Tidbits from coaches caravan...

[mscarn]

1.2 million helps the program far more...near and short term...than a win over Dumptown State or whatever no name program you're going to plug in to come to BG. Do you honestly think this one game swap is going to have an impact on Babers resume as a coach? Honestly?

Economic reality...unlike theoretic exercises about crowds and bowl bids and resumes...is reality. For a mid major program where the school's entire athletic budget is in the $15 mil range, $1.2 million is not something you can pass up.

The opening game might not make or break Babers' resume, but it very well could make or break the 2015 season.

You're absolutely right about economic reality and the budget, but prostituting the program isn't the way to address the problem. Being dependent on those measures makes it worse because people start to think selling out a viable option. Need a few million? Play Alabama, USC and Florida State back to back to back. Some places do that and get beaten down. Other schools (like NIU) schedule reasonably and consistently win.

It all comes back to what the core goals of the program should be, and simple revenue generation shouldn't be the primary consideration.

[threestooges]

1.2 million helps the program far more...near and short term...than a win over Dumptown State or whatever no name program you're going to plug in to come to BG. Do you honestly think this one game swap is going to have an impact on Babers resume as a coach? Honestly?

Economic reality...unlike theoretic exercises about crowds and bowl bids and resumes...is reality. For a mid major program where the school's entire athletic budget is in the $15 mil range, $1.2 million is not something you can pass up.

The opening game might not make or break Babers' resume, but it very well could make or break the 2015 season.

You're absolutely right about economic reality and the budget, but prostituting the program isn't the way to address the problem. Being dependent on those measures makes it worse because people start to think selling out a viable option. Need a few million? Play Alabama, USC and Florida State back to back to back. Some places do that and get beaten down. Other schools (like NIU) schedule reasonably and consistently win.

It all comes back to what the core goals of the program should be, and simple revenue generation shouldn't be the primary consideration.

I gotta agree with Flipper on this one. Like it or not, we need to play these guarantee games, as they bring in a huge chunk of revenue to help run the entire athletic department; not just football. Revenue generation needs to be the primary consideration. If BGSU goes 11-1 in the regular season, with the only blemish a loss to Tennessee, AND, if that loss keeps BGSU out of the football playoff, I might change my tune. BUT, I don't think the slim chance of a 12-0 season is worth passing up a guaranteed $1.2 million.

[MarkL]

We're talking about one game. One game in one season where two universities suspended or dropped football which put two other universities in unusual situations. One game in one season where before the season even kicks off the AD has said no more season with only give home games. We're not talking about a trend here, just one game.

[BGSU33]

We're talking about one game. One game in one season where two universities suspended or dropped football which put two other universities in unusual situations. One game in one season where before the season even kicks off the AD has said no more season with only give home games. We're not talking about a trend here, just one game.

Both guys above are making great points, but in terms of the Tennessee game, were aren't really talking about "one game" when it comes to Tennessee. We already had two games (Maryland and Purdue) against Power Five teams on the non-conference schedule and a game vs Memphis who is arguably as good or maybe even better than those two. Then we added the Tennessee game. This drastically changed our schedule considering it replaced South Carolina State (who backed out) and was added to what teams were already on it. Had Tennessee been added to a schedule that consisted of say Memphis, Idaho and South Carolina State I think we'd be singing a much different tune and everyone would be welcoming it for both financial and added interest reasons. But having it added to Maryland, Purdue and Memphis is why we're all having these kind of discussions.

[footballguy51]

We're talking about one game. One game in one season where two universities suspended or dropped football which put two other universities in unusual situations. One game in one season where before the season even kicks off the AD has said no more season with only give home games. We're not talking about a trend here, just one game.

Both guys above are making great points, but in terms of the Tennessee game, were aren't really talking about "one game" when it comes to Tennessee. We already had two games (Maryland and Purdue) against Power Five teams on the non-conference schedule and a game vs Memphis who is arguably as good or maybe even better than those two. Then we added the Tennessee game. This drastically changed our schedule considering it replaced South Carolina State (who backed out) and was added to what teams were already on it. Had Tennessee been added to a schedule that consisted of say Memphis, Idaho and South Carolina State I think we'd be singing a much different tune and everyone would be welcoming it for both financial and added interest reasons. But having it added to Maryland, Purdue and Memphis is why we're all having these kind of discussions.

Here's the rub. Should we have gone with 11 games this season? When a team backs out on you it places you in scramble mode. We had to find somebody to fill that date quickly. Our options were limited. We could have paid a school to cancel one of their games and play us instead, but imagine the uproar from the BG fan base and faculty if we paid out money to a school to have them cancel one of their games and play us...at home...and us pay them for that as well. We got lucky that Tennessee got shafted on the exact same weekend. Ignoring the payout we're getting from the game, we at least aren't paying a school to bail on another school just to play us. Now, throw in the payout we're getting from the game and it's a huge win. Everybody thinks we had options. Please, what legitimate options did we have?

[Falcon137]

For what it's worth. Purdue and Maryland are not large paydays. Both of them combined don't equal the money Tennessee is paying.

[BGSU33]

We're talking about one game. One game in one season where two universities suspended or dropped football which put two other universities in unusual situations. One game in one season where before the season even kicks off the AD has said no more season with only give home games. We're not talking about a trend here, just one game.

Both guys above are making great points, but in terms of the Tennessee game, were aren't really talking about "one game" when it comes to Tennessee. We already had two games (Maryland and Purdue) against Power Five teams on the non-conference schedule and a game vs Memphis who is arguably as good or maybe even better than those two. Then we added the Tennessee game. This drastically changed our schedule considering it replaced South Carolina State (who backed out) and was added to what teams were already on it. Had Tennessee been added to a schedule that consisted of say Memphis, Idaho and South Carolina State I think we'd be singing a much different tune and everyone would be welcoming it for both financial and added interest reasons. But having it added to Maryland, Purdue and Memphis is why we're all having these kind of discussions.

Here's the rub. Should we have gone with 11 games this season? When a team backs out on you it places you in scramble mode. We had to find somebody to fill that date quickly. Our options were limited. We could have paid a school to cancel one of their games and play us instead, but imagine the uproar from the BG fan base and faculty if we paid out money to a school to have them cancel one of their games and play us...at home...and us pay them for that as well. We got lucky that Tennessee got shafted on the exact same weekend. Ignoring the payout we're getting from the game, we at least aren't paying a school to bail on another school just to play us. Now, throw in the payout we're getting from the game and it's a huge win. Everybody thinks we had options. Please, what legitimate options did we have?

Me personally, I would rather us have taken Tennessee (like we did) than passed on it given the circumstances. That said, if we're the Walking Wounded come time we get to the MAC schedule, I don't want to hear about our coaches and staff using it as an excuse. We often hear from coaches about how beat up non-Power Five teams are when over-scheduling in the non-conference like this. IMO, if we stay healthy, BG "should" win the East and get back to Detroit again. But if the non-conference schedule takes its toll on us later on when we get to the MAC, then we could be eyeballing having added a third Power Five team as a possible reason why and asking ourselves if it was "worth" the tradeoff. And let's not forget, Memphis is a damn solid team here too. The reason I have concern about or non-conference schedule is not about money at all, it's about the level of competition. There's nowhere to hide or rebound and not one of these teams can be looked at as a for-sure win. Yes, we can win them, but we could also lose them all too. They will all be battles. If we go 2-2, I'm stoked. Anything more would be icing on the cake. But if we come out 0-4, well.....I would MUCH rather have a weaker non-conference schedule and WIN the MAC, than to have a tougher/glamourous non-conference schedule and not win the MAC. Ideally, I'd love to see us most years play: 1. One money game at a Power Five school. 2. A home and away game against another Group of Five school. 3. Either an additional home game vs a G5 or (most likely) a home game vs an FCS team.

[MarkL]

We're talking about one game. One game in one season where two universities suspended or dropped football which put two other universities in unusual situations. One game in one season where before the season even kicks off the AD has said no more season with only give home games. We're not talking about a trend here, just one game.

Both guys above are making great points, but in terms of the Tennessee game, were aren't really talking about "one game" when it comes to Tennessee. We already had two games (Maryland and Purdue) against Power Five teams on the non-conference schedule and a game vs Memphis who is arguably as good or maybe even better than those two. Then we added the Tennessee game. This drastically changed our schedule considering it replaced South Carolina State (who backed out) and was added to what teams were already on it. Had Tennessee been added to a schedule that consisted of say Memphis, Idaho and South Carolina State I think we'd be singing a much different tune and everyone would be welcoming it for both financial and added interest reasons. But having it added to Maryland, Purdue and Memphis is why we're all having these kind of discussions.

I see what you are saying but it really is just one game. Our AD already said seasons like this won't happen again. As the schedule was initially laid out, we had a similar schedule to the last few years (2 power conference teams, a mid-level team, an FCS team).
SC State is tentatively closing the university doors for a year and UAB closed football, so you've got two extraordinary circumstances which led to the Tennessee game. Just one game, in extraordinary circumstances.
We're not talking about a trend here, especially when our AD already said schedules like this (5 home games - you won't get 6 home games with 3 power programs on the schedule) won't happen again. I really don't see what all the fuss on this thread and so many others is about. I really have lost count how many threads have been hijacked by this same topic. It's one damn game, not a whole string of seasons of cash-grab games.

[able1]

I really don't see what all the fuss on this thread and so many others is about. I really have lost count how many threads have been hijacked by this same topic. It's one damn game, not a whole string of seasons of cash-grab games.

I'm stumped as to why it keeps coming up as an issue too. It was an extraordinary situation that the ad made best, if not only reasonable decision to patch up. I think most of us would agree it's not the greatest way to start the year, but acting as if there were many other options is just silly. My only worry is wear and tear. Get through it healthy and maybe create another Purdue, Pitt, Northwestern type memory along the way.

[mscarn]

Our AD already said seasons like this won't happen again...I really don't see what all the fuss on this thread and so many others is about.

The fuss is over the real potential to derail an extremely promising season. It's over a decision that the AD apparently admitted should not and will not happen again. It's about the fans of the team losing 25% of their chances to see their favorite team when the weather isn't freezing and on an actual weekend and 18,000+ people not getting to experience a BGSU home football game generally.

Like BGSU33 mentioned, I'm not opposed to playing Tennessee, Maryland or Purdue. I'm opposed to playing all three on the road during the same year with another Top 25 team already on the schedule. Anything and everything, including paying for an FCS team to come in, should have been done to avoid that and it wasn't.

No team in recent MAC history has played 3 P5 teams (including two bowl teams) on the road plus another Top 25 team at home out of conference. Admirably, our coaches are attempting to turn this unprecedented misfortune into a recruiting tool against our soft scheduled breathren, conveying the sentiment that "We Play The Best" to recruits. That's about the only silver lining there is in this whole situation.

[Flipper]

Prostituting the program? Really? That's like saying charging the full price for a game against an FCS is school is raping the fans....

We got caught with a hole in our schedule..we plugged it with a game in an NFL stadium against an SEC team and we pocket a cool $1.2 million in the process. The only downside appears to be that it "might be too tough". Well, if you want to be thought of as an equal to the P5 schools in football...as many of you do when discussions about the playff system come up.. you have to be more aggressive than hiding behind games against Sacrificial Lamb State. And yes..I know that P5 schools often play those games too, but guess what...they own the table where you want to sit.

You don't even have to win the game to benefit. I would say that the 2012 team got a bigger boost nationally from playing Florida close than they did beating Idaho or Rhode Island at home. Play the game...win it and you make a statement that you aren't just another MAC pretender that wins 6 or 7 conference games and drills an FCS school at home so you can get a bowl bid to an ESPN game where you get shellacked.

[Schadenfreude]

For what it's worth. Purdue and Maryland are not large paydays. Both of them combined don't equal the money Tennessee is paying.

It's possible Maryland is not paying us. It might be a straight up deal where we play two games at their place for one at ours. I'm not entirely sure how the money works on these two-for-one deals, but the contract is surely a public record.

[factman]

Prostituting the program? Really? That's like saying charging the full price for a game against an FCS is school is raping the fans....

We got caught with a hole in our schedule..we plugged it with a game in an NFL stadium against an SEC team and we pocket a cool $1.2 million in the process. The only downside appears to be that it "might be too tough". Well, if you want to be thought of as an equal to the P5 schools in football...as many of you do when discussions about the playff system come up.. you have to be more aggressive than hiding behind games against Sacrificial Lamb State. And yes..I know that P5 schools often play those games too, but guess what...they own the table where you want to sit.

You don't even have to win the game to benefit. I would say that the 2012 team got a bigger boost nationally from playing Florida close than they did beating Idaho or Rhode Island at home. Play the game...win it and you make a statement that you aren't just another MAC pretender that wins 6 or 7 conference games and drills an FCS school at home so you can get a bowl bid to an ESPN game where you get shellacked.

[mscarn]

I suppose we'll see what happens after the game is played and the effect is has on the season and beyond.

I hope we don't lose by a wide margin and ruin the confidence and morale of the players going forward. I hope we don't suffer injuries against a team that physically dominated Iowa in their bowl game. I hope that one game isn't the difference between us getting a bowl bid nor not regardless of how little such an achievement seems to matter to some. I hope the fans we've missed out on by forfeiting a home game don't abandon attending games for the rest of the season. I hope we don't miss out on creating the next Bill Frack, whose affinity for the university was nurtured by positive experiences attending games BG won, by not playing a game in a tremendously exciting environment where BG has a great chance to win. I hope future coaches don't look at this schedule and wonder why they'd coach at a school that continuously puts them in difficult positions to succeed against schools with quadruple the resources. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams...

[Flipper]

Wow...This one game could cost us another Bill Frack? Geez... when you think about it, one of the guys on the team could have an issue with his jock right when he takes a shot to the nards. He could then be sterile and not father the next Gandhi... or Hitler.... or Pauley Shore.

The possibilities are mind boggling....