It seems Arkansas is afraid to play Arkansas State in football.

(05-20-2014 09:07 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It seems Arkansas is afraid to play Arkansas State in football.

Arkansas refuses to play any in-state school in any sport.

They even take an RPI hit in baseball by not playing A-State or UCA.

(05-19-2014 10:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Are there any other personal vendettas, or at least specific calculated positions taken by a school(s) to refuse to schedule another school in today's CFB game? The reason I bring it up is I've seen several claims where school A will no longer play school B for a tangible reason, and that this plan has been made known to insiders or even publicly. A few days ago in a thread started by a UC poster about how P5 status for many schools is based on decisions made generations ago, another UC poster made the claim that Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, etc refuses to schedule UC in football anymore. To my knowledge, Pitt has not officially came out with a "do not schedule" list. Nor have I seen anything like this informally.

The only schools I've heard that won't schedule UC are Ohio State and Kentucky. And Indiana for basketball.

It's funny, we actually used to play Kentucky a lot in football. They're one of our top-10 all time played opponents, and we played them 8 times in the 80s-90s. But ever since we entered the Big East they refused to play us.

Currently none of the G5 schools in the south are scheduling AState in football, MWC and MAC schools seem to be more interested in playing.

(05-20-2014 09:25 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 10:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Are there any other personal vendettas, or at least specific calculated positions taken by a school(s) to refuse to schedule another school in today's CFB game? The reason I bring it up is I've seen several claims where school A will no longer play school B for a tangible reason, and that this plan has been made known to insiders or even publicly. A few days ago in a thread started by a UC poster about how P5 status for many schools is based on decisions made generations ago, another UC poster made the claim that Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, etc refuses to schedule UC in football anymore. To my knowledge, Pitt has not officially came out with a "do not schedule" list. Nor have I seen anything like this informally.

The only schools I've heard that won't schedule UC are Ohio State and Kentucky. And Indiana for basketball.

It's funny, we actually used to play Kentucky a lot in football. They're one of our top-10 all time played opponents, and we played them 8 times in the 80s-90s. But ever since we entered the Big East they refused to play us.

To be fair to Kentucky, they can't really afford to lose another game OOC since they already play UofL. Scheduling 2 guaranteed losses OOC isn't a good plan in the SEC.

I don't know who said that there are schools that WON'T schedule UC, but that's not true. There are plenty of schools who would definitely rather not play UC, mainly not on a home and home basis which we demand. And reasonably so.

(05-19-2014 11:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  PSU with their 2-1 BS is what caused the issue. they are slowly repairing their relationships with pitt. the b10 forced them to play in BB and they are scheduled down the road.

Basketball didn't get hurt too much, though. Jerry Dunn got the series back onto the schedule. It fell off during Ed, which wasn't so much an anti-Pitt thing, but just the weasel-like way Eddie scheduled. When Bucknell was good, play St. Francis. Pitt's too tough, so play Robert Morris. Boy, Temple looks awesome...let's schedule La Salle. That was his gimmick.

(05-20-2014 08:40 AM)chuckk3 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:06 AM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  LaTech refuses to schedule ULM on their terms, and ULM refuses to play LaTech on Tech's terms....

FIFY. Don't believe everything you read from SBC posters.

Remember there are two sides to every story.

I admit I am no expert just what I have read from both sides.
What are the terms?

Notre Dame stopped scheduling Michigan, Pitt hasn't scheduled WVU those two long term series come to mind.

(05-20-2014 07:35 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:23 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  Boise State won't schedule Idaho. They say they're above us now, but they end up scheduling school like Southern Miss. A$$holes.

The in state schools on the same level scenario is rare.
Louisiana Tech had their highest attended on campus game vs Monroe. ULM has the lowest athletic budget and Tech hopes they drop. The reality is they could benefit each other especially in off years.

Boise State is hoping Idaho is forced to drop because of its isolation. The under sized stadium adds to the problem. The truth is the series is 20-17 BSU so close. Idaho schedules other MWC schools and Boise schedules SBC schools home and home.

Most of the time it is a P5 vs G5 thing which will get worse.
G5 on G5 crime really dumb UTEP , NMSU and New Mexico play each year . Three different conference's three basketball schools who are usually bad at football. Having those profitable out of conference games has to help at this level.

At some point though, Boise State is going to run out of excuses. They never got a ticket into the BCS/P5. Refusing to schedule us in the future is going to look like them being afraid of the off chance of Idaho winning. If Boise continued to slide and Idaho had another season like 2009, it could happen.

(05-20-2014 08:40 AM)chuckk3 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:06 AM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  LaTech refuses to schedule ULM on their terms, and ULM refuses to play LaTech on Tech's terms....

FIFY. Don't believe everything you read from SBC posters.

Remember there are two sides to every story.

This coming from a fan base that claimed they had Tv markets in shreveport. It's pure and simple Latech is scared of Ulm. My personal opinion is either ulm or tech should just stop competing above div2 bc neither will never amount to anything unless 1 drops. Not enough people interested in #4 and #5 teams in the state

TCU and SMU will only play north Texas state when north Texas state is bad and TCU and SMU are good

somehow TCU and SMU have been able to figure this out 28-4-1 times and 12-1 times, but north Texas state is still too stupid to catch on even though their fans are the ones that make that stupid accusation

probably a better plan is to not suck a whole lot and then other teams won't beat you so often

(05-20-2014 06:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  TCU and SMU will only play north Texas state when north Texas state is bad and TCU is good

somehow TCU and SMU have been able to figure this out 28-4-1 times and 12-1 times, but north Texas state is still too stupid to catch on even though their fans are the ones that make that stupid accusation

probably a better plan is to not suck a whole lot and then other teams won't beat you so often

Yeah, SMU and UNT have an 8 year series starting this season

The original ACC schools are not scheduling Maryland in football or basketball.

(05-20-2014 06:56 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 06:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  TCU and SMU will only play north Texas state when north Texas state is bad and TCU is good

somehow TCU and SMU have been able to figure this out 28-4-1 times and 12-1 times, but north Texas state is still too stupid to catch on even though their fans are the ones that make that stupid accusation

probably a better plan is to not suck a whole lot and then other teams won't beat you so often

Yeah, SMU and UNT have an 8 year series starting this season

Probably a profitable series for both.

(05-20-2014 09:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Currently none of the G5 schools in the south are scheduling AState in football, MWC and MAC schools seem to be more interested in playing.

They simply don't want to get their butts kicked.