(05-15-2014 04:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:53 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:39 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 02:17 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 12:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yeah signing a 2 game series with the return that far out is just begging to get it canceled. Throw in a 250k buyout and they just got a buy game for less than 1/4 the usual FBS asking price. I know the P5 teams in a lot of cases hold the cards in these situations, but the USF AD should have been able to see this coming from a mile away and either not agreed to it or gotten a much higher buyout. I know the whole "if USF didn't agree to that someone else would have" and that's great let another school agree to those terms.

Disagree, b/c unfortunately AAC schools need to keep P5 teams...especially good ones....on their schedules if the conference is going to have ANY shot at registering a playoff bid everyone in a full moon if stars align and there is so much parity in the P5 that it allows us to sneak our undefeated champion into serious consideration. There is no way around that ...and it may mean we have to all take bad or risky deals.

I disagree that taking deals like that one is a good idea. Now maybe there's more financial compensation than just the 250k and it makes more sense, but otherwise you guys essentially signed a deal that almost 100% was going to turn into a buy game for 250k. That's a horrific deal, and in no way the deal any AAC team should sign up for.

Nobody said it was a good idea, but it may come down to accepted 'bad' lopsided deals in order to put together a decent schedule that will allow AAC teams to make a real run at a playoff bid. Again, that was the standard buyout for a LOT of deals prior to the BE falling apart so don't make this a USF only issue.

It was a risk that might have been worth taking. Tough call. I'd say in hindsight the only queationable judgement was a higher buyout, but a game in st pete should or does present value to msu and usf took that risk with the hope that msu would come to south fla. there r often winners and losers in most deals.

Oh btw, with that all said...our FORMER AD was clueless and deserved to have UCF fans knife his tires. His only redeeming quality was that he was never accused of being the ringleader in a NCAA cheating scandal

Don't they still want to recruit FL?

(05-15-2014 05:13 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 05:10 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:41 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I do have to bring up the irony at people complaining about Michigan State backing out of their deal with USF, even though so far, USF has not made good on their obligation to schedule WKU.

What obligation is that?

As part of the Taggart deal. It is listed in the article posted.

From the posted article:

One other item of note: supposedly, as a condition of Willie Taggart's contract with Western Kentucky, USF has to schedule a home-and-home with the Hilltoppers. So far there's been no evidence that this is in the works, or even being talked about.

Much like the Lannisters, USF always pays their debts.

It does say "supposedly", but if it is I don't see why we won't fulfill it after all we have scheduled them home and away before

(05-15-2014 11:49 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:40 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:34 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  wont be surprised if USF replaces Michigan State with BYU

Pretty much a safe bet

BYU would prefer playing McNeese State to improve their strength of schedule.

Dude you won the fiesta, was that comment REALLY necessary? Lol

(05-15-2014 05:54 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:49 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:40 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:34 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  wont be surprised if USF replaces Michigan State with BYU

Pretty much a safe bet

BYU would prefer playing McNeese State to improve their strength of schedule.

Dude you won the fiesta, was that comment REALLY necessary? Lol

Subtle jabs are the best...see my post above.

(05-15-2014 05:13 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 05:10 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:41 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I do have to bring up the irony at people complaining about Michigan State backing out of their deal with USF, even though so far, USF has not made good on their obligation to schedule WKU.

What obligation is that?

As part of the Taggart deal. It is listed in the article posted.

From the posted article:

One other item of note: supposedly, as a condition of Willie Taggart's contract with Western Kentucky, USF has to schedule a home-and-home with the Hilltoppers. So far there's been no evidence that this is in the works, or even being talked about.

Much like the Lannisters, USF always pays their debts.

Technically UofL owes WKU a football game as well. I think both programs (UofL and USF) will probably just send some cash and be done with it.

(05-15-2014 06:50 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 05:54 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:49 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:40 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:34 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  wont be surprised if USF replaces Michigan State with BYU

Pretty much a safe bet

BYU would prefer playing McNeese State to improve their strength of schedule.

Dude you won the fiesta, was that comment REALLY necessary? Lol

Subtle jabs are the best...see my post above.

We did have a tougher time with McNeese than with UCF

(05-15-2014 04:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:53 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:39 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 02:17 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 12:00 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yeah signing a 2 game series with the return that far out is just begging to get it canceled. Throw in a 250k buyout and they just got a buy game for less than 1/4 the usual FBS asking price. I know the P5 teams in a lot of cases hold the cards in these situations, but the USF AD should have been able to see this coming from a mile away and either not agreed to it or gotten a much higher buyout. I know the whole "if USF didn't agree to that someone else would have" and that's great let another school agree to those terms.

Disagree, b/c unfortunately AAC schools need to keep P5 teams...especially good ones....on their schedules if the conference is going to have ANY shot at registering a playoff bid everyone in a full moon if stars align and there is so much parity in the P5 that it allows us to sneak our undefeated champion into serious consideration. There is no way around that ...and it may mean we have to all take bad or risky deals.

I disagree that taking deals like that one is a good idea. Now maybe there's more financial compensation than just the 250k and it makes more sense, but otherwise you guys essentially signed a deal that almost 100% was going to turn into a buy game for 250k. That's a horrific deal, and in no way the deal any AAC team should sign up for.

Nobody said it was a good idea, but it may come down to accepted 'bad' lopsided deals in order to put together a decent schedule that will allow AAC teams to make a real run at a playoff bid. Again, that was the standard buyout for a LOT of deals prior to the BE falling apart so don't make this a USF only issue.

It was a risk that might have been worth taking. Tough call. I'd say in hindsight the only queationable judgement was a higher buyout, but a game in st pete should or does present value to msu and usf took that risk with the hope that msu would come to south fla. there r often winners and losers in most deals.

LSU recently cancelled out on NC State. Here were the terms of the buyout:

LSU vs. NC State buyout:
$100,000 if more than 36 months (3 YEARS!) notice
$200,000 for 12-36 months notice
$400,000 for less than 12 months.
$1 million if LSU had played the home game and then later canceled the road game.

(05-15-2014 08:06 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:50 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 05:54 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:49 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:40 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  Pretty much a safe bet

BYU would prefer playing McNeese State to improve their strength of schedule.

Dude you won the fiesta, was that comment REALLY necessary? Lol

Subtle jabs are the best...see my post above.

We did have a tougher time with McNeese than with UCF

Same result.

We're 1-4 b!tches!**

(05-15-2014 09:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:59 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 04:53 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:39 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 02:17 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Disagree, b/c unfortunately AAC schools need to keep P5 teams...especially good ones....on their schedules if the conference is going to have ANY shot at registering a playoff bid everyone in a full moon if stars align and there is so much parity in the P5 that it allows us to sneak our undefeated champion into serious consideration. There is no way around that ...and it may mean we have to all take bad or risky deals.

I disagree that taking deals like that one is a good idea. Now maybe there's more financial compensation than just the 250k and it makes more sense, but otherwise you guys essentially signed a deal that almost 100% was going to turn into a buy game for 250k. That's a horrific deal, and in no way the deal any AAC team should sign up for.

Nobody said it was a good idea, but it may come down to accepted 'bad' lopsided deals in order to put together a decent schedule that will allow AAC teams to make a real run at a playoff bid. Again, that was the standard buyout for a LOT of deals prior to the BE falling apart so don't make this a USF only issue.

It was a risk that might have been worth taking. Tough call. I'd say in hindsight the only queationable judgement was a higher buyout, but a game in st pete should or does present value to msu and usf took that risk with the hope that msu would come to south fla. there r often winners and losers in most deals.

LSU recently cancelled out on NC State. Here were the terms of the buyout:

LSU vs. NC State buyout:
$100,000 if more than 36 months (3 YEARS!) notice
$200,000 for 12-36 months notice
$400,000 for less than 12 months.
$1 million if LSU had played the home game and then later canceled the road game.

And those terms make a lot of sense to me. Essentially they agreed to pay the going buy game rate if they turned a home and home into a buy game, and if not the payment was less and less the longer out the cancellation happened. I guess my main point is no AAC schools should sign deals that can turn home and homes into buy games after the fact for basically pennies. If that's the only thing that school wants to agree to then move on to someone else. USF is located in one of the best recruiting areas in the country and plays in an NFL stadium so it's not like they can't find other P5's to agree to more agreeable terms. That was a bad deal by the old AD, and I hope the new one doesn't agree to ones in the future that are clearly easy to turn into cheap buy games.

(05-15-2014 01:41 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  We need to demote every FBS team that plays annual buy-games back to FCS. If they're not valuable enough to balance their budget without blood money then they don't belong in this division.

What are you rambling about?

UCF recently signed up for an annual "buy game" at this place for 2015:



Guess UCF has to get demoted to Div I-AA/FCS because of this guy's crazy rant.

(05-15-2014 03:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:03 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  MSU will make way more than $250k off the home game.

I would have to assume that the $250k buyout was in addition to some sort of payment for the game, since it now becomes a "buy" game. But that is just me guessing.

You assume wrong.

Clearly stated buyouts in every contract is for total payment of any cancelled game...(i.e. no additional fees are paid).

NOTE: Some contract include exceptions (additional penalties) if non-conf games are cancelled less than 1 year in advance).

(05-16-2014 08:05 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:41 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  We need to demote every FBS team that plays annual buy-games back to FCS. If they're not valuable enough to balance their budget without blood money then they don't belong in this division.

What are you rambling about?

UCF recently signed up for an annual "buy game" at this place for 2015:



Guess UCF has to get demoted to Div I-AA/FCS because of this guy's crazy rant.

I said annual buy games. We don't have to do one every year just to keep the lights on. I would prefer to not do them at all, but once every 4-5 years against a blue blood like Michigan isn't too bad.

The teams that need to be demoted are ones like UL-Monroe, Idaho, and Eastern Michigan that average 4000k fans and have to play 2-3 bodybag games a year just to pay the bills. They're screwing up the balance of home/away games in FBS football.

In terms of USF getting BE entry in 2003...

Besides its obvious Florida location which was wanted by all the other football playing schools, many ECU fans conveniently forget two things (and why I got over it quickly).

1) ECU was 0-4 against USF in football in the years they played.
2) USF was an old Metro Conference basketball program (before playing football). Its basketball program was considered MUCH better than ECU's, which was just coming out of routinely finishing in the bottom half of the CAA. The basketball schools were obviously going to side with USF over ECU...one reason why I have said that basketball is the main reason ECU was never in the Big East conference.

Now, I do believe ECU should have been added somewhere along the line after that, because 8 football playing members was too small. The Big East, in about 2008 or so could have added UCF and ECU (for football purposes mainly) and there may have been a differing outcome with all the Big East breakup stuff.