Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Game at Rutgers added for 2023
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
OhioBobcat
1/20/2017 9:20 PM
Well, Ohio already has Kansas and Purdue locked up next season, so why not Rutgers. It certainly fits Ohio's M.O. If there's a bad Power 5 team out there, you can rest assured Ohio is trying to get them on the schedule. Hopefully Rutgers will be at least decent by then.
mail
person
rpbobcat
1/21/2017 9:20 AM
OhioBobcat wrote:expand_more
Well, Ohio already has Kansas and Purdue locked up next season, so why not Rutgers. It certainly fits Ohio's M.O. If there's a bad Power 5 team out there, you can rest assured Ohio is trying to get them on the schedule. Hopefully Rutgers will be at least decent by then.
If you live in N.J. you grew up loving or hating R.U.

Put me in the haters group.

I'd be happy if they lose every game in every sport !

I also hope that this time they let us bring the 110.
mail
person
BuddyLee
1/21/2017 10:26 AM
The article says we get $850k for this game which is a deal compared to the $1.2 million they are giving Texas State in 2018.

So if we aren't doing a home and home, then shouldn't we try for a real money game like a Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, etc.? I will admit I don't know exactly how much the current big money games pay in college football, but I have to think it will only go up by 2023. My point is these money games can fund a large part of our athletic program if we do it right.
mail
mcbin
1/21/2017 11:36 AM
But this is a winnable game. Going up against Oklahoma, we'd have a far lower shot at a potential victory. Probably worth a lower payout IMO.
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
1/21/2017 12:40 PM
How much did we get for the games at Tennessee and Kansas this year and Minnesota last year?




#questiontheSFBwillobjecttohateon
mail
person
Mark Lembright '85
1/21/2017 12:55 PM
BuddyLee wrote:expand_more
The article says we get $850k for this game which is a deal compared to the $1.2 million they are giving Texas State in 2018.

So if we aren't doing a home and home, then shouldn't we try for a real money game like a Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, etc.? I will admit I don't know exactly how much the current big money games pay in college football, but I have to think it will only go up by 2023. My point is these money games can fund a large part of our athletic program if we do it right.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but I think a big reason why the big P5 teams won't schedule a team like Ohio anymore is because it lowers their strength of schedule to do so. To really qualify for the BCS play-offs, a strong SOS bodes well for a team when the Committee's looking for the 4 best teams. Like I said, I might be wrong on that but that may be why we'll see fewer games between the Ohio States of the world and mid to lower G5 teams.
mail
person
Turney13
1/21/2017 2:19 PM
Mark Lembright '85 wrote:expand_more
The article says we get $850k for this game which is a deal compared to the $1.2 million they are giving Texas State in 2018.

So if we aren't doing a home and home, then shouldn't we try for a real money game like a Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, etc.? I will admit I don't know exactly how much the current big money games pay in college football, but I have to think it will only go up by 2023. My point is these money games can fund a large part of our athletic program if we do it right.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but I think a big reason why the big P5 teams won't schedule a team like Ohio anymore is because it lowers their strength of schedule to do so. To really qualify for the BCS play-offs, a strong SOS bodes well for a team when the Committee's looking for the 4 best teams. Like I said, I might be wrong on that but that may be why we'll see fewer games between the Ohio States of the world and mid to lower G5 teams.
Clemson played Troy and South Carolina State
Bama played Western Kentucky, Kent State and Chattanooga
Washington played Idaho and Portland State
OSU played Bowling Green and Tulsa

And they all were in the playoffs this year
mail
person
Mark Lembright '85
1/21/2017 5:17 PM
Turney13 wrote:expand_more
The article says we get $850k for this game which is a deal compared to the $1.2 million they are giving Texas State in 2018.

So if we aren't doing a home and home, then shouldn't we try for a real money game like a Florida, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, etc.? I will admit I don't know exactly how much the current big money games pay in college football, but I have to think it will only go up by 2023. My point is these money games can fund a large part of our athletic program if we do it right.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but I think a big reason why the big P5 teams won't schedule a team like Ohio anymore is because it lowers their strength of schedule to do so. To really qualify for the BCS play-offs, a strong SOS bodes well for a team when the Committee's looking for the 4 best teams. Like I said, I might be wrong on that but that may be why we'll see fewer games between the Ohio States of the world and mid to lower G5 teams.
Clemson played Troy and South Carolina State
Bama played Western Kentucky, Kent State and Chattanooga
Washington played Idaho and Portland State
OSU played Bowling Green and Tulsa

And they all were in the playoffs this year
Very true, Turney13. I'm thinking more along the lines of future schedules and this past year's schedule was probably set a couple years ago when the BCS Play-offs were just starting. Hopefully though the kind of games you've referenced continue because Ohio and some of the other G5 schools can use the $$.
mail
person
allen
1/21/2017 11:08 PM
OhioBobcat wrote:expand_more
Well, Ohio already has Kansas and Purdue locked up next season, so why not Rutgers. It certainly fits Ohio's M.O. If there's a bad Power 5 team out there, you can rest assured Ohio is trying to get them on the schedule. Hopefully Rutgers will be at least decent by then.
lol
Showing Messages: 1 - 10 of 10
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)