Realignment talk not going away

[DFW Horn 6124]

1 minute ago, Richard Kimball said:

You're right.

If everyone is a blue blood...

Then no one is. 

The thing is, you need some Larry Krogers (need the dues) without a bunch of Flounders

and new rule, if you're not a blue blood, your cheerleaders MUST be hot. 

 

I'm not advocating for FCS scheduling, but it can't be Texas vs Bama every week.

But, maybe that's just me. I don't watch or follow the NFL and haven't for years. I find it boring, corporate football.

[DFW Horn 6124]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Because some people don't want to watch two NFLs. We already have one. Lots of those smaller schools have great traditions, great alumni and fans, awesome towns, and are fun to watch because they'll try anything. I don't want to watch 36 teams who all run the same offense and defense and call the same plays and coverages. That's boring.

And I'm not getting any of the money so I really have no clue why some of you care about athletic administrators and sponsor companies making more of it. 

Colossal upsets like Vandy over Bama are what makes CFB great.

It doesn't happen often, but it's glorious when it does. You've got Vandy students parading 3 miles down Broadway to dunk the goalposts in the river. Unforgettable

[RoyalBevo21 768]

Are y’all opposed to being realigned with the Texas and Kansas schools again?

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

8 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Are y’all opposed to being realigned with the Texas and Kansas schools again?

That’s not what Project Rudy is proposing FWIW.

[TXpride 544]

19 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Are y’all opposed to being realigned with the Texas and Kansas schools again?

Being aligned with them only became a problem when NU, CU, Mizzou, and aggy left and were replaced by Cincinnati, UCF, BYU, etc. The original B12 was great. But we wouldn't be stuck playing only those teams if they were to be included in the hypothetical "super league."

Edited October 12 by TXpride

[RoyalBevo21 768]

13 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s not what Project Rudy is proposing FWIW.

I know, but if they were to answer “yes” to that, it’s quite hypocritical. Despite scheduling multiple blue bloods annually, our home schedule sucked. Then there’s the fact that the little Texas schools go complete jihad against anything Longhorns, yet expects Texas to save them when the rubber meets the road.

[Huckleberry 32861]

47 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

I know, but if they were to answer “yes” to that, it’s quite hypocritical. Despite scheduling multiple blue bloods annually, our home schedule sucked. Then there’s the fact that the little Texas schools go complete jihad against anything Longhorns, yet expects Texas to save them when the rubber meets the road.

I don't care about having Kansas schools but yes I'd like more regional schools. You're going to have to explain how that's hypocritical for me. 

[RoyalBevo21 768]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't care about having Kansas schools but yes I'd like more regional schools. You're going to have to explain how that's hypocritical for me. 

I said if your answer was “yes, I’m opposed to being aligned with SWC/Big-8.” You essentially said you’re not opposed to it so hypocrite doesn’t apply.

[Huckleberry 32861]

Okay, understand the miscommunication. Honestly my dream scenario would be Texas in a 12 team conference kind of like the Big 12 but with LSU instead of Baylor. A few other changes may be okay but the original Big 12 with Texas and Louisiana as in conference recruiting brings would be sweet, to me at least. 

Edited October 12 by Huckleberry

[closetohumping 17442]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, understand the miscommunication. Honestly my dream scenario would be Texas in a 12 team conference kind of like the Big 12 but with LSU instead of Baylor. A few other changes may be okay but the original Big 12 with Texas and Louisiana as in conference recruiting brings would be sweet, to be at least. 

We are in the southeast not the Midwest.  

[Huckleberry 32861]

Ha. Austin, Texas is not in the southeast by any definition except the university's athletics affiliation. That's a silly take.

[closetohumping 17442]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Ha. Austin, Texas is not in the southeast by any definition except the university's athletics affiliation. That's a silly take.

We’re more aligned to Athens and Columbia than we are and or Manhattan 

[TXpride 544]

33 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, understand the miscommunication. Honestly my dream scenario would be Texas in a 12 team conference kind of like the Big 12 but with LSU instead of Baylor. A few other changes may be okay but the original Big 12 with Texas and Louisiana as in conference recruiting brings would be sweet, to be at least. 

Swap LSU with Arkansas for old times sake and I would agree.

[bullet 1597]

On 10/10/2024 at 12:50 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

Eventually, yes.  But probably I think the first step will be to continue to grow the pie before they change the size of the slices.  The "grow the pie" strategy will first be via the B1G/SEC scheduling arrangement to create more TV-friendly matchups.  Because no one cares about Indiana vs. Vandy, that scheduling alliance will focus on the big brands.  

The 2nd step will be the B1G+SEC either combining, or more likely co-negotiating their next TV deal.  I don't think they'll merge in the next 15 years because they want to control their own destinies, but I could see them getting together to double their negotiating power, and cutting a deal similar to what the NFL did recently where they spread rights across everyone including streaming services like Amazon for a few games.

The 3rd step will be tiering the revenue distributions.  This will separate the Miss St., Vanderbilt, Indiana, and Purdue tier from the Texas, OU, Alabama, Ohio St. Michigan tier.  They'll still be in the same conference but they'll be paid differently and justified on viewership.  

The B1G and SEC eventually turn into a AFC/NFC arrangement, and that holds up through other realignment moves like FSU and North Carolina because those brands aren't big enough to trigger the nuclear option of blowing up everything and creating a mega league like the Rudy proposal.  This is the most likely outcome over the next 15-20 years because it's the lowest risk option.  Maybe 20+ years down the road of being the AFC/NFC do the B1G and SEC eventually formally unify, but not before.

What the sports media is missing in the reporting of the Rudy and other PE-backed proposals today is the risk component, they're only factoring in the increased revenue.  Risk and control matters, a lot.  Here is a list of why the Rudy proposal and those like it to create a unified mini-NFL won't happen:

• It's directly against the interest of TV rights holders by getting them to pay more for the same thing.  Therefore they will work hard against it and pull whatever levers they have, just like ESPN sunk the PAC-16 by offering Texas up $300MM for the LHN knowing it was a poison pill for PAC-16.  We'll see more of that.
• It's directly against the interest of the SEC and B1G administrators, who would be out of a job if a PE-backed structure gets put into place.  No one at the SEC or B1G office is going to fight for this, in fact they'll work against it.
• As a result, if you're the PE group, you have to bypass the conferences and go straight to the university presidents.  This is a notoriously fickle, risk-averse, and SLOW decision making group who doesn't really know about the business of college football.  If you're a lifelong academic university president, do you trust the AD you hired and the conference commissioner you've known for some time, or do you trust this new PE suit who is showing up promising big bucks if only you change everything?  Past evidence suggests strongly they'll choose the former path.

I hate seeing LHN fiction on the Texas board.  Nobody had a clue the LHN would pay more than $3 million or so a year until November, 4 months after the Pac 16 blew up.  And Fox was the favorite for the LHN.

ESPN and Fox DID promise the Big 12 they would make a lot more and agreed to negotiate early.  Fox gave the Big 12 a bonus before the new deal was even up.  Fox went from $20 million to $90 million and eventually $100 million.  ESPN didn't pay out right away but went in 2 years from $60 million to $100 million.  

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:25 AM, RoyalBevo21 said:

I disagree, the NFL is a behemoth because any team can win on any Sunday. The networks are tired of shelling out millions and the first week of the season is filled with games like Ohio St vs Akron and Oregon vs Idaho. The fans don’t want it, TV networks don’t want it, we might finally get rid of those shitty games.

Technically, they don't shell out millions for those games.   95+% of conference revenue comes from conference games.   The out of conference slate is barely valued at all.   This includes the blockbuster games where they'd put Texas vs Alabama or Michigan.   Those games would serve more as one offs where the schools would get a bonus for taking the "made for tv" event.    The reason they aren't valued has less to do with Michigan vs Holy Mother of the Blind Goats and more to do with when they make these contracts up they don't know the full extent of out of conference games.   Regardless of who wins or loses in any given season, they KNOW someone will with the SEC or Big Ten or Big 12 and so ratings will be relatively good somewhere as those battles play themselves out any given year.   But on the 3-4 out of conference games, they don't know.   Since they don't know if its against Michigan or BC or the Citidel, they aren't valued.

This is the first piece of the missing money left with CFB.   If you did nothing else but say, "keep it what it is, but the A4 only plays each other for all 12 games" each conference would see a boost in valuation of between 30-50% in future contracts.    All they'd have to do is sign a long-term scheduling agreement with each other and work it into their media contracts.   Each would get credit for their home games.

The second piece left on the table is the bigger one, the NFL one.   The one they may need congressional help to get.    The moment they can go to market with a shared media deal they'll dwarf these numbers you see today.  They'll seem as quaint as the SEC paying out $9m a school 15 years ago.  We all rave that the B1G gets $1B for their games a year.   The NFL gets that for one game, on Thursday nights.  The A4 are giving away a massive amount of money negotiating against themselves and this is the major reason why PE wants to come in.   No other sports league does this.   Its fucking stupid.    If I'm a network I'm lobbying hard to tell everyone conferences standing on their own is the best thing about college football because it saves me 2-3x the money I spend today.

 

[TKthunder2 4991]

On 10/12/2024 at 1:03 PM, RoyalBevo21 said:

Are y’all opposed to being realigned with the Texas and Kansas schools again?

Aligned? No. Having to play Kansas and Iowa State every fucking year? Absolutely yes. The old Big 12 limited our exposure to those teams. Then when it went to a 9 game schedule we lost the best 3 schools in the North in Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou and then had to play the ones we least cared about (and West Virginia) EVERY FUCKING YEAR. Add in swapping aggy for TCU and our schedule became a giant turd sandwich.

 

On 10/12/2024 at 4:26 PM, Huckleberry said:

Okay, understand the miscommunication. Honestly my dream scenario would be Texas in a 12 team conference kind of like the Big 12 but with LSU instead of Baylor. A few other changes may be okay but the original Big 12 with Texas and Louisiana as in conference recruiting brings would be sweet, to me at least. 

If you could have had swapped Baylor and Iowa State for Arkansas and LSU the Big 12 would have been damn near perfect.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

 

 

[DFW Horn 6124]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:59 PM, Huckleberry said:

Ha. Austin, Texas is not in the southeast by any definition except the university's athletics affiliation. That's a silly take.

We're south by southwest, not western, and not southern.

We're Texas, by God

[Hurtlocker 2212]

9 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

 

 

Does this mean half the MWC gets a week zero game?

[TKthunder2 4991]

28 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Does this mean half the MWC gets a week zero game?

They already did I believe. As long as you travel to Hawaii.

[jTower 227]

PAC is screwed

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

 

 

['stache 21815]

12 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

 

 

Dumb as shit but I'm not sure NIU and Toledo can turn down the revenue increase. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Dumb as shit but I'm not sure NIU and Toledo can turn down the revenue increase. 

Not sure it will be much of an increase when they get their new contract in 2026.

[thunderlounge 7832]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

Dumb as shit but I'm not sure NIU and Toledo can turn down the revenue increase. 

 

Depends on the travel increase. Sometimes more money actually means less.

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

On 10/12/2024 at 9:40 AM, RoyalBevo21 said:

Personally I would like to see more competitive football than beating up on pipsqueaks. Idk why college fans have this mindset of “undefeated beating up midgets is impressive.” Yes, I would prefer a 9-3 team with a hard schedule over 11-1 but I slapped midgets. Again, Oklahoma St, Tech, Kansas St, Iowa can all stay. Baylor, get fucked in a conference with North Texas and UTSA.

Just about every year, some small-time program comes up big against a power team. 90% of the games end up being garbage, but it's all worth it when Northern Illinois beats Notre Dame and their head coach is bawling his ass off at mid-field because he's so happy.

[RoyalBevo21 768]

21 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Just about every year, some small-time program comes up big against a power team. 90% of the games end up being garbage, but it's all worth it when Northern Illinois beats Notre Dame and their head coach is bawling his ass off at mid-field because he's so happy.

Be honest, did you watch that entire game?

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

3 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Be honest, did you watch that entire game?

I started watching about midway through the second quarter.

['stache 21815]

7 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Just about every year, some small-time program comes up big against a power team. 90% of the games end up being garbage, but it's all worth it when Northern Illinois beats Notre Dame and their head coach is bawling his ass off at mid-field because he's so happy.

I still think major programs like having at least one warm up game that counts, and yeah, the once every now and then upset makes it fun, even if people don't tune in until late. The early non-con schedule always has enough good matchups to fill the TV schedule. You don't need every single game to be a big time matchup.

[TKthunder2 4991]

3 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Just about every year, some small-time program comes up big against a power team. 90% of the games end up being garbage, but it's all worth it when Northern Illinois beats Notre Dame and their head coach is bawling his ass off at mid-field because he's so happy.

 

3 hours ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Be honest, did you watch that entire game?

 

3 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I started watching about midway through the second quarter.

“It’s all worth it” means what? Because these games are nearly worthless and when one of these hits, they bring in no additional money, so what is it “worth”? Networks and advertisers know most people don’t watch. This is just like upsets in march madness, they are fun to talk and write about because we love misery for teams like Notre Dame, but that does NOT make these games valuable. Fun to talk about afterwards does NOT translate to more money. 

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

The early non-con schedule always has enough good matchups to fill the TV schedule. You don't need every single game to be a big time matchup.

Texas v Colorado State was on ESPN and Ohio State v Marshall was on FOX. Clearly there are NOT enough “good” matchups to fill a TV schedule.

 

[Huckleberry 32861]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

 

“It’s all worth it” means what? Because these games are nearly worthless and when one of these hits, they bring in no additional money, so what is it “worth”? Networks and advertisers know most people don’t watch. This is just like upsets in march madness, they are fun to talk and write about because we love misery for teams like Notre Dame, but that does NOT make these games valuable. Fun to talk about afterwards does NOT translate to more money. 

Texas v Colorado State was on ESPN and Ohio State v Marshall was on FOX. Clearly there are NOT enough “good” matchups to fill a TV schedule.

 

See the thing is that most fans want fun football games to watch. People like you who only care about how much money college athletics administrators, TV executives, and advertising agencies can make from a matchup are the weird ones. 

Edited October 16 by Huckleberry

[TKthunder2 4991]

14 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

See the thing is that most fans want fun football games to watch. People like you who only care about how much money college athletics administrators, TV executives, and advertising agencies can make from a matchup are the weird ones. 

People like me lol.

1. These are not fun football games to watch. I can prove that with numbers.

2. I don’t care about the money. It doesn’t go into my pocket. I do care about the direction of the sport that is distinctly driven by said money. I would much rather do away with FCS games and sub in more power 4 matches which drive revenue than go to the nuclear option and have a full breakaway. For every App State v Michigan example of FCS game you have 100 other boring games versus Furman.

3. Fuck TV executives/advertisers but they do pay for what people want to see, which is big time games. Texas v Michigan, Oregon v Ohio State, LSU v USC, Bama v Georgia. This is the type of content I, and most on here, would prefer to see rather than NIU/ND.

Easy solution to fix this:

Ban FCS games for P4 teams.

Make 9 conference games a standard.

Require a scheduling agreement between the SEC/Big Ten for a 10th game (and Big12/ACC).

Require an 11th P4 game outside of the scheduling agreement (possibly waiver for good G5 teams like Boise State or Army/Navy)

 

The problem I have is with people that want to pretend that college football is great just the way it is, because it definitely is NOT.

The Longhorn’s out of conference schedule in 1999 was Rice, Stanford, Rutgers, and NCSU.

This year it was Colorado St, ULM, UTSA, and Michigan.

I see this schedule outside of Michigan as a problem, but you see these as “fun football games to watch” and that is concerning to me.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

On 10/13/2024 at 9:16 AM, bullet said:

I hate seeing LHN fiction on the Texas board.  Nobody had a clue the LHN would pay more than $3 million or so a year until November, 4 months after the Pac 16 blew up.  And Fox was the favorite for the LHN.

ESPN and Fox DID promise the Big 12 they would make a lot more and agreed to negotiate early.  Fox gave the Big 12 a bonus before the new deal was even up.  Fox went from $20 million to $90 million and eventually $100 million.  ESPN didn't pay out right away but went in 2 years from $60 million to $100 million.  

Fair but the point wasn't about the money, it was the fact that LHN was going to exist in a world where the PAC wanted all the tiers of rights for the unified PAC network.  The money was good enough for Texas and did end up being better than anyone thought, but it was also a poison pill to the PAC.  And just happened to be engineered by a network with a lot to lose if Texas went elsewhere.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

See the thing is that most fans want fun football games to watch. People like you who only care about how much money college athletics administrators, TV executives, and advertising agencies can make from a matchup are the weird ones. 

The way this sport has convinced some (a lot) fans to pound their chests about TV payouts and the accomplishments of their opponents is wild.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The problem I have is with people that want to pretend that college football is great just the way it is, because it definitely is NOT.

It seems pretty great to me. 

['stache 21815]

If programs or networks wanted to do away with the layup games they’d be gone. They serve a purpose. It’s a 12 game season, plenty of better matchups throughout. They just added a bunch of extra high profile games by expanding the playoff. If they wanted more revenue they’d make the season 13 or 14 games or more. With a dozen channels and streaming not every fucking game is going to be a great matchup. Even the NFL has a few duds each week.

Edited October 16 by 'stache

[Hurtlocker 2212]

11 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

 

“It’s all worth it” means what? Because these games are nearly worthless and when one of these hits, they bring in no additional money, so what is it “worth”? Networks and advertisers know most people don’t watch. This is just like upsets in march madness, they are fun to talk and write about because we love misery for teams like Notre Dame, but that does NOT make these games valuable. Fun to talk about afterwards does NOT translate to more money. 

Texas v Colorado State was on ESPN and Ohio State v Marshall was on FOX. Clearly there are NOT enough “good” matchups to fill a TV schedule.

 

This.   They're fun.    They bring no money to the school nor conference.   When ESPN looks at the SEC's schedule of games out several years to do a media deal, they're really just valuing the 8 conference games, with maybe some added bonus for the games ESPN is going to schedule SEC teams against the ACC in the opening weeks.   That means a third of the games are drastically undervalued and under monetized.    The initial way of monetizing them was conference networks, now you could trick people into paying for those games by dumping them on carriage channels.   But if you want the next big leap in money, you have to put value in that third that you put in the other two thirds.  

And its not just simple math that if you made $100m prior you make $130m now.    To Thunder's point, the T1 match ups drive most of that number.   This tide rises all boats as the T2/3 numbers inflate as well.    This is a 30-50% increase over time as match ups become more compelling and that's just media contracts.

Now, why they don't exist today is not because of the networks.  It's because of the admin and coaches.   You have competing drives for money here.   Media deals give money, but winning gives more money.   If the ACC goes to 12 P4 games, their contract will grow with ESPN, but teams like VTech will have more losses.   Tech is a good football school when it's on its game, but it's not Tennessee or Alabama or Georgia around it.    Those teams are built to play 12 and end up with 10 wins still.  Tech may go 6-6.    Wallowing in mediocrity with a higher media contract doesn't pay the same as generating lots of wins on a lower one.   The PR value alone outstrips it for a university in increased enrollment or added season ticket holders, or being on more T1 games than you are when you're losing.   That builds casual fans if you can do it over time.   So, the ADs and coaches want those free 3-4 wins, because 6 is the minimum to even be talked about, 8 gets you in the realm of mattering, and 10 wins over time and you're a media darling.

Wins matter above all else.

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

13 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

 

 

“It’s all worth it” means what? Because these games are nearly worthless and when one of these hits, they bring in no additional money, so what is it “worth”? Networks and advertisers know most people don’t watch. This is just like upsets in march madness, they are fun to talk and write about because we love misery for teams like Notre Dame, but that does NOT make these games valuable. Fun to talk about afterwards does NOT translate to more money. 

Texas v Colorado State was on ESPN and Ohio State v Marshall was on FOX. Clearly there are NOT enough “good” matchups to fill a TV schedule.

 

It's worth it to me, the fan sitting at home flipping channels for the best game. We are living in a blessed time where we have like 10 different options every given Saturday, particularly early in the year when nobody has a bye. I was watching Abilene Christian v Texas Tech while Notre Dame was playing A&M because it looked like Abilene Christian might win. I realize most fans aren't like that, but I don't really care.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3284]

All y'all who think SEC and B1G should just stop scheduling any "lesser" schools and only play each other 12 times need to just go watch the NFL because that's pretty much what you will be getting. Part of the charm of college football is the vast differences in all of the schools traditions and resources that still play each other and that on occasion, the little guy catches a school with "bluer blood" than them sleeping and David beats Goliath. 

Yall fools have fun watching all prestige worldwide aka NFL Lite, I'll just have to settle for whatever remains of what college football used to be I guess. 

['stache 21815]

With a dozen channels and streaming there just aren’t enough eyeballs for every game to need to be a good or great matchup. This year Week 2 seemed to have overloaded on mismatch games but that’s easily fixable if the conferences and networks collaborated to spread them out better, but that’s not how it works, coordination is a bad word. Even a little bit of collaboration could have preserved rivalries, maintained some sanity in geography, and made everyone more money, including beaucoup bucks for the bluebloods. But nah, let’s put Cal in the Atlantic Coast Conference, and Toledo in the Mountain West. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

2 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

All y'all who think SEC and B1G should just stop scheduling any "lesser" schools and only play each other 12 times need to just go watch the NFL because that's pretty much what you will be getting. Part of the charm of college football is the vast differences in all of the schools traditions and resources that still play each other and that on occasion, the little guy catches a school with "bluer blood" than them sleeping and David beats Goliath. 

Yall fools have fun watching all prestige worldwide aka NFL Lite, I'll just have to settle for whatever remains of what college football used to be I guess. 

Who said this?

I said stop playing FCS and have more scheduling with other P5 schools. I didn’t even say to stop scheduling G5s but to simply limit them so they are not a Majority of their OOC slate.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

Every P4 school tries to get 7 or 8 home games on a 12 game schedule. Having 2 nonconference games against legitimate programs every season is a nonstarter for schools that can't buy out return trips to G5 schools for that reason. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

1 hour ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Every P4 school tries to get 7 or 8 home games on a 12 game schedule. Having 2 nonconference games against legitimate programs every season is a nonstarter for schools that can't buy out return trips to G5 schools for that reason. 

Funny how this used to work without body bag FCS game when less money was involved…

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

21 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Funny how this used to work without body bag FCS game when less money was involved…

When was this? 

[TKthunder2 4991]

3 hours ago, Doc Daneeka said:

When was this? 

I posted the schedule from 1999 for Texas above. The Bill Snyder K State scheduling bullshit is bullshit.

For years Texas has only had 6 home games. TV revenue is at an all time high, the argument for that 7th or 8th game is dumb.

It not a financial issue, it’s coaches trying to pad their stats for bonus money. Let’s schedule pointless games at the beginning of the season so we can play in a pointless bowl game at the end of the season. This is what is wrong with college football.

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I posted the schedule from 1999 for Texas above. The Bill Snyder K State scheduling bullshit is bullshit.

For years Texas has only had 6 home games. TV revenue is at an all time high, the argument for that 7th or 8th game is dumb.

It not a financial issue, it’s coaches trying to pad their stats for bonus money. Let’s schedule pointless games at the beginning of the season so we can play in a pointless bowl game at the end of the season. This is what is wrong with college football.

I guess I just don’t understand your point. Texas has been playing Rice or Utah State or NM State or UNT or whatever beatdown games for as long as I can remember. 

They want/need the money. Same with the silly games KSU scheduled. 

I have no idea what your actual point is but as far as I know, the theory has been, for a long time, schedule a beating, a mid game, and a marquee type OOC game. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

10 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

I guess I just don’t understand your point. Texas has been playing Rice or Utah State or NM State or UNT or whatever beatdown games for as long as I can remember. 

They want/need the money. Same with the silly games KSU scheduled. 

I have no idea what your actual point is but as far as I know, the theory has been, for a long time, schedule a beating, a mid game, and a marquee type OOC game. 

Yes, again when have I ever said we shouldn’t play Rice?

I said ban FCS games and limit G5 games to 2 max. That is what Texas has been doing during its worst years. I’m not sure how this is controversial. I, and every Texas fan should be embarrassed if we ever scheduled like Ohio State has this year.

[RoyalBevo21 768]

27 minutes ago, Doc Daneeka said:

I guess I just don’t understand your point. Texas has been playing Rice or Utah State or NM State or UNT or whatever beatdown games for as long as I can remember. 

They want/need the money. Same with the silly games KSU scheduled. 

I have no idea what your actual point is but as far as I know, the theory has been, for a long time, schedule a beating, a mid game, and a marquee type OOC game. 

The schools you named are all G5 schools. Chattanooga, Northern Iowa, Jacksonville St are FCS schools. Nobody is crying if Texas rotates North Texas, UTSA, UTEP, and Rice for one game annually. But when your schedule is: 

week 1 G5 

week 2 P5 

week 3 G5 

week 4 G5 

 

That shit sucks.

[RoyalBevo21 768]

Would be much better if it looked like 

week 1 Rice 

week 2 Penn St 

week 3 Stanford 

week 4 Texas Tech

[Doc Daneeka 6769]

4 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yes, again when have I ever said we shouldn’t play Rice?

I said ban FCS games and limit G5 games to 2 max. That is what Texas has been doing during its worst years. I’m not sure how this is controversial. I, and every Texas fan should be embarrassed if we ever scheduled like Ohio State has this year.

Ok, I get what you’re saying now. I just don’t agree with it. 

I don’t think Texas should schedule FCS teams. I don’t care if other schools do. And it could probably reasonably be argued that the step down from Texas to a G5 school is equivalent to a scrub P4 team stepping down to FCS.

Regardless, who other schools schedule should be up to them and not for someone to ban.