I don’t know that playing twice a year is the best solution but I do think that UConn, UMASS, Liberty, and NMSU should make a quadrilateral agreement to play each other annually in late October and November.

Additionally, UConn and UMass ought to both have the capacity to get late season long term agreements with Army as both could provide late season games in close proximity to West Point.

Add 2 buy games and an FCS to those 4 annual Indy vs Indy match ups and that’s only 5 games to find and there are plenty of regional schools that would do 2 for 1s or even home and homes.

(09-05-2019 05:38 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-05-2019 05:19 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(09-04-2019 04:41 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know this not realistic, but ideally UConn should play all these teams once each year in home and home series.

UMass, Army, BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Temple

Then once every 2 years

Pitt, WV, Cincy, Navy, USF, UCF

Problem on the opponents end is few OOC games to give and BC-Cuse-RU-Temple would be early season games only.

Then I guess instead it's going to be a steady diet every year of

UMass, Army, Liberty, NMSU & BYU

And occasionally they may get a home and home with

BC, Cuse, Temple & Rutgers

I doubt that it would be home and home for a couple of those teams. There will always be a need for 2 for 1’s to get extra home games. UConn probably will balk at doing that but other universities would accept it. So their interests would not be aligned.

(09-04-2019 04:41 PM)goofus Wrote:  I know this not realistic, but ideally UConn should play all these teams once each year in home and home series.

UMass, Army, BC, Cuse, Rutgers, Temple

Then once every 2 years

Pitt, WV, Cincy, Navy, USF, UCF

UConn definitely will not get Rutgers on the schedule every year. Rutgers only has 3 OOC games with the 9 game B-10 schedule. One of those games is played against a P5 opponent and one will be played against an FCS opponent in years they only have 4 home games against B-10 conference foes as a buy game to get 7 home games for the season. Rutgers also wants to schedule games against Army, Navy, and Temple regionally when they can work them in, which is not as often as they use to because of the 9 game B-10 schedule.

What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

(09-07-2019 04:24 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

It's Rutgers. They're B1G in name only

(09-07-2019 08:25 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:24 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

It's Rutgers. They're B1G in name only

So much true. Rutgers in football is irrelevant in product.

(09-07-2019 08:29 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:25 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:24 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

It's Rutgers. They're B1G in name only

So much true. Rutgers in football is irrelevant in product.

Iowa board had hordes of people giving away tix

(09-07-2019 04:24 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

Read that the B-10 backed off on the FCS issue when a conference team only has 4 home conference games instead of 5 home conference games (uneven 9 game conference schedule). This allows teams with only 4 home conference games to go out a get a buy game to reach 7 games per season.

(09-08-2019 02:27 PM)panite Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 04:24 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  What ever happened to that Big 10 not playing FCS teams?

Read that the B-10 backed off on the FCS issue when a conference team only has 4 home conference games instead of 5 home conference games (uneven 9 game conference schedule). This allows teams with only 4 home conference games to go out a get a buy game to reach 7 games per season.

That would be a weak bit of justification as they could get many G5 schools to play that pay day game it would only cost more money. So in reality it really is about the cost (FCS teams are cheaper to buy), the desire to be able to play a game to give them generally their best chance at a win that counts towards bowl eligibility, or a combination of the two.

Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

(09-09-2019 09:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

No no no no no no no. Why should we take in two east coast football orphans? Would be one thing if they were really good and we could lock them in long-term with the contract, it's another when they're basement dwellers. The MAC struggles enough as it is, not like we need to split our CFP money to two more programs. The days of taking in football-only teams is over.

I would like to reiterate the fact that no one deserves to watch these teams once, let alone twice.

(09-09-2019 09:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

The MAC doesn't pay enough on their TV deal to make it worthwhile for UConn and you get locked in to the mid-week games that genuinely might produce a three-figure crowd at Rentschler. They can get the same money from SNY and have control over their home scheduling dates. Play a bunch of MAC teams as an independent, sure, but once you get through 2020, maybe 2021, there isn't really a need there.

(09-09-2019 07:35 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

The MAC doesn't pay enough on their TV deal to make it worthwhile for UConn and you get locked in to the mid-week games that genuinely might produce a three-figure crowd at Rentschler. They can get the same money from SNY and have control over their home scheduling dates. Play a bunch of MAC teams as an independent, sure, but once you get through 2020, maybe 2021, there isn't really a need there.

I still cannot find ANY info at all about UConn FB and 2020.
Any clue on the scheduling?

(09-09-2019 08:05 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:35 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

The MAC doesn't pay enough on their TV deal to make it worthwhile for UConn and you get locked in to the mid-week games that genuinely might produce a three-figure crowd at Rentschler. They can get the same money from SNY and have control over their home scheduling dates. Play a bunch of MAC teams as an independent, sure, but once you get through 2020, maybe 2021, there isn't really a need there.

I still cannot find ANY info at all about UConn FB and 2020.
Any clue on the scheduling?

2020's going to be rough. Currently they've got Indiana, UMass, and an FCS team at home and Illinois on the road. They've presumably been in negotiations on future scheduling over the last month and a half but no big announcements yet. They only really need one home game and one neutral-site game to get NCAA compliant, but I'd say there's at least a 50-50 shot they're playing a non-compliant schedule next year. We'll see, expect FCS-heavy (which may not even be a bad thing) and some road buy games.

(09-09-2019 09:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass and UConn. Should both join the Mac as football only members and the big east should invite St. Louis U

Give it time if both are still alive after 2025, after potential realignment and both are playing FB as independents.

Play each other 12 times, thus guaranteeing one of them is bowl eligible (or both if they’re 6-6)