thewebboy wrote:3 winnable games vs P5 teams. 1 winnable non-P5 team. These are not Wisconsin/OSU/Alabama teams that are going to muscle us out of the stadium.
Do you want to make a splash and get some national attention? Or settle playing lesser opponents and a easy W. I know what the players would say. They want a shot at the big guys, the programs that might have overlooked them.
You know what hooked me as a freshman/sophomore who knew nothing about BG football? KANSAS, MISSOURI, NORTHWESTERN, OSU, PURDUE. Those games get people excited. String a few together and those games change programs.
We are lucky the Tenn game opened up the way it did. We get a huge payday versus beatable SEC team. Our AD did the best he could with the cards we was dealt.
Everyone stop complaining. Lace em' up and let's see what happens!
Love it webboy. Your post sums up my thoughts 110%.
Michael W.
BGSU-12 TIME MAC CHAMPION
FALCON FOOTBALL ROCKS!
We should play Ashland, Dayton, Findlay and Urbana OOC.... all at home...then hope we can run the table in the MAC and then dare the big boys to exclude us form the playoff.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
I'd bet our budget is actually closer to Ashland and Findlay than to Tennessee. Seriously, though, there's five Group of 5 conferences in America populated by schools with resources generally commensurate with ours. That's where the bulk of the non-conference games should come from with a Power 5 thrown in, not the other way around. Give the team a realistic chance to succeed and build positive momentum going into league play.
Heck, put Tennessee, USC, Florida State and Alabama on the schedule every year as far as I'm concerned. Just quadruple the budget and pay Babers $5 million instead of 400K.
Schadenfreude wrote: I don't think our AD really said this. I suspect that when the reporter asked how BGSU was going to cover the cost, the university pointed to the additional road game and said: Look, that Tennessee game covers the cost right there. Also, other sources of revenue are also up. The reporter extrapolated from that interview "BGSU essentially will pay for cost of attendance with football games away from home." My hunch is that this is an imprecise paraphrase.
You are inferring from that paraphrase that, in your words, "multiple guarantee games on a yearly basis is the new normal," but article very directly says the opposite. Specifically, "Kingston said that type of schedule will not normally be the case."
I take him at his word. Future schedules, to the extent that we have information on them, seem to back that up.
We shall see. The allure of guarantee games is powerful. One game in Tennessee is worth 10,000 Time Warner Cable First Downs and all the other small potato revenue-generating gimmicks known to man. It takes a strong AD backed by a strong administration to resist the urge to sell the football team down the river just to make the balance sheet look nicer.
Tennessee was never the sole option after South Carolina State. They were simply the most convenient. South Carolina State was an FCS team that dropped us. It was simply a matter of calling around to find another FCS team to do the same to someone else and take their spot. It happens all the time but we went for the cash grab instead. There's benefits to that besides the money of course ("excitement," high profile opponent, etc.) but let's not pretend there were zero costs. Losing a home game (and your home opener to boot) is enormous even if you're fine with playing them in addition to the 2 Big 10 road games already scheduled.
As far as agendas, of course there's one and it's fairly overt. It's called "Paying for the cost of attendance mandate when you're already broke to begin with." The NCAA makes the Bilderberg Group look like a church bingo league.
mscarn wrote:Losing a home game (and your home opener to boot) is enormous even if you're fine with playing them in addition to the 2 Big 10 road games already scheduled.
There is still going to be a home opener. Remember, Labor Day weekend home game = Thursday night. Tulsa 2013 - Thursday, Troy 2009 - Thursday. Those 2 games didn't draw much more than 15,000. A FCS school on a weeknight with people heading out of town would not have drawn over 15,000.
Even if it costs, $250,000 to travel to Tennessee, BG is still going to clear way more money than they would have from 1 home game vs an FCS school. Not to mention the exposure from the game itself and if they should happen to pull the upset.
mscarn wrote:Tennessee was never the sole option after South Carolina State. They were simply the most convenient. South Carolina State was an FCS team that dropped us. It was simply a matter of calling around to find another FCS team to do the same to someone else and take their spot. It happens all the time but we went for the cash grab instead. There's benefits to that besides the money of course ("excitement," high profile opponent, etc.) but let's not pretend there were zero costs. Losing a home game (and your home opener to boot) is enormous even if you're fine with playing them in addition to the 2 Big 10 road games already scheduled.
As far as agendas, of course there's one and it's fairly overt. It's called "Paying for the cost of attendance mandate when you're already broke to begin with." The NCAA makes the Bilderberg Group look like a church bingo league.
Good grief. Of course it was convenient, both schools needed to resolve a schedule opening and quickly. There's a reason why schools schedule OOC games well in advance. To merely suggest this was because of cost of attendance is short-sighted and petty.
mscarn wrote:Tennessee was never the sole option after South Carolina State. They were simply the most convenient. South Carolina State was an FCS team that dropped us. It was simply a matter of calling around to find another FCS team to do the same to someone else and take their spot. It happens all the time but we went for the cash grab instead. There's benefits to that besides the money of course ("excitement," high profile opponent, etc.) but let's not pretend there were zero costs. Losing a home game (and your home opener to boot) is enormous even if you're fine with playing them in addition to the 2 Big 10 road games already scheduled.
As far as agendas, of course there's one and it's fairly overt. It's called "Paying for the cost of attendance mandate when you're already broke to begin with." The NCAA makes the Bilderberg Group look like a church bingo league.
If we asked another FCS team to drop their opponent and play us, we would have been paying the drop fee for them, then paying them to come play at our place. How does that make any sense? If you drop an opponent, you pick up somebody with an open date on that same weekend and it makes it easy. We had a hole, Tennessee had a hole, and they just happened to line up perfectly. I don't get what you don't understand about this. This continued fixation on arguing over this is like trying to convince somebody that the moon landing was not faked or that 9/11 actually did happen. Such a conspiracy theorist.
mscarn wrote:Losing a home game (and your home opener to boot) is enormous even if you're fine with playing them in addition to the 2 Big 10 road games already scheduled.
There is still going to be a home opener. Remember, Labor Day weekend home game = Thursday night. Tulsa 2013 - Thursday, Troy 2009 - Thursday. Those 2 games didn't draw much more than 15,000. A FCS school on a weeknight with people heading out of town would not have drawn over 15,000.
Even if it costs, $250,000 to travel to Tennessee, BG is still going to clear way more money than they would have from 1 home game vs an FCS school. Not to mention the exposure from the game itself and if they should happen to pull the upset.
You're right, but 15,000 is still 15,000. When you're only talking about 6 homes games to begin with losing one is significant. And I agree that it would have cost more money to work through the process of finding someone else, but that's pretty much my point. It was a decision done for financial reasons, and there's an argument to be made for doing it for just that purpose. I'm merely saying that a) they had other options and b) there's other things to consider besides money.
