2015 Football Schedule

[mscarn]

Plus, not only is South Carolina State remaining open for business and not shutting down as some speculated, they're playing in Orlando on ESPN during the week they dropped us. Nice.

Interesting article on the coach at Arkansas State wanting a warm-up game in lieu of their present slate:

"Arkansas State arguably has the nation's most difficult start to the 2015 season. Head coach Blake Anderson isn’t pleased about it, but knows there’s nothing he can do."
http://www.coachingsearch.com/article?a ... out-it-but" target="_blank

[Falconfreak90]

The sked is set and hopefully we make the most of it without a rash of injuries like last year.

Tennessee is 94 days away,,,GO FALCONS!!!!!

[Schadenfreude]

The USA Today preseason poll is out. Here is the ranking of our opponents:

25. Tennessee (166 points)
Also receiving votes: Maryland (1 point)

On paper, that doesn't suggest over scheduling, to me at least.

[jpfalcon09]

The USA Today preseason poll is out. Here is the ranking of our opponents:

25. Tennessee (166 points)
Also receiving votes: Maryland (1 point)

On paper, that doesn't suggest over scheduling, to me at least.

Agreed, I think on paper the names caused concern for everyone, but there's a legitimate chance to win every OOC game on the schedule this year if everything falls the right way.

[mscarn]

Other numbers to consider are $110, $74, $63 and $46 million, the respective athletic budgets of Tennessee, Purdue, Maryland and Memphis. BG's is $23 million. They have enormous, enormous advantages over us in every manner possible when it comes to running a major college football program. Throw in the fact that 3 are on the road and Memphis made the Top 25 last year and you've got a schedule that could have been designed by the AD at Toledo to purposely sabotage the season and discourage morale.

A recent article in the Blade quoted Kingston as basically agreeing with the above premise, intimating the financial burdens of the cost of attendance mandate forced our hand far more than South Carolina State backing out ever did. Again, this is a schedule that teams desperate for money play, not a schedule that teams looking to set themselves up for a championship run the in the MAC play. We obviously are desperate for money given the budgetary situation, but hamstringing the football program with momentum-killing guarantee games is not the solution.

[jpfalcon09]

Other numbers to consider are $110, $74, $63 and $46 million, the respective athletic budgets of Tennessee, Purdue, Maryland. BG's is $23 million. They have enormous, enormous advantages over us in every manner possible when it comes to running a major college football program. Throw in the fact that 3 are on the road and Memphis made the Top 25 last year and you've got a schedule that could have been designed by the AD at Toledo to purposely sabotage the season and discourage morale.

A recent article in the Blade quoted Kingston as basically agreeing with the above premise, intimating the financial burdens of the cost of attendance mandate forced our hand far more than South Carolina State backing out ever did. Again, this is a schedule that teams desperate for money play, not a schedule that teams looking to set themselves up for a championship run the in the MAC play. We obviously are desperate for money given the budgetary situation, but hamstringing the football program with momentum-killing guarantee games is not the solution.

Sadly there's really only two options then, play cash grab games or relegate yourself to a lower division where travel and funding costs aren't nearly going to be a concern. I sincerely doubt the second option is even a consideration given how much money the university has dumped into the football program and facilities the last ten years. Yes, it sucks, but it's the landscape of the FBS at this point is what it is and everyone knew it was coming sooner or later.

Kingston has to do what he can to please his bosses in this process. It's no different than a company cutting back on employees or re-structuring their business model if budgets aren't being met. The Tennessee game worked out the way it did because both schools needed to fill a game for reasons beyond their control. This topic has been rehashed numerous times.

For the record, I couldn't care less what other university's athletic budgets are because they're losing just as much money as the smaller schools are in the grand scheme of things. That will never change unless the NCAA decides to subsidize schools to make sure they at least break even every athletic year.

[tvosra87]

I look forward to this out of conference schedule, it's no murderers row of teams, but it wasn't too long ago that a BG team went toe to toe with the UF gators in the swamp. These game do more for us than playing a VMI or Weber St., lets hope that the Defense has made great strides since last year, and Matt Johnson returns to his 2013 form. "Accept the Challenge"

[Falconfreak90]

I look forward to this out of conference schedule, it's no murderers row of teams, but it wasn't too long ago that a BG team went toe to toe with the UF gators in the swamp. These game do more for us than playing a VMI or Weber St., lets hope that the Defense has made great strides since last year, and Matt Johnson returns to his 2013 form. "Accept the Challenge"

+1. Yes there are 3 power 5 teams and the AAC champ but every game is winnable.

I see us going no worse than 2-2 in the first 4....I really do.

36 days to go....BEAT TN!

[Schadenfreude]

... you've got a schedule that could have been designed by the AD at Toledo to purposely sabotage the season and discourage morale.

A recent article in the Blade quoted Kingston as basically agreeing with the above premise, intimating the financial burdens of the cost of attendance mandate forced our hand far more than South Carolina State backing out ever did.

I don't read it quite the same way. I don't think that was the point he was trying to get across.

Licensing royalties, donations, and memberships of the Falcon Club are all up, Kingston said, which has generated more money for the athletics department.

BGSU essentially will pay for cost of attendance with football games away from home. The Falcons’ football team plays three road games during the nonconference schedule — as opposed to the normal two — earning three six-digit guarantees and paying only one.

This season, the Falcons play at Maryland and at Purdue, and they will go to Nashville for a game against Tennessee. South Carolina State backed out of a contract with BGSU, and Tennessee had an open date because Alabama-Birmingham discontinued football.

Kingston said that type of schedule will not normally be the case.

“Philosophically, that’s not what we’re trying to do,” Kingston said. “Philosophically, we’re trying to play six and six [home and away].”

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/530967" target="_blank

[falcon83]

I will be stunned if we win any of the first four. With our defense, we will need to score 60 each game to have a chance.

[BGSU33]

If we win two games in the non-conference, I will be happy. That means at least on of them would be vs a Power Five school again. But if we come out of it 0-4, I think it would be safe to say it was way too much and leaves very little room for error if we hope to make a bowl. Originally the non-conference schedule (with South Carolina State) essentially had us going 1-3 at worst. If we go winless, the bigger impact would be the mental state of the team if it happened. Take a team that knows it should be good, hand them four losses out of the gate, and you're working with a completely different team come week five.

But here's the bigger question, where do we really stand as a team against this competition? Last year we heard Babers talk about how physical it was to play only a pair of Power Five schools and he said he essentially asked the team if they wanted to try and go all out vs Indiana, and they said yes, and he talked about the risk involved in doing so. Now this year with everyone questioning him about three Power Five schools and a Memphis team that might be better than one or two of those P5 teams, and he's singing a different tune. Yeah, I know coach-speak varies, but you gotta wonder if he feels we can handle it or if he knows we can't. I think the answer will be yes, we could handle it if we get a win of two, but if we get swept, the obvious answer would be no, we couldn't. Because we're going into this schedule with another good team on paper, a team picked to play for the MACC again, and not one picked last or at the bottom in rebuilding mode.

[Falconfreak90]

I will be stunned if we win any of the first four. With our defense, we will need to score 60 each game to have a chance.

Prepare to be stunned....

[thewebboy]

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!

[mscarn]

... you've got a schedule that could have been designed by the AD at Toledo to purposely sabotage the season and discourage morale.

A recent article in the Blade quoted Kingston as basically agreeing with the above premise, intimating the financial burdens of the cost of attendance mandate forced our hand far more than South Carolina State backing out ever did.

I don't read it quite the same way. I don't think that was the point he was trying to get across.

Licensing royalties, donations, and memberships of the Falcon Club are all up, Kingston said, which has generated more money for the athletics department.

BGSU essentially will pay for cost of attendance with football games away from home. The Falcons’ football team plays three road games during the nonconference schedule — as opposed to the normal two — earning three six-digit guarantees and paying only one.

This season, the Falcons play at Maryland and at Purdue, and they will go to Nashville for a game against Tennessee. South Carolina State backed out of a contract with BGSU, and Tennessee had an open date because Alabama-Birmingham discontinued football.

Kingston said that type of schedule will not normally be the case.

“Philosophically, that’s not what we’re trying to do,” Kingston said. “Philosophically, we’re trying to play six and six [home and away].”

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/530967" target="_blank

But that's the thing. Philosophically he wants to play 6 at home. The fiscal reality of the lowest spending team in the MAC absorbing a new financial burden is altering the plan out of necessity. Given that the mandate will be in place next year and for the foreseeable future, it can be inferred that multiple guarantee games on a yearly basis is the new normal. That seems to be what a lot of people want, but the costs (as outlined by posters in this thread and others) are substantial and harm the pursuit of the goals of the program far more than they help.

An argument has been made that such a demanding schedule could push BG into the playoff conversation if everything breaks right. Meanwhile, O$U can waltz into the playoff playing 7 home games and 1-2 programs overall (at best) with the resources to challenge them from a facilities and recruiting standpoint. That manifest inequity is the biggest problem with college football and why they're going to start to lose people.

[Schadenfreude]

... you've got a schedule that could have been designed by the AD at Toledo to purposely sabotage the season and discourage morale.

A recent article in the Blade quoted Kingston as basically agreeing with the above premise, intimating the financial burdens of the cost of attendance mandate forced our hand far more than South Carolina State backing out ever did.

I don't read it quite the same way. I don't think that was the point he was trying to get across.

Licensing royalties, donations, and memberships of the Falcon Club are all up, Kingston said, which has generated more money for the athletics department.

BGSU essentially will pay for cost of attendance with football games away from home. The Falcons’ football team plays three road games during the nonconference schedule — as opposed to the normal two — earning three six-digit guarantees and paying only one.

This season, the Falcons play at Maryland and at Purdue, and they will go to Nashville for a game against Tennessee. South Carolina State backed out of a contract with BGSU, and Tennessee had an open date because Alabama-Birmingham discontinued football.

Kingston said that type of schedule will not normally be the case.

“Philosophically, that’s not what we’re trying to do,” Kingston said. “Philosophically, we’re trying to play six and six [home and away].”

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/530967" target="_blank

But that's the thing. Philosophically he wants to play 6 at home. The fiscal reality of the lowest spending team in the MAC absorbing a new financial burden is altering the plan out of necessity.

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.