I hope Aresco is working on quality backup ties, with the AAC lineup less than impressive. If so, what bowls could be snagged. Based on the ties that other conferences have already signed, at least 3 bowls are likely to have openings every year: advocare independence, buffalo wild wings, and Detroit. Of these independence and bww are the most attractive. I hope he is getting ties to these bowls.
Agree on your analysis of the most likely bowls to be open. I would pass on the Detroit Bowl just because I have little desire to travel to a cold weather destination. So I'd be happy with backups to the Indy and BWW.
Bww is the lowest bowl for both the pac 12 and big 12. They'll have an opening each and every year. I hope Aresco is working on it. Same could be said for Indy.
None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
(10-14-2013 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
If we have seven hard primary ties a year, it would be hard. If we have 6, its doable. We just need to make sure we don't have teams overscheduling. SMU had an interesting OOC, but they probably overdid it. Two mid-level P5's, one G5, and one FCS would be my recommendation. Challenge the team, but don't schedule any games with virtually no chance of winning. Try to get out of the OOC 2-2 or better. Then you need only win 4 more in conference to be bowl qualified (less if you do better than 2-2). If everyone does that 7 bowl qualified teams can be routine.
(10-14-2013 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
If we have seven hard primary ties a year, it would be hard. If we have 6, its doable. We just need to make sure we don't have teams overscheduling. SMU had an interesting OOC, but they probably overdid it. Two mid-level P5's, one G5, and one FCS would be my recommendation. Challenge the team, but don't schedule any games with virtually no chance of winning. Try to get out of the OOC 2-2 or better. Then you need only win 4 more in conference to be bowl qualified (less if you do better than 2-2). If everyone does that 7 bowl qualified teams can be routine.
Is our goal as a conference to get as many 6-6 teams qualified for minor bowls (crap/junk as you call them), or is it to gain more respect and national attention so we can perhaps get a better contract next time around? We need to be scheduling at least one respected P5 team, 2 mid-level P5 teams, and one regional FBS team, and NO FCS teams.
Aresco and the presidents have already said the only way to improve our outlook is to schedule as high as possible, and then win some of those. I agree.
Memphis is dumping Arkie State and Middle Tennessee in favor of teams like UCLA, Missouri, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kansas, etc. If teams will play you, then almost every AAC team should do the same. We're not going to get respect and a better TV deal by beating SunBelt and FCS teams, so we can qualify another team or two for a minor bowl. We gain nothing by beating them, other than a minor bowl nobody cares about in the big picture. A nd we lose a lot by losing to them. Not so much to middling or better P5 teams.
We need to schedule up as much as possible, and win a few of those. I know that is the league directive, too.
(10-15-2013 07:14 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
If we have seven hard primary ties a year, it would be hard. If we have 6, its doable. We just need to make sure we don't have teams overscheduling. SMU had an interesting OOC, but they probably overdid it. Two mid-level P5's, one G5, and one FCS would be my recommendation. Challenge the team, but don't schedule any games with virtually no chance of winning. Try to get out of the OOC 2-2 or better. Then you need only win 4 more in conference to be bowl qualified (less if you do better than 2-2). If everyone does that 7 bowl qualified teams can be routine.
Is our goal as a conference to get as many 6-6 teams qualified for minor bowls (crap/junk as you call them), or is it to gain more respect and national attention so we can perhaps get a better contract next time around? We need to be scheduling at least one respected P5 team, 2 mid-level P5 teams, and one regional FBS team, and NO FCS teams.
Aresco and the presidents have already said the only way to improve our outlook is to schedule as high as possible, and then win some of those. I agree.
Memphis is dumping Arkie State and Middle Tennessee in favor of teams like UCLA, Missouri, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kansas, etc. If teams will play you, then almost every AAC team should do the same. We're not going to get respect and a better TV deal by beating SunBelt and FCS teams, so we can qualify another team or two for a minor bowl. We gain nothing by beating them, other than a minor bowl nobody cares about in the big picture. A nd we lose a lot by losing to them. Not so much to middling or better P5 teams.
We need to schedule up as much as possible, and win a few of those. I know that is the league directive, too.
I have heard that Aresco wants better OOC's. But, how wise that is depends on the team. Houston still has OOC slots open for next year. So, its possible to hold back, gauge a teams expected strength for the next year and schedule accordingly. I think each team needs to take a realistic look at where it is. Scheduling like SMU did doesn't do any good. A mid to lower level AAC school doesn't need to worry about SOS. They are not going to the playoff. Winning some OOC games and getting to a bowl (and winning the silly junk bowl) is how we get a bit of respect. By the way, even if we beat a bunch of AQ teams in OOC, our bowl games wont be any better. The bowls we have are the bowls we have. The only thing playing more AQ schools in OOC does is theoretically give our champ have a better shot at the G5 BCS. The question is---does a 11-2 AAC CCG winner beat a 13-0 MW champ that didn't play but one AQ team all year? We just don't know right now.
What we do know is our lower teams getting whipped in OOC plays does nothing but dilute the strength of schedule for EVERYBODY in our league over the course of the season (since most of our schedule is made up of other AAC schools). Setting teams up for OOC success is the best bet to improve the SOS for EVERBODY in the conference. The key to me is that every game on the OOC schedule should be one you look at say---"thats a winnable game". In a perfect world, I'd like to see the OOC SOS be a team-by-team year-by-year type of thing for the AAC with the goal being to set each individual team up for OOC success.
For this conference, gaining P-5 respect or becoming a power conference likely is never going to happen. As we have seen in the past, individual teams are elevated, not conferences. We can enhance our value by being the best G5 conference. The most important key to being the best G-5 conference will be winning the G5 BCS slot on a consistent basis. The SOS of the regular schedule and a pair of P5 OOC teams I think will be enough to get the G-5 BCS slot. If the school is going 12-0 or 11-1, my guess is that will be enough---especially if many or most of the schools in the conference have winning records in OOC (since this by definition INCREASES the conference SOS of every conference team).
Im all for upgrading the OOC schedules. I think Houston's schedule has been too weak. That said, what I don't want is an overloaded P5 schedule. In 2009 Houston played Texas Tech, Miss, and OkieSt in OOC and won all 3 games. But it cost us in injuries and eroded our depth. It caught up with the team later in the season---which is why the shift to just one AQ type team and a weaker OOC. I think we softened the OOC too much---I think 2 AQ (rather than the 3 we played in 2009) might have been more reasonable.
Of course, at this point, nobody really knows how the new selection committee will play out with respect to the G5. With no real G5 representation on the committee, it could be that the G5 representative is just going to be an after thought. I will not be surprised if the real key there is just being 12-0 or 11-1. However, if the committee is just as diligent with the G5 as the P5 and the committee truly weighs the schedule strength heavily, then an even tougher OOC than I am suggesting may be necessary for schools who feel like they are in the hunt for the conference championship the next year. JMHO.
I like UCF's schedule next year: Penn State (in Ireland), @Missouri, BYU, FIU
We've got three winnable games against respectable opponents, and a warm up against a low end G5 program.
I recall reading something from the MWC commish projecting the payout for the strongest G5 conference to be in the $8/9 million range. The access bowl rep. is supposed to be worth $6-8 million...with the most prestige/visibility on the line. Still, with the financial implications being what they are, an OOC scheduling policy wouldn't be a bad idea.
Found the
article.
what good is it to go to the independence bowl and play the ACC 9th or 10th team? how is that a upgrade. except in money.
(10-15-2013 09:15 AM)frank man Wrote: [ -> ]what good is it to go to the independence bowl and play the ACC 9th or 10th team? how is that a upgrade. except in money.
I have read that the Independence will be getting the 7 or 8 from the 7-10 pool every year so that would be potentially the best team we will face in a bowl game. Hence why we would want that game. We need to be in bowls with strongest opponent we can get and we need to win on a consistent basis. That is the only way to get a little respect.
(10-15-2013 09:15 AM)frank man Wrote: [ -> ]what good is it to go to the independence bowl and play the ACC 9th or 10th team? how is that a upgrade. except in money.
All our bowls are low level bowls. Of these bottom bowls, we have two general classes--bowls against the P5 and bowls against the G5. Our goal has been to obtain as many post season games against the P5 as we can. The Indy Bowl would typically be another opportunity to play a P5.
(10-15-2013 07:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-15-2013 07:14 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
If we have seven hard primary ties a year, it would be hard. If we have 6, its doable. We just need to make sure we don't have teams overscheduling. SMU had an interesting OOC, but they probably overdid it. Two mid-level P5's, one G5, and one FCS would be my recommendation. Challenge the team, but don't schedule any games with virtually no chance of winning. Try to get out of the OOC 2-2 or better. Then you need only win 4 more in conference to be bowl qualified (less if you do better than 2-2). If everyone does that 7 bowl qualified teams can be routine.
Is our goal as a conference to get as many 6-6 teams qualified for minor bowls (crap/junk as you call them), or is it to gain more respect and national attention so we can perhaps get a better contract next time around? We need to be scheduling at least one respected P5 team, 2 mid-level P5 teams, and one regional FBS team, and NO FCS teams.
Aresco and the presidents have already said the only way to improve our outlook is to schedule as high as possible, and then win some of those. I agree.
Memphis is dumping Arkie State and Middle Tennessee in favor of teams like UCLA, Missouri, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kansas, etc. If teams will play you, then almost every AAC team should do the same. We're not going to get respect and a better TV deal by beating SunBelt and FCS teams, so we can qualify another team or two for a minor bowl. We gain nothing by beating them, other than a minor bowl nobody cares about in the big picture. A nd we lose a lot by losing to them. Not so much to middling or better P5 teams.
We need to schedule up as much as possible, and win a few of those. I know that is the league directive, too.
I have heard that Aresco wants better OOC's. But, how wise that is depends on the team. Houston still has OOC slots open for next year. So, its possible to hold back, gauge a teams expected strength for the next year and schedule accordingly. I think each team needs to take a realistic look at where it is. Scheduling like SMU did doesn't do any good. A mid to lower level AAC school doesn't need to worry about SOS. They are not going to the playoff. Winning some OOC games and getting to a bowl (and winning the silly junk bowl) is how we get a bit of respect. By the way, even if we beat a bunch of AQ teams in OOC, our bowl games wont be any better. The bowls we have are the bowls we have. The only thing playing more AQ schools in OOC does is theoretically give our champ have a better shot at the G5 BCS. The question is---does a 11-2 AAC CCG winner beat a 13-0 MW champ that didn't play but one AQ team all year? We just don't know right now.
What we do know is our lower teams getting whipped in OOC plays does nothing but dilute the strength of schedule for EVERYBODY in our league over the course of the season (since most of our schedule is made up of other AAC schools). Setting teams up for OOC success is the best bet to improve the SOS for EVERBODY in the conference. The key to me is that every game on the OOC schedule should be one you look at say---"thats a winnable game". In a perfect world, I'd like to see the OOC SOS be a team-by-team year-by-year type of thing for the AAC with the goal being to set each individual team up for OOC success.
For this conference, gaining P-5 respect or becoming a power conference likely is never going to happen. As we have seen in the past, individual teams are elevated, not conferences. We can enhance our value by being the best G5 conference. The most important key to being the best G-5 conference will be winning the G5 BCS slot on a consistent basis. The SOS of the regular schedule and a pair of P5 OOC teams I think will be enough to get the G-5 BCS slot. If the school is going 12-0 or 11-1, my guess is that will be enough---especially if many or most of the schools in the conference have winning records in OOC (since this by definition INCREASES the conference SOS of every conference team).
Im all for upgrading the OOC schedules. I think Houston's schedule has been too weak. That said, what I don't want is an overloaded P5 schedule. In 2009 Houston played Texas Tech, Miss, and OkieSt in OOC and won all 3 games. But it cost us in injuries and eroded our depth. It caught up with the team later in the season---which is why the shift to just one AQ type team and a weaker OOC. I think we softened the OOC too much---I think 2 AQ (rather than the 3 we played in 2009) might have been more reasonable.
Of course, at this point, nobody really knows how the new selection committee will play out with respect to the G5. With no real G5 representation on the committee, it could be that the G5 representative is just going to be an after thought. I will not be surprised if the real key there is just being 12-0 or 11-1. However, if the committee is just as diligent with the G5 as the P5 and the committee truly weighs the schedule strength heavily, then an even tougher OOC than I am suggesting may be necessary for schools who feel like they are in the hunt for the conference championship the next year. JMHO.
I think you both have made good points. I also don't think we should be scheduling FCS teams. The league is already reflected as a weaker conference so we need to schedule up a bit and win those OOC games to gain some respect. I do agree that SMU bit off more than they were probably ready for this year hence why they dropped Baylor who they also had scheduled. I mean Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU and Baylor would have just been ridicoulous to get through.
I think everyone should schedule one strong P5 (Oklahoma, LSU, Etc), one lower P5 (Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky) and two against the group of 5 teams with one being a stronger G5 and the other being a hostorically weak G5. Then we need to win all the G5 games and have our top teams win some of the P5 matchups. Do that over a extended period and we can seperate ourselves from this grouping and hopefully gain some respect. This won't happen overnight but we can't have multiple teams lose against FCS programs. That is just bad for business.
(10-15-2013 09:37 AM)PT_american Wrote: [ -> ] (10-15-2013 07:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-15-2013 07:14 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2013 05:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ]None of the P5 bowl games are required to have secondary agreements by the NCAA as it was in the past.
The contingency agreements announced may be to backup where BYU and Army are penciled in to play if anything.
There are some quality games across the system like in Memphis, Phoenix, Detroit for example that may be open on one side though. The question is will the MWC and AAC with 6 tie-ins for a 12 team conference and placing a school in the CFP 1/2 the time have the flexibility required to pick up one of those slots or are they going to go to CUSA/MAC where its only 5 primary tie-ins for 13-14 schools?
If the AAC performs on the football field like a P5 with 8 teams eligible out of 12 then I can see them picking up a lot of those open P5 slots. Given the direction a lot of teams in the AAC are heading in though I don't see it at least initially for the conference.
If we have seven hard primary ties a year, it would be hard. If we have 6, its doable. We just need to make sure we don't have teams overscheduling. SMU had an interesting OOC, but they probably overdid it. Two mid-level P5's, one G5, and one FCS would be my recommendation. Challenge the team, but don't schedule any games with virtually no chance of winning. Try to get out of the OOC 2-2 or better. Then you need only win 4 more in conference to be bowl qualified (less if you do better than 2-2). If everyone does that 7 bowl qualified teams can be routine.
Is our goal as a conference to get as many 6-6 teams qualified for minor bowls (crap/junk as you call them), or is it to gain more respect and national attention so we can perhaps get a better contract next time around? We need to be scheduling at least one respected P5 team, 2 mid-level P5 teams, and one regional FBS team, and NO FCS teams.
Aresco and the presidents have already said the only way to improve our outlook is to schedule as high as possible, and then win some of those. I agree.
Memphis is dumping Arkie State and Middle Tennessee in favor of teams like UCLA, Missouri, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kansas, etc. If teams will play you, then almost every AAC team should do the same. We're not going to get respect and a better TV deal by beating SunBelt and FCS teams, so we can qualify another team or two for a minor bowl. We gain nothing by beating them, other than a minor bowl nobody cares about in the big picture. A nd we lose a lot by losing to them. Not so much to middling or better P5 teams.
We need to schedule up as much as possible, and win a few of those. I know that is the league directive, too.
I have heard that Aresco wants better OOC's. But, how wise that is depends on the team. Houston still has OOC slots open for next year. So, its possible to hold back, gauge a teams expected strength for the next year and schedule accordingly. I think each team needs to take a realistic look at where it is. Scheduling like SMU did doesn't do any good. A mid to lower level AAC school doesn't need to worry about SOS. They are not going to the playoff. Winning some OOC games and getting to a bowl (and winning the silly junk bowl) is how we get a bit of respect. By the way, even if we beat a bunch of AQ teams in OOC, our bowl games wont be any better. The bowls we have are the bowls we have. The only thing playing more AQ schools in OOC does is theoretically give our champ have a better shot at the G5 BCS. The question is---does a 11-2 AAC CCG winner beat a 13-0 MW champ that didn't play but one AQ team all year? We just don't know right now.
What we do know is our lower teams getting whipped in OOC plays does nothing but dilute the strength of schedule for EVERYBODY in our league over the course of the season (since most of our schedule is made up of other AAC schools). Setting teams up for OOC success is the best bet to improve the SOS for EVERBODY in the conference. The key to me is that every game on the OOC schedule should be one you look at say---"thats a winnable game". In a perfect world, I'd like to see the OOC SOS be a team-by-team year-by-year type of thing for the AAC with the goal being to set each individual team up for OOC success.
For this conference, gaining P-5 respect or becoming a power conference likely is never going to happen. As we have seen in the past, individual teams are elevated, not conferences. We can enhance our value by being the best G5 conference. The most important key to being the best G-5 conference will be winning the G5 BCS slot on a consistent basis. The SOS of the regular schedule and a pair of P5 OOC teams I think will be enough to get the G-5 BCS slot. If the school is going 12-0 or 11-1, my guess is that will be enough---especially if many or most of the schools in the conference have winning records in OOC (since this by definition INCREASES the conference SOS of every conference team).
Im all for upgrading the OOC schedules. I think Houston's schedule has been too weak. That said, what I don't want is an overloaded P5 schedule. In 2009 Houston played Texas Tech, Miss, and OkieSt in OOC and won all 3 games. But it cost us in injuries and eroded our depth. It caught up with the team later in the season---which is why the shift to just one AQ type team and a weaker OOC. I think we softened the OOC too much---I think 2 AQ (rather than the 3 we played in 2009) might have been more reasonable.
Of course, at this point, nobody really knows how the new selection committee will play out with respect to the G5. With no real G5 representation on the committee, it could be that the G5 representative is just going to be an after thought. I will not be surprised if the real key there is just being 12-0 or 11-1. However, if the committee is just as diligent with the G5 as the P5 and the committee truly weighs the schedule strength heavily, then an even tougher OOC than I am suggesting may be necessary for schools who feel like they are in the hunt for the conference championship the next year. JMHO.
I think you both have made good points. I also don't think we should be scheduling FCS teams. The league is already reflected as a weaker conference so we need to schedule up a bit and win those OOC games to gain some respect. I do agree that SMU bit off more than they were probably ready for this year hence why they dropped Baylor who they also had scheduled. I mean Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU and Baylor would have just been ridicoulous to get through.
I think everyone should schedule one strong P5 (Oklahoma, LSU, Etc), one lower P5 (Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky) and two against the group of 5 teams with one being a stronger G5 and the other being a hostorically weak G5. Then we need to win all the G5 games and have our top teams win some of the P5 matchups. Do that over a extended period and we can seperate ourselves from this grouping and hopefully gain some respect. This won't happen overnight but we can't have multiple teams lose against FCS programs. That is just bad for business.
We both agree here. If we do schedule FCS programs, we need to friggin beat them.
Indy and BWW would be very solid backup agreements
Attack, most teams schedule out up to 6 years, so they can't be as flexible as your example, on average, to gauge their own strength, year to year. Of course, the better teams do it in reverse, by buying themselves out of contracts, or pushing them back, if an opponent gets good.
As for playing FCS, that should be outlawed for all FBS schools, IMO. If you want to play FCS schools, then drop down there and stay.
(10-15-2013 11:11 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]Attack, most teams schedule out up to 6 years, so they can't be as flexible as your example, on average, to gauge their own strength, year to year. Of course, the better teams do it in reverse, by buying themselves out of contracts, or pushing them back, if an opponent gets good.
As for playing FCS, that should be outlawed for all FBS schools, IMO. If you want to play FCS schools, then drop down there and stay.
From a fans point of view I hate the FCS game. But I know why its done. For the administration its an extra home game and that helps the budget. The coaches like the easy tune up win. The fans don't like it, but they like getting to a bowl. These games are part of the landscaped and virtually every conference schedules them. I would be just fine if it was outlawed across the board. That said, I suspect you continue to see the vast majority of schools continue the practice for the reasons above. For a program like Houston, winning has to be part of the equation as it is a factor in attendance. Too many choices here. Im pretty sure Houston will continue to have an FCS game as long as its allowed.
(10-15-2013 11:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-15-2013 11:11 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]Attack, most teams schedule out up to 6 years, so they can't be as flexible as your example, on average, to gauge their own strength, year to year. Of course, the better teams do it in reverse, by buying themselves out of contracts, or pushing them back, if an opponent gets good.
As for playing FCS, that should be outlawed for all FBS schools, IMO. If you want to play FCS schools, then drop down there and stay.
From a fans point of view I hate the FCS game. But I know why its done. For the administration its an extra home game and that helps the budget. The coaches like the easy tune up win. The fans don't like it, but they like getting to a bowl. These games are part of the landscaped and virtually every conference schedules them. I would be just fine if it was outlawed across the board. That said, I suspect you continue to see the vast majority of schools continue the practice for the reasons above. For a program like Houston, winning has to be part of the equation as it is a factor in attendance. Too many choices here. Im pretty sure Houston will continue to have an FCS game as long as its allowed.
Of course, many teams will schedule one if they have a choice. Memphis apparently is not, going forward. Aresco has asked that no AAC teams do.
I agree nothing will happen with everybody until it is mandated, but there have also been reports that some of the P5 conferences are considering banning FCS teams on their own.
(10-15-2013 09:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]The Indy Bowl would typically be another opportunity to play a P5.
Plus it is very convenient to Tulane, Houston, SMU, Tulsa and Memphis.
SMU's AD has stated that we will be scheduling only two P5 Texas Schools and two games against G5/FCS in future OOC schedule. Not sure when we will be able to begin that. I think Houston wants to upgrade to this type OOC schedule as well. Makes perfect sense to me.