Matt Baker: “Now we have to watch State go to a bowl game with that cupcake schedule”

Matt Baker, who won’t get to face James Madison at Kenan Stadium next year.

“It’s tough. We knew it was going to be a tough road after we let the Maryland game slip away…It’s tough to not go to a bowl game. We had a tough schedule. Maybe if we get a I-AA school or NC State’s schedule, we’d probably go to a bowl game. Now we have to watch them go to a bowl game with that cupcake schedule they played. But there are no regrets about who we played.”

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

General NCS Football

36 Responses to Matt Baker: “Now we have to watch State go to a bowl game with that cupcake schedule”

  1. Jeff 11/27/2005 at 10:36 AM #

    LOL! Can’t you tell how few regrets that they have?

  2. Jeff 11/27/2005 at 11:29 AM #

    If only State could have played Duke the last 2 years. Think that we would have missed that bowl last year?

  3. Steve 11/27/2005 at 2:33 PM #

    Why is this Baker kid so obsessed with the Pack?

  4. TVP 11/27/2005 at 2:44 PM #

    This is the kind of attitude that the Belly is cultivating over on the Hill. Be happy with mediocre results by claiming the moral high ground. Ned Barnett’s tripe in the N and O this morning is a perfect example of how he’s snowed a lot of the media and fans.

    I guess this is easier for Baker than blaming your own wide receivers who constantly drop passes.

  5. Andy 11/27/2005 at 5:50 PM #

    The Barnett column this morning was amusing. My favorite part is when the columnists/reporters cite UNC’s problems in the third quarter and attribute that to bad luck. That, my friends, is POOR coaching!!

    Give the Belly another contract extension, please!!

    As for Baker – the last time Furman walked into Kenan it wasn’t pretty – for UNC that is.

  6. Danny 11/27/2005 at 6:23 PM #

    Truth hurts doesn’t it?

  7. Jay 11/27/2005 at 6:48 PM #

    MTSU, Eastern Kentucky, Southern Miss


    Wisconsin, Utah, Louisville

    I think Mr. Baker has a point, though it’s certainly not the Pack players’ fault.

  8. Eddie 11/27/2005 at 7:09 PM #



    Wisky, Utah, Louisville

    UNC beat Utah. So if we traded OOC schedules, UNC beats EKY, probably beats MTSU, and USM is absolutely NOT a gimme for them.

    But, here is the rub: If we traded complete schedules, then UNC would have to play:

    Instead of who they actually played:

    These are the differences in our ACC schedules.
    Okay, Wake murdered Duke. UNC barely beat Duke, so I’d say trading Wake for Duke is a loss for UNC. That cancels out one of our “easy” OOC wins.
    Clemson is better than UVA. UNC beat UVA 7-5. So I’d say Clemson hammers UNC. That erases another “easy” OOC win.

    Trading FSU for Miami still results in a UNC loss, so that’s a wash.

    That leaves the question mark of whether they could beat USM. That would be the difference in our schedules if we traded.
    We’re talking about one game, really.

    One thing I would guarantee…..NC State would NOT lose to Louisville by 55 points. We would have been competitive against all 3 of UNC’s OOC opponents.

    So go cry, Matt. But there’s no guarantee that if we switched schedules, UNC would not be home for the holidays this year.
    If we traded schedules, UNC might pick up 2 OOC wins, but will lose 2 more in the ACC.
    Got to look at the whole picture.

  9. Jeff 11/27/2005 at 7:48 PM #

    Thank you SO MUCH, Eddie!! You nailed it. Thanks for sharing such insightful thoughts on the blog.

  10. J.R. 11/27/2005 at 8:59 PM #

    I am a Wolfpacker, and I was very close to agreeing with Baker. However, Eddie straight up convinced me otherwise. Homie must be a debate champion. Nice work.

  11. Chris 11/27/2005 at 10:36 PM #

    I have one question for Baker. Would you like some cheese with that wine? Sure State played an easy OCC schedule but the bottom line is we’re 6-5. A win is a win. It doesn’t matter if you beat Weber State or USC, it counts as a win. If Carolina would like to avoid being stuck in Chapel Hell for the bowl season then they should play teams they can beat. The only thing sweeter than State goin to a bowl is when we go and Carolina doesn’t. All is right in the world.

  12. Mr. O 11/28/2005 at 8:10 AM #

    Tough OOC schedules simply don’t make sense in this day and age. Bunting and Baddour are complete idiots for playing the schedule the have played. Or maybe they are trying to get Bunting fired? Bunting keeps messing that up by doing better than what people expect from him. The improvement on their defense this year was amazing.

  13. Trout 11/28/2005 at 9:39 AM #

    Since the OOC schedule is such a topic of discussion, here are the TOTAL SOS of the ACC teams: (using Sagarin ratings)

    UNC – 8
    GT – 13
    Maryland – 17
    BC – 23
    Wake – 26
    VT – 32
    Miami – 33
    NC State – 35
    Duke 40
    Clemson – 41
    UVA -44
    FSU -56

  14. Jeff 11/28/2005 at 10:15 AM #

    Thanks, Trout! How do the overall SOS look?

  15. Trout 11/28/2005 at 10:21 AM #

    ^ That is OVERALL SOS, not OOC SOS.

  16. BJD95 11/28/2005 at 10:33 AM #

    It would be good for the game if the system rewarded (or at least didn’t punish) schedules like UNC’s. But it doesn’t.

    Of course, I still think a BALANCED scheduling approach (meaning in between UNC and NC State’s non-conference slates) makes sense, unless your primary objective is to maintain lower tier bowl eligibility at all costs. To me, that’s simply a loser’s mentality.

  17. Jeff 11/28/2005 at 12:52 PM #

    ^ DING! DING! DING!!!

    It would be great for the game for scheduling to be a bigger part of the assessment and ranking of teams. But, that will never happen as long as subjective human’s control the rankings.

    Whether it is fair or approrpriate….it is reality. So, anyone stupid enough to schedule like UNC has recently scheduled deserves whatever they get. It’s not our fault that they can’t understand how the system works.

  18. Trout 11/28/2005 at 1:26 PM #

    “It’s not our fault that they can’t understand how the system works.”

    That almost sounds like you think Lee Fowler (or Amato) does understand how the system works.

  19. BJD95 11/28/2005 at 1:39 PM #

    Fowler and Amato are taking it to the extreme position – schedule nobody, to disguise mediocre to terrible performances. That’s still stupid (AND bad for the game), and will turn off the fans, regardless of what piddly bowls keep a post-season streak intact.

  20. Trout 11/28/2005 at 2:34 PM #

    Not sure if code works here, but a good look at 2006 OOC’s for the ACC teams:

  21. Jeff 11/28/2005 at 3:16 PM #

    ^ Trout…what is that URL?

    Thought that you guys would love Ron Green, Jr’s Baby Blue perspective in today’s Charlotte Observer.

    Against a schedule rated among the five toughest in the country, the Tar Heels had no margin for error.

    No offense…but that is just HORRIBLE journalism. Whatever happened to who? what? when? where? why? how?

    Who ranked Carolina among the five toughtest schedules in the country.

    When was this ranking? Was it projected rankings at the beginning of the season or actual rankings today? Not a one of the six different computer models that I have seen have ranked Carolina’s schedule as one of the 5 toughest.

    How was the ranking made? By a subjective person or by a computer?

  22. Jim 11/28/2005 at 3:42 PM #

    Everyone should also remember that VT and Louisville were originally on our OCC slate this year. VT joined the conference (obviously) and Louisville backed out on us (? actually I think they just put their game off to a later year). So our OCC this year was not our first choice.

    Further, you can’t put too much emphasis on Duke being on UNC’s schedule every year. We are in the middle of missing them for 4 straight years.

    Interestingly, UNC-CH and State’s bowl fate came down to the exact same opponent (Maryland), with both games at home. They had their shot to become eligible agianst Maryland at home and lost (blew a late lead IIRC) and we had our shot to become eligible and won. What are the chances of that?

    This garbage from Baker comes straight from Bunting.

  23. Trout 11/28/2005 at 3:47 PM #


    Send me an email at my work address

  24. Jim 11/28/2005 at 3:50 PM #

    Also, Last year we played an outrageously tough schedule (4 out of the preseason top 5 — with Oklahoma being the only top 5 preseason team we didn’t play).

    We went 5-6 but I don’t recall our players or fans whining about some other team going to a low bowl. What kind of mentality does it take to think that way?

  25. smile 11/28/2005 at 5:43 PM #

    Eddie’s comment is silly, not insightful, with it’s tortured logic. “Okay, Wake murdered Duke. UNC barely beat Duke, so I’d say trading Wake for Duke is a loss for UNC. That cancels out one of our “easyâ€? OOC wins.” OK. So it follows….UNC dominated NCSU; NCSU beat FSU so UNC beats FSU. Right? Of course not. Let’s not let emotional “want it to be” to cloud thoughtful analysis. We can’t pretend that UNC didn’t have one of the toughest schedules in America, or that NCSU’s OOC was weak.

Leave a Reply