I like GOOOOLD (and green)

They ended up hiring that hc from booker t Washington instead so I think they went in a different direction.

Debbie downer.

23 hours ago, Jonesy Bull said:

I think most everybody would admit that Malzahn is better than Strong.  There were red flags all over the place with his performance at Texas.

Malzahn is not an up and coming hot shot Coordinator that the Knats have hired recently.  He is a retread, and retreads have not fared very well recently even at the AAC level....We will see.  I think Malzahn will be decent but not great, gut feeling.

I don’t know about GM himself but they’re assembling quite the staff.  They’re getting basically all the best south Florida and Alabama recruiters. 

5 minutes ago, Dave Glaser said:

They FINALLY show some offense - and still lose. The joy of being a Bulls fan . . . and it looks like softball is also going to be offensively challenged. They’re getting blasted in game 2 vs. JU.

At least it’s better than the knights, they gave up like 40 runs in three games to fau.

Houston and Temple come to mind as similars.  I'd probably include ucf in there as well because Orlando is more than a college town, it's projected to be bigger than Tampa in our lifetime.  San Diego State may be in that group as well, especially if you look past just football.  

On 9/11/2019 at 12:00 PM, Bull94 said:

this isn't a rebuilding year. we were built to win this year. that's why we have all these transfers and returning starters.

we rank 11th in the country for returning production on offense

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2019/1/31/18204093/2019-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience

 

Having all the upperclassmen and transfers are nice for a winning build.  But it either clicks or it doesn't, and can we argue that we're clicking? The AAC is competitive enough to where I don't think that a team can go o'fer in OOC play then expect to be in the running for a conference championship (sorry PUC).  FCS games don't count in the metric either way.  In this case, wouldn't it be better to consolidate the rebuild (you said yourself that the next couple years look young) and prepare them for a better start next season? Again I'm not sure the difference between being bad bowl eligible (maybe?) with Barnett et al at the helm and having a straight up rebuilding year are that far apart, with the benefit obviously being a more experienced group next season and beyond.  

This may not be the hottest take but if this is a rebuilding year then why not just hand it over to McLeod so he can be seasoned for next year? What good is Barnett if he only gets you an extra win or two (maybe) over the course of the season vs McLeod? If it's the difference between 10-2 and 8-4 maybe but what's the difference between 4-8 and 3-9 really?

15 hours ago, Roaming Bull said:

Why Friday? You could listen to eulogy right now.

That's the wrong album! Aenema....

1 hour ago, Ghostbuster said:

Easy, we're playing a team better than any we played last season.

I really don't think that is true.  I hope it is though.

I'm seeing 9-3 but 8-4 would be good imo.  

It's a little early for my predictions but I must say I like our chances better now that the other guys just lost their starting QB, they'll have to rely on a grad transfer or a true freshman now.  

28 minutes ago, 86atlbull said:

The truth hurts:  https://medium.com/@stholeary/12-reasons-why-uconn-will-regret-the-new-big-east-6a90b9a00043

Those are some heavy points from a UConn fan.

Women's Basketball.

52 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

The analogy was to show that an assertion that UCF earns $3 to $4 million per home game is idiotic. Bianchi is an idiot and plays to the dolts out in Orlando (and apparently you) that would take his numbers at face value. The Yankees numbers were provided to show that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for UCF to generate anywhere near $100 per ATTENDEE in per game revenues, which is what would need to happen in order to get anywhere near Bianchi's assertion that they make "$3 to $4 million" per game. You can get all pissy. You can throw a fit. You can attack others. But you can't actually argue with the numbers. I didn't suggest that you were a Bianchi apologist or follower, but if you are going to put forth his statement as some sort of support for your position, then be prepared to defend it/back it up. 

Why would you explain an analogy to me that not only lacked merit to begin with but ultimately had nothing to do with my own assertion? Why did you feel the need to go into poorly thought out detail that Bianchi is a dolt/homer/etc when we know what he is already? Deflection is the answer.  You're doing it again above.  I calculated out a minimum 1.3/game payday, noting it was likely higher, referencing what Bianchi said in subsequent post; the actual number he said is meaningless.  Does that compute?

It looks like the forbes article made its way here after all. 

Moving on, this usatoday finance spreadsheet says that there's only a 6 mil difference between the two schools in facilities/overhead cost. https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/.  

Is Wisky even supposed to be good this year?

Traditionally with them if you stop/slow the run, you beat them.

4 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

You took the BS numbers thrown about in one article by Bianchi as gospel. You questioned the numbers that I provided. I questioned you further on the math and you said you can't compare the NY Yankees per fan, per game revenue to that of UCF. While I agree with that assessment (the Yankees make much more than UCF) the point was to show you that Bianchi's numbers were BS. 

 

No I didn't, I posted real numbers from an impartial source that showed you were wrong.  I then followed up by saying even Mike Bianchi says its 3-4 million, but also that there's no citations listed where he got that from so 'grain of salt alert'.  You still being butt hurt over having your (I presume time consuming) research disproven, you resorted to poor reading comprehension at best to try to make it out like I'm some sort of Bianchi apologist or follower...which is asinine.  You also followed up with the asinine analogy with baseball and football, which is almost as bad as not reading clearly.  

4 minutes ago, Brad said:

Sorta new to the argument, but I have to wonder how much “bank” you’re making when you have to have 7 home games.

Seeing as how they didn't have 7 home games without the postseason that year there's really no argument that they need 7 home games.  Which all that does is call bs on their strategy, meaning they could afford at least one 2-1 every now and again.

So I either post sources that are easily googled (first page), as if I need validation from anyone here anyway, just to be called a troll if I do...or I refuse to provide links and clicks and am called a closet fan anyway.  I'm clearly dealing with the highest caliber fans out there.  You guys are pathetic.  It's obvious they are making bank, certainly enough to cover their cheap ass stadium-which is all I posed to begin with.  Your faux rage clouded you so much that you can't even acknowledge the basics.  

10 hours ago, Triple B said:

Actually, you ARE the one making the assertions until you provide sources ..... and telling someone to Google it isn't how that works on here.

Nah x 2

I think you are aware that ticket prices are only a small amount of what is actually paid per person, right? I've never been to a game at their stadium but I can't imagine it would magically be any less than what I've paid at other fb stadiums.  

You are a definite fanatic, that's why you'd never be accused of being a pragmatist.  I'm not a fanatic in the way that you are, at least about football.  HOOPS all day!

On 5/26/2019 at 5:05 AM, BullyPulpit said:

One last thought. The New York Yankees, the most valuable and expensive asset in MLB playing in the most expensive city, generate about $54 per fan that attends their games. They also don't give away at least 12,000 tickets to each game either.

Please explain/provide actual proof of how UCF earns almost twice as much in per fan revenue as the New York Yankees?

I'm not the one making the assertions, just referencing what is publicly out there.  As far as your analogy, its a poor one regardless of context.  Baseball revenue is so different than Football.  And NY has ~24 times the revenue opps compared to any college FB team, its a different model.  FB is so much more expensive than Baseball across the board anyway.  I have never not spent >$70 per person at a football game, and I've been relatively poor until this year, spending is only going up.  Hell, I just spent over 200 for 4 people at a minor league baseball game.  Moral of the story is there are a lot of people that spend more than 70 per head for a football game.  

On 5/26/2019 at 4:56 AM, BullyPulpit said:

I'm just not buying it. There is some really fuzzy math going on there. In order to make close to $4 million per game they would have to be averaging $100 made from each butt in the seat, including students. Seeing as 12,000 people pay nothing to attend the games, I just don't see how that is possible, unless they are prorating the per seat donations, but they would be getting that money regardless of how many home games they played in a season. 

Their most expensive per game "non-premium" seat is $33 per game for season ticket holders. A lot of their tickets are $16.50 per game. You can't expect me to believe they generate over $70 PER PERSON in revenue from concessions and merchandise. I may not have all of the figures in front of me, but I do have common sense. 

In 2017 they made about $2 million total for the season from the donations required for premium season ticket sales. That works out to just under $300,000 per game. I'm just not seeing how they could possibly generate $3 to $4 million per game as you assert that they do. 

 

I didn't assert that, the math I came up with was already mentioned in detail and that came out to just north of 1.3 per game in 2017.  That was from Forbes, and it lists the 'expenses' you mention.  Bianchi came up with the 3-4 million number which doesn't have specifics so it could be a grain of salt thing, I don't know.  The point was that the number is likely much higher than 1.3 per game for the reasons previously listed.  

Both the Forbes and Bianchi thing are easily googled @Triple B Again, not saying Bianchi was right.  The Forbes one seems credible though slightly dated.  

On 5/25/2019 at 11:27 PM, Triple B said:

So what exactly are "they" trying to do? If it's not for financial reasons, and seeing how having a **** ooc schedule bit "them" in the ass, why wouldn't "they" want to play the best ooc competition possible, shouldn't matter where ...

As far as I'm concerned if their boss (AD) says they're doing what's in their best interest then I'm taking them at their word.  I don't care enough to think about what I'd do if I was in their situation.  The numbers didn't seem right in the other poster's comment so I did some digging to check how credible it was.  I'm just glad that there's not going to be scheduling problems on the horizon, and a bonus if we can put together a 10 win season with one of these years that Alabama's on the schedule.  

I'd hardly call it a trap game.  More like a 'holy **** we didn't know these guys would be good when we scheduled them' game.