(08-11-2017 03:36 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 03:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 03:12 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  Sweet! Our oldest will graduate from Purdue by then but it's looking more and more like our youngest will be a student at Purdue in 2020. It will be fun going and watching the Tigers administer a beatdown on the Boilers.

Yeah, I'm having trouble finding a downside too (maybe we took it on the cheap if the market is higher). Go beat Purdue & get $750K for doing so. Lot better than we'd ever see in our list of bowl games because the conference gets none of the $$$.

I see downside. Probably means we'll have one less home game that year. Not like Indiana is fertile recruiting ground for us. And, if we claim to be a relevant, top 40ish program, as we have been the last 3 years, you just don't do buy games anymore.

UT-Martin does buy games. Austin Peay does buy games. The University of Memphis shouldn't do buy games, IMO. If the AAC is going to brand itself as a P6 conference, then its members need to act the part.

And, if you insist on doing one, do it with a name program. We've gone to USC and Michigan in the past. But I don't think we should do that anymore, either.

We get UCLA to do a home-and-home, but do a buy game with Purdue? Makes no sense.

I would rather do a buy game with a BIG program than home and homes with the Georgia States of the world.

(08-11-2017 03:47 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 03:36 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 03:16 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 03:12 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  Sweet! Our oldest will graduate from Purdue by then but it's looking more and more like our youngest will be a student at Purdue in 2020. It will be fun going and watching the Tigers administer a beatdown on the Boilers.

Yeah, I'm having trouble finding a downside too (maybe we took it on the cheap if the market is higher). Go beat Purdue & get $750K for doing so. Lot better than we'd ever see in our list of bowl games because the conference gets none of the $$$.

I see downside. Probably means we'll have one less home game that year. Not like Indiana is fertile recruiting ground for us. And, if we claim to be a relevant, top 40ish program, as we have been the last 3 years, you just don't do buy games anymore.

UT-Martin does buy games. Austin Peay does buy games. The University of Memphis shouldn't do buy games, IMO. If the AAC is going to brand itself as a P6 conference, then its members need to act the part.

And, if you insist on doing one, do it with a name program. We've gone to USC and Michigan in the past. But I don't think we should do that anymore, either.

We get UCLA to do a home-and-home, but do a buy game with Purdue? Makes no sense.

I would rather do a buy game with a BIG program than home and homes with the Georgia States of the world.

My vote would be neither. But of the two, I would do the home-and-home. At least we recruit Georgia.

Who gives a flip about Purdue? Without googling, could you name one player there since Drew Brees left?

Curtis Painter, Kyle Orton. But I do hate this

(08-11-2017 03:54 PM)bigbluedrew Wrote:  Curtis Painter, Kyle Orton. But I do hate this

I'll give you credit, that's two more than I could name.

We need money so I do not have a problem with buy games. However, we should obtain at least the market price before reaching agreement.

(08-11-2017 04:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  We need money so I do not have a problem with buy games. However, we should obtain at least the market price before reaching agreement.

We don't need the $750K that bad.

And it is the market price. The Alabama payouts are the outliers.

(08-11-2017 04:10 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 04:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  We need money so I do not have a problem with buy games. However, we should obtain at least the market price before reaching agreement.

We don't need the $750K that bad.

And it is the market price. The Alabama payouts are the outliers.

It is something requiring further justification.

(08-11-2017 04:18 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 04:10 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 04:08 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  We need money so I do not have a problem with buy games. However, we should obtain at least the market price before reaching agreement.

We don't need the $750K that bad.

And it is the market price. The Alabama payouts are the outliers.

It is something requiring further justification.

Agreed.

Purdue still plays football?

While not ideal, B1G vs. G5 h/h are getting harder and harder to come by. 9 conference games, 1 P5 OOC req., and no FCS limits h/h opportunities. However, it does open up G5 games to replace FCS buy games. They are paying Ohio $550,000 for a game this year.

(08-11-2017 04:34 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  While not ideal, B1G vs. G5 h/h are getting harder and harder to come by. 9 conference games, 1 P5 OOC req., and no FCS limits h/h opportunities. However, it does open up G5 games to replace FCS buy games. They are paying Ohio $550,000 for a game this year.

Kind of proving our point. I would hope Tiger fans consider themselves above Ohio University. Would hope our AD does too.

(08-11-2017 01:53 PM)TigersRuleAll Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 01:42 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  This make no sense---We are not going to play a non return game at Purdue, unless:

1- the market has just fallen out of the buy game market and Bowen is the only one who knows it.

2- Tom Bowen is the dumbest AD in Div 1a.

3- Purdue is paying a lot more than $750,000. Like double or more. even then it is highly unlikely.

There is no way this isn't a home and home. The market for pure buy games is basically double the $750k. I also seem to recall Bowen adamantly stating that we don't do buy games. We could probably get a buy game with Notre Dame for pete sakes.

Vomit - U of M confirms to CA that it's a buy game: http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sp...560104001/

"Alnutt also confirmed that the Boilermakers will pay Memphis a $750,000 guarantee for the game, as FBSchedules.com reported. It will be the first meeting between the two schools in football."

Looking for a positive, at least Alnutt is smart enough to try to spin it, and to get the bad news out of the way on a Friday afternoon.

Can't believe our football program in 2017 agreed to a buyout game against freaking Purdue.

(08-11-2017 04:58 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 01:53 PM)TigersRuleAll Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 01:42 PM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  This make no sense---We are not going to play a non return game at Purdue, unless:

1- the market has just fallen out of the buy game market and Bowen is the only one who knows it.

2- Tom Bowen is the dumbest AD in Div 1a.

3- Purdue is paying a lot more than $750,000. Like double or more. even then it is highly unlikely.

There is no way this isn't a home and home. The market for pure buy games is basically double the $750k. I also seem to recall Bowen adamantly stating that we don't do buy games. We could probably get a buy game with Notre Dame for pete sakes.

Vomit - U of M confirms to CA that it's a buy game: http://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sp...560104001/

"Alnutt also confirmed that the Boilermakers will pay Memphis a $750,000 guarantee for the game, as FBSchedules.com reported. It will be the first meeting between the two schools in football."

Looking for a positive, at least Alnutt is smart enough to try to spin it, and to get the bad news out of the way on a Friday afternoon.

Can't believe our football program in 2017 agreed to a buyout game against freaking Purdue.

Well, they did. Norvell will be long gone. They just hired a good new coach who has three years to recruit before this game happens.

Wouldn't count on going up there and kicking their ass until we see who Norvell's replacement is.

This is stupid, if true.

We need an away OOC in 2020, we have three home games already (assuming we sign an FCS), but at least get a home-and-home out if it.

From the CA: "Though the Tigers would've preferred to schedule a Power Five team in 2020 as part of a home-and-home agreement, they were in a tough spot . . . Any return game would've required them to play multiple Power Five teams in a single season, which they have generally tried to avoid, or required a return game in 2024 or later."

East Carolina has OOC home games with Virginia Tech and BYU this season, and a road game at West Virginia. If ECU can play 3 P5 games in a season, why can't we play 2?

I'm afraid it's the mindset with this Athletic Department that is the core problem.

(08-11-2017 01:11 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I do not know the validity, but I know today's Tiger team would likely crush Purdue.

West Lafayette is an easy 5 hr. drive up 65 from Nashville

Road trip

(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)TG4 Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 01:11 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I do not know the validity, but I know today's Tiger team would likely crush Purdue.

West Lafayette is an easy 5 hr. drive up 65 from Nashville

Road trip

Tony, when you played, did we have any buy games?

I know we played Auburn in the mid-70s, but we got a return game, IIRC.

Weak excuse. They've just cheapened the program. Why would any "major" program, from this point forward, agree to anything less from us than what Purdue received? Stupid and short-sighted.

wreaks of payback for some other deal.

(08-11-2017 05:15 PM)Tigx Wrote:  From the CA: "Though the Tigers would've preferred to schedule a Power Five team in 2020 as part of a home-and-home agreement, they were in a tough spot . . . Any return game would've required them to play multiple Power Five teams in a single season, which they have generally tried to avoid, or required a return game in 2024 or later."

East Carolina has OOC home games with Virginia Tech and BYU this season, and a road game at West Virginia. If ECU can play 3 P5 games in a season, why can't we play 2?

I'm afraid it's the mindset with this Athletic Department that is the core problem.

Agreed...LAME! Especially, given that Purdue is not a POWER P5 team. We should play a MINIMUM OF 2 P5s