Waste Management.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Sliver72 on February 19, 2012, 08:31:42 AM
 

I get the feeling that some would be ok if we moved to the Big East and played all our home games at Waste Management.
What is this "big east" that you speak of and do we have an invite to join?
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 19, 2012, 09:07:21 AM
That's what I'm saying, we suck as a program.  We seriously need to lower expectations around here.
We've been nationally relevant as a program into November 4 times in the last 30+ years. We've never won the SEC and we haven't beaten Bama in the last 5 games. So yeah, to most of the country we do suck as a program.

Can we change that perception? Sure. Can we run the table this year and have that 1 magical season like Auburn did in '10? It could happen. Realisticly, we could also go 9-3 this year.

High expectations are great. I understand the team and fans must have them. Just because someone points out what is realistic doesn't mean they don't have the same aspirations as the idiots who think 100% that we are gonna go 14-0 this year.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: flash23 on February 19, 2012, 10:28:37 AM
We TRIED to schedule a game with Boise. They didn't want any part of us.
Got a source a link for that? Not that I don't believe you, but my girlfriend's grandpa is a huge Boise fan and likes to talk shit a lot. He thinks they'd walk through the SEC easily.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Mike Slive on February 19, 2012, 10:48:50 AM
Got a source a link for that? Not that I don't believe you, but my girlfriend's grandpa is a huge Boise fan and likes to talk aMm a lot. He thinks they'd walk through the SEC easily.

Your girlfriend's grandpa is a rutard? That sucks dude.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Pumpkin Escobar on February 19, 2012, 01:11:06 PM
What is this "big east" that you speak of and do we have an invite to join?
   

Only the most awesome conference evah. We could only wish for an invite cause we're lil ole arkysaw.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: flash23 on February 19, 2012, 01:32:43 PM
Your girlfriend's grandpa is a rutard? That sucks dude.
It sure does. He hangs his hat on the Virginia Texh, Georgia, and Arizona State wins and polished them up like they just won a championship.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hardpork on February 19, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
Texas A&M to host Arkansas in 2012


The Texas A&M Aggies will host the Arkansas Razorbacks in 2012, A&M athletics director Bill Byrne said on Saturday.

The schools will meet at Kyle Field on Sept. 29, 2012 and then play at Arkansas in 2013. In 2014, the game will return to Cowboys Stadium in Arlington.

Arkansas and Texas A&M first met at Cowboys Stadium in 2009 in a series that was dubbed the “Southwest Classic.” The Razorbacks won all three games: 47-19 (2009), 24-17 (2010) and 42-38 (2011).

The two teams signed a 10-year contract to play the game in Arlington when Texas A&M was still a member of the Texas League. With the Aggies entering the SEC in 2012, they wanted to move the game back to the campuses.

Arkansas opens the 2012 season on Sept. 1 at home against Jacksonville State while Texas A&M travels to face Louisiana Tech in Shreveport on Aug. 30.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/02/texas-am-host-arkansas-2012/
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: uagrad89 on February 19, 2012, 11:31:09 PM
We TRIED to schedule a game with Boise. They didn't want any part of us.

Link???
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: ArkGuy on February 20, 2012, 12:29:45 AM
We've been nationally relevant as a program into November 4 times in the last 30+ years. We've never won the SEC and we haven't beaten Bama in the last 5 games. So yeah, to most of the country we do suck as a program.

...

Let's see, even assuming being ranked in November with two loses is not "nationally releveant" (1981, '87), this is within the last 30 seasons (1982-2011:

2011 - 10-1 going into LSU
2010 - BCS Bowl
2006 - beat Fla in Dec. and maybe play in NC game, definitely BCS
1998 - Undefeated entering November
1989 - 10-1 regular season, Top Ten ranking in November
1988 - Undefeated prior to November 26
1986 - Ranked #10 and 7-1 on November 7
1985 - 10-2, never ranked worse than #14 ANY week of the season, was 8-1 and #9 on Nov. 16
1982 - 8-1 and #9 going into Nov. 13 infamous tie with #2 SMU

If "30+" includes 35 years, then '77, '78, and '79 have to be included (30 wins).
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hardpork on February 20, 2012, 10:26:39 AM
Maybe he meant in the National Championship hunt.  We've been there in November four times in the last 30 years.
1988, 1998, 2006, 2011
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Ty Webb on February 20, 2012, 10:45:40 AM
Maybe he meant in the National Championship hunt.  We've been there in November four times in the last 30 years.
1988, 1998, 2006, 2011
Thanks. That is what I meant but obviously didn't post correctly.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: sooie on February 21, 2012, 01:23:39 PM
Well, at least we'll get back to Dallas in a few years...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59507/texas-am-gets-arkansas-at-home-in-2012

Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Count Porkula on February 21, 2012, 01:37:43 PM
Well, at least we'll get back to Dallas in a few years...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59507/texas-am-gets-arkansas-at-home-in-2012

so that pretty much assures us going to one game in LR each year or none after 2016. 
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Stephen Colboar on February 21, 2012, 01:44:49 PM
Well, at least we'll get back to Dallas in a few years...

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/59507/texas-am-gets-arkansas-at-home-in-2012

We threw them a bone since they got a little screwed with the scheduling this season. If we had been dicks about it, aTm would only have 5 home games on campus.

Surely, we can have another GSD branch off this now.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Hardpork on February 21, 2012, 07:25:53 PM
Texas A&M to host Arkansas in 2012


The Texas A&M Aggies will host the Arkansas Razorbacks in 2012, A&M athletics director Bill Byrne said on Saturday.

The schools will meet at Kyle Field on Sept. 29, 2012 and then play at Arkansas in 2013. In 2014, the game will return to Cowboys Stadium in Arlington.

Arkansas and Texas A&M first met at Cowboys Stadium in 2009 in a series that was dubbed the “Southwest Classic.” The Razorbacks won all three games: 47-19 (2009), 24-17 (2010) and 42-38 (2011).

The two teams signed a 10-year contract to play the game in Arlington when Texas A&M was still a member of the Texas League. With the Aggies entering the SEC in 2012, they wanted to move the game back to the campuses.

Arkansas opens the 2012 season on Sept. 1 at home against Jacksonville State while Texas A&M travels to face Louisiana Tech in Shreveport on Aug. 30.

http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/02/texas-am-host-arkansas-2012/

A&M needed the home game or they would've been left with only 5.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: FayettenamHog on February 21, 2012, 08:14:13 PM
A&M needed the home game or they would've been left with only 5.

That's their fault for scheduling games in Shreveport and SMU's rinky dink stadium.
Title: Re: A Possible Non-conference Football Foe
Post by: Stephen Colboar on February 22, 2012, 10:41:18 AM
That's their fault for scheduling games in Shreveport and SMU's rinky dink stadium.

That's a La Tech home game.