Jump to content


UCF Knights

Community Reputation


About SquareKnight

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

549 profile views
  1. I actually agree with most of this post. I agree that UCF's scheduling philosophy may change for a variety of reasons. The following information is not intended as an argument, just to provide factual clarification for some things posted by both of us. I don't recall ever saying "UCF doesn't need the money from 2 for 1 deals." But in reality, we don't. Away only payday games pay a higher guarantee than the third game in 2-for-1 deals, and UCF's home game revenue produces more profit than the guarantees paid for the third game in 2-for-1 deals. So, strictly from an income standpoint, a 2-for-1 deal is only the THIRD best option for UCF to generate the maximum amount of income. Yes, all debt carries some amount of risk. But risk associated with UCF's football stadium is EXTREMELY minimal. In fact, in the fiscal year ending June 2017 (covering the 2016 football season, before UCF came anywhere close to selling out season tickets and with prices lower than we have now) the stadium corporation transferred $5.147 million to the UCF athletics association after satisfying all debt obligations for the year. For the fiscal year ending June 2018 (covering the 2017 football season) that number increased to $6.567 million. This indicates that UCF Athletics is nowhere near worried about the stadium corporation generating the income required for debt payments. Yearly debt payments on UCF's stadium are about $3.6 million. Stadium Corporation revenue from premium seating (suites), naming rights, commissions and sponsorships totals $4.009 million for the fiscal year ending June 2018. That LITERALLY means that UCF doesn't need to sell a single ticket all season, and there is still enough revenue to pay the stadium's debt service.
  2. You're hilarious! First you post something that is nowhere close to being true. Then, in response to a post where I stated "UCF uses the money [from the extra home game] to increase its GENERAL athletic budget," you try to insinuate that my post was not about the money, when the quote above CLEARLY indicates that UCF's scheduling of extra home games IS about the money. Then you continue your hissy fit by claiming that I "just started spouting off random numbers." In fact, I only mentioned one number...at the END of my post, after pointing out multiple things that expose your false statement. And it's not a random number, it is derived from official government reports that are compiled and reported by USA Today here... https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
  3. Of course it's about the money. I clearly said that right in my post. Perhaps you might want to try a remedial course in reading comprehension. I was just correcting a mischaracterization of someone who tried to insinuate that our on campus stadium was somehow a strain on our budget. The money we get from our extra home games goes to increase our overall budget, not to "barely make the payments on the stadium."
  4. You clearly don't know the facts. UCF's stadium revenue is FAR more than what is necessary to pay the debt service. In fact, each year the stadium corporation transfers a significant amount of money to the UCF Athletics Association from the PROFIT it makes on the stadium. UCF uses the money from the extra home game to increase its GENERAL athletic budget...which by the way is over $15 million MORE than USF's budget.
  5. a 34-14 win by FSU vs USF falls into the category of guaranteed win more than a one point Pitt win on a trick play in the last minute of a game. The college football world knows why Florida and Alabama agreed to those 2-for-1 series. They don't expect you to be a tough game.
  6. Gotta love how usf fans have to depend on 25,000 visiting FSU fans for their claim they had a game with higher attendance than the Knights stadium holds!
  7. Waver for two years has already been approved. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/college/memphis-tigers/2019/10/20/aac-football-gets-waiver-approved-championship-game-moving-11-teams/3957296002/
  8. Because of your irrational dislike for the best football team in the American conference since it was formed, I know how hard you REALLY want to ignore an actual screen shot of the NCAA record book associating the words NATIONAL CHAMPION with the formula that ranked UCF #1. I feel sorry that you guys have not come close to experiencing the highs that UCF fans have been able to experience. So sad. Here's a question. If it was as clear cut as you claim it is, then why doesn't he NCAA simply make a modification to that page in the NATIONAL CHAMPONS section of the document to say 1896 to 1996. And why doesn't the NCAA simply remove UCF from the NATIONAL CHAMPIONS section of the document?
  9. I'll do you one better than a "copy and paste." How about a screen shot of the actual document itself! Notice the circled parts...National Champion...and the effective dates 1896 to PRESENT. Not 1896 to 2013 or 1896 to 1996 as you seem to believe.
  10. Notice the NCAA record book uses the term "CFP Champion" and not "National Champion" in that paragraph. One of several indications that there are multiple ways to be listed in the record book as a national champion.
  11. I notice you skipped right over the second bullet of point #2...so let me show it to you again: - If the NCAA really stopped considering the polls/formulas they previously considered, why do they still list them (and the teams they rank as #1) as PRESENT selectors in the official record book?
  12. Naturally from a UCF perspective...if you try to judge an entire program across all of the last 22 years, I am not sure how USF could be viewed as ahead of UCF. On Field Success: USF had moderate success under two of it's head coaches. Levitt had a .625 winning percentage and 3-2 bowl record. Best record was 9-4 (multiple times) and best finish in the Big East was 4th place (multiple times). Best wins over teams that finished in the Top 25...2005 Louisville, 2006 WVU, 2007 (best season) Auburn & WVU, 2009 WVU...a lot of success in this category. Taggart had a low overall winning percentage due to taking over a bad team from Skip Holtz, but improved the team significantly to 11-2 and a Top 20 ranking within 4 years. Though Strong started out great with Taggart's team, it has all been downhill since then. After his failures at Texas and now at USF, it seems that Strong will not be the coach to lead USF back. UCF has had high level success under three different coaches over a 10 year period of time since 2010. That includes, five conference championships, multiple Top 20 finishes, two Top 10 finishes, and two BCS/NY6 bowl wins over Top 10 teams. UCF has had extreme lows (multiple winless seasons)...but also extreme highs. Even if you call this category a draw, UCF's recent success and name recognition probably gives us an edge. Facilities: UCF has had a lead in football related facilities all along. The Wayne Densch Sports Center opened in 2003 for football with excellent weight room and meeting facilities. The weight room was recently upgraded significantly. The indoor practice facility opened in 2005 and has been improved since then. A new facility being built between the two above facilities is going to provide a better locker room and meeting rooms for football. While USF has been and plans to continue improving its facilities, they have always been behind UCF. Ticket Sales Revenue and Donations: UCF receives significantly more revenue from ticket sales and donations than USF does. Ticket Sales (All tickets...not just football): UCF $6 million - USF $3 million Donations: UCF $10 million - USF $2 million Overall Athletic Budget: The most recent report (2018-2018) shows UCF's overall athletic budget is 20% larger than USF's...$61.1 million vs 50.6 million. That $11 million gap has been growing larger every year since both programs joined the same conference. I can't find the data right now, but I believe that the gap was between $3 million and $5 million for the 2013-2014 year.
  13. Funny how south florida fans like to bury their head in the sand to ignore what is right in front of them. 1. UCF is doing EXACTLY the same thing that many well known schools have done through the years. Utah claims 2008 based on the Anderson/Hester formula Ohio State claims 1970 based on the National Football Foundation poll Alabama claims 1941 based on the Houlgate formula Oklahoma St recently put up signage in their stadium for 1945 (the AFCA retroactively named OK St their national champions for that year, even though AFCA is not listed by the NCAA record book for prior or subsequent years). Minnesota claims 1904 based on Billingsley Texas A&M has signage on their stadium for 1919 (National Championship Foundation) and 1927 ( Sagarin). Neither formula/ranking existed the year the championship is claimed for. Both were done retroactively. USC claims 1928 (Dickinson & Sagarin) and 1939 (Dickinson) Pitt claims 1929/1931/1934 (Parke Davis) 1936 (Houlgate & Boand) There are other examples. 2. For those of you clueless enough to claim that the system "changed with the advent of the BCS +1 formula or the College Football Playoff, consider this. - The NCAA FBS Record Book linked earlier in this thread LITERALLY has a section on page 108 titled "National Champion Major Selections (1896 to PRESENT)." Notice it does NOT say 1896 to 2014 (the year prior to the beginning of the CFP)...or 1896 to 1997 (the year prior to the beginning of the BCS system). - If the NCAA really stopped considering the polls/formulas they previously considered, why do they still list them (and the teams they rank as #1) as PRESENT selectors in the official record book?
  • Create New...