(04-18-2014 05:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Its absolutely a business.

Here in TX the AD is entirely separate from the U itself and cant use any school funds for athletics. Its a separate business run by a CEO we call the Athletic Director who is paid to make decisions that are best for the company.

The crossover is that the "employees" are students of the university who get paid with a free education and room and board.

They can, your own athletic department took a 'loan' from the general education fund in order to survive. They aren't completely separate.

They aren't employees. They are in no way employees. It seems odd that you can be making 'business' decisions entirely separate from the university while putting your kids in the school and letting the school house and feed them. That doesn't sound like a good business.

Keep in mind, I'm saying this as somebody who doesn't support paying the kids. If we aren't going to pay them then we ought to go back to playing the game in a purer form instead of making our decisions in a way that is all about money. Play the small schools.

I'm still not sure what your getting at here. Are you trying to say that athletic department decisions shouldn't be based on "business" choices but rather noble academic choices?

(04-18-2014 06:04 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I'm still not sure what your getting at here. Are you trying to say that athletic department decisions shouldn't be based on "business" choices but rather noble academic choices?

If it's a business then it's a business and needs to pay for using the schools name and pay its 'employees.'

If it's an extension of the university and academic in nature then it needs to behave like it and put the game over money.

Regardless, this middle ground approach isn't good for anybody but the heads of the athletic departments, sponsors, and coaches.

Quote:If it's an extension of the university and academic in nature then it needs to behave like it and put the game over money.

Ok, in a perfect world, what does this mean? Tell me what the Alabama AD would look like if you were king and could do what you wanted.

(04-18-2014 06:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:If it's an extension of the university and academic in nature then it needs to behave like it and put the game over money.

Ok, in a perfect world, what does this mean? Tell me what the Alabama AD would look like if you were king and could do what you wanted.

Alabama's out of conference schedule would be worth the $1500 I have to pay for parking and the right to buy tickets.

Which is fine and reasonable...but it seems contradictory to your earlier statement

(04-18-2014 10:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I've always felt that out of conference games ought to be assigned on a lottery system. I hate that I get charged an arm and a leg so I can see Alabama play some nobody from the FCS.

Forcing big name teams to travel to smaller schools is a good thing. Forcing them to play some of those away will benefit the smaller programs.

See...if there was a lottery system and Big teams were forced to play little teams, you near guarantee that Bama's OOC will be something to the effect of Bowling Green, Richmond, New Mexico State and Minnesota pretty much every year which guarantees your tickets will almost NEVER be worth the price you are currently paying for them.

(04-18-2014 07:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Which is fine and reasonable...but it seems contradictory to your earlier statement

(04-18-2014 10:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I've always felt that out of conference games ought to be assigned on a lottery system. I hate that I get charged an arm and a leg so I can see Alabama play some nobody from the FCS.

Forcing big name teams to travel to smaller schools is a good thing. Forcing them to play some of those away will benefit the smaller programs.

See...if there was a lottery system and Big teams were forced to play little teams, you near guarantee that Bama's OOC will be something to the effect of Bowling Green, Richmond, New Mexico State and Minnesota pretty much every year which guarantees your tickets will almost NEVER be worth the price you are currently paying for them.

Every school you named is better than the Tennessee-Martins and West Carolinas we get.

The lottery system ought to put teams like Alabama play the smaller schools in our region. Ultimately, it's good for everybody.

We have nobody looking out for the good of the game. In nearly every sport people love the underdog. But we have lost that in football. People have come to sneer at the underdog.

Nothing is stopping Bama from doing that right now. They could get UAB, Troy and USA on the schedule every year. As you said, better than WCU and UT-M and its helping your instate schools.

(04-18-2014 07:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  We have nobody looking out for the good of the game. In nearly every sport people love the underdog. But we have lost that in football. People have come to sneer at the underdog.

Pfft.

Americans like an underdog for a few minutes then quickly despise them. Even when underdogs win the press and message boards are filled with "they were overlooking them" "Oh well it was THEIR Super Bowl", "Coach didn't have them ready" "Just shows coach sucks at his job". No one can bear to utter the truer words, "The difference in talent isn't that large and on that day, they out-played them". It always is couched in how the big team BLEW IT.

Americans hate the commoner who rises to throne and prefer the noble born. Right now the flavor of hate is Boise blue, I remember when it was Miami orange and BYU blue.

(04-18-2014 07:23 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nothing is stopping Bama from doing that right now. They could get UAB, Troy and USA on the schedule every year. As you said, better than WCU and UT-M and its helping your instate schools.

Dude, did you miss the earlier part of the conversation? You just reidentified the problem.

The problem is that scheduling is a no win situation.

If you play P5 teams then the G5/FCS complain about how "you don't care about the little guy and wont help us out! You're too scared to play real competition"

If you help out the local FCS/G5 teams then the P5 teams complain "You're just padding your wins by beating up on nobodies! You're too scared to play real competition!"

either way, you cant win because everyone has an agenda

(04-18-2014 07:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The problem is that scheduling is a no win situation.

If you play P5 teams then the G5/FCS complain about how "you don't care about the little guy and wont help us out! You're too scared to play real competition"

If you help out the local FCS/G5 teams then the P5 teams complain "You're just padding your wins by beating up on nobodies! You're too scared to play real competition!"

either way, you cant win because everyone has an agenda

Playing bad or small teams from another state brings the same criticism. Michigan playing Kent State vs CMU why not CMU.
WELL Michigan does play CMU didn't want to pick on Bama or any other school. Playing in state tax payer funded schools is the right thing to do.

(04-18-2014 07:42 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The problem is that scheduling is a no win situation.

If you play P5 teams then the G5/FCS complain about how "you don't care about the little guy and wont help us out! You're too scared to play real competition"

If you help out the local FCS/G5 teams then the P5 teams complain "You're just padding your wins by beating up on nobodies! You're too scared to play real competition!"

either way, you cant win because everyone has an agenda

Playing bad or small teams from another state brings the same criticism. Michigan playing Kent State vs CMU why not CMU.
WELL Michigan does play CMU didn't want to pick on Bama or any other school. Playing in state tax payer funded schools is the right thing to do.

So when do you announce the yearly series with Idaho State? Never understood why Idaho doesn't play Idaho State.

South Carolina does that. They don't play many P5 schools, but they play almost every SC FCS school. They've played SC State, The Citadel, Furman, Coastal, and Wofford within the last 5 years. The only in-state FCS school that the Gamecocks haven't played is Charleston Southern. Clemson also does that. I believe the state legislatures encourage that.

Georgetown won't play Maryland in bball so Maryland won't play Georgetown in anything else (costing both schools a great lax rivalry).

Navy won't play Maryland in football. Tons of history there but a game every couple of years would be a good thing for the state.

(04-17-2014 06:31 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  Missouri won't play Missouri State in basketball.... MSU won the last meeting in 98 or 99 I think. They only played that year because they meet in the Pre season NIT.

I agree. This would a great in-state game. Missouri should be ashamed of themselves.

(04-17-2014 06:24 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I'll just save the trouble for the rest of the thread:

If for whatever reason you think Texas A&M is unjustly ducking your team and that you feel for whatever reason we owe you a game, please direct this complaint to the nearest brick wall.

It always seems to go down that road, doesn't it 10th... bitterness is a consuming thing.

(04-18-2014 07:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The problem is that scheduling is a no win situation.

If you play P5 teams then the G5/FCS complain about how "you don't care about the little guy and wont help us out! You're too scared to play real competition"

If you help out the local FCS/G5 teams then the P5 teams complain "You're just padding your wins by beating up on nobodies! You're too scared to play real competition!"

either way, you cant win because everyone has an agenda

No you are changing the debate.

It isn't about a TAMU choosing to play Oregon or Indiana or Clemson

It is about TAMU choosing to play a Sun Belt member like Arkansas State rather than Texas State or a CUSA like Southern Miss rather than UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, or an AAC like Memphis rather than Houston or SMU or an FCS like Western Carolina rather than the abundant number of FCS within Texas.

If you state with your scheduling you are willing to play schools within that level but not if they are located within the state, that is what triggers the complaints of why spend that money on an opponent of that level who is chartering a plane to come play when you have a wide selection of similar level institutions that can bus in at lower cost and are institutions supported by the same taxpayers supporting Texas A&M.

(04-19-2014 11:40 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The problem is that scheduling is a no win situation.

If you play P5 teams then the G5/FCS complain about how "you don't care about the little guy and wont help us out! You're too scared to play real competition"

If you help out the local FCS/G5 teams then the P5 teams complain "You're just padding your wins by beating up on nobodies! You're too scared to play real competition!"

either way, you cant win because everyone has an agenda

No you are changing the debate.

It isn't about a TAMU choosing to play Oregon or Indiana or Clemson

It is about TAMU choosing to play a Sun Belt member like Arkansas State rather than Texas State or a CUSA like Southern Miss rather than UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, or an AAC like Memphis rather than Houston or SMU or an FCS like Western Carolina rather than the abundant number of FCS within Texas.

If you state with your scheduling you are willing to play schools within that level but not if they are located within the state, that is what triggers the complaints of why spend that money on an opponent of that level who is chartering a plane to come play when you have a wide selection of similar level institutions that can bus in at lower cost and are institutions supported by the same taxpayers supporting Texas A&M.

True, though Michigan would be a better example of a name team that doesn't play in-state opponents. TAMU does play non-con games vs. Texas teams -- 3 in 2013 and 3 more in 2014. OTOH, 10th is correct that when you do schedule like that, some guy with a website will put you on a list like this one.