Top to bottom the American is better than the ACC and the Big XII right now. I am not saying the NCAA networks should bounce one of them , the ACC is probably weaker than the Big VII, but the Big XII only has X teams. If either has to be bounced for American inclusion I vote Big XII.

Idk about all of that, BIG12 has OU, Texas, Iowa St, Okie St and Baylor, all were in the top 25 at some point last year. The ACC argument might be closer (other than the couple teams at the top). Us, Cincinnati, UCF and if SMU can hold it together and possibly Temple are the main teams in the American, just not sure if any could hang with most of the top teams in the BIG12. Maybe just us and Cincinnati honestly

(06-20-2020 04:29 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  Idk about all of that, BIG12 has OU, Texas, Iowa St, Okie St and Baylor, all were in the top 25 at some point last year. The ACC argument might be closer (other than the couple teams at the top). Us, Cincinnati, UCF and if SMU can hold it together and possibly Temple are the main teams in the American, just not sure if any could hang with most of the top teams in the BIG12. Maybe just us and Cincinnati honestly

Navy beat Kansas State in the Liberty Bowl this year. I was there. Honestly KSU looked no better than a mid tier AAC team. Parity in college football is closer than we think outside of the top 20 historically good football programs. The AAC is closer to the Big 12 in terms of play style and product on the field.

Misleading thread title. I thought this was a press release.

No one mentioned the PAC. They may be worse that either the AAC & B12.

The unfair thing is that an undefeated Big 12, Pac 12, or ACC team gets the benefit of the doubt that they have proven themselves while an undefeated AAC team ( or MWC team or whatever) is belittled for a weaker conference and schedule. The haves will have and the have not's will not.

Because they are in a power 5 conference?

And if we were in it would be power 6, right?

Or is it like the big12 where the number doesn't matter?

(06-20-2020 04:29 PM)T.I.G.E.R.S Wrote:  Idk about all of that, BIG12 has OU, Texas, Iowa St, Okie St and Baylor, all were in the top 25 at some point last year. The ACC argument might be closer (other than the couple teams at the top). Us, Cincinnati, UCF and if SMU can hold it together and possibly Temple are the main teams in the American, just not sure if any could hang with most of the top teams in the BIG12. Maybe just us and Cincinnati honestly

Uh, we have a much better track record than SMU

(06-20-2020 06:30 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  Misleading thread title. I thought this was a press release.

I wish

The top programs of the BXII are consistently better than the top programs of the AAC. They have more resources and better recruiting over a period of years than we do. That doesn't mean any of our top programs can't be better in a year or two but over the course of 10 years they will be better as things stand now.

It will not take Norvell long to right FSU. Then the ACC will have to top 10ish programs. The league will forever be mired by Duke and Wake; and the former Big East basketball schools (BC included) who were not added for football, but to appease Krzyzewski after the football-geared additions of VT and Miami. The other traditional football schools, Miami, GT, and VT have not pulled their weight. Miami and GT appear to be struggling in the athletic facilities arms race (especially Miami). GT is in full on rebuild after 11 years of triple option.

I wish Memphis would schedule some of the lower half ACC teams. GT has played, Temple, UCF, and USF in recent years.

Duke is much improved, and Wake is getting there if they can ever figure out how to put consistent offense up.

GT is going to be dogshit for several years. That team we beat would finish bottom three in the AAC.

As I recall PUKE and the Deacons--both have beat us fairly recently ---rematch

I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

(06-22-2020 09:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

One more P5 wouldn’t make a dent, blemish or smudge towards P5 level of revenue. Maybe a bit more at the gate.

(06-22-2020 11:34 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

One more P5 wouldn’t make a dent, blemish or smudge towards P5 level of revenue. Maybe a bit more at the gate.

About $1M+ gate revenue increase per game. It's not as simple as looking at the increase in attendance for a good P5 home OOC home game vs an FCS (who we pay to play us). It's that for a UCLA type game (or SEC) we get a full $50/ticket price for each seat vs give aways or Kroger ticket prices for FCS + the payment to come play.

(06-22-2020 09:38 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  As I recall PUKE and the Deacons--both have beat us fairly recently ---rematch

Ugh, and the irritating thing is that we had them both dead to rights.

Well, Wake Forest maybe

(06-23-2020 08:40 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 11:34 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

One more P5 wouldn’t make a dent, blemish or smudge towards P5 level of revenue. Maybe a bit more at the gate.

About $1M+ gate revenue increase per game. It's not as simple as looking at the increase in attendance for a good P5 home OOC home game vs an FCS (who we pay to play us). It's that for a UCLA type game (or SEC) we get a full $50/ticket price for each seat vs give aways or Kroger ticket prices for FCS + the payment to come play.

You don't seem to understand very simple concepts even though they are explained to you.

In 2017, we were a holding penalty which lead to a missed field goal away from the NY6 berth. Last year we played in the game. We need to put ourselves in that position every year. Anything we do to risk that isn't worth it.

I will make this even more simple for you. What is more prestigious? Being ranked in the top 20, being the top G5 team, playing in front of millions and getting a high payout for playing in a NY6 game, or having that extra 750k in the bank by playing UCLA, playing in the Birmingham Bowl, and running the risk of not making the NY6?

2019 Home Schedules
Memphis
Ole Piss (rival)
Navy
SMU
Cincinnati
Cincinnati

Clemson
TAM (7-5)
Florida State (rival)
Virginia

Oregon
Auburn
Utah

Utah
Arizona State (7-5)
UCLA (4-8)
Oregon

Because of the strength of the conference, our home schedule is going to be good no matter what. More than likely, at least one opponent will turn out to be unexpectedly ranked, and even games against mid level conference opponents like Temple, will be good games.

This has been explained to you dozens of times over the years.

(06-23-2020 08:40 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 11:34 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

One more P5 wouldn’t make a dent, blemish or smudge towards P5 level of revenue. Maybe a bit more at the gate.

About $1M+ gate revenue increase per game. It's not as simple as looking at the increase in attendance for a good P5 home OOC home game vs an FCS (who we pay to play us). It's that for a UCLA type game (or SEC) we get a full $50/ticket price for each seat vs give aways or Kroger ticket prices for FCS + the payment to come play.

It's not that simple eaither.

First, we aren't selling 20k more single game tickets @ $50 per for a P5. Maybe UTK and SOMETIMES Old Miss will get you that bump. But that's it and they're not all singles @ $50 either.

Secondly, you're comparing to the wrong game. Even if we do get another P5, we're not replacing the FCS buy game. Just like every major FBS program, we are going to play an annual FCS game at home. It helps with the season tix package, it helps with the record, and it helps guarantee a minimum of 6 home games (with 7 homes as the goal). So the extra game isn't replacing UT-Martin. It's replacing Arky State or LA-Monroe. And those games are typically not Kroger games.

Finally, like I always remind the schedule hawks, you have to look at the risk-reward. Last year was the best season in modern history. No disputing that. And it came in a year when so many of you were complaining about the schedule. Our brand is currently as high as it's ever been. Much of this comes from winning our conference and has very little to do with our OOC schedule. You play a couple of P5s every year with at least one on the road, you are going to lose more games. It's why even the mighty P5s don't play road P5 OOC games. And the more you lose, the less shine on the brand.

There's a fine balance. I can agree we usually should not be playing USA and LA-Monroe on the road in the same year. But if we played one more of them at home with 7 home games, I'm all for it.

(06-23-2020 11:28 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(06-23-2020 08:40 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 11:34 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 09:46 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  I'd like to see that schedule upgrade too. That would mean a little revenue boost but not P5 level. And that's the issue, we may be having high level success in a conference that's better top to bottom than the ACC, PAC or B12 but until we see the $$, we are just the biggest midget.

One more P5 wouldn’t make a dent, blemish or smudge towards P5 level of revenue. Maybe a bit more at the gate.

About $1M+ gate revenue increase per game. It's not as simple as looking at the increase in attendance for a good P5 home OOC home game vs an FCS (who we pay to play us). It's that for a UCLA type game (or SEC) we get a full $50/ticket price for each seat vs give aways or Kroger ticket prices for FCS + the payment to come play.

It's not that simple eaither.

First, we aren't selling 20k more single game tickets @ $50 per for a P5. Maybe UTK and SOMETIMES Old Miss will get you that bump. But that's it and they're not all singles @ $50 either.

Secondly, you're comparing to the wrong game. Even if we do get another P5, we're not replacing the FCS buy game. Just like every major FBS program, we are going to play an annual FCS game at home. It helps with the season tix package, it helps with the record, and it helps guarantee a minimum of 6 home games (with 7 homes as the goal). So the extra game isn't replacing UT-Martin. It's replacing Arky State or LA-Monroe. And those games are typically not Kroger games.

Finally, like I always remind the schedule hawks, you have to look at the risk-reward. Last year was the best season in modern history. No disputing that. And it came in a year when so many of you were complaining about the schedule. Our brand is currently as high as it's ever been. Much of this comes from winning our conference and has very little to do with our OOC schedule. You play a couple of P5s every year with at least one on the road, you are going to lose more games. It's why even the mighty P5s don't play road P5 OOC games. And the more you lose, the less shine on the brand.

There's a fine balance. I can agree we usually should not be playing USA and LA-Monroe on the road in the same year. But if we played one more of them at home with 7 home games, I'm all for it.

Yep.