The AAC's mantra from the beginning was mostly to take on city schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, etc.), but with recent realignment it's kind of just a grab bag of random good/decent football pedigrees (ECU, Navy, Army) or schools with potential based on location (UTSA, Charlotte). And then a little geographic rival creation of their own (FAU/USF). This is becoming more random than the former CUSA.

I don't want any part of that nonsense for Ohio unless other MAC schools like Miami and Toledo joined also.

I’ve been waiting on his appearance here as well.and $1.9 is, I believe our highest ever payout.

This absurd football schedule in 2025 is crazy. Sure, the Bobcats bring in $1.9 million from TOSU and slightly over a million from Rutgers. However, they are playing WVU for a total of $1 million for a three year (2-1)series. That deal is a slap in the face when WVU paid Towson $500,000 in 2022 for a home game. Terrible deal! No way should Ohio be facing two Big Ten and a Big 12 teams in consecutive weeks to open up the season. Does this administration ask the mens basketball program to play 75% of non conference games vs power four schools? We all know that doesn't happen. If Texas Tech and Boston College were paying basketball schools $115 K a few years ago, then Ohio can find plenty of schools to fork out that type of cash to help pay the athletic departments bills.

My guess is 2-1 coming out of that stretch oubobcatjohn, what do you think? Roll that BIG MO from the MAC Title and Bowl win as well as 3 straight 10 win seasons! Roll it into a CFP coming off our MAC Title?

Easy for you to say SBH when you aren’t coaching or playing these games against power four programs for three consecutive weeks. It isn’t your body on the line. Why doesn’t mens basketball play 75% of the non league games vs power four schools? We all know the answer to that question. WVU is paying Ohio a total of one million dollars for a three game series. They paid Towson 500 K for one game a few seasons ago. Not a good business deal for Ohio.

So you would prefer the 115k type basketball payment over the 1+ million payments from football? It would take 8 of those 115k payments to equal 1 million dollars.

Last season the AD couldn't even find one P4 willing to play Ohio in basketball.

no, it's a million for one game, plus a home/home washout.

This is a better way to look at it than I previously thought of. An even more reasonable deal. 1 million is a little under market value, but will be cancelled out by short travel, etc.

plus consider that Athens and Ohio Athletics are going to make a great deal of money (by our standards) on that day wvu comes in.
Now, hopefully those a-holes don't destroy property or behave like wvu fans in general. but I'm betting on an unpleasant day amongst the dregs of college football fans.

Sigh. Let’s break this down because I have nothing better to do.

The last administration started this conversation with WVU. Michael Stephens, who worked for both Schaus and Cromer, led football scheduling. SBH has said this a dozen times.

I still do t know the answer why the MBB is playing 75 percent power 4 games. Can you fill me in?

Is there any data out there that says injuries are lopsided when the G5 plays the P4 or when FCS plays G5 or P4? I don't really buy it but have seen that repeatedly referenced as a negative of playing "up".

Chat GPT:

While specific, detailed data on injury rates in college football specifically comparing Power Four (P4) vs. Group of Five (G5) and FCS vs. G5/P4 is limited, here's what can be gathered:

1. General Trends in College Football Injuries:
Concussions: Concussions are a major concern, and their incidence often correlates with the overall injury rate.

2. Limited Evidence on P4 vs. G5/FCS:
Anecdotal Evidence: While there's no definitive data, some anecdotal evidence suggests that FCS teams may experience more injuries and soreness after playing FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision, which includes both G5 and P4) schools. This could be attributed to potential differences in player size, strength, and overall program resources.
No Indication of Higher Catastrophic Injuries: It's important to note that there's no evidence suggesting a higher rate of season-ending, career-ending, or catastrophic injuries in FCS teams playing against FBS opponents.

3. Factors that Could Influence Injury Disparities:
Player Size and Strength: P4 programs generally have access to a higher caliber of recruits and more resources for strength and conditioning, potentially leading to a difference in player size and strength compared to G5 and FCS teams. This could impact the severity of collisions and subsequent injury risk.
Training Regimens: Differences in training facilities, coaching staff, and strength & conditioning programs between P4 and G5/FCS could contribute to variations in injury rates.
Fatigue and Recovery: G5 and FCS teams might face greater challenges in managing player fatigue and ensuring adequate recovery due to factors like travel schedules and limited resources.
Game Schedule and Frequency: P4 teams often have more high-profile, nationally televised games, potentially increasing exposure and overall injury risk, while G5 and FCS schedules may include a higher proportion of "payday games" against P4 opponents, potentially exposing them to more intense competition and increased injury risk.

Conclusion:
While conclusive data specifically comparing injury rates based on conference affiliations (P4, G5, FCS) is limited, existing evidence points to general trends in college football injuries. Differences in resources, player development, and game intensity might contribute to potential disparities in injury rates across these conferences, but more specific research is needed to confirm this.