Future Schedule

[Saint3333]

Did anyone catch Doug's comments during the ask the AD portion of the pregame show?

He discussed scheduling and mentioned that we are full through 2018 and have two open away dates for 2019. That would indicate we've adding one home for 2018 and 2019 above what is stated at http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/sun-bel ... ineers.php

He also discussed athletic facilities and looking into improving all areas, we continue to look at purchasing land, but everyone knows that story as the city looks to ask for more than market value.

[proasu89]

Wasn't listening closely but did hear him mention P5 "money" games. Was he talking about scaling back on those?

[Saint3333]

We'll continue scheduling one a year. If we get a chance to sign a P5 home and home we'd do it, which may mean two in a season (i.e. Wake).

[EastHallApp]

Maybe he just meant those two home spots will be filled by FCS teams?

[ashugh]

He also mentioned the possibility of neutral site games.

[AppDawg]

I understood his response to be, we have had P5's contact us for $ games, but we are not ready to say yes and compromise a future better opportunity. There will always be an opportunity to pick up a road $$$ game.

We are taking the whats best for App approach. Don't want to close any doors. If P5 home and home, great. If neutral site, in state/right circumstance - great. If in-state, P5, great.

Bottom-line DG isn't going to lose a chance at any of those 3 potentials by filling up a schedule 4 years + out by committing us to flying to a Big 10, Pac 12 or SEC West school.

Smart move in my opinion.

[appbio91]

He mention the P5 calling them guarantee games in the context that we should be focused on playing our peers. Said that is how you build the reputation of the conference. I am surprised this is just now coming up on here actually. His tone was that he would seek to add more G5 opponents going forward.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[ASUGoose]

Looks like ECU and App both have the same open date in 2018....

[Yosef10]

My first wish is another p5 home and home. If that's not it my second in line would be a home and home with ECU. Hopefully we hear more soon

[HkyMtneer]

He mention the P5 calling them guarantee games in the context that we should be focused on playing our peers. Said that is how you build the reputation of the conference. I am surprised this is just now coming up on here actually. His tone was that he would seek to add more G5 opponents going forward.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

I went back and listened to DG's comment and I took them the same way as you. I heard him saying that although $$$ games offer benefits (financial obviously, name opponent, fun for fans to travel, etc.) the reward(s) may not be as great as the rewards of playing a quality non-conference G5 opponent in those previous money game spots. To me this was DG saying that after our UT/UGA/PSU run we would be looking to schedule more teams the likes of Memphis, Western Kentucky, and the Toledo's of the world. I think he might be on the right track. Yes, these games might not be as "glamorous" as this run we have been on of B10, SEC, and ACC teams but these games are much more winnable on a regular basis and those wins could certainly make up for the dollar difference. It could come via recruiting wins, conference profile, bowl eligibility, and perhaps positive relationship builders with teams that actually might be interested in scheduling home and home games. I think I might actually prefer this strategy as the norm rather than the exception. For me, traveling to Bowling Green or Northern Illinois and having a good shot of coming away with a quality W is just as exciting as going down to Clemson for the day and knowing that by sunset a L is most likely being tacked to the loss column of our record. I can find things I enjoy in any town, and if it's centered on the Black & Gold I know we'll have fun. If we one day attain the status of a G5 like Boise State then fine, maybe the discussion changes, but in the interim lets try going the way of excelling among the aforementioned peers, and making a name for ourselves as a giant of G5's...nothing but good things can come from that.

[AppDawg]

If no future P5's, I think it is a mistake. I have 3 thoughts on that. 1 - you are doing nothing but playing into the P5 hands and driving the divide within FBS. 2 - I personally think we should keep playing 1 P5 a year, but stop playing a FCS school. Our conference schedule isn't strong enough to overcome yet another weak opponent - the SEC can, the SBC can't. We should replace the FCS with another G5. Our model should be 1 P5 and 3 G5 OOC. 3 - scheduling G5's is almost like russian roulette. The strength of the teams change every year, who would have predicted Toledo would be the '15 darling last year? Much less 3 years ago when scheduling would have been completed. But you know how they did it? They beat Arkansas. There is a trend with the G5's who make a splash and that trend is they play and beat or give a biiiig scare to at least 1 P5 school.

Bottomline - keep playing 1 P5 (doesn't have to be top 15 calibur), STOP playing FCS, and add a 3rd G5 game. The SBC simply isn't strong enough to overcome anything less than that.

[WataugaMan]

Having a regular home-home series against Wake Forest and other "lower level" P5 teams would be nice.

[HkyMtneer]

If no future P5's, I think it is a mistake. I have 3 thoughts on that. 1 - you are doing nothing but playing into the P5 hands and driving the divide within FBS. 2 - I personally think we should keep playing 1 P5 a year, but stop playing a FCS school. Our conference schedule isn't strong enough to overcome yet another weak opponent - the SEC can, the SBC can't. We should replace the FCS with another G5. Our model should be 1 P5 and 3 G5 OOC. 3 - scheduling G5's is almost like russian roulette. The strength of the teams change every year, who would have predicted Toledo would be the '15 darling last year? Much less 3 years ago when scheduling would have been completed. But you know how they did it? They beat Arkansas. There is a trend with the G5's who make a splash and that trend is they play and beat or give a biiiig scare to at least 1 P5 school.

Bottomline - keep playing 1 P5 (doesn't have to be top 15 calibur), STOP playing FCS, and add a 3rd G5 game. The SBC simply isn't strong enough to overcome anything less than that.

The only thing with that thinking (and I could probably get on board from the standpoint of an all FBS-schedule) is that are you okay having years with only 5 home games? Having that FCS game on the schedule means 1 guaranteed home game a year. It's been said in the past (by a former AD) that if we attempted to go all-FBS we would frequently do so at the expense of a 6th home game. Simply put, even if we could work enough home-and-homes with G5's to go all FBS the likelihood of scheduling those out so that we maintain 6 home games a year, every year, is almost impossible. Personally, I'd be okay with 5 home games most years, maybe a 6th every 2nd or 3rd year, especially if it meant a WINNABLE P5 game (read: UVA, Vandy, Kentucky, Indiana) on the road and another solid G5 game (home and home preferred) on the schedule. The problem is that I'm afraid a great many of our fans would rather see a FCS game at home than 5 home games and the chance to travel to Urbana, Illinois or Ames, Iowa for a winnable and advantageous P5 game.

[TheMackAttack]

For every money game we schedule at a P5 school, I'm okay with scheduling an FCS home game to balance it out. I don't think we should give up the sixth home game unless it's absolutely necessary.

[Saint3333]

First priority - 6 home games
Second - limit FCS games by signing more G5 and lower level P5 home and homes
Third - quality local interest games (due to SBC travel) (P5 and G5)

It is difficult to schedule "quality" G5 games (other than Marshall, ECU types) 4-5 years in advance. When we scheduled WYO they were much better, and when Ark St. scheduled Toledo they had no clue they'd be a borderline top 25 team.

[EastHallApp]

If no future P5's, I think it is a mistake. I have 3 thoughts on that. 1 - you are doing nothing but playing into the P5 hands and driving the divide within FBS. 2 - I personally think we should keep playing 1 P5 a year, but stop playing a FCS school. Our conference schedule isn't strong enough to overcome yet another weak opponent - the SEC can, the SBC can't. We should replace the FCS with another G5. Our model should be 1 P5 and 3 G5 OOC. 3 - scheduling G5's is almost like russian roulette. The strength of the teams change every year, who would have predicted Toledo would be the '15 darling last year? Much less 3 years ago when scheduling would have been completed. But you know how they did it? They beat Arkansas. There is a trend with the G5's who make a splash and that trend is they play and beat or give a biiiig scare to at least 1 P5 school.

Bottomline - keep playing 1 P5 (doesn't have to be top 15 calibur), STOP playing FCS, and add a 3rd G5 game. The SBC simply isn't strong enough to overcome anything less than that.

The only thing with that thinking (and I could probably get on board from the standpoint of an all FBS-schedule) is that are you okay having years with only 5 home games? Having that FCS game on the schedule means 1 guaranteed home game a year. It's been said in the past (by a former AD) that if we attempted to go all-FBS we would frequently do so at the expense of a 6th home game. Simply put, even if we could work enough home-and-homes with G5's to go all FBS the likelihood of scheduling those out so that we maintain 6 home games a year, every year, is almost impossible. Personally, I'd be okay with 5 home games most years, maybe a 6th every 2nd or 3rd year, especially if it meant a WINNABLE P5 game (read: UVA, Vandy, Kentucky, Indiana) on the road and another solid G5 game (home and home preferred) on the schedule. The problem is that I'm afraid a great many of our fans would rather see a FCS game at home than 5 home games and the chance to travel to Urbana, Illinois or Ames, Iowa for a winnable and advantageous P5 game.

I don't mind playing one FCS team per year. Honestly, what is really the advantage to playing someone like Wyoming or UMass vs. an FCS? The difference in schedule strength is negligible, and we have to give them a return game.

I would LOVE to get home-and-homes with the sort of mid-tier P5s you mentioned, and would even consider a 2-for-1 with some, but I would rather not schedule them for a one-off road game. If we're traveling to someone like Vandy or Indiana, we better be getting a return game.

[APPdiesel]

Right now I don't mind scheduling FCS teams. Pure and simple we need the wins and the momentum. As for everyone naming their scheduling preferences...I'm confident those line up with everyone in the athletic department's goals. But goals are just that. Sometimes you don't meet them. Remember, a schedule is a puzzle...trying to balance fcs, fbs, p5, g5, 6 home games, winnable games, money games, matching open dates with another program looking to accomplish the same goals is tough...that's why you have to play an FCS from time to time to fill an unfillable gap.

twitter.com/diesel933

[AppDawg]

I would be ok with 5 home games, if it means no FCS. With that, I think we are selling ourselves short thinking we won't be able to fill an all FBS non-conf home slate with G5's. To my knowlege we have always said we will have at least 1 FCS and scheduled as such. I am curious to know if we have tried to go with a combo of all G5 + 1p5 and how much "harder" that would be? Perhaps not much... But I don't know. Still worth a shot.

To the point not much difference between FCS and bottom tier FBS - the FCS teams we are now playing, yes there is a difference. Plus polls still have a human element. A win over FCS does nothing for you except 1 W closer to bowl eligible. A win over FBS, even if ranked 128 of 128 is still perceived better than a win over howard.

The point is, the strength of the SunBelt is doing us zero favors. We need to do what we can with the 4 games we have control over and make the most of those opportunities.

[bcoach]

First priority - 6 home games
Second - limit FCS games by signing more G5 and lower level P5 home and homes
Third - quality local interest games (due to SBC travel) (P5 and G5)

It is difficult to schedule "quality" G5 games (other than Marshall, ECU types) 4-5 years in advance. When we scheduled WYO they were much better, and when Ark St. scheduled Toledo they had no clue they'd be a borderline top 25 team.

I agree 100% and add that FCS should be a VERY last resort. The number one reason I heard over and over for wanting to make the move is to get better competition. A&T is not better competition and we should not have to pay an FCS team to come to Boone. We are looking for income not expenses.

[EastHallApp]

To the point not much difference between FCS and bottom tier FBS - the FCS teams we are now playing, yes there is a difference. Plus polls still have a human element. A win over FCS does nothing for you except 1 W closer to bowl eligible. A win over FBS, even if ranked 128 of 128 is still perceived better than a win over howard.

Teams don't get picked for bowls or ranked in polls based on their worst win. Can you imagine any scenario where someone is comparing us to, say, Marshall, and they say "Well, they're pretty close, but the difference to me is that App State beat NC Central, while Marshall beat North Texas"? I can't. (Well, other than North Texas not being terrible anymore.)

If you're in consideration for a top 25 ranking or even a bowl, it's just assumed that you can handle your business against the worst teams in the country.

You're right about the human element, though. And to a human - especially, say, a sportswriter who mostly covers power conferences and pays relatively little attention to G5 football - a bad team is a bad team. Blowing out one of the bottom five teams in FBS does not make a significantly different impact on perception than blowing out an FCS team, IMO.

And you're also right about the difference in quality. A bad FBS team is better than a bad FCS team - which means there's at least an outside shot they could beat you on an off day.