Bulls' 2005 football schedule unfilled

[Jim Johnson]

I am so tired of this. Again with the six-home-games bull****. Memo to Doug Woolard: just call Charleston Southern now and get it over with.

ALL USF OOC HOME OPPONENTS, EXCEPT FOR THE MANDATED C-USA GAME, WILL BE I-AA UNTIL THE SIXTH HOME GAME IS DROPPED. Period. End of discussion. Unless we find someone dumb enough to fall for the "buy out the return game" trick, or stop booking one-way trips to Penn State and Auburn.

As for those of you longtimers who are sick of hearing me make this argument, deal with it. I'll stop b*tching about it when it stops crippling our schedule, and by extension our attendance/TV revenue/power ratings EVERY SINGLE YEAR. It's already cost us one bowl game.

Oh, and we'd we only need one home game for 2005 if we hadn't cancelled the Bowling Green series before this season... tell me again why we did that?

Gary -- I know you hate this six-home-games "requirement" but it may be a financial one.  Figure 22,000 tickets sold x $24 per ticket (not counting student tickets)... that would be $528,000 -- I don't know that we could make that much with a road game.

6 games x 22,000 x $24 = 3,168,000

To make that number in 5 games, we would need to average 26,300 in sold tickets...

And since we need to grow the athletic budget by $10 million per year, can we afford to give up 1/2 a million??

Just a point to consider.  I know you may not change your mind.

[MikeG]

Having a 1-AA home game per year is not exactly unheard of, even for the biggest of programs. So I expect that we will continue to see that happen for quite some time. That doesn't make it right for the fans-- but it seems to be the hand we are dealt.

So assuming we get at least one 1-AA team for a home agame next year-- that makes the real decision whether we take a pay day game, try to get a home and home going, give a payday game, or grab yet another 1-AA.

At this point, I don't know which is the best idea. The away games-- even when we get a healthy check for 1/2 a miilion or so-- still end up costing us some cash to travel to. The ooponent might be worth seeing but at some point we are going to need to get some sort of home and home thing going with someone. Who that might be is debatable. I know that we are not even a consideration for these teams listed like Michigan -- all thsoe schools have immense home stadiums and giant crowds that generate almost our entire season gate in a single game. So the payout would be insane and we couldn't possibly make money on those deals-- even with RJS busting at the seams. More likely, we might be able to persuade some of our old CUSA buddies to keep some of these ties together. Of the ones not heading to the BE, the best of the group might be Army in terms of travelers (and now, unfortunately, revenge factor). Or perhaps Southern Miss. One team we never got to play -- Tulane-- might be a GREAT home and home situation to be in for both sets of fans.

One thing is certain-- I woudln't want to have to face this as an AD. We really need to whip that schedule into shape pronto but it seems to me that our conference shakeup situation is leaving some unanswered thoughts. Who do we play etc as far as CUSA is concerned-- is the UCF game the only one we get or is it possible that we can drag Tulane in as a home opponent next year with return trip to them in 2007.  The whole situation seems very muddled and I don't necessarily blame it completely on the AD office-- these conference changes along with moves to 1-A and our insistence on the 6 home games is limiting our options. Perhaps in 2005 we need to bite the bullet-- pay FAMU to come here for one of those home games and enter a home and home with someone else where we are on the road initially (make sure the buyout is HUGE! this time). That will help our 2006 situation as well.

As for the Bowling Green situation-- that is one thing I find regretable. That wouold have been a nice home and home to keep on our radar. But I think we took the payday route and cancelled it to go get our butts beat by South Carolina instead. I don't think that was a particularly wise manuever.

[GarySJ]

Gary -- I know you hate this six-home-games "requirement" but it may be a financial one.  Figure 22,000 tickets sold x $24 per ticket (not counting student tickets)... that would be $528,000 -- I don't know that we could make that much with a road game.

6 games x 22,000 x $24 = 3,168,000

To make that number in 5 games, we would need to average 26,300 in sold tickets...

And since we need to grow the athletic budget by $10 million per year, can we afford to give up 1/2 a million??

Just a point to consider.  I know you may not change your mind.

Believe me I've considered that, but you still can't get there from here. For one thing it costs at least $400K to get a I-A team to visit you without a return date. There goes most of your $500K extra-game revenue right there. Add in the money we flushed down the toilet buying out Bowling Green (at least $150K I imagine), and the lower walkup attendance for I-AA games, and the fact that USF doesn't make money of concessions/parking, and the loss of any potential TV revenue, and the precious bowl game it's already cost us, and the whole thing is quickly a net loss.

The model you suggest makes sense if you're Florida, who sells 80K tickets regardless of opponent, who doesn't need the game for TV because all their other games are on TV, and whose postseason credentials won't be questioned based on its OOC schedule.

I'm now convinced that this is a codicil of USF's Raymond James lease. It just has to be. The Glaz-- er, I mean "TSA" is making us play six games at RJS as part of the terms of USF's lease, so USF can be making maximum money for THEM in the form of the aforementioned money that USF doesn't get to keep.

It'd be nice to confirm this, but after hearing Woolard become the third USF AD to worship the false god of six home games, I'm certain of it.

[Jim Johnson]

Believe me I've considered that, but you still can't get there from here. For one thing it costs at least $400K to get a I-A team to visit you without a return date. There goes most of your $500K extra-game revenue right there. Add in the money we flushed down the toilet buying out Bowling Green (at least $150K I imagine), and the lower walkup attendance for I-AA games, and the fact that USF doesn't make money of concessions/parking, and the loss of any potential TV revenue, and the precious bowl game it's already cost us, and the whole thing is quickly a net loss.

Gary...

First, I am not trying to argue with you -- just trying to get a better picture of why you feel the way you do.  You raise valid points to consider.

Second, why do we assume that Woolard is looking for a 1-game contract (and the $400,000+ it would cost us)?  Most I-A teams do home-and-home or 2-for-1 contracts.  For exampe, Nebraska traveled to Hattiesburg last year, Southern Miss traveled to Lincoln this year.  Moreover, USF has open home and away dates in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and beyond.  We could easily commit to multi-game contracts (see Knights, UCF).

So, the math would work on a multi-game contract.  It only fails when we have to pay a I-A team to come to Tampa to play us.  Or am I missing something here?

[WoolyBully]

I'm now convinced that this is a codicil of USF's Raymond James lease. It just has to be. The Glaz-- er, I mean "TSA" is making us play six games at RJS as part of the terms of USF's lease, so USF can be making maximum money for THEM in the form of the aforementioned money that USF doesn't get to keep.

That does not sound - given everything else Glazerish -  too far fetched.  ;D

[MikeG]

Maybe we get a rental discount if we play X number of events there per year. Shouldn't this contract be in public records somewhere considering the nature of the CITS (Community Investment Tax Stadium)?

[E.T.]

Thanx 79,

Do we know when the actual schedule will be released ?

Go BULLS !!!

[GarySJ]

Maybe we get a rental discount if we play X number of events there per year.

A plausible alternate theory. But I can't imagine such a discount being so great that it's worth it to USF to play unprofitable games.

Let's say the TSA does provide some incentive to USF to play more games at RJS, so TSA can make more concession/parking money. Logically, this incentive can't be more than the extra income TSA would expect to make. TSA wouldn't give USF a $300K incentive to play a game that makes $200K for TSA.

Based on the amount of concession/parking sales that an event attended by 25,000 people ought to generate, I can't imagine a TSA-to-USF incentive being more than $250K per game. I also can't imagine this amount being the overwhelming factor in all USF scheduling decisions, when the school can make an easy $400K playing a one-off away game.

Shouldn't this contract be in public records somewhere considering the nature of the CITS (Community Investment Tax Stadium)?

It should be, but I doubt the TSA or USFAA would fax it to you if you called and asked. Someone may have to do a little Public Records snooping at the library.

[TexanMark]

Syracuse has the opposite problem in 2005--too many games.  They will be dropping two of these three teams next year (Boston College, Buffalo or Toledo) as they fit the new BE teams into the schedule.  Your AD should contact SU and see if they can work a deal to take two of these teams.

http://www.suathletics.com/sidebar.asp?id=313

[Guest HowieP1]

On a related matter, concerning our proposed marketing/advertising agreement with the Bucs, which was expected to increase USF football attendance, I understand that did not happen because of issues the NCAA had with it. I don't know the particulars other than such a "relationship" between a College and Pro team was somehow questionable. Perhaps, we can do something with the Galzers' individually, rather than as a Corporation.