Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Triple B]

3 hours ago, Brad said:

Maybe we didn't trust the process and instead ****** up the process?

Absolutely ...... but I'm guessing that our definition of "process" differs wildly.

[Bull Matrix]

17 minutes ago, CousinRicky said:

So we recognize those schools because of football stadiums on campus?  Just trying to understand how having an OCS adds to USF's (or any school for that matter) profile.  I can understand playing football but don't think UCLA has poor brand recognition because they don't play on campus.

UCLA has tons of big money alums. USF needs to continue to find more revenue sources. 

[Outlaw]

10 hours ago, Triple B said:

Absolutely ...... but I'm guessing that our definition of "process" differs wildly.

Hopefully  it includes winning and not rewarding losing for stability .

[GoBulls84]

11 hours ago, CousinRicky said:

Tell me you're joking

UCLA
USC
Navy 
Oregon
NC State

23 College Football Teams That Play Home Games Off-Campus - HERO Sports

---

Check out the 23 FBS programs that play off-campus, including four schools that would take you on a 15-mile trek to enjoy a home game.

 

So because those schools are large name brands (NC State on the list with those other four is dubious) without an OCS, that means building one wouldn't add to our overall profile? No one's saying it would instantly make us a blue blood, but to point out blue bloods (that have been around for 100 years) that are successful without an OCS is apples to oranges IMO.

[SilverBull]

16 hours ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

The OCS is prudent. An OCS adds to a school's overall profile, and provides the opportunity for huge on-campus events like bringing alumni back to campus and the occasional (hopefully more frequent) high-profile football season we all yearn for. We do not have that opportunity now. The admin understands the costs and benefits, which is why they are building it. 

While I think the ROI for the OCS is debatable, if the USF leadership decides it is wise then I support their decision.  I just don't think it should be built on the premise that it will buy us a spot in heaven, i.e., a P5 conference.  It should be built to serve the future of USF with a realistic view of where we are today and where we, and the college football environment in general, are likely to be in the foreseeable future.  I also still maintain it should be planned, designed and built with the involvement of a broader intergovernmental and private investor base as part of a more comprehensive regional infrastructure, transportation and community events hub involving and benefiting the community at large.  It is a great opportunity for synergy of purpose.

[hm101]

Getting tripped up over semantics of literally within the boundaries of campus or not. 

The point is, it is THEIR stadium. 

They can control the revenue, the gameday environment, etc. The branding is theirs. Etc. There's not a giant red pirate ship in the middle of UCLA's stadium. (Even for Pitt - I have seen the stadium - they have great Pitt branding for gameday and there seems to be more of an explicit partnership between them and the Steelers. I think they share certain training facilities too.)

That's what is missing for us - our home. 

Reasonable, smart people can disagree over whether OCS is needed, a good idea, etc. 

USF wants to control the revenue stream, improve the gameday environment, increase school spirit, etc etc. One can speculate that they have been told it was a requirement to move up, perhaps even. On the other hand, I share the concern that it won't pay off if CFB changes for the worse and/or we don't that invite. 

[USF_Bullsharks]

13 hours ago, CousinRicky said:

Tell me you're joking

UCLA
USC
Navy 
Oregon
NC State

23 College Football Teams That Play Home Games Off-Campus - HERO Sports

---

Check out the 23 FBS programs that play off-campus, including four schools that would take you on a 15-mile trek to enjoy a home game.

 

That's one way to say "106 of 129 FBS schools have on-campus stadiums" and "only 5 schools play further from campus that USF". 

[79 Bull]

7 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

That's one way to say "106 of 129 FBS schools have on-campus stadiums" and "only 5 schools play further from campus that USF". 

 

7 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

That's one way to say "106 110 of 129 133 FBS schools have on-campus stadiums" and "only 5 schools play further from campus that USF". 

FIFY.

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, hm101 said:

Getting tripped up over semantics of literally within the boundaries of campus or not. 

The point is, it is THEIR stadium. 

They can control the revenue, the gameday environment, etc. The branding is theirs. Etc. There's not a giant red pirate ship in the middle of UCLA's stadium. (Even for Pitt - I have seen the stadium - they have great Pitt branding for gameday and there seems to be more of an explicit partnership between them and the Steelers. I think they share certain training facilities too.)

That's what is missing for us - our home. 

Reasonable, smart people can disagree over whether OCS is needed, a good idea, etc. 

USF wants to control the revenue stream, improve the gameday environment, increase school spirit, etc etc. One can speculate that they have been told it was a requirement to move up, perhaps even. On the other hand, I share the concern that it won't pay off if CFB changes for the worse and/or we don't that invite. 

Agree with everything there except last sentence. Even if we don’t get into a P5, the time’s come for an ocs. There  is college football outside the P5, although not to everybody I guess. 

[Mike Stuben]

In 1996 when I was selling USF Football season tickets, before we ever played a game, I kept getting asked, "Do you think USF will ever have their own on campus stadium."  My answer then was, "Yes, absolutely, some day, but it is a long way in the future."

That message has always been the same. Only difference, is we now know when, 2026, 30 years later. 

I guarantee you a 35,000 seat stadium won't get us into a better conference, but it illustrates a commitment to football, an improved setting for our games, which will be a step in the right direction. 

The most important thing to me that the design has a plan for a next step that grows the stadium to 50k seats. Because where I hope we are going, 35k won't cut it.