Bulls' 2005 football schedule unfilled

[GarySJ]

Jim,

USF's practice of demanding six home games, and then spending its few road openings on teams that will never visit RJS, leaves USF no availability to play the road end of any series. Here's our availability for the next few years:

2005

HOME (4): 3 BE, UCF

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Penn State

NEED: 2 home games

2006

HOME (4): 4 BE

AWAY (4): 3 BE, UCF

NEED: 2 home games, 1 away

2007

HOME (3): 3 BE

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Auburn

NEED: 3 home games

2008

HOME (4): 4 BE

AWAY (4): 3 BE, Florida

NEED: 2 home, 1 away

2009

HOME (3): 3 BE

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Florida

NEED: 3 home

That's 2 road availabilites, and 12 home games to be filled. And we need to spend one road game on a C-USA school per the terms of the exit agreement. And maybe both, if UCF bails on us in 2005-06 as rumored or if they don't count towards meeting the exit agreement. In any event, we have no room for home-and-aways.

Even if the 12-game schedule comes to the rescue in 2006, that's 6 away and 12 home. That would be better, but still leave a lot of home games to fill without virtue of an away trip.

Second, why do we assume that Woolard is looking for a 1-game contract (and the $400,000+ it would cost us)?

Since USF has no ability to play away ends, any game would have to be home-only. If we call some MAC school and ask for a game at RJS in 2005 with a return date in 2010 and a $50,000 buyout option, they'll just laugh at us.

Most I-A teams do home-and-home or 2-for-1 contracts.

See above. We'd have to play the away game(s) at some point, which we currently can't do.

We need to ditch the sixth home game or the one-way road trips. That's what's forcing USF into this absurd position of "we have to schedule 10 OOC games the next 5 years and they all have to be at home but we can't afford to buy a I-A home game or play the road end of a series." Mr. Woolard, the AD at Liberty is on line one.

[USFreak]

Jim,

USF's practice of demanding six home games, and then spending its few road openings on teams that will never visit RJS, leaves USF no availability to play the road end of any series. Here's our availability for the next few years:

2005

HOME (4): 3 BE, UCF

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Penn State

NEED: 2 home games

2006

HOME (4): 4 BE

AWAY (4): 3 BE, UCF

NEED: 2 home games, 1 away

2007

HOME (3): 3 BE

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Auburn

NEED: 3 home games

2008

HOME (4): 4 BE

AWAY (4): 3 BE, Florida

NEED: 2 home, 1 away

2009

HOME (3): 3 BE

AWAY (5): 4 BE, Florida

NEED: 3 home

That's 2 road availabilites, and 12 home games to be filled. And we need to spend one road game on a C-USA school per the terms of the exit agreement. And maybe both, if UCF bails on us in 2005-06 as rumored or if they don't count towards meeting the exit agreement. In any event, we have no room for home-and-aways.

Even if the 12-game schedule comes to the rescue in 2006, that's 6 away and 12 home. That would be better, but still leave a lot of home games to fill without virtue of an away trip.

Since USF has no ability to play away ends, any game would have to be home-only. If we call some MAC school and ask for a game at RJS in 2005 with a return date in 2010 and a $50,000 buyout option, they'll just laugh at us.

See above. We'd have to play the away game(s) at some point, which we currently can't do.

We need to ditch the sixth home game or the one-way road trips. That's what's forcing USF into this absurd position of "we have to schedule 10 OOC games the next 5 years and they all have to be at home but we can't afford to buy a I-A home game or play the road end of a series." Mr. Woolard, the AD at Liberty is on line one.

Beat that drum Gary.  Beat it.  

12 games will be a reality in 2006.  I'm not soothsayer, but I did nail the ACC/BE/CUSA meltdown.  I'll bet you your 2005 Hold 'Em winnings 2006 is the beginning of the 12-game season.

Now obviously you aren't proposing a 5-game home stand for that year.  6 Home/Away would be reasonable by everybody's standards.

I know we've all had this argument going for years (and yes I was on the 6 home game side of it for mathematical AND W/L reasons), but why argue something like this when the Bulls will have more games to work with and the 6th game is now easier to acquire?

I say they don't need to change a thing.  

So what does it do to 2005?

Easy.

Home -- 3 Big East, 1 UCF, 1 1-AA, Front end of a 1 and 1.

Away -- 4 Big East, Penn State.

Well ****, that was simple.   Somebody from the AA send me a job offer.

[GarySJ]

Well, Freakster, I see you're right on cue. Nice timing. But try reading the whole post next time:

Even if the 12-game schedule comes to the rescue in 2006, that's 6 away and 12 home (from 2005-09). That would be better, but still leave a lot of home games to fill without virtue of an away trip.

If the 12-game season is approved for 2006, which there's a good chance it will, then our home/away needs for 05-10 fall out as follows. I've included 2010 this time so it will be a cycle of an even number of years:

2005 (home/away games needed): 2/0

2006: 2/2

2007: 3/1

2008: 2/2

2009: 3/1

2010: 2/3

After that we'll have 14 home and 9 away spots to fill. Spend one pair on another mandated CUSA home-away and it's 13/8. And that's assuming the UCF series is played, and that it meets the CUSA exit requirement.

If all these road availabilities are wisely spent on home-away deals, that leaves us with 5 home-only dates over 6 years. If they have to be spent on I-AAs, at least that's close to an acceptable minimum. I'd prefer fewer such games but I'd be quibbling.

The problem is, "spending wisely" is such a big IF. I remember the last time we had this conversation, you purported to make it all work out (mostly by cancelling the future road-only games), and then USF booked another road-only trip, to Auburn. This whole thing doesn't work until USF realizes it can't play six at home AND road-only games. If Woolard decides to spend his 12th-game bounty more one-way trips, we'll be going through this conversation again. Hopefully DW is smarter than that.

If we have to play six at RJS to appease the Glazers or for some other stupid reason, so be it, but I'd like USF to stop hamstringing itself in the process. Woolard needs to apply some creative solutions to the problem. Here's one: 2-for-1 with FIU (or FAU). They'd probably go for it, we get two I-A home games out of the deal, they get a BCS home game, and we get a travelable road date.

But surely you must admit that the sixth home game has already done its damage. Without it, we'd already have Marshall and Bowling Green coming in to Tampa for 2005 and later, and UConn at RJS this year instead of Tennessee Tech.

I'll stop beating the drum when people stop asking why the band is out of rhythm.

[USFreak]

Well, Freakster, I see you're right on cue. Nice timing. But try reading the whole post next time:

If the 12-game season is approved for 2006, which there's a good chance it will, then our home/away needs for 05-10 fall out as follows. I've included 2010 this time so it will be a cycle of an even number of years:

2005 (home/away games needed): 2/0

2006: 2/2

2007: 3/1

2008: 2/2

2009: 3/1

2010: 2/3

After that we'll have 14 home and 9 away spots to fill. Spend one pair on another mandated CUSA home-away and it's 13/8. And that's assuming the UCF series is played, and that it meets the CUSA exit requirement.

If all these road availabilities are wisely spent on home-away deals, that leaves us with 5 home-only dates over 6 years. If they have to be spent on I-AAs, at least that's close to an acceptable minimum. I'd prefer fewer such games but I'd be quibbling.

The problem is, "spending wisely" is such a big IF. I remember the last time we had this conversation, you purported to make it all work out (mostly by cancelling the future road-only games), and then USF booked another road-only trip, to Auburn. This whole thing doesn't work until USF realizes it can't play six at home AND road-only games. If Woolard decides to spend his 12th-game bounty more one-way trips, we'll be going through this conversation again. Hopefully DW is smarter than that.

If we have to play six at RJS to appease the Glazers or for some other stupid reason, so be it, but I'd like USF to stop hamstringing itself in the process. Woolard needs to apply some creative solutions to the problem. Here's one: 2-for-1 with FIU (or FAU). They'd probably go for it, we get two I-A home games out of the deal, they get a BCS home game, and we get a travelable road date.

But surely you must admit that the sixth home game has already done its damage. Without it, we'd already have Marshall and Bowling Green coming in to Tampa for 2005 and later, and UConn at RJS this year instead of Tennessee Tech.

I'll stop beating the drum when people stop asking why the band is out of rhythm.

To misquote a former president: "It's the scheduling stupid!"  

Seriously, you are building a complex solution for a simple problem.  Put it to 12 and the problem is solved.

OK, so we got a lot of away onlys -- the obvious solution is a I-AA to mirror Auburn, Florida, Florida, Penn State.

Then you need a series of home and homes.  They HAVE to have these and there has to be three of them.

The goofy 4/3 configuration of the BE necessitates some sort of 1 and 1 and the CUSA team fills that void immediately.  I'd find it funny if it wasn't UCF.

Now the other two games obviously need to be 1 and 1s.  The problem is going to be finding a decent one.  I, for one, would have little problem with the service academies -- great draw and nobody turns their nose up at Army, Navy or Air Force like they do Troy State or North Texas.  The indys (Army/Navy) would be the best bet and Army has already made overtures they would continue on w/ USF.  Now the problem is they need to play in RJS again next year.  Maybe that's why USF lost. :-)

Absent that, USF really just needs to see that they've gained a little muscle (not a lot) by joining the Big East and find middle to lower tier BCS schools that think playing in the state of Florida is important to their recruiting efforts.

It is simple really.

[Bullshiznitz]

From looking at some future schedules, it appears Marshall needs a one and one for 05 and 06. The have two away already booked for 06, so they will be looking for a home game then, so I would image they might be willing to travel on 05.  

On a side note, in 2006, Texas Tech opens up with FIU, Sam Houston St. and Indiana St.   How can their fans stomach that opening schedule at home?

[Omniscientbull]

We discussed a series with Marshall and they wanted a 2 for 1.

[GarySJ]

No, they wanted a 1 for 1 they just didn't want the game at USF to be in 2004 b/c they also play at UCF that year. I saw no reason we couldn't play at Marshall in 2003, and have the return game in 2005 or even 2007. It's not like we didn't need home games even then.

[GarySJ]

Seriously, you are building a complex solution for a simple problem.  Put it to 12 and the problem is solved.

Remind me, how many games were we allowed to play in 2001 and 2002 per NCAA rules? How many did we play instead? How many road ends did we get out of the way so we could play I-A home games in 2003-2009?

We had the 12-game year before and it did us no good. Our only hope is that DW can utilize it better than LRS did. Which is very possible.

OK, so we got a lot of away onlys -- the obvious solution is a I-AA to mirror Auburn, Florida, Florida, Penn State.

If the 12th game is approved. And that still doesn't address 2005. And that's still an awful lot of I-AAs for a team that's trying to earn credibility compared to teams in the other BCS conferences.

The goofy 4/3 configuration of the BE necessitates some sort of 1 and 1 and the CUSA team fills that void immediately.

I view the "Big East conference schedule plus mandated C-USA game" paradigm as a total of 4 home and 4 away each year. Same as if we played an 8-game conference schedule.

Then you need a series of home and homes.  They HAVE to have these and there has to be three of them.

Agreed, but will USF actually do it or will they just book more one-way trips that will needlessly result in more I-AAs at home? We await further developments, but Woolard talking to current CUSA schools about 1-for-1s is promising.

I, for one, would have little problem with the service academies

Freak, are you familiar with the expression, "beggars can't be choosers"? Since we're once again trying to fill multiple slots at the last nanosecond, and also demanding home games, we better take any I-A team we can get.

Absent that, USF really just needs to see that they've gained a little muscle (not a lot) by joining the Big East and find middle to lower tier BCS schools that think playing in the state of Florida is important to their recruiting efforts.

As with the 12-game schedule, our location and conference alignment haven't helped so far. We don't need "Big East muscle", we just need the friggin' competence to work out a game contract and then honor it. It's just not that **** difficult, and I'm sick of it being a massive obstacle for our program every single year.

[USFreak]

Remind me, how many games were we allowed to play in 2001 and 2002 per NCAA rules? How many did we play instead? How many road ends did we get out of the way so we could play I-A home games in 2003-2009?

I agree, but let's not go overboard.  USF was an independent and unnamed indys don't exactly get to make the call who they schedule.  

I think you acknowledge these next two points, but sometimes I'm not too sure.

1) USF had to win games.  That was first and foremost.  People forget about the Drakes and Elons, but remember the 8-3 and 9-2s.  That's important and it did more to drive this program

2) The 6 home games were highly instrumental in that.  USF was not USM with anyone, anyplace, anytime.  They won for YEARS at home and never lost.  RJS and the 6-games played into that.  

3) That success led to good things like a conference home (albeit late), new facilities, coach retention, and, by God, the Big East.

Looking back and criticizing what looked to be boneheaded scheduling moves is counterproductive.  This was not Lee Roy Selmon.  This was Jim Leavitt channeling Bill Snyder.  Kansas State is routinely criticized for OOC pansies, but they win more than they lose.  Even a 6-5 record gives a fanbase hope for the next season.  See UCF and 0-8 for what you don't want to do (knowing of course if you lose to Buffalo you have more problems than scheduling).

But their model is such where they aim for 2 for 1s with Syracuse, WVU, Auburn, etc. and then they get beat on both ends - home and away.  It demoralizes the fanbase and since most of the games are front-loaded (early in the season) by the time the Knights find their way to conference play they have nothing to play for (figuratively).

We had the 12-game year before and it did us no good. Our only hope is that DW can utilize it better than LRS did. Which is very possible.

Indeed, and there is the point.  I'm of the camp that if you do schedule a team out of your league (ie. Auburn, Florida, etc. -- AWAY) you need something to balance it out.  I-AA games do have a purpose.  Now I think you end the scheduling at 1 a year, but in a 12-game season nobody is going to fault you for it.

The challenge for Woolard is finding the "right" team.  Beggars can't be choosers, but Woolard needs to find two teams (basically two outside of the CUSA 1/1 deal) that:

1) Put a fair number of asses in the seats

2) Doesn't look too embarassing if USF loses on the road to them later on down the line.

The candidates are the usual suspects -- lower tier BCS teams, a handful of MWC teams, and some CUSA teams.

You don't do a 1 for 1 with Troy or FAU.  

If the 12th game is approved. And that still doesn't address 2005.

My suspicion is 2005 will be handled as follows:

Home:  3 BE/UCF/Army/1-AA

Away:  4 BE/Penn State

Army then becomes an away the next season:

2006

Home:  4 BE/1-1 AA/Tulane (or somebody of that ilk)

Away:  3 BE/Army/Auburn/UCF

The 12-game thing will be approved.  I have no doubt.

As with the 12-game schedule, our location and conference alignment haven't helped so far. We don't need "Big East muscle", we just need the friggin' competence to work out a game contract and then honor it. It's just not that **** difficult, and I'm sick of it being a massive obstacle for our program every single year.

Again, EMU, Bowling Green and some of those "disasters" were not truly disasters.  The big goal of this program was to get out of CDOA and play a higher level of football.  Now barring USF busting into the SEC or ACC they've really managed to pilot their way deep into the ranks in 8 years.   The "disasters", you have to believe, were by design.  I do and I constantly look at Snyder's moves to validate that.  Winning is everything.  A 3-4 season doesn't help, but this "lame duck" year is tough for a lot of other reasons than just rebuilding.

The only true disaster that I can point to in the past four years was the I-AA scholarship requirement that burst the bowl bubble last year.  A win vs. TCU or UAB would have nixed that, but the bigger point is that 7-4 teams GO to bowls.  They don't go to bowls if the opponent is not a qualified opponent.  That was the only true misstep and it was costly because the Tangerine Bowl had open arms.

[Guest guest]

What I haven't seen mentioned is any word on seasons beyond 2005.  So, while USF is looking over the ugly chicks for 2005 dates, all the other forward looking folks are setting up their dance cards for 2006.

Same f***ing problem every year.

What a bunch of friggin idiots.

Just sign 2 ****ty I-AA teams for '05 and get it over and done with and start working on 2006 games.

All this crap about being I-AA and not getting games down the road or being new to I-A or being new to CUSA or now being new to the BE are all excuses.

You know we could have scheduled that roady to Auburn in 2000 - they play I-AA games and we would have qualified then.

If schools like Troy State can get a 1 for 1 with Missouri why can't USF?  What does Troy offer that USF doesn't or can't?  Other schools can get games but USF can't - why is that?  I'll tell you why, because we are ALWAYS behind the 8 ball as far as scheduling goes.  Here we are with just a month left in the '04 season and we still don't have a completed '05 schedule yet all the other non-BCS teams do (or at least the ones with any real credibility).  

Come this time next year we will be scrambling to fill out our '06 schedule.  Too much time, effort and energy are being spent on '05 and we are missing golden opportunities for '06 and '07.

What a load of ****!