At one point, USF's '17 schedule had muscle

[CousinRicky]

1 hour ago, Vinsanity8404 said:

I think the AAC is already favored by the media substantially enough that any 1 loss team from our conference will be preferred over 1 loss teams from other conferences. 

I could even see a two loss AAC champ get in over a 1 loss sunbelt.

Bottom line is, this year we control our own destiny

Pretty much the case every year,  no?

[JTrue]

1 hour ago, GaUSFBull said:

There are some types on this board that will show no mercy to athletics despite these facts.  

We had 3 1/2 years notice to replace the MSU game. We created an entire football team from scratch in 2 years. I feel like we had ample time to find a decent (not great, not even good) opponent.

[NewEnglandBull]

2 hours ago, WWMJD said:

I always make it a point to bring this up. Just like the Gators ran after we gave them a scare. There is not much incentive for a big name team to play a school like USF right now - we are no cupcake, but still - if they win, they should have won, if they lost, it's an embarrassment (at least in the eyes of the media and fans of that program).

This is true to a degree. But the risk also includes the fact that they would have lost/beat a USF top 25 team. Thus, we would enhance the schedule if a team is looking for that. I would believe some of the lower tier programs in the P5 would look at this as an opportunity (Iowa State, Vandy, Wake Forest, Boston College, etc.). 

Edited August 7, 2017 by NewEnglandBull

[WWMJD]

1 hour ago, JTrue said:

We had 3 1/2 years notice to replace the MSU game. We created an entire football team from scratch in 2 years. I feel like we had ample time to find a decent (not great, not even good) opponent.

If you were an AD at a big name P5 school, and were approached to fill a gap in your schedule (which is likely not even there to begin with), and you had the choice between 1) team that gets no real national respect, and has an objectively crappy record, but still picks off at least one top 25 team every year so they might beat you; or 2) team that gets no real national respect, has an objectively crappy record, but you are confident you can beat; or 3) team that gets legit national respect in a P5 conference, but might beat you; which game are you scheduling? In the preceding few years, we had taken down a significant number of good teams but still lacked any national respect.

The proof is in the pudding. There is a reason that MSU bailed, UF bailed, etc., so it's not going to be easy to turn around and replace them on short notice (when everyone else has their schedule basically full) with a big name opponent.

[JoeB]

Surprised that buy out was so low...$250 K is peanuts to the P5.

[JTrue]

11 minutes ago, WWMJD said:

If you were an AD at a big name P5 school, and were approached to fill a gap in your schedule (which is likely not even there to begin with), and you had the choice between 1) team that gets no real national respect, and has an objectively crappy record, but still picks off at least one top 25 team every year so they might beat you; or 2) team that gets no real national respect, has an objectively crappy record, but you are confident you can beat; or 3) team that gets legit national respect in a P5 conference, but might beat you; which game are you scheduling? In the preceding few years, we had taken down a significant number of good teams but still lacked any national respect.

The proof is in the pudding. There is a reason that MSU bailed, UF bailed, etc., so it's not going to be easy to turn around and replace them on short notice (when everyone else has their schedule basically full) with a big name opponent.

3 1/2 years is not short notice and the proof is in the fact that our fellow conference mates that have had a hell of a lot better last 5-7 years don't have a strength of schedule in the triple digits. 

 

So people were afraid to schedule us in 2014-2015 when MSU and Wisconsin bailed? Or were we not good enough to schedule?

Edited August 7, 2017 by JTrue

[WWMJD]

12 minutes ago, JTrue said:

3 1/2 years is not short notice and the proof is in the fact that our fellow conference mates that have had a hell of a lot better last 5-7 years don't have a strength of schedule in the triple digits. 

We will have to agree to disagree on whether 3 years is short notice to replace a game like this. Most schools have their OOC games scheduled years in advance - I mean ****, we've got games scheduled out to 8+ years from now.

But those teams had not just finished knocking off ranked team after ranked team for the previous 5 years. We had a well-deserved reputation as a giant killer when these scheduling changes started, and had just made a splash hire at HC. Nobody was running scared from Tulsa and the like.

Even if there's blame to go around, it's probably not the failure to find a top notch replacement (which I contend was basically impossible that close to the game), but in the planning process originally: buyout for MSU should have been more than 250k or we should have gotten home field first, etc. But I think it's absurd to assume there was some awesome option just sitting on the back burner eager to play us and waiting to be snagged.

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by WWMJD

[Ionbull]

The Illinois home and now home was scheduled in 2013, probably right after MSU bailed. They didn't anticipate Wisco pushing the game back either. 

The hard part in replacing either one of those for a home game is getting a P5 team to agree on a Home and home that starts in Tampa. 

[Triple B]

39 minutes ago, JTrue said:

3 1/2 years is not short notice and the proof is in the fact that our fellow conference mates that have had a hell of a lot better last 5-7 years don't have a strength of schedule in the triple digits.

May or may not be true. The proof claim would certainly be more justified if you can show where these mates with lot better 2017 sos than us, and a helluvalot better last 5-7 years, filled out their 2017 ooc schedule after MSU and Wisconsin backed out on us. Still wouldn't be definitive proof because it wouldn't mean those ooc teams would have been willing to schedule us but it would certainly add more bite to your claim.

[JTrue]

We got notice of the MSU cancellation in the Spring of 2014. 

2010 8-5

2011 5-7

2012 3-9

2013 2-10 (McNeese happened this year, a far cry from "giant killer")

I don't think we were scaring anyone off. Also, I'm not at all saying we could have easily snatched up Alabama as a replacement, but I definitely think we could have done better than Stony Brook and UMass. The fact that we didn't isn't proof it was impossible either.

UConn adds a home and home with Missouri 2015 and 2017, signed in September of 2014. Here's a SEC team adding an AAC team 1 calendar year before the first game and less than 3 years for both games. This satisfies both Trip's request for a comparable team and WWMJD's request of a quick scheduling turnaround. 

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091814aaa.html

(This is just sort of a general reply to the previous posts.)

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by JTrue