Started By
Message

re: Why eliminating FCS games is easier said than done.

Posted on 11/14/18 at 8:10 pm to
Posted by NoMansLand
Member since Jun 2017
1038 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 8:10 pm to
Not hard to Google that the FCS/aka old DII was founded on 1978. So technically anyone you see that is now under that classification wasn’t then.

Here is a couple of articles on the teams who “never” schedule FCS
LINK

LINK
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 8:11 pm
Posted by MSHawg1
Bad-assistan
Member since Jun 2018
5046 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

Why eliminating FCS games is easier said than done.

Because Bama wants to play them
Posted by The Quiet One
Former United States
Member since Oct 2013
11599 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 8:16 pm to
As long as schools own their own schedule, it is what it is.

I do always get a good guffaw at those bitching about SEC teams playing FCS while other conferences have Rutgers and Kansas on their schedules. Muh Power 5 games
Posted by bamafan1001
Member since Jun 2011
15783 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 9:45 pm to
quote:

Rutgers and Kansas


Two teams with actual fanbases and better than playing any FCS team
Posted by southernboisb
Member since Dec 2012
7281 posts
Posted on 11/14/18 at 9:45 pm to
Out of fairness, 14 teams is a hard # to work with for scheduling. 12 teams had the 5-1-2 rotation & 16 teams could go 4x4 pods (which paired up yearly allows you to play everybody once in 3 years).

Sorry, but certain games are NOT going to be played yearly as "non-conference" just to keep the rivalry going. So, with those "must keep" games will have to be factored in.
Going division-less is going to require many tiebreakers to rank teams with limited (if any) common sense opponents.
As far as "parity scheduling" as you suggest, you're creating the possibility of teams NOT playing each other in LONGER periods of time than with a rotation.

My dream set up would be each conference set up with the SAME # of teams, SAME division/pod format, & SAME # of games. This will give us a fair way to debate the "____ conference is tougher than ______ conference." It ALSO allows, as you stated, a chance to have like an SEC/ACC, SEC/B10, or SEC/PAC weekend matchup.
Posted by Cockeee Don
Myrtle Beach, SC
Member since Jul 2014
690 posts
Posted on 11/15/18 at 9:00 am to
quote:

Doesn't seem overly fair for all teams in the conference. UGA already plays the following teams to end the year:

UF
Kentucky
Auburn
Georgia Tech
Alabama

Throwing in another conference game after Auburn doesn't seem right.




And the South Carolina - Clemson game won't be moved from the end of the season either. That is a "fairly" tough assignment. Tougher than 93% of SEC teams they could play there.
Posted by JoseyWalesTheOutlaw
In The Ham
Member since Nov 2017
11661 posts
Posted on 11/15/18 at 9:24 am to
I don't give a shet who Bama plays OOC as long as they go with one so called big name team each year. Beating the SEC teams each week is good enough and then the SECCG if you can get to that level. I am an old guy and playing USCe,Vandy,Mizzou,or UK doesn't mean much to me. Playing UF and UGA every now and then is fine. 7 home games is the key for each year.
Posted by southernboisb
Member since Dec 2012
7281 posts
Posted on 11/15/18 at 6:35 pm to
Simple...there is NO FAIR WAY to come up with a conf. game schedule rotation for the SEC if you have some keep it while others don't. & no, they WILL NOT be played as "non- conf." just to keep the rivalries going.
& as far as parity scheduling based on previous year's results, you're creating the chance of teams NOT playing each other as often as they do mow.
Page 1 2 3 4
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter