(06-27-2015 07:36 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  No it's because we are in the bottom rung conference, all of us have trouble getting other G5's home and home, it's only recently that some have seen some succes in doing so. We would only have 5 homes ganes for the longest time, 4 conference and 1 FCS... And I promise it wasn't because we were good. It's about money. Why would another G5 sign an agreement with us when they can either afford to buy a win or get paid a lot more to play someone else? Believe it or not, it might be hard to believe but the rest of college football foesnt lay awake at night worrying about georgia southern or any of us for that matter. They worry about themselves.

What G5 can buy a win against an FBS program? No other G5 team would take it, not anyone worth their salt.

I know our AD has blamed some of our scheduling issues on CUSA, and teams being scared of playing us. We've had some success of late getting AAC and MWC teams to give us home and homes, but it's been a lot harder to find similar leagues to our own.

(06-27-2015 11:11 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  If you are also having to sign 2 money games a year, that limits your selections to only 2 open weeks per year.

Honestly, not a lot of room to work with when you start considering you have to work around other peoples schedule as well.

I'd say you will see better home-homes when you are down to 1 or less money games per year.

I agree. If you consider that GS is going to have to buy an FCS per year as well, it essentially means they are playing with one open date on a schedule. It limits their availability

I think the Eagles best approach would be to not commit to playing an FCS school in a year, and be willing to move money games to set up a better home game. The fact is, while no one likes to mess up Alabama's scheduling, there are always going to be P5 schools looking for money games, not as many G5's are going to be looking to fill a specific road game during the year.

(06-27-2015 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 07:36 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  No it's because we are in the bottom rung conference, all of us have trouble getting other G5's home and home, it's only recently that some have seen some succes in doing so. We would only have 5 homes ganes for the longest time, 4 conference and 1 FCS... And I promise it wasn't because we were good. It's about money. Why would another G5 sign an agreement with us when they can either afford to buy a win or get paid a lot more to play someone else? Believe it or not, it might be hard to believe but the rest of college football foesnt lay awake at night worrying about georgia southern or any of us for that matter. They worry about themselves.

What G5 can buy a win against an FBS program? No other G5 team would take it, not anyone worth their salt.

I know our AD has blamed some of our scheduling issues on CUSA, and teams being scared of playing us. We've had some success of late getting AAC and MWC teams to give us home and homes, but it's been a lot harder to find similar leagues to our own.

App must have figured it out, we don't seem to have any trouble and remember we are soooo much harder to travel to...

(06-27-2015 11:29 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 07:36 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  No it's because we are in the bottom rung conference, all of us have trouble getting other G5's home and home, it's only recently that some have seen some succes in doing so. We would only have 5 homes ganes for the longest time, 4 conference and 1 FCS... And I promise it wasn't because we were good. It's about money. Why would another G5 sign an agreement with us when they can either afford to buy a win or get paid a lot more to play someone else? Believe it or not, it might be hard to believe but the rest of college football foesnt lay awake at night worrying about georgia southern or any of us for that matter. They worry about themselves.

What G5 can buy a win against an FBS program? No other G5 team would take it, not anyone worth their salt.

I know our AD has blamed some of our scheduling issues on CUSA, and teams being scared of playing us. We've had some success of late getting AAC and MWC teams to give us home and homes, but it's been a lot harder to find similar leagues to our own.

App must have figured it out, we don't seem to have any trouble and remember we are soooo much harder to travel to...

You've got a lengthy history of ODU, Charlotte, Marshall and Wake. For many of us, our history with other G5 programs relates to former SBC members playing in CUSA, and you'll notice none of them are lining up to renew any of those series... Back several years ago, it was almost impossible for SBC teams to get Home and home deals with anyone, primarily because many of us had to spend most of our days playing as many money games as possible to help make money for the program.

(06-27-2015 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 07:36 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  No it's because we are in the bottom rung conference, all of us have trouble getting other G5's home and home, it's only recently that some have seen some succes in doing so. We would only have 5 homes ganes for the longest time, 4 conference and 1 FCS... And I promise it wasn't because we were good. It's about money. Why would another G5 sign an agreement with us when they can either afford to buy a win or get paid a lot more to play someone else? Believe it or not, it might be hard to believe but the rest of college football foesnt lay awake at night worrying about georgia southern or any of us for that matter. They worry about themselves.

What G5 can buy a win against an FBS program? No other G5 team would take it, not anyone worth their salt.

I know our AD has blamed some of our scheduling issues on CUSA, and teams being scared of playing us. We've had some success of late getting AAC and MWC teams to give us home and homes, but it's been a lot harder to find similar leagues to our own.

I didn't say they were buying buying G5... They either buy fcs... Which so do we or they are getting paid to go play as well. If they do a home and home it's with schools that see each other on the same level, less of a perception hit if they lose. What do they have to gain by playing a sunbelt school in a home and home? If they win, great you beat a sunbelt school... If they lose, well you know the rest. There is so much more that goes into scheduling than people realize. We are seeing some contracts now because we are slowly raising the perception of the top half of this conference. There are teams in the aac and mwc who can buy G5 games too

(06-27-2015 11:34 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 07:36 AM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  No it's because we are in the bottom rung conference, all of us have trouble getting other G5's home and home, it's only recently that some have seen some succes in doing so. We would only have 5 homes ganes for the longest time, 4 conference and 1 FCS... And I promise it wasn't because we were good. It's about money. Why would another G5 sign an agreement with us when they can either afford to buy a win or get paid a lot more to play someone else? Believe it or not, it might be hard to believe but the rest of college football foesnt lay awake at night worrying about georgia southern or any of us for that matter. They worry about themselves.

What G5 can buy a win against an FBS program? No other G5 team would take it, not anyone worth their salt.

I know our AD has blamed some of our scheduling issues on CUSA, and teams being scared of playing us. We've had some success of late getting AAC and MWC teams to give us home and homes, but it's been a lot harder to find similar leagues to our own.

I didn't say they were buying buying G5... They either buy fcs... Which so do we or they are getting paid to go play as well. If they do a home and home it's with schools that see each other on the same level, less of a perception hit if they lose. What do they have to gain by playing a sunbelt school in a home and home? If they win, great you beat a sunbelt school... If they lose, well you know the rest. There is so much more that goes into scheduling than people realize. We are seeing some contracts now because we are slowly raising the perception of the top half of this conference.

This is very true.

I once went through AState's old OOC slates to determine what history we had with any G5 programs, because having a history with the program (as App has figured out) is very important to getting a game scheduled.

I found very quickly that we have almost no football history with any G5 program in the last 20 years or so. We played a loose home and home with Tulsa and SMU that we've since renewed in the future. We played Southern Miss Three times, and we played Memphis an absolute ton. Otherwise, it was mostly Sun Belt games. If you consider that Memphis backed out of our series when we started to beat them, and Southern Miss has fallen off of planet earth, that means just about any game we sign is with a team that we have no real history with. That means either hoping a former conference member gives in and chooses to renew an SBC rivalry (Has not happened yet to any SBC team), or you are cold calling AD's on the fly hoping to find dates that stick.

That can make scheduling very difficult.

By the way...if we are going to buy FCS as a league, I highly suggest going after playoff caliber teams. There's some risk involved (See App vs Liberty) but it's also the only way an FCS is going to make any reasonable impression on the Access Bowl selection committee.

The primary history we have had with FBS teams are UCF, Marshall, MTSU & the F_U's but with the exception of Marshall we dominated these teams so they're probably not lining up for a rematch.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Talk about no history with FBS teams......just look to TXST. Yeah, we had games vs a lot of TX teams but that was as an FCS. We have history with UTSA, rival in oly sports and 1 whole FB game. Not much to write home about. Most of the other current FBS teams that we have any history with was when we were all FCS and now we're in the same conference. The exception would be UNT but they don't want us.

We're starting to get something going. We have the UTSA series that is, so far, 9 games (starting in 2017). We will have had 4 games vs UH since 2010 (10,12,15,16). Other than that, nothing has cropped up on our schedules that would define any sort of familiarity from the past.

Guess that's what happens when you move up starting at NAIA. Any sort of rivalry gets left behind as you step up the ladder; at least for us.

I guess drawing 25k since 2006 and donations north of $3M helps with flexiblity.

However we had no relationship with S. Miss, UMass, Akron, or ODU. One game with Wyoming in 2004. I'm not buying some of these excuses.

We do have more drivable opponents than most SBC schools I guess.

(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I guess drawing 25k since 2006 and donations north of $3M helps with flexiblity.

However we had no relationship with S. Miss, UMass, Akron, or ODU. One game with Wyoming in 2004. I'm not buying some of these excuses.

We do have more drivable opponents than most SBC schools I guess.

It has a lot to do with relationships between AD's, money, mutual open dates not only 1 year but mutual open dates in multiple years, geography, fan interest, coaches input etc. most of us have 8 conference, 1 fcs and either 1 or 2 money games. Now factor in all that and figure out a schedule for 1 or 2 weekends. It also takes 2 to sign a deal as well.

I have a good grasp for that. Seems our staff does as well, given the lack of recruiting area and "travel challenges" App faces they may be doing the best job scheduling relative to all SBC members.

Home and homes don't take money? They hopefully generate money, I expect ULL home games do.

(06-27-2015 12:59 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I have a good grasp for that. Seems our staff does as well, given the lack of recruiting area and "travel challenges" App faces they may be doing the best job scheduling relative to all SBC members.

Home and homes don't take money? They hopefully generate money, I expect ULL home games do.

Not all contracts are the same, a lot of negotiating of who pays what, expenses etc. Another big factor is moving from 2 money games to 1. We have almost doubled our budget in 5 years and since then we have signed H and H with tulane, boise, Tulsa, akron (not great but ok). Having only 1 money gane gives you another week open to negotiate.

We have 2 money games for this year and next. From 2017 on right now we only have 1. I hope we can keep it at 1. Right now our schedules for this year and next are set. For 2017 we have 2 out of conference scheduled right now-- at Clemson and at Massachusetts. We are looking for a G5 home and home for 2017-18. Ideally home in 2017 and away in 2018. I assume our 4th non-conference in 2017 will be a home FCS.

(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I guess drawing 25k since 2006 and donations north of $3M helps with flexiblity.

However we had no relationship with S. Miss, UMass, Akron, or ODU. One game with Wyoming in 2004. I'm not buying some of these excuses.

We do have more drivable opponents than most SBC schools I guess.

You do have history with ODU in the sense that you were both highly rated FCS programs, who happen to be located fairly close to each other.

App's done a great job of scheduling, but you have several huge advantages that even a lot of our long term schools don't have.

UMass and Akron are just throwaway home and homes. They don't really mean nearly the same that even a Southern miss does.

(06-27-2015 01:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I guess drawing 25k since 2006 and donations north of $3M helps with flexiblity.

However we had no relationship with S. Miss, UMass, Akron, or ODU. One game with Wyoming in 2004. I'm not buying some of these excuses.

We do have more drivable opponents than most SBC schools I guess.

You do have history with ODU in the sense that you were both highly rated FCS programs, who happen to be located fairly close to each other.

App's done a great job of scheduling, but you have several huge advantages that even a lot of our long term schools don't have.

UMass and Akron are just throwaway home and homes. They don't really mean nearly the same that even a Southern miss does.

I'll grant you we have a history with WF & Marshall but how do you come up with App having a history with a program they have never played and has only had a program 5 years? I could see it for Ga Southern since they faced off in the playoffs. But App has zero connection with them.

(06-27-2015 01:47 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 12:42 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I guess drawing 25k since 2006 and donations north of $3M helps with flexiblity.

However we had no relationship with S. Miss, UMass, Akron, or ODU. One game with Wyoming in 2004. I'm not buying some of these excuses.

We do have more drivable opponents than most SBC schools I guess.

You do have history with ODU in the sense that you were both highly rated FCS programs, who happen to be located fairly close to each other.

App's done a great job of scheduling, but you have several huge advantages that even a lot of our long term schools don't have.

UMass and Akron are just throwaway home and homes. They don't really mean nearly the same that even a Southern miss does.

I question the ODU connection, that is a stretch.

What huge advantages do you speak of?

Getting back to the topic... I've been a advocate of a 9 team league for years. Eveyone has 4 home and 4 away conf games, 4 non conference games split among a FCS at home, money game on the road and a two G5 schools 1 home & 1 away. It ain't exactly rocket science.

(06-27-2015 03:59 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  Getting back to the topic... I've been a advocate of a 9 team league for years. Eveyone has 4 home and 4 away conf games, 4 non conference games split among a FCS at home, money game on the road and a two G5 schools 1 home & 1 away. It ain't exactly rocket science.

That's funny coming from a guy that's always yelling about travel costs . . .

. . . Better to get to 12, have divisions, and reduce those costs . . .

Look if those of us who continually advocate for keeping the Belt at 10 football schools get their way then a 9 game conference schedule is the logical outcome. If those of us who advocate going to 12 football schools get their way then playing 8 seems logical. I personally want to see us at 12 but if we go to 10 then by all means play a 9 game conference schedule and be done with it.