Hawaii has 13 games on it's schedule.

Tempest

Tempest

Flats Noob
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
672
How is that possible?

Schedule:
8/26 Cal
9/3 Michigan
9/10 UT Martin
9/17 Arizona
10/1 Nevada
10/8 San Jose State
10/15 UNLV
10/22 Air Force
10/29 New Mexico
11/5 San Diego State
11/12 Boise State
11/19 Fresno State
11/26 UMass

They're also only playing one FCS team (UT Martin). Are there any extra rules covering their bowl eligibility?
 
Hawaii and anyone who plays at Hawaii is allowed to have 13 games. You don't have to schedule a 13th game but you are given that option. I think part of the rationale is that it allows you to schedule an extra home game that offsets the cost of taking the road trip to Hawaii in the first place.
 
gtfan1147 said:
Hawaii and anyone who plays at Hawaii is allowed to have 13 games. You don't have to schedule a 13th game but you are given that option. I think part of the rationale is that it allows you to schedule an extra home game that offsets the cost of taking the road trip to Hawaii in the first place.
Click to expand...
I know that's the case but flying LAX to HNL is the same as flying LAX to NYC. Shouldn't be a huge issue for west coast teams.
 
Why does Hawaii even have a football team?
 
gtphd said:
I know that's the case but flying LAX to HNL is the same as flying LAX to NYC. Shouldn't be a huge issue for west coast teams.
Click to expand...

Hotel rooms, food, etc. is all much more expensive in Hawaii than your typical college football area. I imagine that factors into it too.

NYC may come close in terms of expense, but no one is flying cross country to play football in NYC, except for a bowl game, and we all know most schools lose money on bowl games anyway.
 
andrew said:
Hotel rooms, food, etc. is all much more expensive in Hawaii than your typical college football area. I imagine that factors into it too.

NYC may come close in terms of expense, but no one is flying cross country to play football in NYC, except for a bowl game, and we all know most schools lose money on bowl games anyway.
Click to expand...
No they don't. It is partly the school's loosening of the purse string, but the majority of idiots assume that the payout is pure profit, just like they think most athletic departments are swimming in cash from the tv payouts.
 
GT1992 said:
No they don't. It is partly the school's loosening of the purse string, but the majority of idiots assume that the payout is pure profit, just like they think most athletic departments are swimming in cash from the tv payouts.
Click to expand...

Schools don't lose money on bowl games? I'm not talking about on bowl season overall, but on specifically traveling to say, Boise or Shreveport, to play a bowl game.
 
andrew said:
Schools don't lose money on bowl games? I'm not talking about on bowl season overall, but on specifically traveling to say, Boise or Shreveport, to play a bowl game.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of bowl games, schools spend almost every penny. It is poorly managed, but after conference sharing, it really doesn't pay to conserve money.
 
GT1992 said:
The vast majority of bowl games, schools spend almost every penny. It is poorly managed, but after conference sharing, it really doesn't pay to conserve money.
Click to expand...

So...they lose money going to the bowl game, like I said. I won't argue that it's not at least in part because of wasteful spending, but I'm sure that the wasteful spending continues when they take a trip to Hawai'i (perhaps even moreso...after all, it is Hawai'i.)
 
andrew said:
Hotel rooms, food, etc. is all much more expensive in Hawaii than your typical college football area. I imagine that factors into it too.
Click to expand...
More expensive than Auburn? Sure. More expensive than Boston? No.

I get it. It's like a Boston school that has to convince only California schools to play them.

At the same time, if it's that hard to find competition, why have a football team? Does Alaska get the same benefit.
 
gtphd said:
More expensive than Auburn? Sure. More expensive than Boston? No.

I get it. It's like a Boston school that has to convince only California schools to play them.

At the same time, if it's that hard to find competition, why have a football team? Does Alaska get the same benefit.
Click to expand...

You could ask that about a lot of schools...
 
andrew said:
So...they lose money going to the bowl game, like I said. I won't argue that it's not at least in part because of wasteful spending, but I'm sure that the wasteful spending continues when they take a trip to Hawai'i (perhaps even moreso...after all, it is Hawai'i.)
Click to expand...
Yes. And most of FBS outside of the P5 who have big tv contracts should not have a D1 football team. There is a disincentive to managing it well. Just think how many people travel to a bowl game. Between the team, cheerleaders, support staff, band, and the unnecessary school officials, you are looking at almost 500 people. Then they stay for a week and it isn't at the Days Inn and are fed three meals per day plus activities and transportation to them. Everyone at even Shreveport claims they lose money. If we actually made money, we get to split it fourteen ways.
 
The 13-game thing is an incentive the NCAA gives out to get people to schedule games @Hawaii.

The trip isn't terrible if you only do it once, but Hawaii has to do it several times a year. The other problem for them is that they basically have to be FBS or shut their program - the lower levels just don't have enough money to keep them around.
 
To stop losing money all the AA's need to start using the Bob Benson Travel Agency.
 
A host on CFB radio said a recruiting pitch HI is now using is that players will get to log/keep their frequent flyer miles.

Has that not been the case before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top