(05-09-2017 09:53 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Interesting thread. UCLA probably wouldn't bring many fans from three time zones away for a regular season match-up with a G5. They'll still get to play in front of a full house at Nippert and a national TV audience gaining exposure in our fertile recruiting ground. I believe I read they were number one in undergraduate student applications last year so they are truly a national brand. If the game here doesn't go well for them we won't see them again. If it does, it sets the stage for an interesting add-on series.

The Pac 12 should be pursued aggressively in scheduling by UC given the many issues stated here regarding regional rivals from the ACC, SEC and B10. Road games for UC at most Pac 12 schools provide an exciting new destination for UC fan travel too.

PAC 12 schools play road games at Mountain West schools all the time. As long as they don't mind the travel, I don't see why we can't get more of them to come here.

I really like the idea of pursuing Pac12 schools.

how about some big12 schools? we had some good games in the 90s against Kansas and k-state. just played iowa state in bball, and former conference foes with TCU.

(05-09-2017 08:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:13 AM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 08:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:38 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  And Nebraska.

It's not just UC. Check out the future schedules of several top G5 teams. You will see the trend. Fans would scream if those good G5 teams agreed to one off road games, but sign these deals then the G5 school can blame the other university for canceling.

I just wonder how many of these deals are signed with the understanding that the return game will never occur.

I can't speak for other G5 programs but has a P5 backed out on the return game at UC other than Buckeye State? Oklahoma, North Carolina State, Miami, FL are recent ones that played return game. I remember Oregon State actually played at UC first and then we played them on the road for the return game. Purdue was similar as well.

Miami (FL) would be the only example during the P5 era. San Diego St. did not return a game but that was before the scarlet letter designation. What about the road game in Landover vs VaTech that never got returned? But you do make a good point that UC has not hosted many home-n-home games vs P5 teams since the beginning of our G5 status.

The game in Landover was suppose to be our home game but we sold the rights to it to the Washington Redskins. We were the designated home team so Virginia Tech did not owe us a return game.

So you are making the point that UC was paid to have the game not played in Nippert. By the way that game was the return game from when we played in Blacksburg a few years earlier.

They didn't just pay us money. They paid us a sh1t-ton of money. It was $4.2 million if I remember correctly.

(05-08-2017 09:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 08:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:38 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:22 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 09:16 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Hope the home tilt vs UCLA actually takes place. Too often big name P5 schools agree to a home-n-home as long as the first game is in their stadium. Then they just buy out the return. No need to play a road game against a good G5 school when a very small portion of their TV revenue can make it go away.

Interesting that even the Boise St. home and home starts on the road. BYU series did as well.

And Nebraska.

It's not just UC. Check out the future schedules of several top G5 teams. You will see the trend. Fans would scream if those good G5 teams agreed to one off road games, but sign these deals then the G5 school can blame the other university for canceling.

I just wonder how many of these deals are signed with the understanding that the return game will never occur.

I can't speak for other G5 programs but has a P5 backed out on the return game at UC other than Buckeye State? Oklahoma, North Carolina State, Miami, FL are recent ones that played return game. I remember Oregon State actually played at UC first and then we played them on the road for the return game. Purdue was similar as well.

Miami (FL) would be the only example during the P5 era. San Diego St. did not return a game but that was before the scarlet letter designation. What about the road game in Landover vs VaTech that never got returned? But you do make a good point that UC has not hosted many home-n-home games vs P5 teams since the beginning of our G5 status.

Purdue played at Nippert in 2013. We returned in 2016.

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:13 AM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 08:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I can't speak for other G5 programs but has a P5 backed out on the return game at UC other than Buckeye State? Oklahoma, North Carolina State, Miami, FL are recent ones that played return game. I remember Oregon State actually played at UC first and then we played them on the road for the return game. Purdue was similar as well.

Miami (FL) would be the only example during the P5 era. San Diego St. did not return a game but that was before the scarlet letter designation. What about the road game in Landover vs VaTech that never got returned? But you do make a good point that UC has not hosted many home-n-home games vs P5 teams since the beginning of our G5 status.

The game in Landover was suppose to be our home game but we sold the rights to it to the Washington Redskins. We were the designated home team so Virginia Tech did not owe us a return game.

So you are making the point that UC was paid to have the game not played in Nippert. By the way that game was the return game from when we played in Blacksburg a few years earlier.

They didn't just pay us money. They paid us a sh1t-ton of money. It was $4.2 million if I remember correctly.

And we won! But it was a buyout.

Again, my point is not just UC specific. This is the trend in these P5/G5 contracts. Unless the G5 team is poor and offers no threat to the P5 team no matter where the game is played.

(05-10-2017 05:43 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:13 AM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(05-08-2017 09:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Miami (FL) would be the only example during the P5 era. San Diego St. did not return a game but that was before the scarlet letter designation. What about the road game in Landover vs VaTech that never got returned? But you do make a good point that UC has not hosted many home-n-home games vs P5 teams since the beginning of our G5 status.

The game in Landover was suppose to be our home game but we sold the rights to it to the Washington Redskins. We were the designated home team so Virginia Tech did not owe us a return game.

So you are making the point that UC was paid to have the game not played in Nippert. By the way that game was the return game from when we played in Blacksburg a few years earlier.

They didn't just pay us money. They paid us a sh1t-ton of money. It was $4.2 million if I remember correctly.

And we won! But it was a buyout.

Again, my point is not just UC specific. This is the trend in these P5/G5 contracts. Unless the G5 team is poor and offers no threat to the P5 team no matter where the game is played.

In the case of VT, I thought it was the Redskins organization that approached us with the offer to move it to their stadium which we accepted obviously. I view that differently than an opponent unilaterally buying out a return game as we had a choice to take the money or keep the game in Nippert. I'm guessing we'll keeping taking those kinds of offers in the future should they be presented at that $$ level.

(05-10-2017 06:19 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:43 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:13 AM)cincybb51 Wrote:  The game in Landover was suppose to be our home game but we sold the rights to it to the Washington Redskins. We were the designated home team so Virginia Tech did not owe us a return game.

So you are making the point that UC was paid to have the game not played in Nippert. By the way that game was the return game from when we played in Blacksburg a few years earlier.

They didn't just pay us money. They paid us a sh1t-ton of money. It was $4.2 million if I remember correctly.

And we won! But it was a buyout.

Again, my point is not just UC specific. This is the trend in these P5/G5 contracts. Unless the G5 team is poor and offers no threat to the P5 team no matter where the game is played.

In the case of VT, I thought it was the Redskins organization that approached us with the offer to move it to their stadium which we accepted obviously. I view that differently than an opponent unilaterally buying out a return game as we had a choice to take the money or keep the game in Nippert. I'm guessing we'll keeping taking those kinds of offers in the future should they be presented at that $$ level.

That is correct it was not like the Ohio State buyout of our game. The Redskins put very high prices on the tickets which reduced the tickets sold. Virginia Tech did not have it on their season ticket plan.

(05-10-2017 06:19 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:43 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:39 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 08:22 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:13 AM)cincybb51 Wrote:  The game in Landover was suppose to be our home game but we sold the rights to it to the Washington Redskins. We were the designated home team so Virginia Tech did not owe us a return game.

So you are making the point that UC was paid to have the game not played in Nippert. By the way that game was the return game from when we played in Blacksburg a few years earlier.

They didn't just pay us money. They paid us a sh1t-ton of money. It was $4.2 million if I remember correctly.

And we won! But it was a buyout.

Again, my point is not just UC specific. This is the trend in these P5/G5 contracts. Unless the G5 team is poor and offers no threat to the P5 team no matter where the game is played.

In the case of VT, I thought it was the Redskins organization that approached us with the offer to move it to their stadium which we accepted obviously. I view that differently than an opponent unilaterally buying out a return game as we had a choice to take the money or keep the game in Nippert. I'm guessing we'll keeping taking those kinds of offers in the future should they be presented at that $$ level.

Have to sell out your team and take away a good home game from your fans. Sounds like a University short on athletic revenue.