Well, the P5s can blame themselves for the cost of so called "Buy" games.

(04-01-2015 08:10 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Well, the P5s can blame themselves for the cost of so called "Buy" games.

It's not "the P5" speaking here, it's Wake Forest. And I don't know that they're complaining, just ex-plaining, that with the rising cost of one-and-done buy games, they're doing home-and-home games instead. Which makes sense if you don't sell tickets.

In 2008 (year picked kind of at random), Wake Forest's OOC was @ Baylor, Ole Miss, Navy and Vanderbilt. 2009, BAylor, Stanford, FCS, @ NAvy.

So I don't think that Wake Forest shying away from one-and-done "buy games" is new.

(04-01-2015 08:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:10 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Well, the P5s can blame themselves for the cost of so called "Buy" games.

It's not "the P5" speaking here, it's Wake Forest. And I don't know that they're complaining, just ex-plaining, that with the rising cost of one-and-done buy games, they're doing home-and-home games instead. Which makes sense if you don't sell tickets.

In 2008 (year picked kind of at random), Wake Forest's OOC was @ Baylor, Ole Miss, Navy and Vanderbilt. 2009, BAylor, Stanford, FCS, @ NAvy.

So I don't think that Wake Forest shying away from one-and-done "buy games" is new.

You are right. What's the point of buying something if it has little value to you? If you have to pay more than what it's worth, you don't do it. If you can spend $1 million to get $4 million more ticket sales, you do it. If you can only get $0.5 million you don't.

For every school that has a "buy" game, there is one who has a "sell" game. For schools like Wake, they do better financially being a seller rather than a buyer. They are just being smart.

(03-31-2015 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Man, why some schools on the outside don't scream for anti-trust...

This is a ploy for non-majors to take cuts for what little they make from these games, but, yeesh, the hubris...

It is just the free enterprise system at work....nothing new

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

All it means is Wake will play home and home with someone rather buying a one time game. This was part of an announcement where Wake signed a six year home and home with Army.

Why this board pays so much attention to who Wake schedules for football is bizarre.

Because this is just a start for other P5 schools who are mid to low end to starting scheduling G5 schools with a H-H series than a single 'Buy' game.
There are quite a few G5 schools that depend on big money games. Not all are able to schedule Alabama or Florida where even if they are playing Univ of Idaho, they still can afford it. The other P5 schools won't be able to. With B1G going to 9 conference games, that weeds out a bit more availability for G5 schools that depend on big money games.
And don't forget that with a H-H series, each visiting team is at least guaranteed some money. So when a P5 school visits the G5 school has to at least hope to sell enough tickets to pay for the visiting team guarantee and then hope there is some left over.
Some G5 schools will lose money or hard make anything having a P5 school come to their stadium.

This is more than just Wake Forest.

But other than FCS buy games which we're still doing, Wake has never really been in market of buying FBS games.

The biggest change is schools like App State and Old Dominion jumped levels so we're doing home and homes with them rather than the one shots when they were FCS.u

(03-31-2015 04:32 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Just another factor that hurts any G5 program already maxing out their budget.

....but helps those programs that would prefer to play these series which allows their fans to see different programs come in for games.

(04-01-2015 08:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 08:10 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Well, the P5s can blame themselves for the cost of so called "Buy" games.

It's not "the P5" speaking here, it's Wake Forest. And I don't know that they're complaining, just ex-plaining, that with the rising cost of one-and-done buy games, they're doing home-and-home games instead. Which makes sense if you don't sell tickets.

In 2008 (year picked kind of at random), Wake Forest's OOC was @ Baylor, Ole Miss, Navy and Vanderbilt. 2009, BAylor, Stanford, FCS, @ NAvy.

So I don't think that Wake Forest shying away from one-and-done "buy games" is new.

You are right. What's the point of buying something if it has little value to you? If you have to pay more than what it's worth, you don't do it. If you can spend $1 million to get $4 million more ticket sales, you do it. If you can only get $0.5 million you don't.

For every school that has a "buy" game, there is one who has a "sell" game. For schools like Wake, they do better financially being a seller rather than a buyer. They are just being smart.

Yes, they're being smart. Teams that sell out a 100,000 seat stadium based on season tickets can put any opponent in there, and it doesn't matter who the opponent is because those tickets are sold no matter what. WF is not in that situation. Though I think the $4 million/0.5 million comparison is more likely to be their net for a home game, rather than gross.

The other thing that has changed, IMO, is that it used to be the norm that G5 teams would take a "buy" amount that had some relation to the P5 team's ticket sales. E.g., Oregon's stadium has about 54,000 seats and Michigan has about twice that many, so a G5 team could get twice as much money to play at Michigan. The shift is in some G5 teams always wanting to get about as much as Michigan pays, whether the P5 team sells 54,000 tickets or 108,000.

My guess is that part of that increasing "ask" is a more urgent need for money, and part is a feeling among some G5 teams that the negatives associated with playing games for money can only be outweighed by a $1 million check and not a $500,000 check.

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

(03-31-2015 10:17 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 06:24 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  This is nothing but spin and BS to make the ACC look good. Notre dame will play 5 ACC teams. Clemson/SCar, UGA/GT, UK/Louisville , FSU/Florida arleady play every year. So really, not much changes and the G5 money game rate continues to increase.

After all of the above was known and in place, Clemson signs a game with Ga Southern for over a million.

In summary, the quote means Wake and Duke are being discouraged from scheduling and losing to Troy and ULM etc.

All it means is Wake will play home and home with someone rather buying a one time game. This was part of an announcement where Wake signed a six year home and home with Army.

Why this board pays so much attention to who Wake schedules for football is bizarre.

Wake forest is for hot rich southern Baptist girls. Which is pretty cool. The need to be quiet about sports and continue to slip under the p5 wire

Heaven forbid Wake talk about its own schedule.

(04-01-2015 12:22 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  Heaven forbid Wake talk about its own schedule.

I'm fine with Wake doing what it desires to do. My issue is when people think what Wake desires to do with its schedule is some harbringer of what the other 64 P5 schools are going to do.

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Could be starting to see a schism betwee the blue blood P5s and the lower level P5s when it comes to full cost of attendence, buy games, etc.

(04-01-2015 01:04 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Could be starting to see a schism betwee the blue blood P5s and the lower level P5s when it comes to full cost of attendence, buy games, etc.

That is a good point and forgot all about that.

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Those arguments are fine, on their own right.

But they have nothing to do with the quote by the Wake AD. He was saying that in order to accommodate the requirement from the ACC to play a ninth P5 game, non-conference, he'll be scheduling home-home series instead of guarantee games.

(04-01-2015 01:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 01:04 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 11:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 04:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I had responded to a thread earlier but this seesm warranted for a separate discussion.


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/wake-...schedules/

“The ACC athletic directors have agreed that each ACC school will play a football non-conference opponent from the SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 or Notre Dame or BYU annually,” Wellman wrote.

Wellman also addressed the rising cost of one-time “buy” games and said that he prefers series instead.

“The financial guarantees that non-conference opponents are receiving today for “buy games” have doubled and tripled from just a few years ago. Therefore, it is more realistic to play a home- and- away series against quality opponents than to “buy” one-time games.”

Meaning there will be less 1 and done games from the Mid to low tier of P5 conferences. This will hurt the G5 schools that depend on the 1 and done money games.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but the part you bolded just seems to be a window dressing for what is nothing more than the already well understood decree from the ACC to play (at least) nine P5 teams per year.

As he says, they'll play the eight ACC conference games plus (at least) one team from the P5 (including Notre Dame and BYU).


And that comes from the fact that the ACC (and SEC) are forced to do this by the other P5 going to nine conference games.


This was all already understood.


I'm not understanding all the conversation on this thread about scheduling guarantee games and the G5.

My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Could be starting to see a schism betwee the blue blood P5s and the lower level P5s when it comes to full cost of attendence, buy games, etc.

That is a good point and forgot all about that.

We have a winner. The first sign of cannibalism in the p5. It has been begun. Get your popcorn

(04-01-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Those arguments are fine, on their own right.

But they have nothing to do with the quote by the Wake AD. He was saying that in order to accommodate the requirement from the ACC to play a nine P5 game non-conference, they'll be scheduling home-home series instead of guarantee games.

Yes...I believe this does. There are no 'buy' games with other P5 schools...only G5.
In addition, Wake already has other OOC P5 schools scheduled for then next 10 years to meet the AAC requirement without this announcement. The Army series with Wake was about how instead of buying Army to a 1 and done, its better financially to schedule a H-H series. Army is still a G5 school under the ACC.

(04-01-2015 02:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Yes...I believe this does. There are no 'buy' games with other P5 schools...only G5.
In addition, Wake already has other OOC P5 schools scheduled for then next 10 years to meet the AAC requirement without this announcement. The Army series with Wake was about how instead of buying Army to a 1 and done, its better financially to schedule a H-H series. Army is still a G5 school under the ACC.

I don't see what Army has to do with it, either.

We may just have to agree to disagree. I don't think the Wake AD's word point to any increase in home-home contracts between P5 and G5 schools.


The fact that P5 teams are making their bowl games P5 vs. P5 matches points towards a potentially inevitable end where a P5 team plays only two or perhaps one game a year versus a G5 team (as the 'warm-up" game) and the rest versus other P5 teams.

(04-01-2015 02:21 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-01-2015 12:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  My point is that there are going to be more of the 1-1 games with G5 teams than 1 and done G5 games regarding P5 schools who are on the lower to mid end of a conference.

Wake is just an example because their AD made a comment about the costs and the feasibility of those costs. It's why schools like Washington St, Oregon St or Wake...etc have now more 1-1 with G5 schools than the 1-done a few years ago.
Its a 2 prong observation.
1. The bigger $$ paid out by a P5 school for 1 and done isn't cost effective now for those schools. Normally, those lower P5 schools will now have to have a sold out stadium to be able to pay the G5 team $1.5+ million. In a few more years, other G5 teams will start approaching $2+ million.
2. Those G5 schools that need the 'money' games (1 and done) are going to be in more of a bind because they won't be able to get the same amount of $$ if the P5 team play at their stadium. Without the 'money' games, quite a few G5 programs won't be able to have their athletic programs survive.

Those arguments are fine, on their own right.

But they have nothing to do with the quote by the Wake AD. He was saying that in order to accommodate the requirement from the ACC to play a nine P5 game non-conference, they'll be scheduling home-home series instead of guarantee games.

Yes...I believe this does. There are no 'buy' games with other P5 schools...only G5.
In addition, Wake already has other OOC P5 schools scheduled for then next 10 years to meet the AAC requirement without this announcement. The Army series with Wake was about how instead of buying Army to a 1 and done, its better financially to schedule a H-H series. Army is still a G5 school under the ACC.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Army/WF already play H&H. NM, just looked it up. This announcement looks like an extension of the previous 4 yr H&H series set to wrap up this coming year.