WoolyBully

Front Page of the sports EXTRA section, below the fold: "There are no moral victories" pretty good coverage of the game. What are you looking for, front page eight-column piece with multiple photos of a 17-3 loss? The local team lost - DID NOT BEAT, DID NOT UPSET - a ranked opponent at home. Maybe some color shots of the volume of crimson shirts in the stands would have added some perspective, but if you're looking for coverage, it's there. If you're looking for cheerleading - it's here. Lots of college coverage.

This wasn't the arse waxing that it was expected to be, so hopefully it fuels the effort going forward. A win would have been over-the-top-fantastic, but this was, as much as a loss is palatable, not crippling.

Yep, this is long overdue.

I'm putting both of you in for an award right now! You've earned it. Yeah, ******** about a conference we've never ever won and our abysmal record as of late are not selling points. Un uh. I do snicker when I roll across a suggestion to jettison the 'dead weight, crappy schools' in our conference, because I find it hard to believe there ain't one dammned mirror in the whole building! If we go back to '79 and look at all of the teams now playing FBS, who were not around prior to that year, we see a list of: UCF, UAB, USF, FAU, FIU, UTSA & CHARLOTTE (as well as Georgia State, Old Dominion, and Coastal Carolina, but that's beside the point). If we omit UCF, four of those other five teams are now conference mates of ours. Interesting, huh?! Do we have JV practice on Monday? No, boyz, I'm afraid we are required to spend considerably MORE time in the gym - working on that upper body development - before the girls at that table by the window cast a glance in our direction. Dats just the way life be!

Well, if I were playing with real money, I'd bet on being in the AAC for more than a "few" years (how is 'few' defined? Is it three years? Five?). Our old drinkin' buddies in Orlando are the youngest (measured history of playing football) FBS team, having started in '79, a full eighteen years before USF began playing. So, assuming a measure of historical precedent, USF making it to 'the bigs' anytime soon (similarly defined as "few") would be miraculous. And I don't put much stock in miracles.

My old compañeros at Nielsen actually do measure screens (phone, mobile, streaming, cable, etc.) per household. These were huge hurdles for Nielsen to latch onto. When I worked there - along with our good friend @MaltLiquorBull - the big project was tallying eyeballs on 'time shifted viewing' where a program is viewed outside of the broadcast window (DVRing, video recording, etc.) The old days of ma and pa and Junior and Susie sitting in front of the tee-vee watching a program is way in the rear-view mirror. So, some of the demographic measurements might not be that accurate, but at least you can count active devices and eyeballs. In other Nielsen news, after losing its accreditation, the ever-coveted status has been reinstated in 2023 for national audiences. This was always the argument with cable companies, do we really need the demographics or just headcount? Fun exercise: figure out the age demographic for advertisers with commercials during your television viewing. Do you fit that demographic? Just asking ...

Today must be some sort of holiday or something. In my travels about the grater Tampa metropolitan region, I'm seeing a lot of 'bama attire...much greater quantity than normal. I find it offensive.

Let us remember, that someone's stated position may be what is released for public consumption and not necessarily the full-disclosure truth. It might sound better - moral high ground, righteous indignation, swimming downstream or whatever. The reasons stated are the official position and that's all we'd have to go on. All that being said, I can understand taking a more transactional position as the years go by: is this still enjoyable? What's going to happen with the new digs (since nothing is etched in stone at this point) based on my assessment that ticket expense will increase in dollar value with no guarantee of a related increase in the 'experience'. If I were a gamblin' man, which I am, I'd bet that the OCS revenue model is going to be such that a lot of people who have, for years, enjoyed the benefits of being 'grandfathered in' will now have to have the big discussion. And along with that comes the confession. Did I drop the tix because of increased cost, or did I drop tix because of my feelings about the program? There is no polygraph attached to the board, and spin, in the best of times and the worst of times, is our friend. Cynical ole Mister Robinson thinks that people are a bit more transactional than they like to let on. Not everyone, but a large chunk of the population.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some drop in attendance from current season ticket holders once the OCS is up and running. Anytime there is a change in the pricing model, the hard decision gets made. Do I value the experience enough to part with $X? Have I capitalized on being grandfathered in at $x? Do I really want to attend games without club access and seats for the experience of a concourse and benches? At the same time, however, I think the new stadium will generate sufficient interest to sell enough season tickets to offset the drop. It's new, it's on campus (which might not be a strong selling point to absolutely everyone), and people want to be a part of that, even if it is AAC football. I think the stadium will be more of a draw for future generations of Bulls fans than might be the case with those who have become comfortably numb with an NFL venue. Out with the old, in with the new.

And how do I get off this Title IX hook if I split from the NCAA to become a football-unto-itself entity? Safe to assume that our new, non-P(x) status means we are exempt from such things, correct? Is it the steerage class that will now be picking up the Title IX responsibilities?

They're in the basement.

Yes, if U of SF wins, I fully expect every 'Bama fan in the stadium to storm the field and strike their players and coaches repeatedly about the head and shoulders with blunt instruments.

This one is similar, but uses EST: https://fbschedules.com/college-football-tv-schedule/

Troy, Univ of Tejas San Antonio, James Madison, Appalachian State & Coastal Carolina.

No, not difficult - just not advantageous. If every school out there not named Michigan, Alabama or Notre Dame use the 'tix distributed' metric, we're all on the same, etched in pencil, page. Imagine the humiliation that any number of schools would have to suffer it was trip-the-turnstile counting that mattered. But, our good friends at the NCAA do have a minimum ticketing requirement for FBS eligibility: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/Division I Forms/2010-11 FBS Forms/Football Bowl Subqa 12 8 10.pdf. This is from several years ago, but engaging, nonetheless. https://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/78247-announced-attendance-vs-tickets-scanned/ I just think this stuff is interesting. Not that it matters if we're all doing the same thing, just saying that desperate times call for distributed tickets!

Which is why we need to spend as much time as possible on the T-shirt Cannon range, working on our accuracy and increasing our rate of fire. Practice. This is my t-shirt, there are many like it, but this one is mine...

Sorta related...talking to a guy at the gym today, and he said that about five years ago they were offered the opportunity to switch to the east side from the west side. I recall a handful of couples who used to sit near us also were "persuaded" to move to the west side. Anyone have any background on that? Just curious.

IIRC, the fellas at Westpoint were not really happy with their tenure in CUSA. One reason being, relentlessly losing to that caliber of team. Note that Army does play some marquee games, but they also schedule - games they can win. The next generation of four-star generals doesn't want to be the Washington Generals of college football. You might BE them; you just don't want to be them. That's the odd thing about the service academies. They're not loved because of their athletic prowess, but because of what they represent (marketing something more than a t-shirt). So, we don't really rain down hard on them when they underperform - relative to the rest of FBSdom. It's not unexpected. Navy plays Notre Dame every year, and that tally is 82-13. Think they should cancel the series? Navy is about the only rival Army has, and Army is behind in the series 54 to 62. They are unique entities that happen to step into the spotlight once per year. So, although they may be a part of the AAC in the future, what they bring to the table is measured in something other than football wins.

Hmmm...we might be related. I have a number of alumni friends from the U of SF who were unceremoniously booted from their 'dream school' and continued their education, now bridled and saddled, at HCC and subsequently Harvard on the Hillsborough. Apparently, this is not an uncommon affliction!

Pleased with the outcome, but I recall thinking - preseason - that this game could go south if FAMU comes in smelling blood and USF does what USF has done as of late. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the broadcast boyz for pointing out, MULTIPLE TIMES, that FAMU had won their last ten games while USF had managed to lose their last eleven. So, is this a watershed moment for both teams? No. Of course not. But I think it's going to be some time before we are back to the days of hammering our early season OOC opponents with relative ease. If I were to apply any sort of grade, I'd use the phrase "as expected"...no stars.

Dammit! That would have been great.

and not a Bull either. ****! Dammit! Did I just think that or did I say it? I hate when that happens.

Absolutely 100% - just being honest here - at that point in time, the only difference between HCC & USF was the spelling (and, obviously the cost per credit hour). U of SF today is one-hundred-eighty degrees different than way back when. So much progress, so much nicer, can't even compare.

I would just accept that Army Navy is a set aside. The "conference rival" line of thinking is neither here nor there. Army Navy is a rivalry that supersedes whatever conference affiliation may exist. Not seeing much of a 'hurdle' to be gotten over. If anything, Army - Navy, associated with the AAC, is a giant bonus.