Cupcake Punishment!!

I don't care so much about the 1-AA teams playing... it gives them a shot at the big boys (see Michigan vs. Appalachian State, 2007), and since they more or less all do, it all balances out.

Oh and BTW, UCLA/Tennessee was pretty darn compelling last night.   

You have no idea how disappointed I was when I opened this thread to find it wasn't actually about cupcakes

Oh yum yep thats what I was thinking!!  now I'm hungry for cupcakes.

I made these for my friends birthday on the weekend

" border="0" />

My birthday's coming up (in 3 months)

I took a look at last year's Sagarin ratings, and I think Appy St. was ranked higher than almost half the Big 10, Big 12, and ACC. 

No problems,  you might want to come downunder to collect them though.  they might be a bit stale if I post them

Have you seen the Pittsburgh Pirates anytime in the past.... say... 15 years?   (I'm a Pirate fan... don't start flaming...)
-B

The divisions aren't based on competitiveness.  They're based on size of the school and game attendance.

Not sure why the concept of different divisions playing each other is odd, but playing cupcakes in your down division is ok.

akustix - 2008-09-03 10:53 AM

aww now thats just mean,   i'm really having cupcake cravings now.  its morning tea time here and my apple is just not cutting it..

awesome pic! I might have to save that one and use it later

No, both of the examples above have camps that allow players to try out and then allow them to play against other teams.  It's called "pre-season" and professionals use it to evaluate talent and generate more revenue.

Personally, I don't see a problem with the "cupcakes" on the schedule because the only cupcake has nothing to lose.  The cupcake gets paid some good money to travel to the big school.  They come in with no expectation of winning; all the pressure is on the big school.  Heck, even if the big school doesn't win by a large enough margin, the big school can drop in the rankings.  The biggest benefit to the big school is a chance to have a pre-season and evaluate some of their talent in a real game situation.

Look at most NCAA schools and you'll see that football is the big money maker.  IIRC, Michigan makes so much off of their football program that they are able to pay for EVERY OTHER intercollegiate program.  No other program even comes close to breaking even.  I'm guessing that this same relationship applies to the I-AA schools and so this arrangement may provide more opportunities to other athletes at those schools.  All because Youngstown State got blown out by Ohio State on one Saturday.

From a 2006 article to back that up.  College football is big business.

"According to the latest federal disclosure forms, no one pulls in more money than these Top 10 schools.

1. Texas $53,204,171

2. Ohio State $51,810,607

3. Georgia $50,895,838

4. Michigan $46,396,107

5. Florida $43,417,641

6. Alabama $42,979,669

7. Notre Dame $41,754,817

8. Auburn $40,563,927

9. Louisiana State $40,107,764

10. Texas A&M $38,359,977"

I could argue that getting recruited is similar to a try out process, but I'm lazy. Also OSU doesn't make money because they play YSU, they make money because it's a home game. So, they could easily insert any other team and still make that money. Plus there are lot's of programs that would love to play these big schools in a chance to get some more exposure for their own school. 

I believe (and I may have outdated information) that a D-I school can only count a win against a D-I AA once every four years toward its win total for bowl eligibility.  At least that's the way it used to be.  Now, if you're a top school and don't think you're going to have any problems coming up with 6 wins, then its not really an issue. 

While a good idea it still isn't discouraging your top end programs (OSU, UGA for example) from playing them. I would love to see a lot more games ala FSU vs. Rutgers and Wisconsin. It's hard enough for non-BCS conferences to get respect especially if they don't get to play any BCS conference teams.