Tweet
From Kent Schmidt at I-AA.org. He is a little offended by our scheduling of 2 lower division teams.
Here is the link and a portion of the article.
http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=67984
Is it true that those schools that have completed their schedules are playing teams that will hurt their playoff chances?
Yes, schools such as last year’s playoff semi-finalist, Sam Houston State and fellow Southland co-champion, Northwestern State, are each playing two I-A schools on the road to fill out their schedules.
This year, Sam Houston State plays at Houston and Texas Tech. Northwestern State plays at Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana-Lafayette.
While it would seem logical that I-AA teams play one I-A opponent every so often to gain additional revenue that can’t be obtained by playing other I-AA teams, I think it seems illogical to play two I-A teams in a season. It not only exhausts a team’s playoff chances should they not win their conference, it also increases that teams chances at injury and hurts the team’s overall morale should they lose these I-A games.
Whereas these schools may lose chances at the playoffs because of expected losses to I-A opponents, at least they are playing Division I foes.
Other I-AA West schools such as Northern Colorado and South Dakota State are each playing two lower division teams.
UNC plays Division II Colorado schools, Colorado Mines and Fort Lewis, at home in 2005. While UNC played one of the most stringent schedules in I-AA last year with no sub-Division I opponents and finished just 2-9, it is no reason to play more than one D-II school.
SDSU is playing D-III Wisconsin-La Crosse and D-II Missouri-Rolla this fall. While SDSU is still in their transitional phase of moving up to I-AA (like Northern Colorado), it also is no reason to schedule two lower division teams. In fact, SDSU has eight home games next season so why not reduce this to seven and play a I-AA team on the road this fall with a reciprocal contract to play at SDSU in 2006?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with a I-AA school playing one I-A school and then “evening it out” with a D-II, D-III, or NAIA school. As you probably can tell, I do have a concern with those schools playing more than one of either though for the sake of I-AA football.
Of course, it may not be the school’s fault entirely to either play multiple I-A schools or lower division schools. They may have not had a choice as there are no I-AA teams close geographically, or schools that are willing to travel for a one-time deal or even in a home and home game situation.
This brings us back to conference expansion as a necessity to fill out I-AA conference schedules without needing to play multiple I-A or lower division teams.
Here is the link and a portion of the article.
http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=67984
Is it true that those schools that have completed their schedules are playing teams that will hurt their playoff chances?
Yes, schools such as last year’s playoff semi-finalist, Sam Houston State and fellow Southland co-champion, Northwestern State, are each playing two I-A schools on the road to fill out their schedules.
This year, Sam Houston State plays at Houston and Texas Tech. Northwestern State plays at Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana-Lafayette.
While it would seem logical that I-AA teams play one I-A opponent every so often to gain additional revenue that can’t be obtained by playing other I-AA teams, I think it seems illogical to play two I-A teams in a season. It not only exhausts a team’s playoff chances should they not win their conference, it also increases that teams chances at injury and hurts the team’s overall morale should they lose these I-A games.
Whereas these schools may lose chances at the playoffs because of expected losses to I-A opponents, at least they are playing Division I foes.
Other I-AA West schools such as Northern Colorado and South Dakota State are each playing two lower division teams.
UNC plays Division II Colorado schools, Colorado Mines and Fort Lewis, at home in 2005. While UNC played one of the most stringent schedules in I-AA last year with no sub-Division I opponents and finished just 2-9, it is no reason to play more than one D-II school.
SDSU is playing D-III Wisconsin-La Crosse and D-II Missouri-Rolla this fall. While SDSU is still in their transitional phase of moving up to I-AA (like Northern Colorado), it also is no reason to schedule two lower division teams. In fact, SDSU has eight home games next season so why not reduce this to seven and play a I-AA team on the road this fall with a reciprocal contract to play at SDSU in 2006?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with a I-AA school playing one I-A school and then “evening it out” with a D-II, D-III, or NAIA school. As you probably can tell, I do have a concern with those schools playing more than one of either though for the sake of I-AA football.
Of course, it may not be the school’s fault entirely to either play multiple I-A schools or lower division schools. They may have not had a choice as there are no I-AA teams close geographically, or schools that are willing to travel for a one-time deal or even in a home and home game situation.
This brings us back to conference expansion as a necessity to fill out I-AA conference schedules without needing to play multiple I-A or lower division teams.
Comment