Saturday, November 18, 2006

Vanderbilt Football 2007-2008

9/8/2007 ALABAMA TBA
9/15/2007 OLE MISS TBA
10/6/2007 @Auburn TBA
10/13/2007 GEORGIA TBA
10/20/2007 at South Carolina TBA
10/27/2007 KENT STATE TBA
11/3/2007 at Florida TBA
11/10/2007 KENTUCKY TBA
11/17/2007 at Tennessee TBA
11/24/2007 WAKE FOREST TBA


Seamus O'Toole said...

Note: The Wake Forest matchup will be the first in a seven-game series starting next year. Personally, I would prefer scheduling a Stanford or a Northwestern to Wake Forest, but I do agree with the spirit of playing similar schools--small, private, major conference--as opposed to the I-AA Richmonds of the world. Keeping one I-AA, in-state school on the schedule is fine. Any more than that I'm skeptical about.

Bobby O'Shea said...

Wake and Richmond are both tough games. Coming off such a successful season however, Wake is a strong(ish) out of conference game. Richmond, on the other hand, is not. Richmond is a solid I-AA program. A win for Vanderbilt is unimpressive and a loss is a loss to a I-AA school.

Unlike Papa O'Shea, I do not think Vanderbilt should schedule games like Middle Tennessee State. With that said, I agree with RWilliams that we should probably add another game against a school with a similar make-up like Stanford or Northwestern, instead of a I-AA team, especially one as strong as Richmond. UVA and Navy could also be in that discussion. A game like that, especially on a Thursday or Friday night has a compelling story line built in for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, or CSTV. Such a game would allow smaller private schools in big-time divisions to be showcased on a national state, thereby helping their recruiting and the overall conferences relative strength. Not to mention, there would seem to be a natural rivalry between such institutions.

Stanimal said...

I'm in complete agreement on that point. When you play tough games all season long in the SEC, I do think it's good to have one game against a I-AA opponent, but it should certainly be a quality I-AA opponent or an in-state school. Further to that point, I think that game should be scheduled early in the year, either as your first game, or immediately after a difficult scheduled first game. You utilize the real game experience to see how players will react when exposed to the pressure of game time, particularly your young guys. But to schedule anything with a I-AA school or a joke school anywhere deeper than halfway through is ludicrous (yeah, that one's for you Florida).

Stanimal said...

Since O'Shea and I posted at the same time, I want to clarify my point by saying that it was in reference to RWilliams post.

On that note, I do see O'Shea's point regarding scheduling another program in a similar situation to Vanderbilt. I also agree that the national attention might be a bigger draw.

But, there are a few things to keep in mind here. First there are a limited number of teams that are similar to Vandy, and often those teams choose to schedule games of this sort within their specific regions. I'm not sure that Stanford would find it worthwhile to travel to Nashville to play us, or whether it would be worthwhile for us to travel to play them. There typically has to be some sort of draw to play an out of conference game, and the further apart the schools, the less they are willing to work with it logistically. Second, I don't believe we are at the stage where we can start scheduling so called easy I-A teams because our program is not at the level where those games are guaranteed successes. I adamantly believe that coaches need one game to see how their players react during the real deal as opposed to practice. Scheduling the Wake Forest game, particularly late in the season, is excellent because that is the kind of game that we should be playing. But let's not throw the boys into the fire too soon by scheduling those games which will be tougher than we may think.

Bobby O'Shea said...

Point taken Stanimal, but Richmond is a bad game for two reasons; one, it's a I-AA school; two, it's a good I-AA school that can beat us. If we win, which we should, it will be discounted; if we lose, we are the team that lost to a I-AA team.
We should not get ahead of ourselves however. The key for us, right now, is wins and becoming bowl eligible. The schedule, as is, lends itself to 7 wins. If we can win 7, there is no reason we can't steal another 1 or 2 more. As Wake Forest has shown, winning begets winning.
There is no reason why this team should not be able to win 7 games. In my view, anything short of a bowl next season is unacceptable. Bobby is building/has built (?) a strong foundation with this team. If the building can't get up off the ground however, it might be time to find an architect who can.

Anonymous said...

I cannot say that I agree with you RWilliams about prefering to schedule a Stanford or Northwestern. What benefit does beating a 1-10 Pac 10 team, such as Stanford, have for Vanderbilt? It would be roughly equivalent to beating up on a I-AA school. I personally applauded Vanderbilt's decision to play Michigan this year and relish the opportunity to play Wake Forest, who is coming off a successful season, in the years to come.

rnik555 said...

First off, Richmond would have to play FLAWLESSLY to beat Vandy. We have slaughtered them in past games when we weren't as good as we are now. 2007 is the year for a bowl. Eastern Michigan, Kent State, and Richmond SHOULD be easy wins. Wake Forest loses five 5th year seniors on defense alone. They also lose two key receivers, as well as valuable linemen. Wake will be tough but it too is winnable. I think Vandy needs to schedule a series with Northwestern, Indiana, Illinois, or even Baylor would be nice.

Second, we should offer Bobby Johnson a LIFETIME contract. He is a much better coach than Phil Fulmer or Mike Shula. If we took Bobby Johnson out of the picture we would go back to being a 1 or 2 win team. Vady will cruise to a bowl with at least 7 wins. They've got a shot at 4 non conference wins and could beat Bama, Ole Miss, UK, Georgia, and take a crack at UT.