Glad OU is not on this list

[Jacie]

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1074089

April 14, 2010

Mike Huguenin
Rivals.com College Football Editor

The 12 most embarrassing games of the season involving "Big Six" league teams and FCS programs.

A couple of things:

We do not care about the back-story of how and why some of these games came about this season. We know that some of the Big Six teams involved do have some good non-conference games. We're aware that some of these games were scheduled at the (relatively) last minute. But that in no way absolves anyone of blame. Bottom line: These games are pitiful, and the Big Six team involved should be embarrassed.

We are not being derisive of or impugning FCS football. We're not averse to FBS/FCS games per se. What we don't like are "Big Six" teams - especially the ones with clout - scheduling games against bad FCS teams.

"Bad" is the operative word. For the most part, "Big Six" teams don't want anything to do with top-level FCS programs, but there are some exceptions: Richmond at Virginia, Elon at Duke and Stephen F. Austin at Texas A&M on Sept. 4; Southern Illinois at Illinois and New Hampshire at Pittsburgh on Sept. 11; William & Mary at North Carolina on Oct. 30; and Appalachian State at Florida on Nov. 20. But as you will see, those types of games are outnumbered by some real stinkers.

12. NORTH DAKOTA STATE at KANSAS
11. PRESBYTERIAN at WAKE FOREST
10. STONY BROOK at USF
9. WESTERN ILLINOIS at PURDUE
8. NORTHERN COLORADO at MICHIGAN STATE
7. AUSTIN PEAY at WISCONSIN
6. PORTLAND STATE at OREGON
5. VMI at VIRGINIA
4. IDAHO STATE at GEORGIA
3. PRESBYTERIAN at CLEMSON
2. INDIANA STATE at CINCINNATI
1. GEORGIA STATE at ALABAMA

[Salt City Sooner]

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1074089

April 14, 2010

Mike Huguenin
Rivals.com College Football Editor

The 12 most embarrassing games of the season involving "Big Six" league teams and FCS programs.

A couple of things:

We do not care about the back-story of how and why some of these games came about this season. We know that some of the Big Six teams involved do have some good non-conference games. We're aware that some of these games were scheduled at the (relatively) last minute. But that in no way absolves anyone of blame. Bottom line: These games are pitiful, and the Big Six team involved should be embarrassed.

We are not being derisive of or impugning FCS football. We're not averse to FBS/FCS games per se. What we don't like are "Big Six" teams - especially the ones with clout - scheduling games against bad FCS teams.

"Bad" is the operative word. For the most part, "Big Six" teams don't want anything to do with top-level FCS programs, but there are some exceptions: Richmond at Virginia, Elon at Duke and Stephen F. Austin at Texas A&M on Sept. 4; Southern Illinois at Illinois and New Hampshire at Pittsburgh on Sept. 11; William & Mary at North Carolina on Oct. 30; and Appalachian State at Florida on Nov. 20. But as you will see, those types of games are outnumbered by some real stinkers.

12. NORTH DAKOTA STATE at KANSAS
11. PRESBYTERIAN at WAKE FOREST
10. STONY BROOK at USF
9. WESTERN ILLINOIS at PURDUE
8. NORTHERN COLORADO at MICHIGAN STATE
7. AUSTIN PEAY at WISCONSIN
6. PORTLAND STATE at OREGON
5. VMI at VIRGINIA
4. IDAHO STATE at GEORGIA
3. PRESBYTERIAN at CLEMSON
2. INDIANA STATE at CINCINNATI
1. GEORGIA STATE at ALABAMA

This is where I disagree w/ him. We were on similar lists for the last 2 years & had better teams who backed out either at the last minute, or didn't bother notifying OU that they were doing so at all. I'm sorry, but OU flat out is NOT to blame in that situation. OU's remaining choices at that point were to either play the games that they did, B) not play a game at all, or C) take it up the tailpipe from Ball State, who wanted $1 million to come to Norman. What AD in their right mind is NOT going to go with A?

[BoulderSooner79]

We played Idaho State last year and I know USC played them recently too. I suspect they fund most their FB program from these yearly thrashings, so it's not as black and white as this writer claims. With a 12 games schedule, most teams will have one of these and they are not complete give-mes. Yes, a win is all but guaranteed, but it's still football and players can still get injured.

[bluedogok]

Just goes to show that most sports writers lack the intelligence to research why these type of games happen or are just attention whores.

[Leroy Lizard]

I take a different tack: These are opportunities for schools to get out of their usual confines and play someone of top caliber. Sure, they'll get smacked around, but they get to travel to a spot where few players have ever been and get to play in front of large crowds that they will rarely experience again.

What's the harm? Seriously.

[agoo758]

I take a different tack: These are opportunities for schools to get out of their usual confines and play someone of top caliber. Sure, they'll get smacked around, but they get to travel to a spot where few players have ever been and get to play in front of large crowds that they will rarely experience again.

What's the harm? Seriously.

I personally believe the harm is that the players travel across the country to get their *** kicked and dont get to see a dime for their humiliation.

[Leroy Lizard]

Well, they get a free education out of the deal. If that wans't worth something, why would they do it?

[agoo758]

Well, they get a free education out of the deal. If that wans't worth something, why would they do it?

Ive always felt strongly that even with full-ride scholarships, athletes at the college level are way underpaid when you consider the hours of work they put in, how much money they make for the school, the students attracted to the university because of the program etc., and I am a strong believer in paying college athletes. Now, I am not going to get too much into that, but if the university believes that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for a 1-AA football team to humiliate themselves, they should at least make a little money for it. After all, they are the ones doing all the work, am i wrong?

[BoulderSooner79]

Ive always felt strongly that even with full-ride scholarships, athletes at the college level are way underpaid when you consider the hours of work they put in, how much money they make for the school, the students attracted to the university because of the program etc., and I am a strong believer in paying college athletes. Now, I am not going to get too much into that, but if the university believes that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for a 1-AA football team to humiliate themselves, they should at least make a little money for it. After all, they are the ones doing all the work, am i wrong?

But that's a "what if" - as in what if it were within the rules to pay players. But since it is not, there is still a reason they play these games. Schools the size of Idaho State do not make a bunch of money from sports. Their biggest paydays are from traveling to play top teams with big (full) stadiums. I'm not saying it's a wonderful thing these games are played; just saying there are real reasons these smaller programs do this. I don't see it as embarrassing to the big schools if they need to schedule a game like this occasionally to solve a scheduling problem. It's more honorable than playing 1 less game.

[agoo758]

But that's a "what if" - as in what if it were within the rules to pay players. But since it is not, there is still a reason they play these games. Schools the size of Idaho State do not make a bunch of money from sports. Their biggest paydays are from traveling to play top teams with big (full) stadiums. I'm not saying it's a wonderful thing these games are played; just saying there are real reasons these smaller programs do this. I don't see it as embarrassing to the big schools if they need to schedule a game like this occasionally to solve a scheduling problem. It's more honorable than playing 1 less game.

I dont disagree with anything you said here, but it just bothers me that the kids put in their hours of effort just to get the trash beaten out of them (for a lack of a better explanation) while the money goes to everyone in the world except for them. I bet if the administrators (who get all the money) were the ones who had to be humiliated on the field while watching someone else get paid, theyd be less willing to schedule those games.

[RedstickSooner]

Of course it's shameful that we played crappy non-1a opponents. We can excuse it however we want, but that doesn't make it right or honorable.

Frankly, rules need to be put in place making this sort of thing impossible. If we suffered, say, a 1 point penalty to our BCS formula for playing a non 1-A foe, you'd better believe we would've found a way to play a 1-A team.

The biggest reason good teams play patsies is that the patsies will show up and give the good team a home game for a paycheck. That's a load of manure, and fair competition should be placed above the insatiable desire for home games seen at big time college programs.

Were this the case, I'm sure we'd also start seeing something we should've seen all along: Game contracts with hefty penalties for teams that reneg on an agreement to show up and play.

It's time for college football to nut up. I'm tired of hearing excuses.

[BillyBall]

Ive always felt strongly that even with full-ride scholarships, athletes at the college level are way underpaid when you consider the hours of work they put in, how much money they make for the school, the students attracted to the university because of the program etc., and I am a strong believer in paying college athletes. Now, I am not going to get too much into that, but if the university believes that it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for a 1-AA football team to humiliate themselves, they should at least make a little money for it. After all, they are the ones doing all the work, am i wrong?

Since football programs, and occasionally basketball programs, are the only cash positive programs, you would be eliminating basically every other sport if you paid out cfb players.

[KantoSooner]

No, you'd be eliminating scholarships and lots of expensive equipment/staff for all other sports. Title 9 notwithstanding, that might not be a bad idea. There's something to be said for sport being a 'pickup game' type of thing. Just an idea.

[agoo758]

Since football programs, and occasionally basketball programs, are the only cash positive programs, you would be eliminating basically every other sport if you paid out cfb players.


Not at all, the other the university and athletic department would still collect some of the revenue made because in a sense they are investors and shareholders in the program. The teams would pay a portion of there revenue to anyone who gave them money and for the right to wear the logo and colors of the universtiy. Now, if this extra money were still not enough to cover some of the sports, then yes I say shut them down. If there is a certain fanbase for a certain sport, let them pay to have it. It's not fair for one sport to make all the money only for them to have to give most of it up in the name of "fairness."

[goingoneight]

As long as there's the BCS, teams will take the easy road to a "dream season."

Hell... we played Rice, UTEP and Arkansas State in 2000.

[BoulderSooner79]

Of course it's shameful that we played crappy non-1a opponents. We can excuse it however we want, but that doesn't make it right or honorable.

Frankly, rules need to be put in place making this sort of thing impossible. If we suffered, say, a 1 point penalty to our BCS formula for playing a non 1-A foe, you'd better believe we would've found a way to play a 1-A team.

The biggest reason good teams play patsies is that the patsies will show up and give the good team a home game for a paycheck. That's a load of manure, and fair competition should be placed above the insatiable desire for home games seen at big time college programs.

Were this the case, I'm sure we'd also start seeing something we should've seen all along: Game contracts with hefty penalties for teams that reneg on an agreement to show up and play.

It's time for college football to nut up. I'm tired of hearing excuses.

It's difficult to legislate these things because all the conferences have their own rules and if someone bails, you have to find someone else. I say playing is more honorable than leaving an open date because that would be a clear advantage over other teams. It would mean a rest week with little chance of an injured player. There is a penalty for feasting on FBS team - just see K-state last year. But there is a bigger penalty for top programs who could end up eliminated from the BCS title game due to SOS (Auburn '04), so there are checks and balances in place. I just don't see it as a big deal with the added 12th game (I didn't see a need for a 12th game personally). Adding 1 more game increases the non-conference schedule from 3 to 4 games which is a 33% increase in the odds of hitting a scheduling problem, unless the conference absorbs it into conference play. So if *one* of these give'mes appears on a BCS conference team schedule, it doesn't give me heartburn. I mean, does a bad div1A school like Utah state or North Texas really have a better chance than an FBS school?

[King Barry's Back]

This is where I disagree w/ him. We were on similar lists for the last 2 years & had better teams who backed out either at the last minute, or didn't bother notifying OU that they were doing so at all. I'm sorry, but OU flat out is NOT to blame in that situation. OU's remaining choices at that point were to either play the games that they did, B) not play a game at all, or C) take it up the tailpipe from Ball State, who wanted $1 million to come to Norman. What AD in their right mind is NOT going to go with A?

I disagree with him, but on different grounds than you.

Yes, you are absolutely right that schools sometimes backout and there are few alternatives available. But I think criticising such craptacular matchups is still valid. If nothing else, the threat of facing criticism at least helps motivate ADs/coaches to try harder.

What I disagree about is criticising OU in 2009 for playing Idaho State. Granted, that was not an exciting match up -- but with BYU and Miami (both on the road) -- OU had one of the most difficult non-conf schedules in the country. And we proved that by losing our Heisman Trophy QB and both games.


And you can make a similar argument about Chattanooga in 2008. Yes, the mocs were an embarrassment -- but we also played Cincy and TCU. And Washington went winless, but they were formidable on paper.

So the non-conf slate in both 08 and 09 was very solid -- much stronger than most top schools (did i hear Texas?) would dare to play.

And 2009 absolutely illustrates why cupcake matchups are the rule. We were in the end a pretty solid top-25 team. If we'd down scheduled at all in the non-conf, we might easily have gone 9-3 and been in the Cotton Bowl, rather than 7-5 in the Sun.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ive always felt strongly that even with full-ride scholarships, athletes at the college level are way underpaid when you consider the hours of work they put in, how much money they make for the school, the students attracted to the university because of the program etc., and I am a strong believer in paying college athletes.

The ramifications of paying athletes is more than you think. It opens up a huge can of worms. I understand why the NCAA doesn't want it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Of course it's shameful that we played crappy non-1a opponents. We can excuse it however we want, but that doesn't make it right or honorable.

Frankly, rules need to be put in place making this sort of thing impossible. If we suffered, say, a 1 point penalty to our BCS formula for playing a non 1-A foe, you'd better believe we would've found a way to play a 1-A team.

Actually, we probably wouldn't have scheduled a game. We scheduled the 1-AA team because there really wasn't anyone else available.



Were this the case, I'm sure we'd also start seeing something we should've seen all along: Game contracts with hefty penalties for teams that reneg on an agreement to show up and play.

The NCAA probably won't get involved in a team's scheduling problems. But no matter, if we demanded extreme penalties for reneging on contracts then the scheduling will become even more difficult.

This is not an easy problem to solve. (Although I don't even think it's a problem.)

[BillyBall]

Not at all, the other the university and athletic department would still collect some of the revenue made because in a sense they are investors and shareholders in the program. The teams would pay a portion of there revenue to anyone who gave them money and for the right to wear the logo and colors of the universtiy. Now, if this extra money were still not enough to cover some of the sports, then yes I say shut them down. If there is a certain fanbase for a certain sport, let them pay to have it. It's not fair for one sport to make all the money only for them to have to give most of it up in the name of "fairness."

The extra money would not be enough to cover the budget so those scholarships and sports would disappear quickly. Also, those scholarships for other sports allow kids the opportunity to go to school and generally help improve society overall.

[OK2U]

The best part of Alabama vs. Georgia St. (other than the fact that this will be the school's first year of playing football EVER) is that it takes place during week 12.
Not a warm-up game, folks, but a slaughter.

[Salt City Sooner]

As long as there's the BCS, teams will take the easy road to a "dream season."

Hell... we played Rice, UTEP and Arkansas State in 2000.
A couple of things:

1. That UTEP game (& FWIW the Miners did win 8 games that year) was originally set to be the front end of a set with Arizona St. (the game w/ Air Force ended up being the back half). Thing is, in '01, the Alabama set was also due to start, which didn't fit Joe C's one "marquee" OOC game per year philosophy. He tried to get the '01 ASU game (scheduled to be in Tempe) moved to another year, but they wouldn't budge. He then cancelled that game, & ASU reciprocated by ditching the '00 game to be played in Norman. Ironically, it ended up being all for naught, because a couple of months later, Bama's AD Moore called to see if the OU/Bama set could be moved back a year, & OU agreed.

2. OU got quite fortunate in that the B12 was very strong in '00. They ended up playing 5 teams who finished up in the top 12, & FSU was the only non-B12 team in that list.