Page 1 of 1

Does the SLC replace ORU w/ a football school from D-II?

Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:04 pm
by Fresno St. Alum
With ORU going back to the Summit does the SLC revisit Angelo St., Tarleton St., or C.Oklahoma or settle for UTPA?

Is UNO still going to have fb?

Re: Does the SLC replace ORU w/ a football school from D-II?

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:29 am
by slulionsfan
Fresno St. Alum wrote:With ORU going back to the Summit does the SLC revisit Angelo St., Tarleton St., or C.Oklahoma or settle for UTPA?

Is UNO still going to have fb?
Doubtful the SLC is looking to replace ORU though I'm sure there are contingencies as it relates to FB members. We have eight FB playing members as it stands now, and will have 11 once ACU, UIW and HBU are added to the schedules. No need to add any more.

Re: Does the SLC replace ORU w/ a football school from D-II?

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:55 am
by SuperHornet
I think the Lion is correct. The only reason to go to 12 would be to have a championship game, which isn't exactly practical when a league takes part in the playoffs. I think I'd like 9 teams better than 11, but it'll still make for a workable schedule....

Re: Does the SLC replace ORU w/ a football school from D-II?

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 12:42 am
by Fresno St. Alum
SuperHornet wrote:I think the Lion is correct. The only reason to go to 12 would be to have a championship game, which isn't exactly practical when a league takes part in the playoffs. I think I'd like 9 teams better than 11, but it'll still make for a workable schedule....
yet the Big Sky has 13 and doesn't have a title game b/c it would prevent them from a playoff birth. So that wouldn't be required

Re: Does the SLC replace ORU w/ a football school from D-II?

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:49 pm
by SuperHornet
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:I think the Lion is correct. The only reason to go to 12 would be to have a championship game, which isn't exactly practical when a league takes part in the playoffs. I think I'd like 9 teams better than 11, but it'll still make for a workable schedule....
yet the Big Sky has 13 and doesn't have a title game b/c it would prevent them from a playoff birth. So that wouldn't be required
I meant only LEGIT reason. The fact that we have 13 teams makes for a VERY awkward schedule and the fact that we don't have a title game (for the very reason you mention) brings up the potential for debate over the championship (not to mention the AQ). I like a 9-team league because you can play everyone once and still have three OOC games in a standard 11-game season. Eleven teams is doable as long as you understand that you don't play certain teams every year, though that sort of thing is minimized. The moment you go over 12, though, you start having major issues in correlating the schedule and figuring out who the champ is. So, for football, I want 9 teams.

Of course, I don't exactly have a vote, do I?

:oops: