Future Schedules

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
User avatar
3rdGenAggie
Pick'em Champ - '16 Kickoff
Posts: 12297
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:53 pm
Location: The City of the Salty Lake
Has thanked: 3945 times
Been thanked: 2279 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by 3rdGenAggie » September 14th, 2021, 10:44 am

StanfordAggie wrote:
September 12th, 2021, 9:30 am

My stance on this subject is the same that it has been for many years: If we have to play a money game, I'm fine with a 2-for-1 with BYU or Utah if the extra road game is a money game. Right now our budget requires us to play a money game every year. Most of the time it's a game in a distant corner of the country where very few fans can attend. And it's usually a guaranteed loss with a significant risk of injury to our players. If we can replace basically a guaranteed loss against Alabama with a winnable game in Salt Lake City or Provo that is an easy drive for our fans, we would be stupid not to do it.

To be clear, I am only okay with this if they are paying us the market rate for money games (i.e., the same that Alabama would pay us). If they are only offering $500k and we would have to play another money game, then no deal. And if we get to the point where our team no longer needs to play money games at all, then also no deal. But if we have to play a money game, a local money game against a winnable opponent is much better than a guaranteed loss far from home.
This is exactly my opinion on the matter.


"I have no idea what I'm doing, but I know I'm doing it really, really well." -Andy Dwyer

Aggie84025
Posts: 9274
Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
Has thanked: 2685 times
Been thanked: 4247 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by Aggie84025 » September 14th, 2021, 11:02 am

AggieFBObsession wrote:
September 14th, 2021, 10:24 am
I think you're getting at the real problem related to BYU and Utah getting egos that are too large. We potentially have less home games. We can't afford to lose the fan experience in the Mav. We must schedule teams that will give us 1-1.
We are not the only school with this problem. A lot of G5 teams struggle to get good home games. USU should be working earnestly with AAC, MAC, C-USA and SBC to get good home/home games. Below are a list of home/home games I would love to see USU have scheduling agreements with. In no particular order.

App State- would love to go to a game in Boone
Coastal Carolina
Marshall
Western Kentucky
Memphis
SMU
Toledo
North Texas
Louisiana
LA Tech
Troy
Ohio
Tulsa



User avatar
NowhereLandAggie
Posts: 4298
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 4:25 pm
Has thanked: 492 times
Been thanked: 569 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by NowhereLandAggie » September 14th, 2021, 11:25 am

Full wrote:
September 14th, 2021, 9:39 am
swordsman1989 wrote:
September 13th, 2021, 8:00 pm
I have always hated money games. It is a vicious cycle that has, IMHO, done significant harm to USU football since the mid 1980s. Lose big in one or two games to start the season, fans give up on the season even before it gets going, the lack of fan interest drives the need to schedule more money games. You look at the late 1980s years where the Aggies would start each season by playing two money games, Utah, and sometimes BYU, within the first three or four games and would start each season with several losses before getting in to Big West play. My freshman year of 1989, USUs first four games were, in order: at Utah, at USC, at Illinois, and a home game against BYU. Not surprisingly, USU started 0-4 and being outscored 189-32. By the time the Big West season started, where the Aggies were actually an average team (4-3 conference record), fans had completely lost interest. Back then I had always wished the Aggies would schedule home and home series against MAC teams or other WAC teams. In the ten years between 1983 and 1992, USU played two money games each year, losing every single one, and USU had zero winning seasons. Ten straight years of losing can, and did, decimate a program. If USU had instead played like programs, and went 1-1 against them each season, USU would have had 5 winning seasons in those ten years.
The more I think about this approach, the more I think moving away from the largest payout money game has merit. One of the biggest changes GA 1.0 made to turn the culture was to add a FCS opponent and get rid of seasons with 5 home games and 7 away games. In his first stint GA went:

2009: 3-2 Home 1-6 Away
2010: 3-3 Home 1-5 Away
2011: 4-2 Home 3-3 Away
2012: 6-0 Home 4-2 Away

Those 4-8 season were remarkable, and I would guess unsustainable if only 5 Home games a year were played. Anyone who has been an Aggie long enough can tell you what a difference winning games has made to attendance. I know the official attendance doesn’t reflect the change over the last decade. Looking forward, I’m not sure what having Oregon as a 2-1 does to the schedule moving forward, but I liked decreasing the money game revenue requirements by scheduling Iowa and Mississippi State and (smaller stadiums relative to Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Texas A&M).

In the current season we don’t have a revenue game and we see the first road win over a P5 opponent since 1971, the first road win over a PAC-12 team, first 2-0 start since 2012, first head coach to start 2-0 since Dick Romney in 1919. I don’t think a road game against Alabama would have allowed for that.
That was less Gary Andersen and more Randy Spetman and Scott Barnes that make the schedule. Part of this was the WAC kept losing teams, BYU rejoined the schedules, and Utah took some time off.

The schedules after we joined the WAC for OOC were the following.

2005 @Utah, UNLV, @Alabama
2006 @Wyoming, Utah, @Arkansas, @BYU
2007 UNLV, @UNLV, @Oklahoma, @Utah
2008 @UNLV, @Oregon, BYU, Utah
2009 @Utah, @Texas A&M, SUU, @BYU,
2010 @Oklahoma, Idaho State, BYU, @SDSU
2011 @Auburn, Weber State, @BYU, Colorado State, Wyoming

Getting just one foe from a Big Conference was the norm, but BYU and Utah in the same season usually (until 2010) meant 3 losses. Many of the games became much more competitive because the team improved though.



User avatar
Full
Posts: 2482
Joined: April 27th, 2011, 11:07 am
Location: Davis County
Has thanked: 706 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by Full » September 14th, 2021, 12:37 pm

NowhereLandAggie wrote:
September 14th, 2021, 11:25 am
That was less Gary Andersen and more Randy Spetman and Scott Barnes that make the schedule. Part of this was the WAC kept losing teams, BYU rejoined the schedules, and Utah took some time off.

The schedules after we joined the WAC for OOC were the following.

2005 @Utah, UNLV, @Alabama
2006 @Wyoming, Utah, @Arkansas, @BYU
2007 UNLV, @UNLV, @Oklahoma, @Utah
2008 @UNLV, @Oregon, BYU, Utah
2009 @Utah, @Texas A&M, SUU, @BYU,
2010 @Oklahoma, Idaho State, BYU, @SDSU
2011 @Auburn, Weber State, @BYU, Colorado State, Wyoming

Getting just one foe from a Big Conference was the norm, but BYU and Utah in the same season usually (until 2010) meant 3 losses. Many of the games became much more competitive because the team improved though.

It lined up with Barnes hire in 2008, so it could have been him. I know GA also wanted to have more than 4-5 home games per season, and he and Barnes are the reason the 2-1 with BYU ended. Below is the number of home games per season:

2000 - 5 two FCS teams
2001 - 5 two FCs teams
2002 - 5 one FCS team
2003 - 5
2004 - 4
2005 - 5
2006 - 5
2007 - 5
2008 - 6
2009 - 5 with one FCS team
2010-Present: 6 with one FCS team.

Some of the early 2000 teams had multiple money games when the Big West dropped football and we played as an independent. The WAC saved us in 2005.
These users thanked the author Full for the post:
NowhereLandAggie



User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 418
Joined: December 11th, 2018, 7:10 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 278 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by Turtle » September 14th, 2021, 12:49 pm

I'm not opposed to the money games, but I do prefer "winnable" money games. That is a lot of money to pass up to build the program when in theory we have shown we have the ability to win (Auburn, Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc).



GameFAQSAggie
Posts: 8996
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:10 am
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 2733 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by GameFAQSAggie » September 14th, 2021, 4:13 pm

Rance would always schedule two money games a year to raise money. It was Spetman that came and decided that one money game a year was all we should schedule.
These users thanked the author GameFAQSAggie for the post:
Full



User avatar
NowhereLandAggie
Posts: 4298
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 4:25 pm
Has thanked: 492 times
Been thanked: 569 times

Re: Future Schedules

Post by NowhereLandAggie » September 14th, 2021, 4:53 pm

GameFAQSAggie wrote:
September 14th, 2021, 4:13 pm
Rance would always schedule two money games a year to raise money. It was Spetman that came and decided that one money game a year was all we should schedule.
Part of that was filling out a schedule was very difficult as an independent.

Only Utah would play home and home then (big change) and the rest were hit and miss.

We had games against UCONN, Central Florida, and a bunch of WAC and MWC teams. Oregon came to Romney Stadium once as well.

Independence really was not great for USU.



Locked Previous topicNext topic