Thoughts on Scheduling

You guys crying about FCS games are nuts. At this point Tech desperately needs money and wins. An FCS patsy provides both.

The American Conference games are the worst. They are good enough to beat us their fair share, but don’t have enough prestige to fill up our stadium or to be considered a quality loss. Worst of both worlds.
 
I don’t know the financials but I’d be interested in how we make more money from playing an FCS team in a half-empty stadium while paying them to play us than we would make playing another ACC game?
 
covingtonjacket said:
True, but FCS games should always be a home game instead of a home and home series with a P5 opponent.
Click to expand...

We usually have the same number of home games, so we’re not really giving up any ticket revenue for a P5 home-and-home (and might bring in a little extra if more people turn up for more attractive opponents).

One exception was some of the HBCU schools we played for a while there - they had a lot of local fans who seemed to want to turn up to watch them play against a bigger opponent.

JRjr
 
vapspwi said:
You realize that WE pay THEM for those games, right?

JRjr
Click to expand...

You realize that an extra home game produces a lot more revenue than a road game, right?

That’s why we typically have 7 home and 5 away games.
 
CiraldoForever said:
When this year's schedule was released, I was very upset that we were not playing Georgia. Now, I feel differently.

Going forward, I would not mind if we played only conference games. That would mean we would play 12 ACC games a year. We really wouldn't need divisions. We could just let the two teams with the best records play in the ACC championship.

The reasons I would like this are:

- It eliminates those usually uninteresting games against opponents we are supposed to beat.

- It makes every game important.

- It keeps us from having a game bigger than our conference games.

- It would be fairer to Tech than having Clemson as a permanent rival with only 8 conf games. Clemson would just be another team to come up in every team's rotation of opponents.

It would mean ND would either have to join the ACC in football or not play ACC teams at all. To me, that would be OK, and it would make the ACC look stronger.

If Clemson, FSU and Louisville insist on playing their non-conference state rivals, I guess we would have to play a non-conf game, too. I would not want to play Georgia. If we're trying to get better yearly records, the Georgia game doesn't help us too often.

But, I would rather play 12 ACC games a year. If we play Georgia, let's play them in playoffs or bowls, when we'll have a good team and a better chance to win. If ND joins full membership in the ACC, that's OK, but they'd have to play 12 ACC games a year, like everybody else.

I'm surprised that my feelings have changed so drastically, and I know this will not be popular with many Tech fans. But, it's surprisingly how I really feel, and I like some mid week threads that are not too dramatic, compared to post game threads.
Click to expand...

1603990939876.gif
 
vapspwi said:
We usually have the same number of home games, so we’re not really giving up any ticket revenue for a P5 home-and-home (and might bring in a little extra if more people turn up for more attractive opponents).

One exception was some of the HBCU schools we played for a while there - they had a lot of local fans who seemed to want to turn up to watch them play against a bigger opponent.

JRjr
Click to expand...

With our now fully woke AA and Athletic Staff scheduling HBCU's should be a priority.
 
CiraldoForever said:
When this year's schedule was released, I was very upset that we were not playing Georgia. Now, I feel differently.

Going forward, I would not mind if we played only conference games. That would mean we would play 12 ACC games a year. We really wouldn't need divisions. We could just let the two teams with the best records play in the ACC championship.

The reasons I would like this are:

- It eliminates those usually uninteresting games against opponents we are supposed to beat.

- It makes every game important.

- It keeps us from having a game bigger than our conference games.

- It would be fairer to Tech than having Clemson as a permanent rival with only 8 conf games. Clemson would just be another team to come up in every team's rotation of opponents.

It would mean ND would either have to join the ACC in football or not play ACC teams at all. To me, that would be OK, and it would make the ACC look stronger.

If Clemson, FSU and Louisville insist on playing their non-conference state rivals, I guess we would have to play a non-conf game, too. I would not want to play Georgia. If we're trying to get better yearly records, the Georgia game doesn't help us too often.

But, I would rather play 12 ACC games a year. If we play Georgia, let's play them in playoffs or bowls, when we'll have a good team and a better chance to win. If ND joins full membership in the ACC, that's OK, but they'd have to play 12 ACC games a year, like everybody else.

I'm surprised that my feelings have changed so drastically, and I know this will not be popular with many Tech fans. But, it's surprisingly how I really feel, and I like some mid week threads that are not too dramatic, compared to post game threads.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
FullMetalBuzz said:
You realize that an extra home game produces a lot more revenue than a road game, right?

That’s why we typically have 7 home and 5 away games.
Click to expand...

We usually have 6 or 7 home games, regardless of who’s on the schedule.

Better opponents bring in more fans, have some intangible benefits (fan/player excitement, TV coverage), AND we don’t have to pay to play them. The payout to an FCS school takes a significant bite out of the ticket revenue from a half-full stadium.

I get why you might want to pad the stats against a cupcake once in a while, but I’d rather limit it to one every couple of years and not an every year thing.

JRjr
 
gtrower said:
You realize we pay them out of the profits from those games, right?
Click to expand...

And? Playing a team that you don’t have to pay $300k (or whatever) gives you EVEN MORE PROFIT, even before you factor in the “sell more tickets to see a good team than a cupcake” factor.

I understand the rationale for scheduling those kinds of games. There are probably some complicated economics (what if beating Samford is the difference between making a bowl or not?) and tradeoffs. Speaking purely as a fan and not an administrator, I’d rather see us play (and occasionally travel to) slightly better teams than to watch us kick the öööö out of a girl’s school in a stadium that’s empty by the 4th quarter.

JRjr
 
vapspwi said:
And? Playing a team that you don’t have to pay $300k (or whatever) gives you EVEN MORE PROFIT, even before you factor in the “sell more tickets to see a good team than a cupcake” factor.

I understand the rationale for scheduling those kinds of games. There are probably some complicated economics (what if beating Samford is the difference between making a bowl or not?) and tradeoffs. Speaking purely as a fan and not an administrator, I’d rather see us play (and occasionally travel to) slightly better teams than to watch us kick the öööö out of a girl’s school in a stadium that’s empty by the 4th quarter.

JRjr
Click to expand...
You really seem to be having a hard time with the payout.

The choice is not between payout and no payout, it is between 2 FCS home games with a payout, and a FBS home & home contract with no payout.

Sure you’re gonna make more in your FBS home game than a single FCS game with poor attendance, but you take it on the chin and make almost nothing on the away game.

On the balance you get more cash from playing the FCS teams, as well as a more even revenue stream. Since Stansbury sent out an email yesterday practically begging for money, Tech has gotta have that FCS game and increased chance at a bowl.
 
FullMetalBuzz said:
You really seem to be having a hard time with the payout.

The choice is not between payout and no payout, it is between 2 FCS home games with a payout, and a FBS home & home contract with no payout.

Sure you’re gonna make more in your FBS home game than a single FCS game with poor attendance, but you take it on the chin and make almost nothing on the away game.

On the balance you get more cash from playing the FCS teams, as well as a more even revenue stream. Since Stansbury sent out an email yesterday practically begging for money, Tech has gotta have that FCS game and increased chance at a bowl.
Click to expand...

I’m not “having a hard time” with anything. How do you discuss the costs and benefits of a decision without actually talking about the costs? Just having a discussion and expressing an opinion - it’s not like my preferences have any bearing on what the GTAA does anyway.

JRjr
 
Here's another thought. Let's say the ACC remains a 14 team league. All teams play 10 ACC games a year, one game against anybody they choose, and another that must be against a Power 5 team. The two ACC teams with the best conf record play in the ACC Championship Game. We forget about divisions and cross overs. We simply rotate opponents in some fair and orderly fashion to come up with the 10 conf games.

This way, we play everybody once every two years, and it's a lot more fair. On the years ND gets a game against us, we can use our "anybody we choose" game for them. On other years, we can play literally any team we choose with that slot. Then, we use our Power 5 scheduling slot for our yearly game against Georgia.

We would still be at a disadvantage compared to other ACC teams because we play Georgia every year, but not nearly as big a disadvantage as we are now. And, the ACC schedule would finally be as close to fair as we could get it. We would no longer be at a disadvantage in the conf race, because we wouldn't have to play Clemson any more often than any other ACC team.
 
Last edited:
CiraldoForever said:
Here's another thought. Let's say the ACC remains a 14 team league. All teams play 10 ACC games a year, one game against anybody they choose, and another that must be against a Power 5 team. The two ACC teams with the best conf record play in the ACC Championship Game. We forget about divisions and cross overs. We simply rotate opponents in some fair and orderly fashion to come up with the 10 conf games.

This way, we play everybody once every two years, and it's a lot more fair. On the years ND gets a game against us, we can use our "anybody we choose" game for them. On other years, we can play literally any team we choose with that slot. Then, we use our Power 5 scheduling slot for our yearly game against Georgia.

We would still be at a disadvantage compared to other ACC teams because we play Georgia every year, but not nearly as big a disadvantage as we are now. And, the ACC schedule would finally be as close to fair as we could get it. We would no longer be at a disadvantage in the conf race, because we wouldn't have to play Clemson any more often than any other ACC team.
Click to expand...


You keep trying to make this way more difficult than needef
 
I’m interested. Does anyone have the numbers in how much money we make on a sparsely attended FCS game on FS-NWGA or whatever crap channel it’s on?
 
I assume the TV deals are paid up front (and revenue shared among all the schools equally) and not on a game-by-game basis, but I don’t know for sure. Other than the better exposure on a better channel, maybe there’s no tangible advantage to being on ABC or ESPN rather than the regional network (or, rarely, ESPN 3 or not at all).

JRjr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top