|
Post by California Trojan on Nov 28, 2018 11:42:07 GMT -6
Today on ESPNU on Sirius XM, Commissioner KB explained the framework of the SBC scheduling... The below is not a requirement just a framework; 1) 1 - P5 game a year 2) 2 - peer conference games a year (MAC, C-USA, AAC, MWC, WAC) 3) 1 - FCS game a year Purpose for the framework is to get more CFP money, the higher our overall non-conference win/loss record as compared to the other G5 conferences...the more of the pie the SBC gets. The SBC record for non-conf games was 21-18, in first place for the G5 ... linkAlso so that P5 losses do not hurt as much when it comes time to go Bowling....again, potential more money. Do you think this brings down our league in terms of getting stronger OOC games, (the "playing bigger foes, makes our team better" thinking)? Do you think it does not matter as long as we get a bigger piece of "Money Pie"? Interesting thoughts and the future with a new Commissioner once KB retires...
|
|
|
Post by cornhole on Nov 28, 2018 12:35:21 GMT -6
Thanks for the post! As usual, it's all about the $$.
Same reason I left Pro football 1981 nad Pro Baseball (the strike year).
Never about the Fans.
|
|
|
Post by Trojan Warrior on Nov 28, 2018 13:14:06 GMT -6
Today on ESPNU on Sirius XM, Commissioner KB explained the framework of the SBC scheduling... The below is not a requirement just a framework; 1) 1 - P5 game a year 2) 2 - peer conference games a year (MAC, C-USA, AAC, MWC, WAC) 3) 1 - FCS game a year Purpose for the framework is to get more CFP money, the higher our overall non-conference win/loss record as compared to the other G5 conferences...the more of the pie the SBC gets. The SBC record for non-conf games was 21-18, in first place for the G5 ... linkAlso so that P5 losses do not hurt as much when it comes time to go Bowling....again, potential more money. Do you think this brings down our league in terms of getting stronger OOC games, (the "playing bigger foes, makes our team better" thinking)? Do you think it does not matter as long as we get a bigger piece of "Money Pie"? Interesting thoughts and the future with a new Commissioner once KB retires... We will always be challenged with strength of schedule with only one P5 game. We could go undefeated and still be outside the top 25.
|
|
|
Post by foulpolephenom on Nov 28, 2018 13:37:49 GMT -6
Today on ESPNU on Sirius XM, Commissioner KB explained the framework of the SBC scheduling... The below is not a requirement just a framework; 1) 1 - P5 game a year 2) 2 - peer conference games a year (MAC, C-USA, AAC, MWC, WAC) 3) 1 - FCS game a year Purpose for the framework is to get more CFP money, the higher our overall non-conference win/loss record as compared to the other G5 conferences...the more of the pie the SBC gets. The SBC record for non-conf games was 21-18, in first place for the G5 ... linkAlso so that P5 losses do not hurt as much when it comes time to go Bowling....again, potential more money. Do you think this brings down our league in terms of getting stronger OOC games, (the "playing bigger foes, makes our team better" thinking)? Do you think it does not matter as long as we get a bigger piece of "Money Pie"? Interesting thoughts and the future with a new Commissioner once KB retires... We will always be challenged with strength of schedule with only one P5 game. We could go undefeated and still be outside the top 25. Which is crazy. UAB hadn't played one at all and got in top 25, same with Buffalo.
|
|
|
Post by doc71 on Nov 28, 2018 13:43:32 GMT -6
Of course the argument is that more overall "wins" against strong peer conference teams, counts more than loses ... even close ones ... to power 5 schools? It's tough ... since scheduling is so far in the future. We could go out and schedule some conference teams that are really good right now (Boise, San Diego Stat, Utah St, UCF) ... but in 4-5 years when we actually play them they might be down? But I do like the idea of playing some good G5 programs on regular basis ... maybe build on some rivalries (UAB, SMiss, Memphis, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Troystet on Nov 28, 2018 16:02:22 GMT -6
Do you have the option of two P5 games? We haven't had that in a while. I personally like the P5, Peer conference, FCS set up
|
|
|
Post by Troystet on Nov 28, 2018 16:06:35 GMT -6
Of course the argument is that more overall "wins" against strong peer conference teams, counts more than loses ... even close ones ... to power 5 schools? It's tough ... since scheduling is so far in the future. We could go out and schedule some conference teams that are really good right now (Boise, San Diego Stat, Utah St, UCF) ... but in 4-5 years when we actually play them they might be down? But I do like the idea of playing some good G5 programs on regular basis ... maybe build on some rivalries (UAB, SMiss, Memphis, etc.) I would love to play UCF or USF....but that won't happen. Both of those schools have a "We are big time now" attitude that is sickening. USF even more than UCF becuase they can bring in a P5 school at home because of playing in Raymond James Stadium and UCF thinks just playing in the AAC is big time.
|
|
|
Post by California Trojan on Nov 28, 2018 16:33:57 GMT -6
Do you have the option of two P5 games? Commish said its a framework, not a requirement...so yes we could.
|
|
|
Post by Troystet on Nov 28, 2018 16:37:24 GMT -6
Do you have the option of two P5 games? Commish said its a framework, not a requirement...so yes we could. I guess teams weigh the $$$$ vs one less home game and possible two losses
|
|
|
Post by California Trojan on Nov 28, 2018 16:39:20 GMT -6
Commish said its a framework, not a requirement...so yes we could. I guess teams weigh the $$$$ vs one less home game and possible two losses Yep, and the implication of the second potential loss on a Bowl bid, which leads to more money being potentially given up..
|
|