|
Post by jaminthebody on Feb 28, 2020 20:04:42 GMT -6
I like the money games. The revenue is so much more valuable than another “rivalry” game against a school that could be struggling financially in a few years due to traveling budget costs in other sports. One win against a Rice or Texas State is worth 5 wins against John Tarleton. A win against Tech is worth 10 or 20 against a FCS Independent.
|
|
|
Post by bogeyman on Feb 28, 2020 20:43:57 GMT -6
I agree wholeheartedly. A loss or even two losses to FBS teams hurts us not one bit, if we take care of business in our conference. On the otherhand a win or two does lots more for us in so many areas that games vs. Tarleton can never do.
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Feb 28, 2020 23:23:07 GMT -6
I agree wholeheartedly. A loss or even two losses to FBS teams hurts us not one bit, if we take care of business in our conference. On the otherhand a win or two does lots more for us in so many areas that games vs. Tarleton can never do. How? Please explain. This isn't about games vs Tarleton, This is about DI wins. Tarleton doesn't do much if they aren't good and don't have a good SOS, same as any bad FCS win, but a bad FCS win still helps more than a DII, DIII or NAIA win. Besides the benefit of money, the loss to the FBS school still brings down our total W/L. After years of discussions and now voting and having discussions with fellow voters on who gets into playoffs and who doesn't, I would love to hear how everything discussed opposite your perspective is now false. A DI loss is still a DI loss as far as record is concerned. Who you lose to comes into play when voting counts and the voting comes into play the worse your record is. Last year, we not only had 2 loses to two FBS schools, we had a game that didn't even show on our record, which meant one less win to counter those 2 losses, so that win actually worked against us. If that win was against Tarleton, it would have countered one of those two losses. We weren't getting into the playoffs either way. Still, schools that do on a regular basis take all of this into consideration when it comes to scheduling games. We all have our yearly money game, that isn't the issue. The issue is the other OOC games, because in football the W/Ls are about more than conference play. So, you schedule fellow FCS teams. ACU will have difficulty geographically with that without spending a lot of money. Travel and money wise, Tarleton would make sense. It is an FCS DI game. Do we strive for higher profile FCS games? Yes we do, but we don't discount others, especially when we have trouble scheduling them to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Feb 29, 2020 4:16:56 GMT -6
I like the money games. The revenue is so much more valuable than another “rivalry” game against a school that could be struggling financially in a few years due to traveling budget costs in other sports. One win against a Rice or Texas State is worth 5 wins against John Tarleton. A win against Tech is worth 10 or 20 against a FCS Independent. I, too, like money games. In small doses. I’m not suggesting we don’t play bigger schools. In fact we already have games against one FBS school scheduled well into this decade- two games against TAMU, two games against Texas Tech, and one each against SMU, and Kansas State. I’m suggesting that rather than schedule two Games against FBS schools each year we limit ourselves to one FBS game a year, A W against a lower level FBS team may well be worth more than a W against a new move up FCS team. On the other hand, A W against a FCs start up is worth more than a loss to a lower level FBS team. Fresno State, UNT, New Mexico, GA State, Colorado State, New Mexico State, and Troy were all lower level FBS teams when we scheduled them. We have one win for our effort. And even low level FBS teams will refuse to travel to Abilene for a return game, which complicates scheduling home games, increasing the probability we will fill l our home schedule by playing a lower division team (Arizona Christian or Angelo State) that won’t count toward playoff consideration even with an impressive win.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Feb 29, 2020 5:41:24 GMT -6
I agree wholeheartedly. A loss or even two losses to FBS teams hurts us not one bit, if we take care of business in our conference. On the otherhand a win or two does lots more for us in so many areas that games vs. Tarleton can never do. “If” is the key word here. I think you would agree that the goal is to compete for championships. For FCS teams that means not only making the playoffs but securing one of eight seeds. A non-seeded team might have won the FCS championship...but I couldn’t find a record of that happening. Practically speaking for a team that’s not in the Missouri Valley Football Conference a seed requires a minimum of 9 D1 wins. Last year, the only 8 win team in the playoffs was South Dakota State from the Valley. Everyone else had 9 plus wins, In an 11 game season two losses against FBS teams means we would have to win all 8 of our conference games and one game against an OOC FCS team. Anything less than a perfect record and we are out of contention for a seed. One FBS loss and two OOC FCS wins gives us a little more breathing room. What about just making the playoffs? Here is the breakdown of w-l records of teams that received at large bids last year. 7 Wins-2 teams 8 Wins-5 teams 9 wins-6 teams 10 wins-1 team Starting with two FBS losses would require us to go a minimum of 7-2 the rest of the season to finish 7-4. That would make us a bubble team that might make the playoffs, although a lot more 7 win teams sit at home than go to the playoffs. To have a more realistic chance of advancing we’d need to go 8-1 to finish 8-3. In other words, scheduling 2 FBS teams per year puts is in the position of needing to either beat one of the upper division teams or finish the rest of the season with only one loss to have a realistic shot at the playoffs and to finish with a perfect record to hope for a first round bye. Both of these scenarios are highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Cattitude on Feb 29, 2020 9:26:19 GMT -6
I think you only have to look at last year. UCA got a seed despite losing badly to the other two playoff teams from the SLC. Why? Well, UCA had wins at Western KY (FBS) and Austin Peay (FCS) while Nicholls lost to K State and SLU lost to Ole Miss. So Nicholls, who won the tie breaker and the auto bid lost out on a first round bye because UCA had one more win. In this case, it appears that all the committee looked at was 8 wins vs 7 wins and discounted the loss to a P5 team and the head-to-head result.
FWIW, I thought Nicholls deserved the bye.
***Edit. The Bears also lost at Hawaii and the Colonels also lost at TX St.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Cattitude on Feb 29, 2020 10:07:55 GMT -6
Tarketon’s 2020 schedule has been posted. It includes D1 teams SHSU, Kennesaw St, Mo St, S Dakota St, Murray St, and Bethune Cookman. Does not include ACU.
|
|
|
Post by jaminthebody on Feb 29, 2020 11:49:55 GMT -6
I like the money games. The revenue is so much more valuable than another “rivalry” game against a school that could be struggling financially in a few years due to traveling budget costs in other sports. One win against a Rice or Texas State is worth 5 wins against John Tarleton. A win against Tech is worth 10 or 20 against a FCS Independent. I, too, like money games. In small doses. I’m not suggesting we don’t play bigger schools. In fact we already have games against one FBS school scheduled well into this decade- two games against TAMU, two games against Texas Tech, and one each against SMU, and Kansas State. I’m suggesting that rather than schedule two Games against FBS schools each year we limit ourselves to one FBS game a year, A W against a lower level FBS team may well be worth more than a W against a new move up FCS team. On the other hand, A W against a FCs start up is worth more than a loss to a lower level FBS team. Fresno State, UNT, New Mexico, GA State, Colorado State, New Mexico State, and Troy were all lower level FBS teams when we scheduled them. We have one win for our effort. And even low level FBS teams will refuse to travel to Abilene for a return game, which complicates scheduling home games, increasing the probability we will fill l our home schedule by playing a lower division team (Arizona Christian or Angelo State) that won’t count toward playoff consideration even with an impressive win. I don’t think a win over a new FCS team is worth more than any game against any FBS team monetarily. How much does net revenue a sell-out against Tarleton give the program? How much exposure does it bring? Every time we play an FBS school, we receive anywhere from $300k to $800k. The game against Baylor was on FOX. That had similar ratings to the basketball game against Kentucky in the NCAA tourney last year. If Tarleton schedule a home and home what are the net expenses? Winning against an independent does not necessarily impress the committee in my opinion. The key to making the playoffs is winning the conference or beating the other teams in contention for playoff spots. It has already been mentioned that the SLC is going to an 8 game schedule, which means we will have 3 non-conference games most years and occasionally 4. Playing 2 FBS programs will bring in revenue, give Dear Christian exposure, and leave an opportunity to impress the committee with W’s.
|
|
|
Post by jaminthebody on Feb 29, 2020 11:50:18 GMT -6
I like the money games. The revenue is so much more valuable than another “rivalry” game against a school that could be struggling financially in a few years due to traveling budget costs in other sports. One win against a Rice or Texas State is worth 5 wins against John Tarleton. A win against Tech is worth 10 or 20 against a FCS Independent. I, too, like money games. In small doses. I’m not suggesting we don’t play bigger schools. In fact we already have games against one FBS school scheduled well into this decade- two games against TAMU, two games against Texas Tech, and one each against SMU, and Kansas State. I’m suggesting that rather than schedule two Games against FBS schools each year we limit ourselves to one FBS game a year, A W against a lower level FBS team may well be worth more than a W against a new move up FCS team. On the other hand, A W against a FCs start up is worth more than a loss to a lower level FBS team. Fresno State, UNT, New Mexico, GA State, Colorado State, New Mexico State, and Troy were all lower level FBS teams when we scheduled them. We have one win for our effort. And even low level FBS teams will refuse to travel to Abilene for a return game, which complicates scheduling home games, increasing the probability we will fill l our home schedule by playing a lower division team (Arizona Christian or Angelo State) that won’t count toward playoff consideration even with an impressive win. I don’t think a win over a new FCS team is worth more than any game against any FBS team monetarily. How much does net revenue a sell-out against Tarleton give the program? How much exposure does it bring? Every time we play an FBS school, we receive anywhere from $300k to $800k. The game against Baylor was on FOX. That had similar ratings to the basketball game against Kentucky in the NCAA tourney last year. If Tarleton schedule a home and home what are the net expenses? Winning against an independent does not necessarily impress the committee in my opinion. The key to making the playoffs is winning the conference or beating the other teams in contention for playoff spots. It has already been mentioned that the SLC is going to an 8 game schedule, which means we will have 3 non-conference games most years and occasionally 4. Playing 2 FBS programs will bring in revenue, give Dear Christian exposure, and leave an opportunity to impress the committee with W’s.
|
|
|
Post by bogeyman on Feb 29, 2020 11:58:27 GMT -6
Fact: in 2019, 9 teams made the FCS playoffs with 4 or more losses (one with 5 losses). Fact: in 2018, 7 teams made the FCS playoffs with at least 4 losses. Fact: in 2017, at least 5 teams made the playoffs with 4 or more losses, including 3 SLC teams. Fact: in 2019, 6 or the 8 seeded teams in the FCS playoffs had 3 losses or more. Fact: the SLC champion gets an automatic bid to the FCS playoffs.
So in light of those facts my statement that 2 losses to FBS opponents makes no difference IF we take care of our SLC business remains true.
The record shows that we make the playoffs if we win conference. The record shows we can get in the playoffs with as many as 4 or 5 losses if we win conference. The record shows that 3 or 4 loss teams can be seeded. You can make up all the scenarios you want about winning championships but the facts usually end with North Dakota State until someone builds a program to match them. That's what we are trying to do and we are football cash poor. Bring on the money games until we are on equal footing with the big dog in FCS.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Feb 29, 2020 12:37:49 GMT -6
Fact: The AD is going to do what he’s going to do, regardless of our views on scheduling.
The only away games I’ve been to since ACU switched to D1 have been against FBS opponents. I enjoy the big game atmosphere even at a very low level FBS team like New Mexico State.we will just have to agree to disagree about the significance of a two loss handicap to start the season.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Feb 29, 2020 12:53:21 GMT -6
Fact: in 2019, 9 teams made the FCS playoffs with 4 or more losses (one with 5 losses). Fact: in 2018, 7 teams made the FCS playoffs with at least 4 losses. Fact: in 2017, at least 5 teams made the playoffs with 4 or more losses, including 3 SLC teams. Fact: in 2019, 6 or the 8 seeded teams in the FCS playoffs had 3 losses or more. Fact: the SLC champion gets an automatic bid to the FCS playoffs. So in light of those facts my statement that 2 losses to FBS opponents makes no difference IF we take care of our SLC business remains true. The record shows that we make the playoffs if we win conference. The record shows we can get in the playoffs with as many as 4 or 5 losses if we win conference. The record shows that 3 or 4 loss teams can be seeded. You can make up all the scenarios you want about winning championships but the facts usually end with North Dakota State until someone builds a program to match them. That's what we are trying to do and we are football cash poor. Bring on the money games until we are on equal footing with the big dog in FCS. If we win the conference we automatically qualify. Other than winning the conference our odds of getting a playoff berth increase with each win. So while we might get in with 6 or 7 wins, the probability of being selected goes way up if we win 8 or 9 games.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Cattitude on Feb 29, 2020 15:55:17 GMT -6
I agree with Bogey. The FBS losses don’t matter much. However, OOC FCS wins seem to matter a LOT.
|
|
|
Post by OscarWildeCat, Admin on Feb 29, 2020 16:34:27 GMT -6
I agree with Bogey. The FBS losses don’t matter much. However, OOC FCS wins seem to matter a LOT. Every FBS team we schedule means one less FCS team we can schedule and one less possible OOC FCS win,
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Feb 29, 2020 18:16:46 GMT -6
Fact, the OOC FCS wins mean more important than the FBS losses. Fact, playing the other OOC FCS teams helps when it comes to playoff time. Agree, take care of the conference championship, but you still need the SOS and conference comparisons when it comes to seeding and better seeding helps come playoff time. So does learning how other comference teams play besides watching videos. The FBS money games are nice for money and exposer. The less galmorous OOC games are more important to build a respected and better known program among the conferences.
|
|