Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Bull94]

25 minutes ago, Mama_Bull said:

Another thing to remember is that USF needs to play 7 home games each season.

It's very difficult to accomplish that, while also playing away pay games with no return.

So, while you may add an attractive opponent for an away pay game, you most likely would have to balance that out by adding an unattractive pay game at home to a second 1-AA team or pay considerably more for a lower end D1 team.

The 2018 and 2019 schedule seems be as good as can be expected with two P5 teams Home/away each year. However, I could see the possibility of Wisconsin buying out of our home game with them in 2019 and that would once again create a similar problem to what transpired this year.

We could conceivably buyout of our series with UMass, but that would be unseemly, considering they were willing to postpone our game with them to a later year, because of Irma. I don't think we want to get a reputation for doing that.

http://www.gousfbulls.com/news/2012/1/17/611637.aspx

We need to add more games in subsequent years against "attractive" opponents, so I can well understand the strategy of trying to make more 2-1 deals, if possible with elite teams. If we can't, then we might be forced to bite the bullet and add some one and done pay games, but that won't be our first preference. 

 

 

why do we have to have 7 home games? much rather play a one and done against a top 25 program than a 1-aa home game.

[Bull94]

7 minutes ago, GaUSFBull said:

 

This.  

I think it's dumb to have a blanket policy, as it seems is in place here.  You need to be willing to move a little when it comes to negotiations.  Having a policy and being so rigid so as not to move at all can hurt you as much as you may think it would help you.  Probably part of the reason this year is what it is.  

we essentially signed one and dones with Wisconsin and Michigan State. Our buyouts were ridiculously low and we played there first. I'm guess the amount they paid us to play there wasn't as high as it would have been had we signed a one and done with them.

[GaUSFBull]

1 minute ago, Bull94 said:

we essentially signed one and dones with Wisconsin and Michigan State. Our buyouts were ridiculously low and we played there first. I'm guess the amount they paid us to play there wasn't as high as it would have been had we signed a one and done with them.

Very true.  Hopefully if we get a one and one, playing away first, our buyouts are considerably higher on the back end for those games.  Wisconsin really screwed us this year, but I think if we were a little more open to an away pay game, we could have at least made the schedule this year a little better.  

[TallyBull]

If we were still BCS/P5, I'd be pickier.

In light of our current predicament: ANY TIME, ANYWHERE.

Remember beating ND in South Bend? I was there. Absolutely worth it. And if I recall correctly, they paid us handsomely for the privilege of losing to us!

Edited September 28, 2017 by TallyBull

[bullsbucsfan426]

38 minutes ago, Bull94 said:

we essentially signed one and dones with Wisconsin and Michigan State. Our buyouts were ridiculously low and we played there first. I'm guess the amount they paid us to play there wasn't as high as it would have been had we signed a one and done with them.

Weren't those signed during the BCS era? If so, the payouts would have been low as BCS teams don't pay each other as much (call it the P6 discount). 

[USFFan]

Pretty disappointed to see how many of our fans want us to be whores, which is what you are when you take payday games. I'm with MamaBull, 2 for 1's is far preferable.

 

USFFan

[bullsfan27]

I thought the home game with Wisconsin was moved to next year or 2019. Wisconsin wanted the series with byu but it might have backfired on them as they traded a top 25 opponent for a 1-3 team. Michigan State really screwed us and I wouldn't even consider playing them unless they play a game here first.

[GaUSFBull]

Just now, USFFan said:

Pretty disappointed to see how many of our fans want us to be whores, which is what you are when you take payday games. I'm with MamaBull, 2 for 1's is far preferable.

 

USFFan

[USFFan]

Oh, and since this is still ostensibly a realignment thread, I think the latest EPL news could portend what's going to happen in college sports soon:

 

http://www.espnfc.us/english-premier-league/story/3215455/premier-leagues-big-6-face-opposition-on-overseas-tv-revenue-plans-reports

 

Essentially, they're pushing to make a TV revenue distribution plan based on where you place in the league. So Bama, Clemson and Ohio State will start making way more TV revenue than Vandy, BC and Rutgers. That would likely rankle some feathers and spark a new round of realignment BINGO.

 

USFFan

[GaUSFBull]

6 minutes ago, USFFan said:

Oh, and since this is still ostensibly a realignment thread, I think the latest EPL news could portend what's going to happen in college sports soon:

 

http://www.espnfc.us/english-premier-league/story/3215455/premier-leagues-big-6-face-opposition-on-overseas-tv-revenue-plans-reports

 

Essentially, they're pushing to make a TV revenue distribution plan based on where you place in the league. So Bama, Clemson and Ohio State will start making way more TV revenue than Vandy, BC and Rutgers. That would likely rankle some feathers and spark a new round of realignment BINGO.

 

USFFan

I'll go ahead and give this a similar response to my last one:  

This will never happen.  Not only would the P5 schools ranked far down the ladder (who greatly outnumber the select few that are at the top year in and year out) have a feces fit if this were to be considered, but then you have a whole 'nother can of worms in having to basically change the whole current ranking system.  The AP, coaches poll AND the CFP committee couldn't be the ones determining who was going to be ranked if where each team was placed determined their revenue.  

We'd have to go back to a computer system and I think most would agree that it would be a huge step backward in terms of progress in getting this whole system working as good as it could.

Edited September 28, 2017 by GaUSFBull
fixing the censored word