Started By
Message
re: Should we do away with rent-a-win cupcake games?
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:11 pm to Gwak
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:11 pm to Gwak
quote:
FCS doesn't play bigger teams because they think they can win.
It's for the money.
I never said it wasn't about money. It is OBVIOUSLY about money. They are still terrible games.
0
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:11 pm to Landmass
Half of the conference is shitty.
If you don't see it, you don't look in the mirror enough.
Getting rid of G5 will eliminate about 50 programs. That is about 4250 scholarships.
At some point, the trickle down is going to hurt high school athletics.
Your 247 top 250 athletes kind of need those other high school athletes to work against. Otherwise, the entire sport will suffer.
If you don't see it, you don't look in the mirror enough.
Getting rid of G5 will eliminate about 50 programs. That is about 4250 scholarships.
At some point, the trickle down is going to hurt high school athletics.
Your 247 top 250 athletes kind of need those other high school athletes to work against. Otherwise, the entire sport will suffer.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:14 pm to meansonny
quote:
Getting rid of G5 will eliminate about 50 programs. That is about 4250 scholarships.
At some point, the trickle down is going to hurt high school athletics.
Who said anything about getting rid of G5? I said that G5 should play FCS teams but P5 shouldn't.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:14 pm to Landmass
Ole Miss is a rent-a-win school baw
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:15 pm to Landmass
quote:
Who said anything about getting rid of G5? I said that G5 should play FCS teams but P5 shouldn't.
You do not understand why we play cupcakes then. None of those schools would be athletic if we didn’t pay them to play.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:16 pm to Landmass
quote:We played Carolina.
There weren't any shitty opponents.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:16 pm to Landmass
quote:
Who said anything about getting rid of G5? I said that G5 should play FCS teams but P5 shouldn't.
You and I obviously have a different definition of cupcake game.
Any opponent that doesn't require a return home visit is the definition of a cupcake (or any school in Mississippi,Tennessee, or Missouri).
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:16 pm to Devil03Dawg07
quote:
I agree with the need to keep small programs going bc it give incentivizes the high school kids and fuels development. I hate the argument that the only way to fund small programs is by playing them....especially multiple games a year.
If we move to 9 conference games, I'd like to see us max out the cupcakes at 1 game, add a buy week, and find a way to help share revenue with regionally appropriate FCS schools (aka SEC/Sunbelt, Big 10/MAC, Pac12/Mtn West etc). This could be done w a very small percentage of the new TV deal, a small percentage of gate, etc.
Unfortunately, greed will probably prevent this.
Good points and I agree on them. But hopefully you meant G5 and not FCS. Sunbelt, MAC, and Mountain West are all FBS G5 conferences. They are not FCS nor what I am talking about.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:17 pm to Landmass
One or two a year is fine.
However most teams play 3-4. It's just too many, ruins 1/3 of the season.
However most teams play 3-4. It's just too many, ruins 1/3 of the season.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:18 pm to CabtainStabbin
We also finance the lower groups by playing them.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:18 pm to meansonny
quote:
You and I obviously have a different definition of cupcake game.
I said rent-a-win cupcake games. I meant playing FCS teams. Did you read the first post?
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:19 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
We also finance the lower groups by playing them.
Maybe they should find a different way to fund these programs.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:20 pm to Landmass
Only if we go to a true division 1 league.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:22 pm to Landmass
That would be shutting down.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:23 pm to momentoftruth87
quote:
That would be shutting down.
Maybe some of them need to. Maybe their alumni need to fund these programs.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:24 pm to Landmass
Many of these "cupcake" games have a historic component form them all being in the old SoCon. If I were running the show
8 conference games
1 OOC rival game (or rotating P5 game)
1 winnable P5 game
1 winnable G5 game (exception for TAMU)
1 FCS (the week before rivalry week so everybody is strong)
8 conference games
1 OOC rival game (or rotating P5 game)
1 winnable P5 game
1 winnable G5 game (exception for TAMU)
1 FCS (the week before rivalry week so everybody is strong)
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:26 pm to Cheese Grits
I like that but I also believe that we should be playing 9 conference games so that we don't have to wait so damn long to play some of the teams.
9 conference games
2 P5 non-conference
1 G5 team
Let that be it.
9 conference games
2 P5 non-conference
1 G5 team
Let that be it.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:27 pm to Cheese Grits
In all honesty, without cupcakes it's a zero sum season. When half the teams are consistently below .500 those teams will start to fall off in attendance and support.
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:30 pm to dbeck
Maybe that's the best argument for it that I have heard and you have me thinking. But does 1 FCS team really mean a major shift in program dynamics?
Posted on 9/20/22 at 4:39 pm to Landmass
quote:
I said rent-a-win cupcake games. I meant playing FCS teams. Did you read the first post?
The fact that you don't see G5 as rent a win tells me everything about your program (and why I include the state of Mississippi in the cupcake category).
Half of the conference is below average
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News