Missouri, Middle Tennessee Schedule Three-Game Football Series

By Kevin Kelley -

The Missouri Tigers and the Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders have scheduled a three-game football series for 2016, 2022, and 2023, MTSU announced today.

In the first game of the series, Missouri will host Middle Tennessee at Faurot Field in Columbia on Oct. 22, 2016. The game will be the second meeting between the two schools following Mizzou’s 41-40 win back in 2003.

Missouri will travel to face Middle Tennessee at Johnny “Red” Floyd Stadium in Murfreesboro on Sept. 17, 2022. In the third and final game of the series, the Tigers will host the Blue Raiders on Sept. 9, 2023.

The Tigers have also announced a home game vs. Delaware State on Sept. 24, 2016, which completes their non-conference schedule for that season. Mizzou opens the season at West Virginia on Sept. 3 and then hosts Eastern Michigan a week later on Sept. 10.

The Mizzou-MTSU matchup in 2022 and 2023 is the first announced non-conference game for both schools for both seasons.

Middle Tennessee also now has three non-conference games set for 2016 with the addition of Missouri. The Blue Raiders are also slated to visit local rival Vanderbilt on Sept. 10 and Bowling Green on Sept. 17.

“We are excited about this series because it gives our fans a chance to see Middle Tennessee compete against a quality non-league opponent from a Power 5 conference,” said Middle Tennessee Director of Athletics Chris Massaro. “We have been fortunate to attract several quality teams to our campus, and Missouri is certainly another one of those.”

Football Schedules

  1. Randy
    August 26, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    Any news on Kan St, So Caro, BC, NC, and Mia-FL 2016 schedules? And NIU?

    Several months ago Kansas St AD was in the media stating the Wildcats were very close to completing their 2016 schedule and would soon announce a home game with a G5 opponent, and once again will not play a P5 OOC opponent. Several months later no announce and not many G5 choices out there, are there?

    Will some of these teams end up playing two FCS opponents in 2016?

    The following programs will not play a P5 OOC opponent in 2016:
    Miss St, WSU, Utah, Arizona, Maryland, Purdue, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, AF, and Toledo

    Of these Miss St, Utah, Arizona, and Toledo will play BYU.

    Maybe Bill Snyder will allow the Wildcats to play BYU in a neutral field game in KC (as Missouri is doing this season)?

    • G of F
      August 26, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      BYU only has 1 home game available for 2016, perhaps Kansas could make a road trip to Provo;)

    • Why?
      August 26, 2015 at 11:57 pm

      The SEC and ACC consider BYU a P5 team and from the looks of scheduling the Pac 12 does too.
      Maybe we all should

    • schoup
      August 27, 2015 at 11:46 am

      The P12 has always played BYU often, this isn’t some new happening like is going on with ACC and SEC who designated them equal to a P5 b/c they don’t want to play actual P5’s. Btw, the ACC and SEC are cowards too scared to play a 9 game conf despite everyone knows it’s asinine with 14 teams in 6-1-1 format b/c you play 6 members just twice in 12 years. The ACC and SEC meantime are in annual battle for playing the most FCS schools each having all 14 teams play one every year.

  2. Randy
    August 27, 2015 at 12:47 am

    GofF…It’s Kansas St and not Kansas.

    BYU 2016 schedule currently has 5 home, 4 “away”, and 2 “neutral field” games.

    I bet the Holmoe would glady trade another home game for a neutral field game, if the revenue and opponent were right. Game would need to be 10/29 or 11/05. Actually, since the Big12 does not have a championship game, BYU vs Kansas State could be played on 12/03.

    Or maybe BYU fans would rather settle for a Weber St vs BYU game in Provo?

    • @dbrunstheworld
      August 27, 2015 at 10:53 am

      BYU AD Tom Holmoe has stated BYU will play a minimum six home games per season. Expect an FCS addition.

    • G of F
      August 27, 2015 at 3:06 pm

      Yeah I realized I made that mistake after I posted. BYU will not settle for 5 home games, we would rather have an FCS home game than another neutral site game hundreds of miles away so that we can watch our team play. I’m sure K-State fans feel the same way.

  3. Kenneth Craig Brown
    August 27, 2015 at 6:41 am

    I wouldn’t mind if BYU invited Purdue to come to Provo!

  4. Craig
    August 27, 2015 at 9:05 am

    Re: The following programs will not play a P5 OOC opponent in 2016:
    Miss St, WSU, Utah, Arizona, Maryland, Purdue, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, AF, and Toledo

    All of the above programs 2016 schedules are full, except for Kansas St.

    So a Purdue-BYU game is not happening.

    Four P5 programs (Kansas St, South Carolina, Miami-FL, NC), each with FCS programs already on their schedule, have one more non-FCS OOC game to announce

    The media had reported NC has added The Citadel to their 2016 schedule, with one more game yet to schedule.

    BC has two openings, needing a P5 opponent, and the other game likely a FCS opponent.

    So Kansas St and BC are the only two P5 programs, with openings still on their schedule, which have yet to schedule a P5 OOC opponent.

    Will NC-BC opt for a non-conference game against each other?

    But both, like everyone else, wants a home game.

    NIU, with three G5 OOC opponents scheduled, is hoping to schedule a P5 opponent (after Nebraska cancelled), but may have to settle for a G5 or FCS opponent.

    Eight P5 programs and 13 G5 programs i(including BYU) still have a slot open for a potential FCS opponent.

    Will Florida, Florida St or Stanford opt to play a FCS opponent or schedule a G5 opponent?

    It is possible UNLV, Nevada, NM, Boise St, Mass and/or Hawaii will use their ‘Hawaii exception’ to schedule a 13th game?

    Waiting to see which of the 26 programs still looking for a game opt for a game with an FCS opponent, versus paying a big guarantee to, or scheduling a 2-for-1 with, a G5 opponent..

    • schoup
      August 27, 2015 at 11:50 am

      Your under some assumption that all conferences are requiring members to play P5’s OOC yearly. B12 nor the ACC has not made any such statement that I know of. The only way all conf are going to go to 9 game conf, to playing 1 p5 OOC and no fcs schools; all which should occur is if the CFP says if a team doesn;t they are ineligible for the playoff. So, teams can choose not to but they also are saying we have no desire to be in the playoff.

    • Kenneth Craig Brown
      August 27, 2015 at 6:56 pm

      I guess I read that wrong!

  5. Craig
    August 27, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    I’m not under any assumption. I’m just posting some possibilities.

    Some lower division P5 programs very much want to play another P5 program in OOC play. But some others have been going to the extreme from doing so, especially if it means playing a home-and-home outside of their region or not getting a seventh game at home. e.g. Kansas State.

    The playoff committee should not credit KSU’s strategy, just the same they should not credit many SEC programs scheduling strategies.

    I applaud the B1G going to a 9-game conference schedule, and eliminating (minimizing?) games vs FCS. But the B1G needs to go further and mandate a minimum of one game vs a P5 OOC opponent.

    The Pac-12 and the Big12 should do the same.

    On the other hand P5 programs should be applauded for scheduling perennially strong FCS programs (e.g. North Dakota St).

    However I’m unconvinced BYU should qualify as an equivalent of a P5 opponent, when Boise State is not.

    I could care less about the programs purposely scheduling weak or want seven home games to provide an opportunity to become bowl eligible in order to earn a marginal bowl invite. But purposely avoiding home-and-home series, and scheduling weak home games in order to have an opportunity to be selected for the playoffs should be rejected by the playoff committee.

    And the playoff committee should keep in mind when games are cancelled, and who does the cancelling. For example Texas A&M cancelling on Oregon for 2018. Oregon could still possibly end up playing Wisconsin or Ol’ Miss in 2018, but if that does not happen then the Ducks shouldn’t be punished f they are unable to fill that hole created by the Aggies. (similar to when both Georgia and Kansas St cancelled games with Oregon). Oregon was able to fill the 2019 hole scheduling another one of those so-called “neutral site” games with Auburn. But a home-and-home would have been much preferred.

    • schoupo
      August 27, 2015 at 1:52 pm

      The B10 is mandating d no FCS and requiring a P5 OOC. There are only a couple not in compliance and the B10 has said they will allow them to honor their contracts, but future years they must have no FCS and a P5 OOC. A few schools have made changes already and gotten out of scheduled games but the B10 isn’t making them break a set contract if they don’t want to.

    • schoup
      August 27, 2015 at 2:00 pm

      On scheduling weak. Schools can’t necessarily predict when they are going to have a good year. Look at last year, several typically marginal SEC teams Ole mIss and MIss St were highly ranked at points yet they had weak OOC b/c most years they know they need those games to get to a “marginal” bowl game. To prevent that I say no fcs and required P5 or forfeit CFP eligibility that year, You scheduled cr@p b/c you expected to be mediocre you should not be rewarded.

      On cancellation the CFP isn’t going to look into that stuff IMHO. They are not even stern enough not to consider schools like Baylor who haven’t played a p5 in 8+ years while always playing a FCS school. Before the season even started no matter what Baylor did in 2014 I viewed them as a non contender b/c they purposely schedule a garbage OOC and have for a decade.

  6. Craig
    August 27, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Schoup said: “The only way all conf are going to go to 9 game conf, to playing 1 p5 OOC and no fcs schools; all which should occur is if the CFP says if a team doesn;t they are ineligible for the playoff. So, teams can choose not to but they also are saying we have no desire to be in the playoff.”

    I would support such a policy. But no way that’s going to happen in the near future.

    First, the B12 needs to add two programs and play a championship game (they should not receive a waiver from the NCAA on this). Then the next step is ND joining the ACC full-time (Notre Dame should not be receiving any extra advantages as it is currently receiving). Then both the ACC and SEC need go to a 9-game conference schedule.

    The next step would then be requiring all members of P5 conferences to play minimum of one P5 OOC opponent per season., and reducing the number of FCS games. I’m not advocating eliminating all FCS games. But programs scheduling weak FCS opponents should have their SOS rating further penalized by the playoff committee.

    • schoup
      August 27, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      I agree with all that. On ND they will keep milking it as long as they are allowed. The BCS and now CFP gave them a sweetheart deal. ND isn’t going to turn down an advantage out of the goodness of their heart. Also, in the ACC/ND agreement if ND joins a conference anytime before the end of the agreement it must be the ACC. So if there is more realignment that forces ND hand then the ACC is in the cat bird seat.

      ND should really just join as they have tied all their other sports to the ACC. SB Nation had an article months ago about some supposed source saying texas wants to join the ACC when then the B12 tv deal is done and they are talking to convince ND. Texas to ACC actually makes sense as an extra benefit ND would like. ND has made a concerted effort to get to TX often with series with TX and A&M upcoming as well as past neutral site games. They want to recruit Tx just like they make an effort to always get to CA every yrear via USC and Stanford series. The ACC services alot of ND’s major alumni areas.

  7. Craig
    August 28, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Indeed, ND is not looking a gif t horse in the mouth. I don’t understand the dynamics of why the ND AD received a spot on the playoff committee and are being catered too so heavily.

    Does the ND-ACC football agreement have a renewal date, where ND can decide to go back to being a football independent but at the same time keep its Olympic sports in the ACC? Indeed ND likes Texas country.

    Didn’t know about Texas wanting to join the ACC. So when does the B12 TV contract come up for renewal?

    So is it possible ND is waiting for a Texas-ACC decision before jumping wholesale into the ACC? With ND having their own TV contract with NBC, are they likely to join the ACC as a full football member? For that to happen the ACC would have to bend over backwards for ND. And Texas has their own ESPN contract, so the ACC would have to bend over for Texas as well.

    If Texas decides to dump the Big12 for the ACC, then that would be the end of the Big12 as we know it, and would leave Oklahoma on the outside. I have been presuming Oklahoma is glued to the hip of Texas. So would Oklahoma be more likely to join the Pac-12, as was the well advertised possibility a few years back when it appeared like four schools would break off the Big12 and join the Pac-12? Or would the B1G or SEC be interested in Oklahoma, and vice versa? For Olympic sports, joining the SEC West would likely be the Sooners better move.

    And if the B12 is going to lose Texas, possibly causing the collapse of the conference, is it prudent for BYU wanting to join the B12 before the B12 decides its future. Or will BYU hold out for an Pac-12 invite? Or is BYU now happy with their independent status? BYU’s geographic location smack between but outside of both the P12 and B12 regions, doesn’t bode well for their Olympic sports programs traveling. But I don;t see either conference wanting BYU as a football only member.

    I believe both the SEC and the ACC will be voting to go 9-game conference schedules in the near future. So that will make it more difficult for BYU to schedule P5 opponents, especially in the last half of the season.

Leave a Reply