2011 schedule

[LDopaPDX]

I know we play out-of-conference against Washington, but beyond that, I think we're still needing two more games... I'm sure we'll try for something like Eastern Oregon but another FCS team would be nice. It sounds like Dayton and Jacksonville would be looking to solidify their schedule against someone like us. Could we add someone like them for a home-home arrangment.

Does anyone know how our schedule is coming together for next year. Ideally, we get a team like Willamette or Rocky Mountain or even Montana State-Northern to give us a warm-up before heading to play UW in Seattle. After that, I'd love some no-name FCS team on the sked just to assure us an FCS win.

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

We only have one spot left to fill. We play UW to open the season (no open week before), and Cal Poly near the end of the year. Hopefully we can schedule another FCS team, but we'll likely end up with a WOU or Montana-Western. :evil:

2011 EWU Tentative Schedule
9/3 - at Washington
9/10 - TBA
9/17 - at Montana
9/24 - Montana State
10/1 - Weber State
10/8 - at Northern Arizona
10/15 - Northern Colorado
10/22 - at Sacramento State
10/29 - Portland State
11/5 - Bye
11/12 - at Cal Poly
11/19 - at Idaho State

 

[EWURanger]

Let's get UC-Davis, SUU, or UND on the schedule for the last remaining slot. DII's are kind of a lose/lose if you ask me, because not only will the committee not count it as a win, but if it's a CWU you have just as much a chance of beating a lower level FCS school.

FBS schools can count one FCS win a year towards bowl eligibility, so it's actually much different when we "play down".........incentive just isn't there.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Any news on this? I heard a rumor that we're trying lock up NAIA Eastern Oregon for one of the bye weeks or possibly the week before UW. Anything to report?

I looked online to see what EOU had for openings, but couldn't find a schedule anywhere online. Obviously, we're looking for an FCS-or-lower opponent for the 9/0 date or perhaps an 8/28 date if allowed.

 

[marceagfan5]

I'm assuming we will play a home game against someone on the 9/10 game as at this point we only have 4 home games and 6 road games. Best Guess is a Division II or NAIA team. I don't see us starting the season, at washington, have an out of conference FCS team, then play at montana and host MSU. We will be tougher than nails next year, but that would be a REALLY tough start. I would think we will play an easier team on 9/10, I know its not what everyone wants, but sometimes you need those games in between huge games.

 

[LDopaPDX]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a glorified scrimmage on 9/10. It's better than going 5 consecutive weeks with the best of our schedule.

 

[EWURanger]

I'm starting to think that if we're just going to play a D-II or NAIA school every year (neither of which counts as a "W" for playoff consideration) we should just schedule another money game instead. Yeah, chances of beating a team that will give you a really good payout are slim to none, but at least those would count as a "W" on the outside chance that we won. Another bonus is the big pay day. I just don't see the merit of playing down at this point. Yeah, it gives you a tune up type game, but usually those games are nothing more than a glorified scrimmage, and hardly gets the team used to the type of competition they are going to see in the BSC and playoffs.

 

[Obzerver]

One plus side of playing down is that is a home game and looks like we only have 4 games at home currently. Also, with so few games at home they should always be when students are in school especially conference games. Doesn't help in building our brand if students aren't around and we all know we need the students to buy in and attend all the games.

 

[LDopaPDX]

I'm starting to think that if we're just going to play a D-II or NAIA school every year (neither of which counts as a "W" for playoff consideration) we should just schedule another money game instead. Yeah, chances of beating a team that will give you a really good payout are slim to none, but at least those would count as a "W" on the outside chance that we won. Another bonus is the big pay day. I just don't see the merit of playing down at this point. Yeah, it gives you a tune up type game, but usually those games are nothing more than a glorified scrimmage, and hardly gets the team used to the type of competition they are going to see in the BSC and playoffs.

You know I normally agree with just about everything you post, Ranger, but you are totally fucking wrong on this one. Do you know what EVERY SINGLE EASTERN PLAYOFF SEASON has in common? We never played more than one FBS-BCS team in the year in which we were playoff bound. Since 2003, we've only missed the playoffs twice... coincidentally, it happened in the two years we scheduled money games against BCS opposition to start the year. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We can predict based on previous years results that we generally make the playoffs in years we play one or no BCS or otherwise FBS opponents. If we play two BCS/FBS opponents, we won't make the playoffs. There is no reason to think that trend would change. You get more beat up playing BCS opoonents and you risk getting homered by laying on the road. Starting a season 0-2 teaches you how to lose and digs yourself into a mighty hole before you even play a winnable game.

No coach in the country advises learning to win against teams that are tough to beat. Ideally, we could have a weak-ass FCS team come play us, but that is unlikely given geographic constraints. That said, let's gety someone we know we can beat so we can work out the kinks against a lower-class opponent that won't cause much of an injury risk and give us a game where we can work through our rotation.

To summarize, the two FBS/BCS game option is a terrible one that should be avoided at ANY cost. In the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE BIG SKY CONFERENCE, only one team ever played two FBS teams in the same season and advanced to the playoffs, and that was Weber State in 2009 who were promptly destroyed in the 1st round.

 

[RockTheRed]

I can see both sides here - but the thing that keeps me from definitively siding one way or the other is the simple unknown.

I think you should start this conversation back up after we know, without a doubt, that Baldwin and Co. will be back to coach our guys next year. If he goes and takes half his staff with him - I say play down. If he stays - play the $$ game. If he goes and doesn't take staff with him (takes OC job somewhere) and a new coach keeps most, if not all of our staff - then I'm a forced "MAYBE" play $$ game.

The players are reslient, tough and the defense, after losing seniors will still be tough. The "new guys" to the O-Line next year - well, until we see it, we don't know what that's going to look like for the QB. He certainly needs the time our O-Line gave him. If there are seemingly no changes and we are again "blessed" with our linemen, then we're golden there too.

For the sake of argument - if "the" new coach is currently on our staff, does he keep the staff Baldwin doesn't take with him? Does he keep the entire staff if Baldwin takes none? If he brings in new staff - none of us can say how the players will respond to their new position coaches. Unknown.

I know in another thread someone brought up the mention of Baldwin perhaps jumping bigtime, and some think it's not even a remote possibility given the fact that most of this team will be back. IMO - if the guys win this - he'll go. On sportcenter a week ago, they did a report on the "trend" of universities, NFL - going with "younger" coaches. If his aspirations are to climb - he HAS to get out now if there's an opportunity. Put yourself in his shoes. There's no real KNOWN factor next year. You can't say because we have the team we have that we WILL WIN IT ALL again. sh*t happens.

For me - there's too many unknowns at this point to comment on schedule for 2011. Much as I want to, I'm trying to wait this one out. I do think he'll go given the chance. It's business. That much is KNOWN.

 

[marceagfan5]

2 reasons why we need to schedule an easier game next year during one of the off weeks.

1.) We only have 4 home games on the schedule right now. I don't see us finding another FCS school to come here and play earlier in the year, I would love to see an FCS team scheduled, but the odds of this happening are slim. If we play an FBS school it will be on the road. If we want to promote and grow the program, playing 4 home games and 7 road games a year after we made it to the NC is crazy. We need to have a 5th home game next year and the only way we can do it is by getting a lower division opponent. They have an emphasis on trying to sell season tickets next year based on the the success this year, I don't think they will have a lot of buyers for 4 home games next year....

2.) We can't start the season at Washington, at another FBS school, and then at Montana. That is a crazy start, we should be better than the Griz next year, but if we play 2 FBS schools right before that game it will effect our team come conference time, especially right away. We don't want to have 3 really tough road games and then host the co-big sky champs in MSU for our first home game. Next years schedule is really tough right now as it is, we don't need to make it any tougher.

We will have a hell of a team next year and should be ranked in the top 3 preseason. We don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot early on in the year. Just my 2 cents...

 

[EWURanger]

I agree that we will probably schedule a D-II next year to fill in that 5th home game spot. In a year where there's only 4 home games scheduled, we don't have too many options - we need that 5th home game. So it's really a non-issue for next year.

In 2012 we play both WSU and Idaho, and I am assuming no D-II's considering that's the year that we play a full conference slate in the "new" Big Sky. So the question is, would you all rather see us get a home game against Central, etc. instead of going to Idaho to play in the Kibbie Dome? The pro's are that it's a winnable game, (we won there the last time we went) that would count towards the 7 win requirement for the playoffs. The con's are that the pay-out wouldn't be big.

I guess I was thinking about the 2012 schedule when I made those comments. If you're going to play 2 FBS, I would rather us play BCS schools that will offer bigger pay-outs, because it's most likely a loss anyway, even against Idaho.

 

[GoEags]

You know what I don't see is another "Home" game in Seattle at Qwest Stadium. Is that a possibility or not? I think they have been relatively happy with attendance and we have won both of them. Believe me, I would MUCH rather have the Eagles play at the Inferno then over in Seattle. Especially with that brutal start of the season.....again....I mean really, can we move the Montana game to the end of September or October??? Let the teams gain some momentum and have a date circled on your calendar that we can look forward to for a while....

BTW, if we only have four home games next season - I think you are right in saying that Season tix will be hard to sell. How can we go from playing in the National Championship game to playing 7 road games. ESPN2 to BigSkyTV on the web is a bit of a change....not a knock against the Deuce, but BigSkyTV really puts on quite a production - what with no sound half the game and the jerky video, it's priceless!! :lol:

 

[LDopaPDX]

The UW game is at Qwest next year, although it will be a home game for the Dawgs.

 

[93bird]

You guys realize that there's this little team named the Montana Grizzlies which missed the playoffs this year probably because they played down. The 72-3 beatdown they gave Western State may just as well have counted as a loss. So while playing two FBS teams is difficult, two losses against them is preferable in my opinion to a loss against one, and a win against a lower division team. The opening will be filled with an FCS team.

 

[LDopaPDX]

You are completely missing the message from the Grizzlies... The real message isn't that beating a D2 team means nothing, it's that going 7-4 in the Big Sky isn't going to get you a playoff bid. In other words, had they played Iowa instead of Western State, they'd have been 6-5 and not even in consideration (which is what happened to us in 2008 when we were probably the best 6-5 team in the country but had two narrow losses to BCS teams... change those outcomes to wins over D2 teams, and we'd have been playoff bound). As it was, Montana would have gotten a bye in the first round and an opening round home game if they onl;y beat Montana State in the last game of the year.

People need to get over this issue of records against D2 or BCS clubs... the only issue is the TOTAL record. 8-3 in the Big Sky is ALWAYS going to get you in (only once has it not, and that was Idaho State in 2001- I believe) and 7-4 is ALWAYS going to make you stay home come playoff time (only once has 7 wins been good enough, and that was 2009 with Weber State). Take away the two outliers, the obvious thing to take away is that we MUST win 8 wins every year tyo make the playoffs. The most important scheduling element is to ensure we get to those 8+ wins.

 

[marceagfan5]

I couldn't agree more with what Dopa said. Two FBS teams in one year does us no good except getting paid. The grizzlies season had nothing to do with their win over Western State. If the griz pull out one more FCS win and they are in this year and probably hosting a game. Look at all of the typical FCS contenders and how they schedule, of the final 4 teams this year only EWU and GSU played an FBS team. You typically don't see 2 FBS schools on their slate and most schedule at least one lower opponent. To add on, if we take away our normal "drop down" game for another FBS game, we lose that home game for an away game every year.

Its a different story if we can schedule another FCS out of conference game, but it seems we can only get 1 of those a year and with the expanding big sky in 2 years who knows how that will play out anymore as our typical non conference FCS opponents (SUU, Cal Poly, Cal Davis) are joining the Big Sky.

At this point in time....my mind is only focused on one 2011 game and that is next friday! Go Eags!

 

[FreeBird]

The UW game is at Qwest next year, although it will be a home game for the Dawgs.

The UW game will be at Husky Stadium. The renovation does not begin until the end of October.

 

[93bird]

Eastern made the playoffs in 2005 with a 7-4 record, and here's what Montana's AD has to say about why the Griz didn't make the playoffs this year:
O'Day, said, "The main reasons the Griz were not selected for the playoffs":

1). UM had only six Division I wins. The victory against Division II Western State College of Colorado did not count in the final information provided to committee members.

 

[LDopaPDX]

The UW game is at Qwest next year, although it will be a home game for the Dawgs.

The UW game will be at Husky Stadium. The renovation does not begin until the end of October.

My bad, you are correct. Still a Seattle game, though.