Colonel coach optimistic EKU-WKU series will continue past 2008

[CSN-info]

Colonel coach optimistic EKU-WKU series will continue past 2008
Richmond Register - Richmond,KY,USA
Western announced earlier this year plans to upgrade its football program
from I-AA to IA. After a two-year transition period, which starts this
season, ...
http://www.richmondregister.com/localsports/local_story_198004434.html

[Lehigh Football Nation]

NCAA guidelines do not permit I-A teams to schedule road games at I-AA opponents. So, if the rivalry is to continue, EKU would have to travel to Bowling Green each season.

And more than likely Western would have to compensate the Colonels financially for the trip — which is normal when I-AA teams travel to take on I-A schools.

“There’s some legislation that doesn’t allow them to come and play here at our place,” Hope said. “So, there are some things that need to be worked out. We’d play them 11 times a year if we could.”

xeyebrowx xeyebrowx xeyebrowx

[Maroons]

Apparently, the Sun Belt Conference just passed legislation prohibiting its football programs from traveling to FCS (I-AA) schools. This is highly convenient as WKU President Gary Ransdell had made very public statements about how he hoped to sign a 10-year home and home deal with EKU to preserve the rivalry. Many WKU fans were challenging the move because of they didn't want the "Battle of the Bluegrass" to end. Ransdell said he would sign a 10-year deal so that it would continue and then as soon as the Regents pass the move, the SBC makes it a moot point.

Pretty convenient.

I, and many Eastern fans, consider only traveling to WKU or even playing at WKU and a neutral site, unacceptable.

[Golden Eagle]

Well Lexington isn't that far away from Richmond. Why would playing there be unacceptable if you get to keep the rivalry?

[EKU05]

Well Lexington isn't that far away from Richmond. Why would playing there be unacceptable if you get to keep the rivalry?

Because most would see it as less of a rivalry if one team got special perks like say...being the only one allowed to have the game in their home stadium. The game wouldn't be the same if it were 20,000 people in 70,000 seat Commonwealth Stadium. Besides, if we're going to play FBS teams we can find a few that will cut us a better check than a Sun Belt school. As a matter of fact, we're playing one of them this year and it does happen to take place in Lexington. Next year we play Cincinnati, and the year after that IU (with a rumored second game against UK in the same year, but that is not confirmed).

Still, I would support the game continuing IF it were ONLY at a neutral site. I'm not interested in EKU playing in BG ever unless WKU also plays in Richmond, and obviously that isn't on the table anymore.

[galojay]

It is a very common rule that every FBS conference has in place. So it was nothing intentional towards EKU.

The rivialry change Nov 2, 2006 when WKU Regents approved WKU's move from FCS to FBS. With WKU having 22 more scholarships than EKU, the rivalry would never be the same anyway. Admit it or not, WKU would likely win every game if the series continues after WKU's transition. What kind of rivalry is that? It would be much like the rivalry WKU had with Louisville. WKU actually had a winning record over Louisville. But as Louisville developed as a I-A the series became one-sided.

The series will end in 2008. EKU may make sporadic visits to BG when the schedule align and WKU can offer EKU a guarantee. But to keep this thing going, doesn't make sense, rule or no rule.

Not sure why your coach is so optimistic, unless he is willing to travel to WKU every year (which EKU shouldn't do). Why he said he'd play WKU 11 times if he could I wonder as well. Does EKU need WKU that badly?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Admit it or not, WKU would likely win every game if the series continues after WKU's transition.

Come ON man, don't make me spit out my coffee like that!

I can hear the EKU posters making banners of this quotation and getting them ready for this year's Bluegrass battle... which EKU could surely win!

[galojay]

Come ON man, don't make me spit out my coffee like that!

I can hear the EKU posters making banners of this quotation and getting them ready for this year's Bluegrass battle... which EKU could surely win!

You didn't read my post very well then-- I said "after WKU's transition."

I am not too nieve to think we can't lose this year or possibly even next.

[Killtoppers90]

I wanna kick EKU's ass EVERY YEAR - no matter where we play.

[ekufbfan]

It is a very common rule that every FBS conference has in place. So it was nothing intentional towards EKU.

The rivialry change Nov 2, 2006 when WKU Regents approved WKU's move from FCS to FBS. With WKU having 22 more scholarships than EKU, the rivalry would never be the same anyway. Admit it or not, WKU would likely win every game if the series continues after WKU's transition. What kind of rivalry is that? It would be much like the rivalry WKU had with Louisville. WKU actually had a winning record over Louisville. But as Louisville developed as a I-A the series became one-sided.

The series will end in 2008. EKU may make sporadic visits to BG when the schedule align and WKU can offer EKU a guarantee. But to keep this thing going, doesn't make sense, rule or no rule.

Not sure why your coach is so optimistic, unless he is willing to travel to WKU every year (which EKU shouldn't do). Why he said he'd play WKU 11 times if he could I wonder as well. Does EKU need WKU that badly?

NO! EKU does not need wku at all. So I can't understand where this is coming from. Just talking about this today and we have decided that IF the EKU powers that be agree to travel to BG every year or even play them on a regular basis in BG, we are done and they can have our (EKU) season tickets that we have had for 20+ years. We love EKU football, but no self respecting-die hard Colonel fan will stand for that. No way should we agree to this. I have to think that HOPE was speaking without thinking...which he has a tendency to do. And why would Hope say he would play wku 11 times in a year, how absurd is that statement? Bizarre to say the least! Maybe he was just xwhistlex in the wind????

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You didn't read my post very well then-- I said "after WKU's transition."

I am not too nieve to think we can't lose this year or possibly even next.

But you're naive to think that WKU will be win *every year* after transitioning to FBS. Ask ULM, ULL, Ball State, and countless other not-really-in-the-running-for-a-BC$-title schools that get upset EVERY YEAR by FCS schools.

[89Hen]

But you're naive to think that WKU will be win *every year* after transitioning to FBS. Ask ULM, ULL, Ball State, and countless other not-really-in-the-running-for-a-BC$-title schools that get upset EVERY YEAR by FCS schools.
xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx

[Killtoppers90]

But you're naive to think that WKU will be win *every year* after transitioning to FBS. Ask ULM, ULL, Ball State, and countless other not-really-in-the-running-for-a-BC$-title schools that get upset EVERY YEAR by FCS schools.

But not by EKU!

[galojay]

But you're naive to think that WKU will be win *every year* after transitioning to FBS. Ask ULM, ULL, Ball State, and countless other not-really-in-the-running-for-a-BC$-title schools that get upset EVERY YEAR by FCS schools.

No SBC team lost to a FCS school last year, if I am not mistaken.

WKU will have one of the top budgets in the SBC and higher than some MAC schools when their transition is complete. My point, which you derailed, is the same. The rivalry would not be what it was because WKU would have a consistent competitive advantage. That is a completely fair comment. And it is completely fair to say WKU would be a huge favorite going into the game each year.
Yes, upsets do happen. I guess if EKU wants to continue playing WKU year in and year out on the hopes that one out of 10 games they win one, then I'd welcome them to come to Houchens-Smith Stadium and try!

[bandit]

^^ galojay is right. EKU may pull off the upset from time to time, but by and large it would no longer be the type of competitive series it has been.

It's hard for EKU to watch a rival move to greener pastures because 1) they lose the important rivalry game, and 2) they are being left behind while their rival improves in status.

I don't know what EKU would need to do to follow in the footsteps of WKU, or even if its feasible, but if they had made the committment to improving that WKU did then the series could continue - on the FBS level.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No SBC team lost to a FCS school last year, if I am not mistaken.

WKU will have one of the top budgets in the SBC and higher than some MAC schools when their transition is complete. My point, which you derailed, is the same. The rivalry would not be what it was because WKU would have a consistent competitive advantage. That is a completely fair comment. And it is completely fair to say WKU would be a huge favorite going into the game each year.
Yes, upsets do happen. I guess if EKU wants to continue playing WKU year in and year out on the hopes that one out of 10 games they win one, then I'd welcome them to come to Houchens-Smith Stadium and try!

1) Last I heard, having a "top budget" didn't necessarily translate into winning football games. You may choose to believe that, but I sure don't.

2) Saying that WKU would be a "huge favorite" - I contest that. I (obviously) don't gamble, but I seriously doubt that when NDSU beat Ball State or ULL lost their latest game to a SLC foe (after all, it seems like every other year they lose to one), that they were "huge favorites". If anything, many many folks here at AGS picked those "upsets".

3) Your point is merely chest-thumping that WKU is better than EKU. You may feel that way, but then extrapolating that into the fact that you're all of a sudden going to dominate the series is a serious delusion.

Personally I think it's shameful that the Sun Belt has to destroy historic rivalries in order to prevent possible upsets for their weak sister teams in FBS by FCS teams. Of course, I don't think in all your chest-thumping you'll see it quite like that, but I sure do.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

^^ galojay is right. EKU may pull off the upset from time to time, but by and large it would no longer be the type of competitive series it has been.

It's hard for EKU to watch a rival move to greener pastures because 1) they lose the important rivalry game, and 2) they are being left behind while their rival improves in status.

I don't know what EKU would need to do to follow in the footsteps of WKU, or even if its feasible, but if they had made the committment to improving that WKU did then the series could continue - on the FBS level.

Put another way, why should Eastern Kentucky be forced into making the same idiotic decision WKU made? Perhaps EKU is making the sound decision while WKU enters a huge money pit with zero chance at even a fictional BC$ title.

But it's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games.

[SU Jag]

Put another way, why should Eastern Kentucky be forced into making the same idiotic decision WKU made? Perhaps EKU is making the sound decision while WKU enters a huge money pit with zero chance at even a fictional BC$ title.

But it's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games.


xthumbsupx

[bandit]

Put another way, why should Eastern Kentucky be forced into making the same idiotic decision WKU made? Perhaps EKU is making the sound decision while WKU enters a huge money pit with zero chance at even a fictional BC$ title.

But it's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games.

From what I can tell, it's EKU hoping against hope to continue the series. Obviously nobody is forcing them to do anything.

I think it unlikely that the SBC has specifically thought about WKU playing at EKU. I believe it was mentioned earlier that all FBS conferences have similar clauses forbidding playing road games against FCS teams. I would image the rationale would be that the FBS school would have everything to lose - to the potential detriment of the conference - and little to gain by playing on the road against a 1-AA team.

Schools making the move to FBS are making a gigantic financial investment. Why would they want to risk hurting their program by going on the road to play a team from a lesser division and potentially losing? I love FCS football, don't get me wrong, but I see little advantage for a FBS team playing on the road against an FCS team.

If EKU wants to host FBS teams, then they need to make the move to FBS. That would seem to me one of the perks in playing FBS football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Schools making the move to FBS are making a gigantic financial investment. Why would they want to risk hurting their program by going on the road to play a team from a lesser division and potentially losing?

Thanks for making my point. "It's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games."

Of course if they're "so much better", what would they possibly have to lose by playing the occasional FCS rival in an away game? If you ask some of the other WKU posters on this thread, there will be such a "competitive advantage" that there's no chance EKU will ever win. So why legislate it if they're so much better?

Either they're so much better that they shouldn't worry about playing in an FCS stadium, or else they're so scared they'll lose that they have to legislate these games to be at home. My bet is on the latter.

I wonder if BC$ schools will legislate that they can't play Sun Belt or MAC teams on the road? That's the next logical step. After all, why should one of those teams - that have no chance at an FB$ championship - be able to sully their record by losing one of those games on the road? If D-I schools are allowed to discriminate in this way, why not at least be consistent?

[bandit]

Thanks for making my point. "It's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games."

Of course if they're "so much better", what would they possibly have to lose by playing the occasional FCS rival in an away game? If you ask some of the other WKU posters on this thread, there will be such a "competitive advantage" that there's no chance EKU will ever win. So why legislate it if they're so much better?

Either they're so much better that they shouldn't worry about playing in an FCS stadium, or else they're so scared they'll lose that they have to legislate these games to be at home. My bet is on the latter.

I wonder if BC$ schools will legislate that they can't play Sun Belt or MAC teams on the road? That's the next logical step. After all, why should one of those teams - that have no chance at an FB$ championship - be able to sully their record by losing one of those games on the road? If D-I schools are allowed to discriminate in this way, why not at least be consistent?

I'm not arguing that they are afraid of losing to an FCS team. That much is obvious. The same thing happens in D-1 basketball. How many high-major conference teams play road games against mid- or low-major BB teams? Very few.

WKU would have a huge competitive advantage. That would mean that a loss to EKU - unlikely once they are in FBS for a few years, but certainly possible especially in a rivalry game - would be all the more embarrassing. It's everything for EKU to gain and everything for WKU to lose. Why would WKU put themselves in that position?

You can choose to call it being smart with your program, or being a "Fraidy-Cat", the end result is the same: it makes little sense for a FBS team to play a FCS team on the road, whether its WKU vs. EKU, or UVA vs. JMU.

As for BCS teams playing road games against MAC and Sun Belt teams - it happens. Many BCS schools won't do it, for much the same rationale as I've described above - - but others do. I guess it comes down to what is best for the individual school. But all of these schools enjoy the same # of scholarships, and are all at the same level, so I can't imagine why anyone would suggest banning teams from a BCS league playing away non-league games against a non-BCS FBS opponent.

[Tod]

When Montana's second biggest rival ever, Idaho, went I-A back in the mid-nineties, they signed a five year deal to play Montana, and Montana even got two of those games at home.

Idaho won the first game, and the Griz won the next four.

Today, I'd say we could give them a game every year.

The point being that WKU will have a decent advantage every year if this rivalry were to continue, but there are some unknowns concerning how well WKU will do in the transition and what the future holds for EKU.

Another thing, somebody mentioned the advantage of 22 schollies, but do we know for sure that WKU is going to 85? They only have to fund 90%, so they can go as low as 77. Still an advantage, no doubt, but less of one if they go that route.

xtwocentsx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

IYou can choose to call it being smart with your program, or being a "Fraidy-Cat", the end result is the same: it makes little sense for a FBS team to play a FCS team on the road, whether its WKU vs. EKU, or UVA vs. JMU.

As for BCS teams playing road games against MAC and Sun Belt teams - it happens. Many BCS schools won't do it, for much the same rationale as I've described above - - but others do. I guess it comes down to what is best for the individual school. But all of these schools enjoy the same # of scholarships, and are all at the same level, so I can't imagine why anyone would suggest banning teams from a BCS league playing away non-league games against a non-BCS FBS opponent.

Which is it, man? If you're leglislating it, you're taking the decision-making process out of the school's hands. Are you for the schools being intelligent enough to make their own decisions? Or are you for the conferences needing to "protect themselves from themselves"?

No, they're not at the same level. A Sun Belt team can never be able to play in a BC$ bowl, no matter how many games they win. Why shouldn't the BC$ conferences then sully their record by playing them on the road? Of course, SBC schools could still *play* BC$ teams - it would just have to be on the road. You don't have a problem with doing that with FCS teams - also Division I, remember - so why would you have a problem with BC$ teams doing that to the SBC?

[bandit]

When Montana's second biggest rival ever, Idaho, went I-A back in the mid-nineties, they signed a five year deal to play Montana, and Montana even got two of those games at home.

Idaho won the first game, and the Griz won the next four.

Today, I'd say we could give them a game every year.

The point being that WKU will have a decent advantage every year if this rivalry were to continue, but there are some unknowns concerning how well WKU will do in the transition and what the future holds for EKU.

Another thing, somebody mentioned the advantage of 22 schollies, but do we know for sure that WKU is going to 85? They only have to fund 90%, so they can go as low as 77. Still an advantage, no doubt, but less of one if they go that route.

xtwocentsx


Which is why if i'm Idaho, I would want no part of playing Montana!! xnodx

We know as college football fans that there are plenty of FCS schools capable of beating FBS schools, and certainly Montana could probably beat just about anybody in the WAC and many in the MWC. But the casual FBS fan looks down very hard on a loss to a FCS opponent. Playing them on the road only invites disaster from the FBS teams' point of view.

If i'm the AD at an FCS school of course I'd love to get an FBS team on my home field, but if i'm the FBS school I'd stay well away from it.

Just my opinion, of course :)

Just a side note - very happy to have found this site. I'm a WVU grad who also followed Fairmont State, and now live in Virginia and over the past several years I've become quite a fan of GMU in basketball and JMU in football. I love watching FCS football - there is a spirit and dedication and pride with FCS football that I don't always feel with the FBS teams. (WVU excluded of course, but then I'm biased!) :)

[bandit]

Which is it, man? If you're leglislating it, you're taking the decision-making process out of the school's hands. Are you for the schools being intelligent enough to make their own decisions? Or are you for the conferences needing to "protect themselves from themselves"?

No, they're not at the same level. A Sun Belt team can never be able to play in a BC$ bowl, no matter how many games they win. Why shouldn't the BC$ conferences then sully their record by playing them on the road? Of course, SBC schools could still *play* BC$ teams - it would just have to be on the road. You don't have a problem with doing that with FCS teams - also Division I, remember - so why would you have a problem with BC$ teams doing that to the SBC?

A damaging loss by a member institution hurts the conference as a whole, and its other member institutions as well. If Pitt loses to Furman (as they nearly did a couple years back), how will that impact WVU's power ratings as they try and make the National Title game? The conference has a right to make sure the members aren't scheduling in such a way that it could harm the conference.

A Sun Belt team could in fact make a BCS bowl. Is it likely? Nope. But its possible. I don't have a problem with a BCS-leage team refusing to play at a SBC school if they feel that its not in their best interest. If an SBC team chooses to play guarantee games at a powerhouse with no return, that is their choice. If an SBC team holds out and will only play teams that will give them a return game, that is their choice as well.

I'm only saying that I understand why an FBS team would be reluctant to play on the road against an FCS team, and why the leagues would be reluctant to allow them to do so even if they wanted to.

[galojay]

1) Last I heard, having a "top budget" didn't necessarily translate into winning football games. You may choose to believe that, but I sure don't.

2) Saying that WKU would be a "huge favorite" - I contest that. I (obviously) don't gamble, but I seriously doubt that when NDSU beat Ball State or ULL lost their latest game to a SLC foe (after all, it seems like every other year they lose to one), that they were "huge favorites". If anything, many many folks here at AGS picked those "upsets".

3) Your point is merely chest-thumping that WKU is better than EKU. You may feel that way, but then extrapolating that into the fact that you're all of a sudden going to dominate the series is a serious delusion.

Personally I think it's shameful that the Sun Belt has to destroy historic rivalries in order to prevent possible upsets for their weak sister teams in FBS by FCS teams. Of course, I don't think in all your chest-thumping you'll see it quite like that, but I sure do.

We can agree to disagree, that is fine. My point is still valid. The rivalry will not be what it once was. I'm sorry, when another school has 22 more scholarship players, additional coaches, and additional resources... from an independent person's opinion, that team is favored. Again, you are welcomed to disagree. No chest thumping here. Referencing a AGS group "picking" the loss is hardly independent.

If I were an EKU fan, I would not want to play the game. I'd rather remember it what it was than to start racking up losses (which WILL happen, again, you can disagree) and make the overall record not representative of what the series really was.

[galojay]

Put another way, why should Eastern Kentucky be forced into making the same idiotic decision WKU made? Perhaps EKU is making the sound decision while WKU enters a huge money pit with zero chance at even a fictional BC$ title.

But it's the SBC that seems to be fraidy-scared that teams like EKU could beat their precious teams at home, so they have to LEGISLATE that they can only play home games.

They shouldn't. They should continue to do what is best for their institution, just as WKU did what they thought was best for theirs. No one has to agree with that either.

Furthermore, the "LEGISLATION" is typical of every other FBS conference. SBC couldn't have it from the start because their were too many upstart programs with existing contracts. Now that is no longer a problem.

[galojay]

Another thing, somebody mentioned the advantage of 22 schollies, but do we know for sure that WKU is going to 85? They only have to fund 90%, so they can go as low as 77. Still an advantage, no doubt, but less of one if they go that route.

xtwocentsx

WKU will have 85 scholarships. WKU is committed to the move and doing it correctly. If we did not believe we could be competitive and put ourselves in a place to be bowl eligible every year, we wouldn't have made the move.

[ekufbfan]

From what I can tell, it's EKU hoping against hope to continue the series. Obviously nobody is forcing them to do anything.

l.


That is very debatable! Danny Hope may want to continue playing on a regular basis even IF it means always going to Bowling Green, but I can tell you that 95% or more of EKU fans don't want to and think it's crazy to even entertain the idea! It seems to me some of EKU's Johnny Come Lately's who really don't understand the rivalry for what it has been, may think this is an okay deal for EKU, but the loyal EKU fans who have been following Colonel football since the early Roy Kidd days think it's a disgrace to even consider it! IF we do agree to this, I think you'll see some very disgruntled EKU fans. I for one, don't see any advantage for us. I hate to ever agree with a wku fan, but with more scholarships and always having the home field advantage, plus we all know what kind of calls you don't get when IAA has gone against IA in the past (that won't change with new titles of FCS vs FBS), well, you figure the Las Vegas odds on that.

That said, currently we have two more games left and one of them will be in Richmond. Here's to whipping their butts the next two years!!!xnodx

[Killtoppers90]

That is very debatable! Danny Hope may want to continue playing on a regular basis even IF it means always going to Bowling Green, but I can tell you that 95% or more of EKU fans don't want to and think it's crazy to even entertain the idea! It seems to me some of EKU's Johnny Come Lately's who really don't understand the rivalry for what it has been, may think this is an okay deal for EKU, but the loyal EKU fans who have been following Colonel football since the early Roy Kidd days think it's a disgrace to even consider it! IF we do agree to this, I think you'll see some very disgruntled EKU fans. I for one, don't see any advantage for us. I hate to ever agree with a wku fan, but with more scholarships and always having the home field advantage, plus we all know what kind of calls you don't get when IAA has gone against IA in the past (that won't change with new titles of FCS vs FBS), well, you figure the Las Vegas odds on that.

That said, currently we have two more games left and one of them will be in Richmond. Here's to whipping their butts the next two years!!!xnodx

Holding the games at LT Smith the whole time just doesn't seem right for the rivalry - ya know? Not that I wouldn't mind but I do totally get your point Fan!

[EKU05]

I've stated this before, but my opinion on the rivalry is that it would be fine to play it at a neutral site...but I don't want to go to BG if they aren't coming to Richmond (which obviously they aren't). In such a back and forth rivalry between what have been peer institutions for so many years it just doesn't seem right.

I think the game should be played in Louisville (I'm biased because I live there)...it's almost exactly halfway between the two schools, and I'm sure Papa John's Cardinal Stadium could be rented out on a weekend when U of L isn't at home on their quest to the Big East title (that last bit was for you, Bandit).

Also, while there is no doubt that WKU will gain some serious advantage, I think the bone most had to pick with you, galojay, is your statement early on that WKU would likely "win every game." That MIGHT happen, but I think the Montana-Idaho example...and the fact that SBC teams, while improving are no stranger to losing to FCS teams (I know it didn't happen last year) makes your statement a bit on the strong side. There are a lot of X-factors that still need to play out.

As for EKU and FBS, I saw a recent interview with our AD where he said it's not likely in the near future only because we would lack a viable conference. On the flip side, I saw an interview with Dr. Selig (WKU's AD) where he stated the the random luck of being in the SBC already was literally the only reason WKU even considered the move. That right there is absolutely THE difference between the two situations.

Still, I think it is something that EKU will keep their eye on. If opportunity knocks...well, the current administrations has been quite agressive on all fronts including athletics. For now I'm not worried about it. We have the task of reclaiming the OVC crown that we held for 50% of Roy Kidd's 39 year EKU tenure, and I know our players and fans will embrace that challenge head on.

(As an interesting side note, all indications are that EKU's other rival Morehead State will return to the schedule in 2008...oddly enough games will only be played in Richmond...for what that's worth).

[bandit]

That is very debatable! Danny Hope may want to continue playing on a regular basis even IF it means always going to Bowling Green, but I can tell you that 95% or more of EKU fans don't want to and think it's crazy to even entertain the idea! It seems to me some of EKU's Johnny Come Lately's who really don't understand the rivalry for what it has been, may think this is an okay deal for EKU, but the loyal EKU fans who have been following Colonel football since the early Roy Kidd days think it's a disgrace to even consider it! IF we do agree to this, I think you'll see some very disgruntled EKU fans. I for one, don't see any advantage for us. I hate to ever agree with a wku fan, but with more scholarships and always having the home field advantage, plus we all know what kind of calls you don't get when IAA has gone against IA in the past (that won't change with new titles of FCS vs FBS), well, you figure the Las Vegas odds on that.

That said, currently we have two more games left and one of them will be in Richmond. Here's to whipping their butts the next two years!!!xnodx

I find it hard to imagine that EKU, or another FCS school, would agree to play a long-term series against a FBS rival on their home field. Once in a while, sure.... but going there every year? That would be humiliating, IMHO. I can't imagine EKU would ever consider it, nor should they.

[EKU05]

I find it hard to imagine that EKU, or another FCS school, would agree to play a long-term series against a FBS rival on their home field. Once in a while, sure.... but going there every year? That would be humiliating, IMHO. I can't imagine EKU would ever consider it, nor should they.

Most of us agree, but we've got it straight from both Danny Hope and AD Mark Sandy's mouths that it is in fact a serious consideration at this point. Ultimately I don't think it will happen, but you never know.

[BearsCountry]

A Sun Belt team can never be able to play in a BC$ bowl, no matter how many games they win.

Thats false. If a Sun Belt runs the table, they would have the opportunity just like Boise State and Utah, its part of the new BCS agreement.

[galojay]

Also, while there is no doubt that WKU will gain some serious advantage, I think the bone most had to pick with you, galojay, is your statement early on that WKU would likely "win every game." That MIGHT happen, but I think the Montana-Idaho example...and the fact that SBC teams, while improving are no stranger to losing to FCS teams (I know it didn't happen last year) makes your statement a bit on the strong side. There are a lot of X-factors that still need to play out.

You're saying the same thing I said, so not sure what your issue is. I said we would have considerable advantage. And I like how you put "win every game" in quotes and left out a key word, "LIKELY". I think that is fair. How many FCS teams beat FBS? You look to the Montana-Idaho example, but their are dozens apon dozens of games that the FBS team always wins. How many victories does EKU have over a FBS team? I think saying we would likely win is not speaking out of line. It is nothing against EKU... it's different playing levels. We'll have more scholarships, more coaches, more money... we should win.



Still, I think it is something that EKU will keep their eye on. If opportunity knocks...well, the current administrations has been quite agressive on all fronts including athletics. For now I'm not worried about it. We have the task of reclaiming the OVC crown that we held for 50% of Roy Kidd's 39 year EKU tenure, and I know our players and fans will embrace that challenge head on.

IF EKU is thinking about it, then they need to be preparing now. Since you do have to find a conference, you will have to prove yourself as able to make the move BEFORE you can actually get a conference to add you. You can't wait for an invite then invest in facilities, etc.