(01-18-2018 03:18 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 03:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  Agreed that a 2-for-1 isn't ideal. But, it's better than not playing a team of Louisville's caliber. Too bad the third game wasn't a "neutral" venue, even if somewhere much closer to Louisville, like Nashville. Atlanta would have been a perfect neutral site.

Louisville isn't a brand name. Completely ridiculous to offer a 2-1. If you get Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, etc I get it.

Who does USF have a better chance of winning 2 or 3 games against: Louisville or Alabama? Louisville or Ohio St.?

In the eyes of the selection committee and the pollsters, who is USF more likely going to be given better credit for a win or close loss: Louisville or Illinois? Louisville or Rutgers?

(01-18-2018 01:41 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:37 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:58 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  if you're gonna do a 2 for 1 shouldn't you aim higher than Louisville?

Like how you got to go up to the Big House and get raped like an fcs school with no return game?

We got a home and home basketball series as part of the deal (although Michigan has yet to honor it but there are rumblings that it could be next year).

It wasn't optimal, but for UC they desperately wanted to play more regional opponents OOC in both sports so they took that deal. Not to many bigger brands in the country than Michigan.

I was talking about Ucf lol

What’s that saying about glass houses? http://www.tbo.com/sports/colleges/usf-b...-20130903/

Damn 2 v 1 with a former conference mate. Ouch.

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:58 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  if you're gonna do a 2 for 1 shouldn't you aim higher than Louisville?

Like how you got to go up to the Big House and get raped like an fcs school with no return game?

That’s better than paying McNeese state to come put a whoopin ya, mate.

And yeah Michigan is in the tier you should aim for to schedule a one and done or 2-1.

(01-18-2018 04:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 03:18 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 03:07 PM)YNot Wrote:  Agreed that a 2-for-1 isn't ideal. But, it's better than not playing a team of Louisville's caliber. Too bad the third game wasn't a "neutral" venue, even if somewhere much closer to Louisville, like Nashville. Atlanta would have been a perfect neutral site.

Louisville isn't a brand name. Completely ridiculous to offer a 2-1. If you get Alabama, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, etc I get it.

Who does USF have a better chance of winning 2 or 3 games against: Louisville or Alabama? Louisville or Ohio St.?

In the eyes of the selection committee and the pollsters, who is USF more likely going to be given better credit for a win or close loss: Louisville or Illinois? Louisville or Rutgers?

Don't know how long they can cheat to be good though. They have been cheating bad in football and basketball for 10 years.

good thing is those games may be about the time NCAA nails em, and are near the bottom of schollie losses.

Wow this is embarrassing. Bad look for the conference.

(01-18-2018 05:36 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:58 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  if you're gonna do a 2 for 1 shouldn't you aim higher than Louisville?

Like how you got to go up to the Big House and get raped like an fcs school with no return game?

That’s better than paying McNeese state to come put a whoopin ya, mate.

And yeah Michigan is in the tier you should aim for to schedule a one and done or 2-1.

Furman says hi.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/uc...story.html

(01-18-2018 01:39 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:27 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:58 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  if you're gonna do a 2 for 1 shouldn't you aim higher than Louisville?

Like how you got to go up to the Big House and get raped like an fcs school with no return game?

That was our great AD (and new CFP member) Stansbury. After the game, Frost said something to the affect of: "I don't talk about officiating, but Danny White and I agreed this arrangement will never happen again"

In my experience as a fan, the ACC has the least biased officials. If we did a 2 for 1 with an ACC team, I'd be OK with it as long as the 2 away games had AAC officials... and I'd hope it was with a Clemson or FSU. You have to admit doing this with Louisville, a team in our conference 3 years ago, is a bad look for our conference.

PS. SMU does a 1 and done with michigan this year. Expect another impossible to win situation.

I'd be pissed if UCONN scheduled an uneven series with any of Louisville/Pitt/WVU/Rutgers/Cuse.

same but those teams minus cuse have to want play us first lol

I'm hearing there are talks...to do more (Cuse/UConn). It helps both schools.

If I'm Louisville...I'd rather do a 2 for 2. They are in the Atlantic and only play at FSU every other year. Make no mistake...USF is getting a financial bump (guessing around $750K {edit saw Clifton above say up to maybe $1M}) to play a 2nd away game. That will help pay some bills. Good chance the games make ESPN or ESPN2.

(01-18-2018 02:50 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:41 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:39 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:27 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  That was our great AD (and new CFP member) Stansbury. After the game, Frost said something to the affect of: "I don't talk about officiating, but Danny White and I agreed this arrangement will never happen again"

In my experience as a fan, the ACC has the least biased officials. If we did a 2 for 1 with an ACC team, I'd be OK with it as long as the 2 away games had AAC officials... and I'd hope it was with a Clemson or FSU. You have to admit doing this with Louisville, a team in our conference 3 years ago, is a bad look for our conference.

PS. SMU does a 1 and done with michigan this year. Expect another impossible to win situation.

I'd be pissed if UCONN scheduled an uneven series with any of Louisville/Pitt/WVU/Rutgers/Cuse.

same but those teams minus cuse have to want play us first lol

Eh. The only one I'd want a series with is Rutgers. They were the closest thing we ever had to a football rival.

I wouldn't mind either but I'm probably in the minority of Rutgers fans. Had we stayed in the same conference the game would have been the type you circle on your calendar. Considering we haven't had a true rival since the Princeton series ended in 1980 and it will take a while before one develops in the Big 10, it'd be a good series to play.

We (Rutgers) have series coming up against former Big East teams: 4 against Temple, 4 against BC and 2 against VT. I'd also love to add Syracuse and Pitt. Our AD wants to play Eastern Schools (Pernetti signed some Pac 10/12 games and the Kansas series), so it could happen.

We had one with you set to be signed but that idiot Flood chickened out. Old Big East schools should play games against each other...

(01-18-2018 06:05 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 05:36 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:11 PM)Ocalabull Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:58 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  if you're gonna do a 2 for 1 shouldn't you aim higher than Louisville?

Like how you got to go up to the Big House and get raped like an fcs school with no return game?

That’s better than paying McNeese state to come put a whoopin ya, mate.

And yeah Michigan is in the tier you should aim for to schedule a one and done or 2-1.

Furman says hi.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/uc...story.html

My math isn’t so good what’s a wider margin 16-15 or 53-21?

Hell, Memphis is doing a ‘buy game’ at Purdue for 750k

Sometimes you just need some money ? I mean, Memphis is trying to pay for an IPF.

That sucks for USF...embarrassing

(01-18-2018 01:09 PM)vick mike Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:03 PM)Stickboy46 Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:49 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  2022 at Louisville
2024 at USF
2026 at Louisville

https://www.thedailystampede.com/2018/1/...son-aac-p5

I don't know how any non-p5 team will ever get in the playoffs. They say to schedule good teams, but how the heck are you supposed to know what teams will be good to schedule 4-8 years from now ... The players on those teams haven't even made it to HS yet most likely.

Temple has a similar agreement with Oklahoma. The OK name brand is better than UL, so even if we beat OK when they are having a down year, it’s still a huge win. That’s just how college football works, brand names are outsize important. As for 2-for-1 games, if you want to play the big names that’s how you do it.

Comparing King Oklahoma with King of the Commuter college?

"To be the man, you have to beat the man!" Rick Flair

While a 2 for 1 is not ideal, at least they got a home game. Fresno was not scared in the 90's. They took on and beat some good teams. Boise was not scared, and made quite a name for themselves.

AAC wants respect, they get it by winning these P5 games. Good for USF being aggressive and scheduling "up." Its not their fault the system is rigged.

Right around when the TV contracts are being negotiated. Like Mark said, should be ESPN games.

(01-18-2018 07:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Hell, Memphis is doing a ‘buy game’ at Purdue for 750k

Sometimes you just need some money ? I mean, Memphis is trying to pay for an IPF.

Next few yr's Tulsa has several
buy in road games @:
2018
Texas (1.1 million)
Arkansas (1.2 million)
2019
Mich St (1.2 million)
2021
Ohio St (1.4)?
2022
'Ol Miss (1.45 million)

(01-19-2018 02:29 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 07:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Hell, Memphis is doing a ‘buy game’ at Purdue for 750k

Sometimes you just need some money ? I mean, Memphis is trying to pay for an IPF.

Next few yr's Tulsa has several
buy in road games @:
2018
Texas (1.1 million)
Arkansas (1.2 million)
2019
Mich St (1.2 million)
2021
Ohio St (1.4)?
2022
'Ol Miss (1.45 million)

Yikes. Tulane not much better with one-offs at Ohio State and Auburn in 18/19.

Getting 2 for 1s with Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Miss State, KState, pretty terrible. Used to always get 1 for 1s with the Mississippi schools. We should really leverage our baseball team better.

Good deal for Louisville....USF makes some nice Coin...should be a very competitive series....

(01-18-2018 02:54 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 02:50 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:41 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:39 PM)Huskypride Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  I'd be pissed if UCONN scheduled an uneven series with any of Louisville/Pitt/WVU/Rutgers/Cuse.

same but those teams minus cuse have to want play us first lol

Eh. The only one I'd want a series with is Rutgers. They were the closest thing we ever had to a football rival.

I wouldn't mind either but I'm probably in the minority of Rutgers fans. Had we stayed in the same conference the game would have been the type you circle on your calendar. Considering we haven't had a true rival since the Princeton series ended in 1980 and it will take a while before one develops in the Big 10, it'd be a good series to play.

We (Rutgers) have series coming up against former Big East teams: 4 against Temple, 4 against BC and 2 against VT. I'd also love to add Syracuse and Pitt. Our AD wants to play Eastern Schools (Pernetti signed some Pac 10/12 games and the Kansas series), so it could happen.

Interestingly, our former BE conference mates have decided they do not want to play UC in football or basketball. We do have Pitt on the schedule for football in 2023 and 2025, and in BB we played Pitt in a non-exempt tournament in 2013. Otherwise, UC's efforts to schedule our former conference mates have gone nowhere.

Can’t even argue with this...I would have no issue playing Cincinnati in Football and Basketball again...miss the series...