What Do You Guys Think?

[Travis]

http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle...;DB_OEM_ID=1800

I don't think it will be a good thing. It never generates any interest from the fans. No one would care to come. That is what the problem seems to be all along. When we schedule more local mid majors there is always HUGE interest.

[UNTflyer]

YES

[axis]

I say yes, but only from not too distant schools such as Texas State.

[NT03]

I would like to see a good SWAC band play @ half

[KingDL1]

It has never been a good thing in the past attendance wise, and if we don't win it can really be bad for the season.

I say NO until we are selling out regularly and we know that we will win.

[EagleMBA]

Not only NO, but HELL NO.

[SilverEagle]

Our fifth higest game (attendance wise) was McNeese (1-AA) at Fouts in 1994. Number 6 was Montana, and #7 was SFA in 1989.

[stebo]

We have kinda played FCS teams over the last few years. When the F_U's were moving up they were not quite Div IA, not quite IAA... WKY was kinda FBS and kinda FCS... South Alabama will be on the schedule soon, they will be a IAA (FCS) team. The schedules are pretty much filled out and I don't see any spaces to add anyone. Good in theory but let's wait until someone breaks their contract (like last year with UF) and instead of scheduling LSU and making $900K from the two contracts, use that money to play a pansy at home. Two pansies beating the crap out of one another would be funny

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Yes, especially if they were Texas schools. I wouldn't do more than one a year, but it would give us more wins and at this point that is what we need.

[Huff]

Yes. If we are going to play one school each year at their place with no chance for a return game - money game - we need to balance the schedule by scheduling a team that will come to our place without expecting a return game. That gives us a chance to balance our schedule.

[eulessismore]

Only if it's for reasons other than playing (and being presumed to beat) a FCS school. For example, playing Texas State might have rivalry potential, as we have played them more than anyone, and they seem to be on the improve. Of course, if they improve to where they want to be (FBS), we'd still be without that "1-AA" game. Another thing; we can't presume we'd beat any up and coming FCS program, such as Texas State.

[KingDL1]

Our fifth highest game (attendance wise) was McNeese (1-AA) at Fouts in 1994. Number 6 was Montana, and #7 was SFA in 1989.

We were also in D1AA both years, and we needed attendance numbers in 94 to get back to D1A

[Mean Green 93-98]

The first few sentences of that article terrified me.

North Texas needs to drop down to I-AA.

As far as whether or not we play 1-AA opponents, I really do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. But I only see one pro--It's an easy (-ier) win--with a few cons: We can still possibly lose, which would be more humiliating than any 1-A loss; it won't attract interest; and even if we win, so what?

[gangrene]

Oh Lord, please let the season start soon!!!!

[UNTflyer]

with a few cons: We can still possibly lose, which would be more humiliating than any 1-A loss; it won't attract interest; and even if we win, so what?

It can never be as humiliating as this:

sOF6-GScIGo

If we win, we get another victory toward being bowl eligible.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

The only FCS program that I'd be for playing is Texas State. Then let's help them get in the Belt.

Although I know that LaTech wouldn't go for it I'd like to see a 12-team league with Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, North Texas, Texas State and Louisiana Tech in the West and WKU, Middle Tennessee, Troy, South Alabama, FAU and FIU in the East. That would save a lot of travel expense and give us a Texas rival.

To the rest of the 1-AA business...just say NO!

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Yes.

I've been saying this ever since I've been on GMG.com. This is how Kansas State, Kansas, and Texas Tech built up their programs.

You have to be able to run your offense. Going out the first game and having to ditch your game plan because you are behind by five or more scores is ridiculous. It's like you've wasted everything you worked for in the spring and fall.

Having an opening game against an FCS-level oppontent gives you the opportunity to maintain a progression of work you began in March and reignited in August. Say whatever you want, but getting a win on opening day, at home, instead of being slaughtered on the road, does a tremendous amount for the confidence of a team. And, it builds on what you practiced in the spring and fall. You don't have to stop down for a beating.

In addition, having the game at home is another bonus. It builds fan interest when you win. If you are already 0-3 or 0-4 and getting whipped by the time you play a conference home game, people aren't going to take the effort to come out - yes, even your own alums will opt to stay at home.

The athletic department and head football coach need to understand that it's not the people already showing up they need to convince; it's the people who aren't showing up. And, those people - whom many of you call "bandwagoners" - aren't going to come unless its competitive or successful on a regular basis. To pooh-pooh them as bandwagoners is insane. Their money is green, too, and just as useful to the program.

So, get a winnable game at home for game one every year and quit f'ing around, getting our butts beat on the road to start the season. Build it. Use the K-State, Kansas, and Texas Tech blueprint - or go back to the Southland Conference for good. Knaves.

Edited August 21, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[filmerj]

Yes, especially if they were Texas schools. I wouldn't do more than one a year, but it would give us more wins and at this point that is what we need.

Maybe we would get more wins.

[emmitt01]

Yes.

I've been saying this ever since I've been on GMG.com. This is how Kansas State, Kansas, and Texas Tech built up their programs.

You have to be able to run your offense. Going out the first game and having to ditch your game plan because you are behind by five or more scores is ridiculous. It's like you've wasted everything you worked for in the spring and fall.

Having an opening game against an FCS-level oppontent gives you the opportunity to maintain a progression of work you began in March and reignited in August. Say whatever you want, but getting a win on opening day, at home, instead of being slaughtered on the road, does a tremendous amount for the confidence of a team. And, it builds on what you practiced in the spring and fall. You don't have to stop down for a beating.

In addition, having the game at home is another bonus. It builds fan interest when you win. If you are already 0-3 or 0-4 and getting whipped by the time you play a conference home game, people aren't going to take the effort to come out - yes, even your own alums will opt to stay at home.

The athletic department and head football coach need to understand that it's not the people already showing up they need to convince; it's the people who aren't showing up. And, those people - whom many of you call "bandwagoners" - aren't going to come unless its competitive or successful on a regular basis. To pooh-pooh them as bandwagoners is insane. Their money is green, too, and just as useful to the program.

So, get a winnable game at home for game one every year and quit f'ing around, getting our butts beat on the road to start the season. Build it. Use the K-State, Kansas, and Texas Tech blueprint - or go back to the Southland Conference for good. Knaves.

Dead on. Folks let's get real. The first game of the season, the game where we are football starved and the students are willing to show up to see if they should "believe the hype", is your opportunity to strike gold. Send those students and curious onlookers home witha show to talk about. Or, send them home after ANOTHER home opener beat down and kiss them goodbye until the next Fall.

[MeanGreen61]

A lotta folks are playing FCS teams. Here's a few Texas teams & Belt teams are playing.

Stephen F. Austin @ SMU

N'West state @ Houston

Texas State @ TCU

N. Dakota @ Texas Tech

Mississippi Valley State @ Arkansas State

Southern @ UL-Lafayette

[Mean Green 93-98]

Here's an opposite take from Steven Howard of the Green Gang: http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle...;DB_OEM_ID=1800

[aztecskin]

The a win-is-a-win argument is valid. Very valid. First off for the bandwaggoners they usually don't know what the hell is going on anyway. And most female fans are really at the game because its a place to get noticed by dudes. So, if you got a show going on (and who is going to argue that this isn't all about entertaining people?) you get people in there. Trying to sell a 0-3 team to 'casuals' is hard to do. They don't differentiate between a loss to Football Factory U and a loss to Equally Talented State.

So, I wouldn't be against putting up 45 on Texas St. (now if we lose to these guys, that is a HNL of depression)

So I vote YEA* because of the fun factor, getting the n00bs interested, and confidence building.

* this means something in the Grand Scheme of Things, right?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Here's an opposite take from Steven Howard of the Green Gang: http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle...;DB_OEM_ID=1800

Steven Howard: "Did I mention that no team that has ever played a Division I-AA opponent has ever played in a national title game."

Yeah, I guess you did mention that, Steve, but you're wrong. A cursory check of even last year's title game would have told you that. Unless The Citdel and Tennessee-Chattanooga are in some sort of secret FBS conference...well, try again.

If it's good enough for the big boys to start off the season, it's good enough for us. Even the medium-size boys who play in bowl games with regularity do it. So, let's cut the crap and go ahead and do it.

Besides, most of Todd Dodge's success has come against FCS school Western Kentucky, right? Now that they're fully in the FBS fold, let's get another guaranteed game on the schedule

2008: Florida 70, The Citadel 19

2008: Oklahoma 57, Tennessee-Chattanooga 2

2007: Ohio State 38, Youngstown State 6

2006: Florida 62, Western Carolina 0

2003: LSU 35, Western Illinois 7

2002: Miami 63, Florida A&M 17

1999: Virginia Tech 47, James Madison 0

Edited August 21, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[aztecskin]

Steven Howard: "Did I mention that no team that has ever played a Division I-AA opponent has ever played in a national title game."

Perhaps because there is no National Title Game? Sneaky ol' Steve. Always playin tricks 'n thangs.

Got us agin.

But yeah, seriously, lets beat up on some small schools to see what it feels like to win big.

[Travis]

But, aren't you guys assuming that we will "beat up" on the little guys. Furthermore, if we do that, we can kiss any casual fan goodbye for the year too. I say we play near level, regional competition from our own league.