From SaturdayDownSouth:

10. SEPT. 3 — SOUTH CAROLINA VS. NORTH CAROLINA (CHARLOTTE, N.C.)
9. SEPT. 5 — WESTERN KENTUCKY AT VANDERBILT
8. SEPT. 5 — NO. 3 ALABAMA VS. NO. 20 WISCONSIN (ARLINGTON, TEXAS)
7. SEPT. 12 — NO. 19 OKLAHOMA AT NO. 25 TENNESSEE
6. SEPT. 5 — TEXAS A&M VS. NO. 15 ARIZONA STATE (HOUSTON, TEXAS)
5. NOV. 28 — NO. 9 GEORGIA AT NO. 16 GEORGIA TECH
4. OCT. 31 — VANDERBILT AT HOUSTON
3. NOV. 28 — NO. 12 CLEMSON AT SOUTH CAROLINA
2. NOV. 28 — LOUISVILLE AT KENTUCKY
1. NOV. 28 — NO. 10 FLORIDA STATE AT FLORIDA

When Western Kentucky makes your list of 10 toughest non-conference games, that really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it.

LOL at the fact that they rated that game tougher than the UNC game, though.

Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

Ha! Must be #11... these guys aren't the sharpest.

(08-26-2015 01:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From SaturdayDownSouth:

10. SEPT. 3 — SOUTH CAROLINA VS. NORTH CAROLINA (CHARLOTTE, N.C.)
9. SEPT. 5 — WESTERN KENTUCKY AT VANDERBILT
8. SEPT. 5 — NO. 3 ALABAMA VS. NO. 20 WISCONSIN (ARLINGTON, TEXAS)
7. SEPT. 12 — NO. 19 OKLAHOMA AT NO. 25 TENNESSEE
6. SEPT. 5 — TEXAS A&M VS. NO. 15 ARIZONA STATE (HOUSTON, TEXAS)
5. NOV. 28 — NO. 9 GEORGIA AT NO. 16 GEORGIA TECH
4. OCT. 31 — VANDERBILT AT HOUSTON
3. NOV. 28 — NO. 12 CLEMSON AT SOUTH CAROLINA
2. NOV. 28 — LOUISVILLE AT KENTUCKY
1. NOV. 28 — NO. 10 FLORIDA STATE AT FLORIDA

When Western Kentucky makes your list of 10 toughest non-conference games, that really tells you all you need to know, doesn't it.

LOL at the fact that they rated that game tougher than the UNC game, though.

WKU isn't a joke. They will roll Vandy.

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

L.S.U. vs Syracuse will be more of a game than a couple of those. And I agree about Auburn vs Louisville. All first games of the season are more difficult than they might otherwise be if played later. Also missing is Missouri vs B.Y.U..

(08-26-2015 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

L.S.U. vs Syracuse will be more of a game than a couple of those. And I agree about Auburn vs Louisville. All first games of the season are more difficult than they might otherwise be if played later. Also missing is Missouri vs B.Y.U..

I think we will find out a lot about our teams in that game.

(08-26-2015 10:50 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

L.S.U. vs Syracuse will be more of a game than a couple of those. And I agree about Auburn vs Louisville. All first games of the season are more difficult than they might otherwise be if played later. Also missing is Missouri vs B.Y.U..

I think we will find out a lot about our teams in that game.

Yep, at Auburn we'll find out if there is going to be an improvement defensively. That will be the key to the whole season for the Tigers. At Louisville we'll find out if the new QB settles in and runs Petrino's offense effectively.

(08-26-2015 06:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

Ha! Must be #11... these guys aren't the sharpest.

When talking about education levels, is the SEC the worst of all the major conferences in terms of their footprint? If not, they'd be a close second to the Big 12, no?

(08-26-2015 11:06 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:18 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 06:01 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Where's the Louisville vs Auburn game?

Ha! Must be #11... these guys aren't the sharpest.

When talking about education levels, is the SEC the worst of all the major conferences in terms of their footprint? If not, they'd be a close second to the Big 12, no?

Just having Mississippi and Tennessee sets them back quite a bit... but then, the Big XII has West Virginia, so... nah, it's the SEC.

I don't really think of Alabama or Arkansas, or even Louisiana, honestly, as bastions of education.

JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

I find it disingenuous to criticize another conference's OOC slate when you have conference mates like UNC and BC each playing two weak FCS teams and NC State's "Cupcakes R' Us" OOC.

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

I have absolutely no problem with schools having majors geared toward the needs of their athletes. I think more schools should have them. If one of the purposes of an education is to prepare students for a career, why shouldn't it be for a career they actually want, and are capable of succeeding at?

(08-27-2015 08:22 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't really think of Alabama or Arkansas, or even Louisiana, honestly, as bastions of education.

You can throw Florida in there as well.

(08-27-2015 12:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:22 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't really think of Alabama or Arkansas, or even Louisiana, honestly, as bastions of education.

You can throw Florida in there as well.

I thought about that. The main difference for me was Florida's large metros. While the education may not be great, these cities at least attract educated persons. There aren't many of those to attract folks in much of SEC (and Big 12) land. It's the same reason I didn't include Georgia, even though outside of Atlanta education levels plummet.

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

No. The class actually exists, has a real professor, and it meets. Three points very different from U.N.C.. That's the difference between a crip course and fraud.

(08-27-2015 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

No. The class actually exists, has a real professor, and it meets. Three points very different from U.N.C.. That's the difference between a crip course and fraud.

Yeah there isn't a correlation between this & NC. Having a close family friend recently graduate from Auburn veterinary program they have excellent academics.

(08-27-2015 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

No. The class actually exists, has a real professor, and it meets. Three points very different from U.N.C.. That's the difference between a crip course and fraud.

Just messing with you, J.R. I'm not even sure I see a problem with this... but it IS funny - kind of like scheduling a bunch of cupcakes OOC, only in an academic sense.

(08-27-2015 08:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

No. The class actually exists, has a real professor, and it meets. Three points very different from U.N.C.. That's the difference between a crip course and fraud.

Just messing with you, J.R. I'm not even sure I see a problem with this... but it IS funny - kind of like scheduling a bunch of cupcakes OOC, only in an academic sense.

I didn't know Louisville was a cupcake.

(08-27-2015 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 08:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR will love this:

Quote:Auburn University academic officials voted to eliminate an undergraduate major with relatively low enrollment before facing opposition from the school's athletic department, then reversed course and opted to keep the program, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Auburn athletics officials lobbied the school's provost, Timothy Boosinger, to ensure the undergraduate major of public administration would be maintained, according to the Journal, which cites documents including emails from athletic department officials. The athletic department even offered to subsidize the program, which was rebuffed, and the school ultimately kept the major.

From: http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ppose.html

So basically Auburn has a major that nobody takes but athletes... the academic side wants to drop it... the athletic dept. wants to keep it.

UNC 2.0 ?

No. The class actually exists, has a real professor, and it meets. Three points very different from U.N.C.. That's the difference between a crip course and fraud.

Just messing with you, J.R. I'm not even sure I see a problem with this... but it IS funny - kind of like scheduling a bunch of cupcakes OOC, only in an academic sense.

I didn't know Louisville was a cupcake.

They're not (but you'll find that out soon enough).
The SEC teams playing an all-cupcake* OOC schedule are:

Ole Miss (UT Martin, Fresno St, New Mexico St, Memphis)
Miss. St (So. Miss, N'Western St, Troy, La. Tech)
Missouri (SE Missouri St, Arkansas St, UConn, BYU)
Vandy (W. Ky, Austin Peay, MTSU, Houston)

* defined as no P5 opponents