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

General NCS Football36

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. BJD95 11/28/2005 at 6:23 PM #

    Yes, UNC plays Duke every year, but gets the undisputed two “big dogs” (VT and Miami) every year as well. UVA and GT, too – who are at least on par with the Atlantic Division upper tier (FSU, BC, Clemson).

  2. Eddie 11/28/2005 at 9:14 PM #

    Um, Smile, NC State’s schedule strength was ranked #35 by Sagarin.
    That isn’t a cupcake schedule.
    Texas’ schedule is #34. I don’t see anyone ragging their SOS.

    You have to play who’s in front of you. We can’t help that our OOC was a lot different than what it was supposed to be when originally made.

    But I stand by my comments about the respective schedules. If UNC wants our OOC, then they need to take our ACC schedule, too…which was tougher than theirs.
    Duke………..Wake Wake’s tougher.
    Clemson…….UVA Clemson is tougher
    FSU………….Miami Wash

    I say that UNC goes 0-3 if they played Wake, Clemson and FSU, which adds a loss.
    So add in a win for EKY, and that leaves MT and USM.
    Given the way they played against Wisconsin and Louisville,(their 2 OOC losses) I’d say that means the go 1-1 vs. MT and USM if they play the same way.

    Of course, you really never know, but what I’m saying is certainly not “tortured logic”.
    UNC had an easier ACC schedule than we did, and a tougher OOC.

    What Baker was referring to was our “easy” OOC. That’s fine, but all I’m saying is that if you want our OOC, then you have to take our ACC schedule, too.
    That means UNC gets play away games at:
    BC
    Wake
    FSU

    In addition to home games with:
    Clemson
    Maryland (same as they did already and lost, we beat them)
    VT (they got destroyed at VT, would have been no different at UNC)

    So someone tell me that UNC would be guaranteed a bowl game playing that schedule.

    Still waiting……………

  3. Eddie 11/28/2005 at 9:27 PM #

    ACC SOS per Sagarin:
    UNC 8
    GT 13
    MD 17
    BC 23
    Wake 26
    VT 32
    Miami 33
    NC State 35
    Duke 40
    Clemson 41
    UVA 44
    FSU 56

    FSU had the weakest shedule in the ACC, yet they won their division with only 1 more win than NCSU had.
    Who’s ragging them for playing cupcakes?

    I say that UNC is stupid for playing a schedule that gave them no chance of becoming bowl-eligible.
    I didn’t see UNC fans complaining about cupcakes when Mack Brown was playing them every year.

  4. Danny 11/28/2005 at 10:35 PM #

    Eddie, Why don’t you look at next year’s schedule for every team in the ACC and tell us who is going to win and who is going to lose. That way we don’t have to play the games. In the end this year, both State and UNC had frustrating losses. However, both programs, DID take steps forward this year.

  5. Eddie 11/28/2005 at 11:24 PM #

    Danny, maybe you should try to stay on topic, which is Matt Baker whining about how if UNC had played State’s “weak” schedule, they’d be bowling, too.

    All I’ve done is illustrate how that might not necessarily be the case.

    They have a tougher OOC schedule, which I might add, they didn’t intend for it to be that way, and a bit weaker ACC schedule.

    Bottom line, as I already pointed out, you have to play who’s on your schedule.
    And you have to win 6 games, 7 next year, to be bowl-eligible.

    I don’t see how UNC too much of a step forward this year. State did toward the end, by finding a leader at QB, a good RB, and eliminating penalties.
    UNC has to start over, again, at QB next year. Their defense definitely played better. Their receivers never stopped dropping balls.
    Whatever.
    I like NC State’s starting point going into spring practice after our bowl game over UNC’s by a long shot.

  6. smile 11/29/2005 at 8:23 AM #

    Eddie. “So someone tell me that UNC would be guaranteed a bowl game playing that schedule.” Just my point; there are no guarantees. And Wake beating UNC rarely happens, but it might have this year. Using this (Wake murdered Duke. UNC barely beat Duke, so I’d say trading Wake for Duke is a loss for UNC.) type logic to support any conclusion is not convincing. All that said, your post was thoughtful, which is what I read this site for.
    And a soapbox comment, if you will, the following sophmoric, off topic, kind of posts add nothing to the discourse and hurt any credibility the poster might have had. To wit: “As for Baker – the last time Furman walked into Kenan it wasn’t pretty – for UNC that is.” and “This garbage from Baker comes straight from Bunting.” and “What kind of mentality does it take to think that way?”
    What I DO like is “I guess this is easier for Baker than blaming your own wide receivers who constantly drop passes.” Cutting, fact-based sarcasm!

  7. DRO 11/29/2005 at 11:17 AM #

    Does anyone have a link to the article that quotes Matt Baker? The link in the original post only shows him saying “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.” I didn’t see anything about him referring to State’s schedule. Or was that a Freudian slip?

    The problem with the scheduling is that it makes State look soft to everyone except Pack fans. I’m sure State doesn’t regret going to a bowl, and they shouldn’t. But suppose the win over Southern Miss had not happened (not a stretch considering it was a come from behind win at home in the 4th). Where would that leave State now? A losing season against a relatively weak OOC schedule. That looks a lot worse than a losing season against strong competition. If State is going to schedule soft for OOC games, then they had better win more ACC games to make up the slack.

    Also, I think it is obvious from the outcomes of other ACC games that you can’t do “what if” scenarios for matchups. State beat FSU on the road, but FSU beat Wake and BC, both teams to which the Pack lost. On paper that doesn’t make any sense, but “that’s why they play the games”.

    Unfortunately for Pack fans, no matter what is said about schedules or bowls or whatever, UNC won the head-to-head matchup (on the road no less).

  8. VaWolf82 11/29/2005 at 3:28 PM #

    Fortunately for Pack fans, this season isn’t all about the UNC game. For the Heels, the victory over State and some whining is all that is left.

  9. Danny 11/29/2005 at 8:00 PM #

    While I regret that Baker mentioned State in his comments, the comments are no more offensive than the comments made by several State players following losing efforts, i.e, “We’re so much more talented than them, we should have won” “If not for the penalties and mistakes, we blow them out”…..etc, etc, etc,….. The rub is that I never heard State players/coaches give the other teams that BEAT them any credit at all.

  10. DRO 11/29/2005 at 11:19 PM #

    VaWolf82, I’ll agree that State’s season isn’t all about the UNC game, and it shouldn’t be. They should be commended for picking up the pieces and making a run. But deep down a lot of Pack fans have a hard time stomaching losses to the Tar Heels. State was supposed to be the team on the way up and UNC was in turmoil, but Amato has only managed a 3-3 record against Bunting. Beating your arch rival is always important, no matter what the records are.

    And as far as UNC’s season and what is left, I’d say they shouldn’t be too ashamed, bowl or not. They were picked preseason to finish in next to last place over Duke (which is actually where State ended up), with only two wins seemingly within reach. They definitely over-achieved with a QB that had never started a game at UNC and barely missed a bowl. I’d say that is enough to hang your hat on, given the circumstances. And that loss to UNC is the difference in a 3-5 conference record (State) and a 4-4 record (UNC).

    Also, I still haven’t seen the part of the article where Matt Baker mentions State’s schedule. Anyone got a link?

  11. smile 11/30/2005 at 7:59 AM #

    Scheduling worthy, high profile opponents is a key to earn national promenance (sp), which is what Amato promised. Even a loss to Ohio State did more for NCSU than all 3 cupcake wins this year- toward that top echelon goal. A Boise Bowl, when nearly half of all D-1 teams go, means nothing outside of Raleigh. I read Amato’s scheduling as weakness in him and a change in direction and goals longterm for the team.

1 2

Leave a Reply