In order to make a good argument, one has to see the valid points of the other side. It should surprise no one at this point that I favor a bit tougher out of conference schedule. I want to dedicate this post to the valid arguments against such an idea.
1) It could cost bowl eligibility: This argument is true, but only if the Bulldogs are not good enough to win three conference games in a season. As long as that is true, Mississippi State is far from where they need to be as a team. For example, this season, if the Bulldogs did lose an out of conference game, they should still become bowl eligible based on their SEC play. In the end, I do not see the tougher schedule and bowl eligibility as mutually exclusive.
2) It is not necessary: I cannot argue with this point. There is no way to say that it is necessary because obviously it is not.
3) Fans pay to see the home team, not the visitors: I disagree completely. I believe all games will be technical sellouts, but I think if you look in the stands, the games that are blowouts have a much smaller attendance when halftime hits. If a game is competitive, or if the Bulldogs are upsetting someone, the crowd sticks around.
4) We need to wait until we prove we are good enough: Scheduling is about projecting the future. If we wait until we prove something, we have to wait three years at the least or five years at the most to reflect it on the schedule. Seems silly to think we need to show bowl games for another three years to consider upping the schedule a bit.
5) It won't help with recruiting: I disagree. Showing recruits that you face good teams out of conference, play top talent in the SEC, and go to bowl games will bring in more recruits.
In the end, it is an opinion. One on which I would like to know your final opinion.