(10-09-2013 08:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'll do so Wedge as top tier FBS schools have various reasons for their FBS schedules. In the writer's world, how does he plan to butterfly away the state mandated games that Clemson and SCAR must play against SC State and The Citadel? His position is strictly fan based and neglects that both FBS and FCS school benefit from the current arrangement. While's he was thoroughly entertained by that UGA/Clemson game, it really hasn't benefited the Dawgs. People still lament that UGA has played North Texas and will play GA Southern later this year.

If you play in a conference that is highly respected, there's no reason to try and schedule a difficult OOC. tOSU SOS is only marginally better than Louisville, but rest assured that they will get in ahead of a 1-loss SEC team, no matter how 'good' that loss is. Ultimately, the marginal ROI preclude schools from wanting to schedule the intersectional matchups. Maybe the CFP and networks can change that (ESPN was a big reason for such a great opening weekend to the CFB season), but I'm doubtful.

Those games aren't state mandated, it's just a practice both schools have adopten

OK, thanks. I had always heard otherwise.

A 13th game where each school has the option to play an FCS exhibition game or a closed scrimmage against another FBS school. Second a post-season system where each conference champion plus the best at-large teams play in a 12 or 16 team playoff.

Too many athletic departments are running on fumes right now - that 7th home game is absolutely critical for a number of schools (including dozens in the current P5).

Schools are making a lot of money right now, but in truth a lot of it is going to cover expenses of the athletic department.

(10-10-2013 08:54 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Too many athletic departments are running on fumes right now - that 7th home game is absolutely critical for a number of schools (including dozens in the current P5).

Schools are making a lot of money right now, but in truth a lot of it is going to cover expenses of the athletic department.

Every school in the P5 has gotten at least a $5 million increase in their TV contracts in the past couple of years except the Big 10 and they are coming up shortly. If you go back 5 years, they've all gone up at least $10 million. And you can still get the 7th home game. You just have to pay more for a Toledo than you do a Youngstown St. You might have to do a 2 for 1. And there is a cost. You might sell less tickets. You definitely do less in parking and concessions through no-shows and people leaving early. And you are providing less value to the customers which hurts you long run (while you are raising ticket prices).

(10-10-2013 08:54 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Too many athletic departments are running on fumes right now - that 7th home game is absolutely critical for a number of schools (including dozens in the current P5).

Schools are making a lot of money right now, but in truth a lot of it is going to cover expenses of the athletic department.

In a lot of cases, the "losses" are a matter of dates. Not all, but many. What I mean is instead of doing like most companies would do and collect a profit or a loss for the year, then pay the dividends to stock holders, athletic departments spend the would be profit before the year is out, so it shows up as a zero balance or even a loss, so they don't have to give excess money back or stop getting university support. For example, if Team X makes $100 million, and has $90 million in expenses, they would have a $10 million profit. Seeing this, they decide to invest $15 million in a new practice facility. Now they show a $5 million loss for the year. But they didn't lose money. They just spent the earnings. See what I mean?

Now this is not the case everywhere, no doubt. But it is the case at many of the larger athletic depts. who all appear to be broke. They aren't. Either that or colleges, many of whom have fine degree programs that can help with such thing on their very campus, systematically choose to hire the dumbest accountants on the planet.

IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

(10-10-2013 09:48 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:54 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Too many athletic departments are running on fumes right now - that 7th home game is absolutely critical for a number of schools (including dozens in the current P5).

Schools are making a lot of money right now, but in truth a lot of it is going to cover expenses of the athletic department.

In a lot of cases, the "losses" are a matter of dates. Not all, but many. What I mean is instead of doing like most companies would do and collect a profit or a loss for the year, then pay the dividends to stock holders, athletic departments spend the would be profit before the year is out, so it shows up as a zero balance or even a loss, so they don't have to give excess money back or stop getting university support. For example, if Team X makes $100 million, and has $90 million in expenses, they would have a $10 million profit. Seeing this, they decide to invest $15 million in a new practice facility. Now they show a $5 million loss for the year. But they didn't lose money. They just spent the earnings. See what I mean?

Now this is not the case everywhere, no doubt. But it is the case at many of the larger athletic depts. who all appear to be broke. They aren't. Either that or colleges, many of whom have fine degree programs that can help with such thing on their very campus, systematically choose to hire the dumbest accountants on the planet.

That's right.

If that Team X only spent $90 million for the year, on $100 million in "revenue", then a student group is going to demand that their "student activity fees" be cut by $100 per student because the athletic department doesn't even need the money they collect from the student activity fees. Or somebody who donated six figures last year is going to say, "Why should I commit more money when the money I gave you last year is just sitting there on your books."

If the money is in your budget, then you use it or you lose it.

(10-10-2013 10:36 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

Why?

(10-10-2013 08:19 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The current system rewards 4 cupcake OOC victories but punishes 2-2 challenging OOC schedules.

If you want cupcakes to go away in lieu of better OOC opponents than you need to 1) not hurt a team's chances of making the playoff by undertaking a challenging OOC schedule and 2) reward such a schedule by making the SOS boost they would get from it count toward getting into the playoff.

this

If the college football playoff sticks to their guns, a tough 2-2 OOC slate will be rewarded more than a 4-0 cupcake OOC slate, which will tend to make cupcake games a thing of the past...

That all assumes they really meant what they said...

About the only thing they can do to improve OOC games is heavily weight teams OOC schedule strength when picking the 4 playoff teams. That will at least encourage all the teams that have a shot at making the playoff to improve their OOC schedules. And those top 10 to 15 schools would be the ones most of us want to see playing OOC marquee games.

I would prefer the OOC games to take place later in the season, if they are going to be heavily weighted. That would allow teams to be playing at their peak when they met in OOC games, making the games a better matchup for judging the equivalent stregths of the teams. Holding those games early in the season doesn't make for as accurate an indicator IMO...

But I doubt there will be any change, since the earlier games would have an effect on conference races. They're even more important for determining who will be eligible to be selected for the playoff...

(10-10-2013 11:46 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:36 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

Why?

Why beat up on a scrub opponent? I mean there are plenty of "lower tier" D1 schools to play.... why schedule a 1aa?

(10-10-2013 04:13 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:46 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:36 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

Why?

Why beat up on a scrub opponent? I mean there are plenty of "lower tier" D1 schools to play.... why schedule a 1aa?

7th home game = lots of $$$ for P5. Also, FCS plays for pay cheaper and won't hassle you for a return game. Smart strategy IMO, I hope we can adopt it somehow to get some more gate revenue.

(10-10-2013 04:13 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:46 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:36 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

Why?

Why beat up on a scrub opponent? I mean there are plenty of "lower tier" D1 schools to play.... why schedule a 1aa?

#1 - 10 or so of the "scrubs" win every year
#2 - The top 20-30 "scrubs" are better than the lowest 30-40 FBSino schools
#3 - Why should a state school like Arizona State be forced to pay $1 million for a scrub to come and bring no crowd, when they can keep the money in-state by paying NAU $500K, and get 2-3 K Lumberjack fans attending? Especially when NAU is better than the scrub FBSino team?

(10-10-2013 04:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:13 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:46 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 10:36 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  IMO, a 1A school should NEVER schedule a 1AA school unless that 1aa school is going into 1a and they are in their transitional scheduling they have to play.

Why?

Why beat up on a scrub opponent? I mean there are plenty of "lower tier" D1 schools to play.... why schedule a 1aa?

#1 - 10 or so of the "scrubs" win every year
#2 - The top 20-30 "scrubs" are better than the lowest 30-40 FBSino schools
#3 - Why should a state school like Arizona State be forced to pay $1 million for a scrub to come and bring no crowd, when they can keep the money in-state by paying NAU $500K, and get 2-3 K Lumberjack fans attending? Especially when NAU is better than the scrub FBSino team?

#1 They don't win 10 very often. This year is really unique with 14 so far. Last dozen years, counting this year-14, 10, 6,7,5,2,10,7,2,6,10,8. And very few of these are against P5 schools.

I agree it's broken. It's part of what keeps the 'rich' rich and the 'poor' poor.

It's better for the game if things were more competitive. It's not like you can make it so competitive that nobody will win.

(10-10-2013 04:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  #3 - Why should a state school like Arizona State be forced to pay $1 million for a scrub to come and bring no crowd, when they can keep the money in-state by paying NAU $500K, and get 2-3 K Lumberjack fans attending? Especially when NAU is better than the scrub FBSino team?

Nobody would force ASU to do anything, if they want to play NAU they can, it just shouldn't count in FBS standings.

A D-I hoops team can play a D-II hoops team each season as an exhibition game that doesn't count in the standings. FBS v. FCS football games should be classified the same way.

(10-10-2013 05:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:28 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  #3 - Why should a state school like Arizona State be forced to pay $1 million for a scrub to come and bring no crowd, when they can keep the money in-state by paying NAU $500K, and get 2-3 K Lumberjack fans attending? Especially when NAU is better than the scrub FBSino team?

Nobody would force ASU to do anything, if they want to play NAU they can, it just shouldn't count in FBS standings.

A D-I hoops team can play a D-II hoops team each season as an exhibition game that doesn't count in the standings. FBS v. FCS football games should be classified the same way.

If it doesn't count, they won't play.

(10-10-2013 08:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'll do so Wedge as top tier FBS schools have various reasons for their FBS schedules. In the writer's world, how does he plan to butterfly away the state mandated games that Clemson and SCAR must play against SC State and The Citadel? His position is strictly fan based and neglects that both FBS and FCS school benefit from the current arrangement. While's he was thoroughly entertained by that UGA/Clemson game, it really hasn't benefited the Dawgs. People still lament that UGA has played North Texas and will play GA Southern later this year.

If you play in a conference that is highly respected, there's no reason to try and schedule a difficult OOC. tOSU SOS is only marginally better than Louisville, but rest assured that they will get in ahead of a 1-loss SEC team, no matter how 'good' that loss is. Ultimately, the marginal ROI preclude schools from wanting to schedule the intersectional matchups. Maybe the CFP and networks can change that (ESPN was a big reason for such a great opening weekend to the CFB season), but I'm doubtful.

Those games aren't state mandated, it's just a practice both schools have adopten

OK, thanks. I had always heard otherwise.

It seems to be a misconception everywhere, even among SC/Clemson fans

The change we need in scheduling is gonna come at the conference level. Limit teams to certain number of games against non power schools.

(10-10-2013 06:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 08:57 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:49 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'll do so Wedge as top tier FBS schools have various reasons for their FBS schedules. In the writer's world, how does he plan to butterfly away the state mandated games that Clemson and SCAR must play against SC State and The Citadel? His position is strictly fan based and neglects that both FBS and FCS school benefit from the current arrangement. While's he was thoroughly entertained by that UGA/Clemson game, it really hasn't benefited the Dawgs. People still lament that UGA has played North Texas and will play GA Southern later this year.

If you play in a conference that is highly respected, there's no reason to try and schedule a difficult OOC. tOSU SOS is only marginally better than Louisville, but rest assured that they will get in ahead of a 1-loss SEC team, no matter how 'good' that loss is. Ultimately, the marginal ROI preclude schools from wanting to schedule the intersectional matchups. Maybe the CFP and networks can change that (ESPN was a big reason for such a great opening weekend to the CFB season), but I'm doubtful.

Those games aren't state mandated, it's just a practice both schools have adopten

OK, thanks. I had always heard otherwise.

It seems to be a misconception everywhere, even among SC/Clemson fans

The change we need in scheduling is gonna come at the conference level. Limit teams to certain number of games against non power schools.

And that will only happen if all the P5 conferences do it at once.

The SEC has no reason to change it's scheduling model right now - it is working for them. Until it stops working, status quo.