Scheduling Angle - Wku, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Etc.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

We've beaten WKU two years in a row. Each time, it gives everyone the warm, fuzzy feelings.

So, let's revisit for the nine millionth time, the issue of scheduling. Ever since I found and joined the board, I've lobbied for scheduling one FCS level team for game one, at home, to begin each year. Seeing as it gets the fans and players jazzed up, what's the harm? It's better than getting clobbered. And, the injuries we deal with throughout the seasons after the cash for bash games...not worth it.

Also, look at Texas Tech. People pooh-pooh them for the out of conference schedule which sometimes includes two FCS teams. But, has it hurt Tech? Did playing UMass and Eastern Washington prevent them from getting up on Texas? It has also allowed them to have seven home games in a season.

So, tell me cash-for-bash defenders...based on the fuzzy, warm feelings about beating FCS-halfie WKU in two consecutive years, and the way Tech, Kansas, and Kansas State rebuilt their programs scheduling one or two FCS-level teams per year, why would it be such a bad thing for us?

Again, I say end the cash-for-bash, give us more home games against teams we can beat, and really start taking steps to build the program the way other "down" programs have.

Edited November 4, 2008 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[emmitt01]

Aside from the money issue there's still the fact that many would still prefer to get blown out by the big boys rather than win against 1AA teams. Sort of like being the "guy friend" to the hot girls while turning down trim from the anchor.

[VideoEagle]

Back in the 70s, we used to start the year with weaker teams. A home game against an FCS team would be a great way to start the year.

Of course, WKY in is a FBS team. The NCAA says they are. All games played against them count as games against an FBS team and are NOT under the restrictions of counting wins against FCS teams for bowl eligibility. WKY is allowed the full scholarship allotment, whether or not they actually have that number of players yet. I can understand a few people are so completely blinded with total hate that logic and reasoning elude them, but WKY plays football this year as an Independent FBS team.

[greenminer]

I'm always on board playing the big boys. Love those trips.

But this year I've seen what the whipping can do to a fan base. I've met so many people since I entered the corporate world that decide whether to bandwagon us base on the first game. It's pathetic, I know. But it's first hand learning that not everyone drinks the Koolaid like us on the board.

UNT is not really in a position now where it can afford to lose fans. Scheduling an FCS would do wonders for bringing in a large contigent that would hang around an extra game or two...depending on our success.

[MDH]

I'm glad we didn't have any scheduled this year. Anyone thought that we couldn't beat a fair amount of the FCS teams? How embarassing and demoralizing to your fan base would a home loss be to a FCS team?

[untgeorge]

We've beaten WKU two years in a row. Each time, it gives everyone the warm, fuzzy feelings.

So, let's revisit for the nine millionth time, the issue of scheduling. Ever since I found and joined the board, I've lobbied for scheduling one FCS level team for game one, at home, to begin each year. Seeing as it gets the fans and players jazzed up, what's the harm? It's better than getting clobbered. And, the injuries we deal with throughout the seasons after the cash for bash games...not worth it.

Also, look at Texas Tech. People pooh-pooh them for the out of conference schedule which sometimes includes two FCS teams. But, has it hurt Tech? Did playing UMass and Eastern Washington prevent them from getting up on Texas? It has also allowed them to have seven home games in a season.

So, tell me cash-for-bash defenders...based on the fuzzy, warm feelings about beating FCS-halfie WKU in two consecutive years, and the way Tech, Kansas, and Kansas State rebuilt their programs scheduling one or two FCS-level teams per year, why would it be such a bad thing for us?

Again, I say end the cash-for-bash, give us more home games against teams we can beat, and really start taking steps to build the program the way other "down" programs have.

Boise frequently plays FCS teams, as does Hawaii. Hasn't kept them out of the BCS bowl. Marshall, in their heyday, scheduled one or two every year.

I am all for opening the season every year against an FCS team. Get the weakest one you can, if you want to. We will have to do something if we intend to abide by the conference rule for having six home games a year, if we continue to have an away money game.

[Green Mean]

I was not in favor of it before but after examining our situation we severely need these type of games and even when and if things get better. It is good for the morale of the players, coaches fans etc. It does not hurt us. In the end all that matters is that it gives us the best chance for us at a win. It doesn't have to be in the beginning of the season...if it is somewhere in the middle then I am all for it too.

[FirefightnRick]

The thing that supports the "Scheduling FCS to start the season" arguement even further is that our home attendance is as solid as it has ever been before. We are going to average 15K for this season regardless of the outcome on November 29th, for a team that currently has just one win under their belt. That is huge for us. So it would stand to reason that regardless which 1-AA program we play to start the season our numbers can start to make it lucrative, possibly so much so that we can eliminate a money game.

Rick

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I realize that it's tough having your money game as the first game of the season. It gets us off to a bad start and we can't seem to recover. Ideally, I'd like to see the money game as the third or fourth game of the season. Those games are necessary to our coffers and the fans enjoy them if we are competitive. That day will come.

We do not have the fan base for a decent crowd against Samford, Nicholls State and the like. If we are going to schedule an FCS team I think that it must be from Texas. At present, only Texas State, Sam Houston State and SFA could command a 20,000+ crowd. If we can't schedule one of them then I'd rather a non-regional FBS team.

Another downside...it could affect our bowl eligibility if we do that every year.

[Eagle1855]

Aside from the money issue there's still the fact that many would still prefer to get blown out by the big boys rather than win against 1AA teams. Sort of like being the "guy friend" to the hot girls while turning down trim from the anchor.

There's a lot of win in this post. Surprised it didn't receive more recognition. So here's your recognition for your clever contribution.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Eagle1855

[UNTLifer]

I realize that it's tough having your money game as the first game of the season. It gets us off to a bad start and we can't seem to recover. Ideally, I'd like to see the money game as the third or fourth game of the season. Those games are necessary to our coffers and the fans enjoy them if we are competitive. That day will come.

We do not have the fan base for a decent crowd against Samford, Nicholls State and the like. If we are going to schedule an FCS team I think that it must be from Texas. At present, only Texas State, Sam Houston State and SFA could command a 20,000+ crowd. If we can't schedule one of them then I'd rather a non-regional FBS team.

Another downside...it could affect our bowl eligibility if we do that every year.

I will disagree, for the sake of it, and state that I think the beginning of a new season brings excitement and a crowd no matter who we play. With this in mind, I would schedule a FCS team at home to start the year and then play the money game as the second of third game of the year.

[shaft]

D1/FBS teams should not be allowed to play d1aa/FCS teams.

There are approximately 108 possible D1 out-of-conference opponents for each team, there no reason expand the pool to include the additional 125 d1aa/FCS teams.

FCS teams are at an inherit disadvantage because of funding and scholarship limitations. The argument that there is no pre-season in college football and teams need tune-up games is easily dismissed when you note the number of FCS cupcakes scheduled after week two.

The new parity at the top of the polls is going to have an impact weak OOC schedules. The SEC and Big 12 pollsters are going to sit around and let the national title game and BCS at-large bids go to "weaker" undefeated teams.

Edited November 4, 2008 by shaft

[greenjoe]

The Fake Lonnie Finch brings up something I would like discussed.

Ever since NT started scheduling "money" games, I've heard people claim that we (NT Football) get hurt and banged up so badly that we have a hard time continuing the season at full strength.

Is there any evidence that playing Texas or Oklahoma or the like is phycically harder on our team than playing La Monroe or Western Kentucky ?

I remember a few years ago Patrick Cobbs played against Oklahoma and got hurt the next week and was lost for the season against someone I can't even recall now.

Thank you Students

GO MEAN GREEN

[eeally]

What is FCS?

[oldguystudent]

Aside from the money issue there's still the fact that many would still prefer to get blown out by the big boys rather than win against 1AA teams. Sort of like being the "guy friend" to the hot girls while turning down trim from the anchor.

A mistake often made by the younger, less experienced crowd. Mark Grace's take on that situation has proven time and time again to be a long term winning proposition.