Georgia would be a hot ticket too, but that's not a justification for giving up one of our 6 wins and replacing it with the hottest ticket of the year - virtually guaranteeing we miss a bowl game and the extra practices. Can someone help me understand why the majority position is not unanimous? That's a serious request and I don't mean to attack anyone. I just need to understand the opposing viewpoint better.
We need the extra practices to build our program. We need the extra media mentions and the prestige associated with being in bowl games to draw better recruits. In order to get both of those, we need to win six games this season and every season. If we knowingly give up one of those six wins, and miss a bowl game, just to be able to say "Look, we proved we can fill the stadium for a big named opponent," is that a good strategy?
Is it as simple as people believing that 3 or 4 programs (out of 130+) have been able to have their cake and eat it too so we're going to cross our fingers and believe we'll be able to schedule top 20 teams, beat enough of them AND make it to a bowl game? It has admittedly worked for some programs to have a tough schedule while working their way up from 4 wins to 8 wins, but I don't want to bet the future of our football program that we can be one of those exceptions. And don't reply that you don't want to watch Kent St, Akron and UConn. Don't build that strawman. We could schedule teams in the 60 to 90 range and have a very entertaining/competitive game.
Fighter does a good job of articulating his philosophy. I guess I need to hear it from a few more of you to convince me that the Gunther strategy of toughening up the schedule is going to produce great short term and long term results (after we have strong evidence that it hasn't worked for us).