I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

(02-17-2017 09:23 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 08:49 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 01:13 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:36 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 11:46 AM)moehler Wrote:  hey look, I hope GS never brings in P5/AAC schools, we compete with GS, probably more than any other SBC school for recruits, and I love the fact our coaches can use the P5/AAC angle to our advantage against GS.

You do a poor job of it so far. How you did not crush us this year and actually finished behind us for the third year in a row is beyond me. Outside of last year not any significant differences but after three winning seasons and CC and back to back bowl wins and you cant crack to the top five in the Sun Belt is a head scratcher. Since most of us are within a few spots not a big deal but if we had your year last year I would be steaming not being back in the low 70's like we were last year. This year I am just glad we signed a full class after the debacle that was last year.

Scott Satterfield has said time and time again he doesn't recruit stars, but players that fit our system and are "App Guys". I have been over this numerous times, but these ratings systems are flawed. The proof is in the fact that App rarely brings in mid to high 3 star players and has been very successful against teams that do. Every App all SB player, the Offensive POY and a freshman All America were all low 2 star rated. It's all about finding the right fit for your individual program.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

LOL no coach recruits stars, but the teams that win more have kids with more stars and the rest could not be further from the truth. You have very little knowledge of recruiting. Do you want me to crush your argument? App is the only team in the bottom half of the G5 team rankings that won a CC and that was shared. You were not even clearly the best team in the Belt for one.

If being "not even clearly the best team in Belt" means the Apps go 14-2, pick up a conference championship and two bowl wins along the way and the preseason pick to win the conference in '17.... I'll take it.

You've been singing that same song for months now and it's getting a little tiresome. You've got all the answers with your spreadsheets formulas and calculations. Well, I've been around college football recruiting a long time and what I KNOW to be true and has been proven time after time, esp at the G5 level, is championships are won every year by "less talented teams" that have character, a high football IQ, strong work ethic and drive to be the best. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about go ask my good friend Eagle22.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

All you have is hokey BS that means nothing. G5 championships are not won by less talented teams as App is the only one in the bottom half of total teams talent in the G5 to even share one last year. Sorry numbers confuse you and out of 65+/- G5 teams one or few teams overachieving based on total team ranking would be called an outlier(s) Glad your friends with Eagle22 but adding up wins and losses, bowl appearances and CC's is not hard to do.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Footbal...tComposite

(02-20-2017 04:38 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-19-2017 10:42 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 05:33 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 10:18 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 09:23 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  If being "not even clearly the best team in Belt" means the Apps go 14-2, pick up a conference championship and two bowl wins along the way and the preseason pick to win the conference in '17.... I'll take it.

You've been singing that same song for months now and it's getting a little tiresome. You've got all the answers with your spreadsheets formulas and calculations. Well, I've been around college football recruiting a long time and what I KNOW to be true and has been proven time after time, esp at the G5 level, is championships are won every year by "less talented teams" that have character, a high football IQ, strong work ethic and drive to be the best. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about go ask my good friend Eagle22.

Sent from my XT1254 using CSNbbs mobile app

He's not accurate about the rating of App players. Marcus Cox was rated a 79 by 247, the highest grade a two-star player can receive. Taylor Lamb was rated an 80, which is a three-star grade. Neither were "low two star rated" by 247 and their composite scores were .7783 and .7833, which would make them high two-star players as well.

Neither Cox or Lamb made 1st team All Sunbelt and Lamb (who was rated 783 not 80) has never been selected to the second team. App has two 3 star players make All Sunbelt, one 2nd team. However, the overwhelming majority of App 1st team All Sunbelt players were bottom of the barrel rated 2 star or non rated players.

1 st team
John Law - 82
Ronald Blair - not rated
Latrell Gibbs - 70
Zac Matics - walk on
Jalin Moore - 70
Parker Collins - 70
Colby Gossett - 70
Clifton Duck - 75
Mondo Williams - 77

2nd team
Marcus Cox - 77
Eric Boggs - 73
Devonte Harris - non rated
Shaedon Meadors - 83
Beau Nunn - 70
Dez Reed - 78
Tee Simms - 78
Kenan Gilchrist - 77

The point is App is winning with a team made up of a mostly 2 star players. Low, mid or high it makes no difference.

Taylor Lamb was rated an 80 by 247 and had a composite of .7833, as I said.
http://247sports.com/Player/Taylor-Lamb-...ution=8379

You have to realize that there is a little "chicken and the egg" situation happening here. In the past, most of App State's recruits weren't rated or were given minimum scores because they were FCS recruits and were only truly rated if it was thought they were FBS-level recruits before Signing Day. Now that App has joined the FBS ranks, all their recruits will get examined much more closely and recruiting rankings will be a more reliable indicator of talent coming in than you have experienced in the past.

Guess you can rationalize anything. There is no evidence of Taylor ever being rated .80 by 24-7 Anywhere.

http://247sports.com/Player/Taylor-Lamb-...ution=8379

It is right in there in white under the .7833

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

(02-21-2017 09:18 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 07:44 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 09:26 PM)Norm DaNiner Wrote:  Wasn't trying to be a jerk. We got a 1:1 with UNC-CH and thought App could to the same. It was more a compliment than a jab. Money game makes sense. Not trying to flame. Really don't respect the Heels as much as I do App State.

It's truly amazing that y'all are able to get P5s with your stadium! Good job by your AD!

Have to imagine there is some sort of a handshake agreement that we will have expanded by then. Probably part of the reason our P5 home games with Duke, Maryland, and UNC are scheduled so far out. Maryland and Duke may not care that much about stadium size since I doubt they'd bring huge crowds anyway, but can't imagine UNC is fine with us only offering a few small sections to their fans.

I'm still worried about App getting enough seats for the game in 2018. Any idea if adding temporary seats is being discussed?

(02-21-2017 12:22 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

A True 2 for 1 operates in much the same manner, only with a discounted pay out for that extra game.

I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

If App wins the first two, UNC might be better off buying out the third game.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Chief it's a good deal for the program.

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:22 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

A True 2 for 1 operates in much the same manner, only with a discounted pay out for that extra game.

I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

There's another way to look at it. Sure, USA didn't get the 'full amount' for its extra road game at Miss State, but we got a huge check and a win. And when Miss State played at USA, we sold out our stadium, earning 1.3 million in revenue. Had we just hosted Kent State instead of Miss State, we would have probably returned about 300,000 in net ticket revenue. And that's before you get the intangibles of hosting a SEC school.

USA isn't stupid. If we could get a 1:1 with Miami, we'd take that too. But if we can't, we'll take 2:1's with teams that will generate higher attendance too.

Miami (FL) was a great get. Iowa State was a good get. But failing that, creativeness isn't a bad thing, and its probably the same money as a 1:1 plus a full money game if you do a 2:1 with the right school.

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's a 1 for 1 with an additional third game scheduled as a money game.

Happy now?

(02-21-2017 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:22 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

A True 2 for 1 operates in much the same manner, only with a discounted pay out for that extra game.

I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

There's another way to look at it. Sure, USA didn't get the 'full amount' for its extra road game at Miss State, but we got a huge check and a win. And when Miss State played at USA, we sold out our stadium, earning 1.3 million in revenue. Had we just hosted Kent State instead of Miss State, we would have probably returned about 300,000 in net ticket revenue. And that's before you get the intangibles of hosting a SEC school.

USA isn't stupid. If we could get a 1:1 with Miami, we'd take that too. But if we can't, we'll take 2:1's with teams that will generate higher attendance too.

Miami (FL) was a great get. Iowa State was a good get. But failing that, creativeness isn't a bad thing, and its probably the same money as a 1:1 plus a full money game if you do a 2:1 with the right school.

This is obviously a personal preference situation for Arkansas State fans. The fact is that scheduling a 2 for 1, one of which acting as a money game, is better on several fronts than scheduling most G5's and definitely FCS.

(02-21-2017 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:22 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

A True 2 for 1 operates in much the same manner, only with a discounted pay out for that extra game.

I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

There's another way to look at it. Sure, USA didn't get the 'full amount' for its extra road game at Miss State, but we got a huge check and a win. And when Miss State played at USA, we sold out our stadium, earning 1.3 million in revenue. Had we just hosted Kent State instead of Miss State, we would have probably returned about 300,000 in net ticket revenue. And that's before you get the intangibles of hosting a SEC school.

USA isn't stupid. If we could get a 1:1 with Miami, we'd take that too. But if we can't, we'll take 2:1's with teams that will generate higher attendance too.

Miami (FL) was a great get. Iowa State was a good get. But failing that, creativeness isn't a bad thing, and its probably the same money as a 1:1 plus a full money game if you do a 2:1 with the right school.

I just know that we've been very vocal about turning down 2 for 1 deals. Had some SEC opportunities that we've turned down because a 2 for 1 involves a discount many times on the guarantee, and in our case the SEC school doesn't necessarily bring the sell out that it does for the rest of you. We didn't sell out Missouri, and I'm not sure we sell out Miami.

Our philosophy is that if a team wants to play a 1 for 1, and then give us a 2nd road guarantee game, that's fine, but that separate game comes with a 1.7 million dollar price tag like all of our guarantees do. In the end, that prices us out of most of the SEC because teams like Miss State wouldn't be offering road games to a G5 school if they could pay whatever they wanted to bring one in.

(02-21-2017 02:26 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:22 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 11:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I don't like the concept of a 2 for 1 with any P5...but I understand the desire to get the state's flagship scheduled.

It's not a 2 for 1. It's a home and home with a 3rd game that will pay us about $1 million before expenses.

From our beat writer:
"Unlike a traditional two-for-one deal, the UNC series resembles a home-and-home deal with an additional “money” game, with App State receiving a payout to appear in Kenan Stadium the second time."

A True 2 for 1 operates in much the same manner, only with a discounted pay out for that extra game.

I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

There's another way to look at it. Sure, USA didn't get the 'full amount' for its extra road game at Miss State, but we got a huge check and a win. And when Miss State played at USA, we sold out our stadium, earning 1.3 million in revenue. Had we just hosted Kent State instead of Miss State, we would have probably returned about 300,000 in net ticket revenue. And that's before you get the intangibles of hosting a SEC school.

USA isn't stupid. If we could get a 1:1 with Miami, we'd take that too. But if we can't, we'll take 2:1's with teams that will generate higher attendance too.

Miami (FL) was a great get. Iowa State was a good get. But failing that, creativeness isn't a bad thing, and its probably the same money as a 1:1 plus a full money game if you do a 2:1 with the right school.

This is obviously a personal preference situation for Arkansas State fans. The fact is that scheduling a 2 for 1, one of which acting as a money game, is better on several fronts than scheduling most G5's and definitely FCS.

Not really personal preference, it's financial. A Jonesboro home game brings close to a 2 million dollar impact to the school and local economy. Thus, any game we play that does not offer a home game in return must be able to bring in enough money to offset the loss of a home game.

It's why we're getting close to 2 million for guarantees to Bama and Georgia. They have to make up for the loss of revenue from not getting a home game, or their not worth playing.

I don't get how stAte can't sell out those big games. I know they jack up the ticket prices but those should be easy sellouts anyway.

(02-21-2017 03:01 PM)slycat Wrote:  I don't get how stAte can't sell out those big games. I know they jack up the ticket prices but those should be easy sellouts anyway.

Because we rely heavily on Casual fans to complete a sell out. Casual fans are usually Razorback fans...many of which will not skip an Arkansas game on television to attend an AState game.

The Missouri game was played with the Razorbacks hosting Toledo in Little Rock at the same time. The Miami game is opposite the pigs playing TCU at home, though ESPN will certainly mess with those game times. Not to mention that Miami won't bring any fans to Jonesboro to help out.

We can sell out Memphis, could probably Sell out UCA on the right day. SEC and ACC schools don't provide the same guarantees.

(02-21-2017 12:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I guess the question becomes, what would you normally expect to get for a money game, and what is UNC paying?

I don't have any hard numbers but my guess is App commands somewhere in the $1.2-$1.4m range for money games. For a local in-state ACC program (ie. NCSU, UNC & Duke), it may only be $1m-$1.1m since it's only a 6 hour round trip bus ride. From what I've read, UNC will pay App $800k plus App will get a portion of ticket proceeds that could bring that total up $900k. Anyone with more knowledge, feel free to correct me.

Add in the fact that App could possibly have expanded the stadium by the time UNC comes up the mountain, that $300-$500k less than App's normal "money" game payout could be made up by the additional seats in KBS (ie. 6,000 seats x $50 ticket = $300k). There is no question it will be a sell out when the Tar Heels roll to town.

Bottom line, you can't really put a $ amount on a win against a program that has dodged playing you in any sport for the last 40+ years?

Kudos to App! I think it works for them and that is great. I imagine the third game being a money game at $1 million is pretty consistent with what UNC pays G5 opponents and App will have less expense than a team that had to fly in and make all kinds of arrangements.

For stAte, I am at the point where I would only play Arkansas if it were a home/home and maybe a 3rd in Little Rock with both programs splitting the proceeds evenly.

As for stAte sell outs or big crowds, we have had great crowds around 30k and more for Memphis, UCA and conference teams in the past. Mizzou and Miami are the games where the admin has drawn the line on comp tickets and cheap tickets. Drawing 30k where all seats are bought is a little different than drawing 30K when 1/3 are comps and less than $10

Just a few years ago few App fans would have believed our non-conference home schedule would be dotted with schools like Wyoming, Miami, unc-cheat, Wake Forest, ECU, Marshall and Southen Miss. As I like to say to the folks who were against the move up..... Yea, this FBS thing clearly isn't working out too good.

(02-21-2017 05:07 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  Kudos to App! I think it works for them and that is great. I imagine the third game being a money game at $1 million is pretty consistent with what UNC pays G5 opponents and App will have less expense than a team that had to fly in and make all kinds of arrangements.

For stAte, I am at the point where I would only play Arkansas if it were a home/home and maybe a 3rd in Little Rock with both programs splitting the proceeds evenly.

As for stAte sell outs or big crowds, we have had great crowds around 30k and more for Memphis, UCA and conference teams in the past. Mizzou and Miami are the games where the admin has drawn the line on comp tickets and cheap tickets. Drawing 30k where all seats are bought is a little different than drawing 30K when 1/3 are comps and less than $10

We don't do comp tickets any more period. They've made that very clear over the last two years.