Looks like this stupid consideration is going to come up again according to the advocate. There is no reason LSU should ever play a 1-AA school in football. All this does is hurt the strength of schedule component in the computers. If Bertman signs off on this, he needs to go as that would be a step backwards for the LSU football program.
LSU has had to play I-AA schools three or four times recently when there has been an unexpected schedule change and we must find a team that doesn't require a home-and-home deal. It's a situtation that will happen again. I wouldn't put Southern on our long-term projected schedules as a regular opponent. But as a last minute replacement to fill out a 8-home-game schedule, Southern would do as well as most I-AA schools for strength-of-schedule, especially if they are winning, which they usually do. It would be a guarranteed sellout, something that most out-of-conference opponents can't draw. A game will probably happen some day. I say put them on "standby" and we'll put them in the schedule at some point when it's in LSU's interest to do so. :tigerhead
At somepoint in the future LSU will have to schedule another I-AA team, a one time event seems like a good idea to me. The "standby" idea is ok, there's no reason to ever schedule a I-AA team when any I-A team is available.
I agree with red. I would keep them for an unexpected scheduling conflict, but that's it. I don't want to see LSU agreeing and then making a big deal out of it (promotions, t-shirts, rivalry talk, etc...) I agree with helping the smaller in-state schools, but can't we just write them a check for a million bucks or something so that we won't HAVE to play them?
Not to mention, I'd have to dig out my kevlar and flack jacket for that game. I hate wearing that crap, so let's not schedule them. :hihi:
I mean, if we were playing say Carol City H.S. (from Miami) or say Mcdonough 35 his post might make sense.:grin:
