Texas A&M Football
Sponsored by

let's do away with pointless non conference games

4,116 Views | 42 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by maroonthrunthru
Tibbers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
schmellba99 said:

AggieDub14 said:

Then schedule a scrimmage or two in August against SHSU and Texas State.
And as soon as a stud player gets a high ankle spraign in that scrimmage game, folks like you will be wailing and moaning and gnashing teeth at the stupidity and absurdity of a meaningless scrimmage game that does nothing but expose players to potential injury.

You can't have a schedule full of marquee games, anybody that thinks you can is a moron. There is a reason that pretty much through all of CFB history there are tune up games and the late season R&R game - because the tune up games give you a chance to polish things off in a game environment that cannot be replicated in practice or scrimmage.

The late season R&R game gives the team a chance to essentially back off a bit, gives some players a week to heal up from nicks and dings, gives younger guys an opportunity to get game time in that they probably wouldn't have otherwise, etc.

It really isn't hard to comprehend. The entitlement of some that they think they are owed a prime time powerhouse matchup every single week amazes me. It shouldn't, but it does.


You mistake desire for entitlement. Schools only get to use their home stadiums at most 7 times in a year. 7 days. That's it. As we have seen with attendance numbers for the past decade, fans do not show for non conference games against lesser opponents especially late in the season. If the NFL can satisfy playing top teams for 16 weeks, so can college football players. Did you know that many of those NFL players also played college football? It's a shocking statistic, I know.

If you are concerned with R&R, simply add another off week and start the season at the end of August. Simple solutions. Again, even in tune up games, players can get hurt. It's a violent sport, you can't get around that but to hold their hands and say "you need to pay other teams to play you so you can have a game of rest" is silly. The difference would not be great and an expanded playoff would not warrant their need.

Please understand that the current structure is changing anyway and it's time to make Kyle Field as viable as possible. By rewarding top seeded teams with home games through the playoff run, you would bring about an amazing atmosphere to Kyle Field the likes of which have never been seen.

Simply play the national championship at a neutral site and call it a season. The matchups throughout the year would be incredible and a 16 team playoff would be glorious. Certainly more glorious than paying Utah state to come to Kyle. No thanks, no need to game the system to run the table with a playoff structure like that. We are headed to super conferences anyway. Embrace it.
ArlingtonAg2015
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tibbers said:

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat, at home nonetheless. It's ridiculous. If everyone played a competitive schedule, all would win, more the fans. Who cares if someone goes 12-0. It doesn't help a soul. It only serves to muddy the waters and provide a ****ty product for the fans. Let's move away from this tired paradigm into something truly beautiful. On top of that, to still provide incentive for winning teams, give them the home game in playoff games as we make our way to a 16 team playoff. That's the true nature of competitive sport. Let's get to this necessary push to a greater product. Thanks!
Who wants to see any team play against someone they know think they will beat, at home nonetheless.
1991 Kyle Field - Tulsa 35, Ags 34
2008 Kyle Field Arkansas State 18, Ags 14
2022 Kyle Field - Appalachian State 17, Ags 14

rootube
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can you imagine how freaking wild it would be for A&M to go play a playoff game in the big house in a blizzard. Or better yet get them at home. The playoff is going to be amazing and people will scratch their heads about why we ever played in the idiotic bowl system.
Iowaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not against changing the scheduling set-up, I'm just saying why bowl games at the beginning of the season wouldn't work. It makes no sense to play a premium game at a neutral site, especially one that isn't close to either team. It's why I think all the playoff rounds except championship game should be hosted at the higher seed's campus, not a neutral site bowl game.


1. I think the SEC is going to go to 9 (or 10 games) eventually. I think the league wants to figure out the schedule and I also think they are still open to adding new teams so the decision is just delayed.

2. I think the notion that a cupcake home games in two years (2 games) brings in more revenue than another SEC home game every other year is not true. For me, if ULM and Bowling Green (next year) are worth about $20/ticket, a Tennessee or Florida ticket is worth at least $75 for the one year, and I'll gladly watch the road game the next year on my TV at home. That also doesn't factor in school visibility. ULM & Bowling Green type-games only get notice if the team struggles. The SEC opponent at least has the possibility to be a nationally televised game, if that matters.


3. I think there is a great possibility that ABC/ESPN is OK with the extra OOC games for a few years to push some people to watch games on ESPN+. I am sure their long term goal is more SEC games, but they are going to put games like Samford at Auburn or Charlotte at Florida on ESPN+ and that will get some people to subscribe for a month.
rootube
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You don't need tune up non-conference games. You can just play the real games and find out who is ready. Also expanding the playoff will make it so you can lose a game or two and not be eliminated from contention. Expanded playoffs also reward a team that improves over the year and is hot like the '12 Aggie team for example.
Tibbers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ArlingtonAg2015 said:

Tibbers said:

Who wants to see any team play against someone they know they will beat, at home nonetheless. It's ridiculous. If everyone played a competitive schedule, all would win, more the fans. Who cares if someone goes 12-0. It doesn't help a soul. It only serves to muddy the waters and provide a ****ty product for the fans. Let's move away from this tired paradigm into something truly beautiful. On top of that, to still provide incentive for winning teams, give them the home game in playoff games as we make our way to a 16 team playoff. That's the true nature of competitive sport. Let's get to this necessary push to a greater product. Thanks!
Who wants to see any team play against someone they know think they will beat, at home nonetheless.
1991 Kyle Field - Tulsa 35, Ags 34
2008 Kyle Field Arkansas State 18, Ags 14
2022 Kyle Field - Appalachian State 17, Ags 14


did you enjoy those games?
Tibbers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iowaggie said:

I'm not against changing the scheduling set-up, I'm just saying why bowl games at the beginning of the season wouldn't work. It makes no sense to play a premium game at a neutral site, especially one that isn't close to either team. It's why I think all the playoff rounds except championship game should be hosted at the higher seed's campus, not a neutral site bowl game.


1. I think the SEC is going to go to 9 (or 10 games) eventually. I think the league wants to figure out the schedule and I also think they are still open to adding new teams so the decision is just delayed.

2. I think the notion that a cupcake home games in two years (2 games) brings in more revenue than another SEC home game every other year is not true. For me, if ULM and Bowling Green (next year) are worth about $20/ticket, a Tennessee or Florida ticket is worth at least $75 for the one year, and I'll gladly watch the road game the next year on my TV at home. That also doesn't factor in school visibility. ULM & Bowling Green type-games only get notice if the team struggles. The SEC opponent at least has the possibility to be a nationally televised game, if that matters.


3. I think there is a great possibility that ABC/ESPN is OK with the extra OOC games for a few years to push some people to watch games on ESPN+. I am sure their long term goal is more SEC games, but they are going to put games like Samford at Auburn or Charlotte at Florida on ESPN+ and that will get some people to subscribe for a month.
completely agree. Bowl games at the beginning of the season make no sense. All games matter, neutral site games should go to the way of the dodo outside of the national championship game. The more potential home games, the better. Incentives matter. Clearly the bowl game structure provide no incentive as even the players don't feel compelled to play in them. There's not a doubt in my mind that players would feel compelled to play in a playoff as the incentive is crowned king of college football. This only helps their draft stock and having potential games at home only helps the schools and the communities that support them. It's a no brainer for me.
maroonthrunthru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agreed !!
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.