2017 Football Season Most important game.

[MDCardsFan]

I would love to play Tennessee as an OOC game, would help our OOC schedule like Alabama, ND, Purdue etc.

Besides it being a rivalry game, playing UK in football doesn't help our OOC games I think, I most def could be wrong about that though.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Just curious, why is that??

Because it just seems Mickey Mouse to me. I know it's done in sports like baseball, but it shouldn't be done in football. I mean, yes, from a historical point of view it does suck that we had to give up our rivalry with Wake Forest because of expansion. Up until expansion, Carolina - Wake was the most-often played college football series ever between two N.C. schools. But that doesn't mean I want to play then non-conference. That is a lose-lose situation for us. Not only is it not that big of an opponent to draw in fans (Wake might be a sway for older fans, but for younger fans, it won't push those to attend who otherwise wouldn't), but it's also an opponent we should beat. If we win, no big deal and it doesn't count as a conference win. If we lose, yikes. The only good thing about it is it's a P5 game on the schedule.

Why I really don't like the concept though is because it starkly highlights the stupidity of the NCAA rule requiring divisions with round robin play in order to have a conference championship game. The "conference teams scheduled as non-conference games" concept is such a cheesy workaround to the major problem of: We have 13 other teams in the conference but we only play 6 of those 13 once every SIX years. This problem is created because of the aforementioned rule of required divisional round robin play.

It's not a secret that fans and football programs in P5 conferences want to play all the conference teams -- especially the big boys -- more often than they do. But they're stuck on how to make it happen because of the stupid division rule. They tried to tinker with adding a 9th conference game, but that's a terrible idea because it creates imbalance in home vs. away conference games and it puts stress on OOC scheduling in years you also play Notre Dame. And they can't eliminate the divisional permanent crossover game to increase frequency of cross-divisional rotation because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, too many long-standing ACC rivalries are protected by the permanent crossover. So they're left with scheduling fellow ACC teams in the non-conference. It's idiotic. The rule should be changed and the ACC should then go to a 3+5 setup.

FWIW, the ACC tried to petition the NCAA to eliminate the divisional rule and the SEC backed them up, but the rumor is the Big 10 torpedoed it and wouldn't let it pass.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I would love to play Tennessee as an OOC game, would help our OOC schedule like Alabama, ND, Purdue etc.

Besides it being a rivalry game, playing UK in football doesn't help our OOC games I think, I most def could be wrong about that though.

Good luck scheduling Tennessee. They'll bail as soon as they sign the deal, unless y'all somehow turn into a terrible program. We have a longstanding border war with Tennessee because they always poach our in-state players (because TN doesn't produce any high school talent, generally speaking) and we used to play each other all the time in years of old.

Fast forward to the 21st century and we scheduled them for a home and home in 2011 and 2012. But, Tennesee bought themselves out of the game and cancelled the series because they were going through a rebuild and didn't want to lose to little ol' ACC North Carolina. Their AD basically admitted "we're pus*ying out of this home and home because we're scared."

So yeah, Tennessee will bail. That's why it's hard to schedule elite home-and-homes with bluebloods. They'll cancel on you if they think you'll actually win.

 

[Mayoman]

Here's financial info for the Bama game.

WARNING: CJ link

Appears we're getting about the equivalent of a home game for these made-for-TV openers. However, I'd be a little surprised if the Purdue game is getting us that much. Like LPT, I still don't know why that game and IU was scheduled...

I would surmise, because they are close games for fans to travel too and they are very winnable games against a P5 team in the BIG (B-10) conference. (So for resume building)

What did TJ say about the games when it was announced the Cards were playing them? For the fans.....a game played for the fans.....for increased regional exposure? LoL on that one. As possible games on a regular basis to phase out the uk game? Again LoL...(comparable dregs of their respective conferences does little or nothing for the SoS just like uk)

Once the Cards expansion is completed....those additional seats will need to be filled by more of the opponents fans than what has been the rule in the past for the Cards.

If the future attendance (seats sold) are going to be an important barometer than not so common sense would suggest playing regional neighboring schools in a rivalry fashion or HOPE that one of OSU, Mich St, Illinois, PennSt if the B10 or Tenn, UGA, UF, Bama, Auburn, etc of the SEC; are willing to do a H and H; or at the very least these made for TV match ups like the Bama game (and most recently the Auburn game) to generate revenue equal to the est. $3 mil a home game with 65K in attendance would. Or as Zipp says, why play them?

Playing cupcakes without any being of the P5 variety (nee IU, Purdue, UK) at home will be a tough sell for any year the schedule does not have 2 P5 teams at home whether uk is one of the 2 or not....as the dregs of the ACC (Syracuse, WF, UVA, etc) alone are not an overriding attraction.

Sure the year that FSU or Clemson come to PJS, the crowd will be there, it is the lack of another OOC T25 perennial team that hurts the SoS and home attraction even more than the IC schedule.

As we all know, it has been like forever since uk has been a T25 team.....the one thing they do have going for them though is that they travel well....show up as they live to see uk beat UofL in anything. As said by Zipp, they are truly the little brother in this rivalry series now. They need us more than we need them on the schedule.

My hope is that we get ND in a H and H to replace the uk series.....and with the number of Catholics in Louisville this would be an attractive rival to have on a yearly basis. Even Non-cath's could get behind this as the annual rivalry game. And they are in the ACC for all other sports, etc.

What say you my Cardinal brothers?

 

[zipp]

Because it just seems Mickey Mouse to me. ...That is a lose-lose situation for us. Not only is it not that big of an opponent to draw in fans (Wake might be a sway for older fans, but for younger fans, it won't push those to attend who otherwise wouldn't), but it's also an opponent we should beat. If we win, no big deal and it doesn't count as a conference win. If we lose, yikes. The only good thing about it is it's a P5 game on the schedule.

Why I really don't like the concept though is because it starkly highlights the stupidity of the NCAA rule requiring divisions with round robin play in order to have a conference championship game...

It's not a secret that fans and football programs in P5 conferences want to play all the conference teams -- especially the big boys -- more often than they do. But they're stuck on how to make it happen because of the stupid division rule. They tried to tinker with adding a 9th conference game, but that's a terrible idea because it creates imbalance in home vs. away conference games and it puts stress on OOC scheduling in years you also play Notre Dame. And they can't eliminate the divisional permanent crossover game to increase frequency of cross-divisional rotation because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, too many long-standing ACC rivalries are protected by the permanent crossover. So they're left with scheduling fellow ACC teams in the non-conference...

Heel, I understand your points and agree with all of them in principle. There shouldn't be a divisional issue in playing a championship game. By whatever fashion a conference wants to determine its participants in that game is its own business.

It sounds like you're against the Wake "non-ACC" game more because of Wake than another ACC team generally. Would you feel the same way if it was a game against FSU or Clemson? Or maybe Louisville? I agree, I don't really want Louisville scheduling some teams in the Coastal for a 9th game. But teams like Carolina or Va Tech I do wanna play more frequently than once every seven years or whatever interval it is.

I'd also prepare yourself for the day we go to nine conference football games and an unbalanced 5+4/4+5 schedule. You obviously can't play an odd number and get around that. But you do work around it with your other games. It's more money for the conference, and it's the direction everyone's going with conference networks and their desire for content. You may even see ten games down the road and 22 or 24 games in basketball. The number and quality of teams in the ACC is not a deterrent to scheduling more conference games IMO.

Thanks for your POVs which we don't get much from other ACC fans...

 

[zipp]

Mayo, sign me up for most of that!

You're right about Jurich's response to the question of why schedule IU and Purdue. He answered that a few months ago at a booster club function I attended. In that regard, I think his reasoning as stated is a little out-of-touch. I live in southern Indiana, and no one I know in either fanbase was panting for a series with IU. Years ago, it was more of a sought-after game. But I'm not too sure how many of our fans will make that Bloomington trip. Who cares about IU alongside of upper-tier SEC schools we now routinely play as well as ACC teams? And IU fans are similar to LPT's in that they really don't care about football. Purdue?--The only reason that game has any interest at the moment is because of Jeff Brohm, and how long will he be there?

Most of us probably under-appreciate the job football scheduling is for Jurich. By questioning traditional P5 dregs like LPT, Purdue, and IU on the schedule, it sounds a little ungrateful as a fan or fanbase. But times are changing, and the value of these games are all up in the air IMO. LPT returned half of their tix to last year's game at PJCS, and there are now unsold seats at Lexington for this "rivalry" game. Considering that Kroger Field--I like the sound of that!--is about 70 miles east of Louisville, that's almost as much an indictment of U of L fans as it is the slapd!cks.

The reality is that I will travel 800 miles to see us play Alabama or 400 miles to play Auburn. But I might not drive a couple hours to Bloomington, Lexington, or Cincinnati. Being close or traditional may not be enough.

And at the same time, the value of a home game on the schedule keeps increasing. It will be north of $3 million after the expansion. When you get to the point of giving up $4 million to play IU at Bloomington, you have to question that--it's serious money. And it's money we will have to fund in other ways playing IU on the road. I can sacrifice playing the Hoosiers.

In closing, I have no concerns anymore about U of L football revenue being a function of the quality our home schedule. I'm in that market every year as a ticket licensor/reseller, and demand for U of L football has never been higher with the ACC move. That's as expected, and it's why this expansion was so easily paid for. We basically sell out every football game regardless of what naysayers will have you believe. With Jurich at the helm, I don't see that changing anytime soon...

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Heel, I understand your points and agree with all of them in principle. There shouldn't be a divisional issue in playing a championship game. By whatever fashion a conference wants to determine its participants in that game is its own business.

It sounds like you're against the Wake "non-ACC" game more because of Wake than another ACC team generally. Would you feel the same way if it was a game against FSU or Clemson? Or maybe Louisville? I agree, I don't really want Louisville scheduling some teams in the Coastal for a 9th game. But teams like Carolina or Va Tech I do wanna play more frequently than once every seven years or whatever interval it is.

I'd also prepare yourself for the day we go to nine conference football games and an unbalanced 5+4/4+5 schedule. You obviously can't play an odd number and get around that. But you do work around it with your other games. It's more money for the conference, and it's the direction everyone's going with conference networks and their desire for content. You may even see ten games down the road and 22 or 24 games in basketball. The number and quality of teams in the ACC is not a deterrent to scheduling more conference games IMO.

Thanks for your POVs which we don't get much from other ACC fans...

I agree that my disdain for the idea is a bit tied to the fact it's specifically Wake we scheduled, but I maintain I wouldn't like it even if we scheduled FSU or Clemson. Something would just feel off about it, you know? Like you've got the allure of Florida State coming to town, the stadium is packed, the atmosphere is alive....... and yet it's basically a glorified scrimmage, unless one of the teams is in national title contention because it's a non-conference game. It just seems wrong to me. Besides, ACC schools don't want to schedule other good ACC schools in non-conference. They want to schedule Duke or Wake or BC so they can satisfy the 1 P5 in OOC schedule criteria and still know it will most likely be a 'W' on the schedule. So I doubt we could ever even successfully schedule Clemson or FSU.

And it just kinda sucks in general how the 6-year rotation works. Clemson and Carolina have a long, bitter history of hating each other on the football field. When Clemson won their national title in 1981, Carolina and Clemson were the two big boys in the ACC (with NC State a close third). We won the ACC Championship in 1980 and then Clemson won it in '81 and won the national title. Older Clemson fans and older Carolina fans hold a special hatred for the other school because of how intense the football series got back in the 80s (and for some other BS reasons on Clemson's part). All of that history is gone now because Clemson and us never play anymore. Two founding members of the conference that now only play one time every six years. It sucks.

Anyway, you're most likely right about the ACC going to 9 games eventually. They already were going to do so, but then Notre Dame announced their 5-games-per-year agreement and the ACC reversed course and stayed at 8 in order to give teams more scheduling flexibility.

IMHO, and I know most won't agree, if we move away from 8 games, we should go to 10 games instead of 9. It would make things extra tough on schools like you and Clemson and FSU who have permanent OOC rivals, but I think 10 is a better option than 9. The unbalanced conference home vs. away games that would come with a 9-game schedule is a huge disadvantage to half the teams in the league. Huge. To me, you gotta stay at an even number to balance out home vs. away conference games. I suspect college ball will eventually add a 13th regular season game soon anyway, so that would make moving to 10 more bearable. But in general, any number over 8 creates massive scheduling problems for ADs, especially if it's 9.

Sorry for my long-winded posts in this thread, it's just a topic I'm passionate about.

 

[zipp]

...Sorry for my long-winded posts in this thread, it's just a topic I'm passionate about.

No reason to apologize, not to me anyway!

I'm pretty much with you on ten conference games in football, and it may happen if the schools get to add a 13th game to their schedules. Money's driving the bus, and money wants that.

I think if Notre Dame and a quality 16th school (e.g., Texas) were in the conference, you'd quickly see talk about adding conference games to our schedules. The more the better IMO. Louisville came into the ACC to play ACC teams, not to NOT play them. And our OOC games except for the kickoff classic games are easily rationalized away.

Keep speaking your mind...

 

[TarHeelNation11]

No reason to apologize, not to me anyway!

I'm pretty much with you on ten conference games in football, and it may happen if the schools get to add a 13th game to their schedules. Money's driving the bus, and money wants that.

I think if Notre Dame and a quality 16th school (e.g., Texas) were in the conference, you'd quickly see talk about adding conference games to our schedules. The more the better IMO. Louisville came into the ACC to play ACC teams, not to NOT play them. And our OOC games except for the kickoff classic games are easily rationalized away.

Keep speaking your mind...

Ever since Notre Dame announced their 5-game-per-year partnership with the ACC, my dream has been to add Texas in with the same setup. I think that would really appeal to Texas because they could go independent and schedule nationwide (thus increasing the demand for the Longhorn Network in ACC country and wherever else Texas scheduled games). Obviously Texas and Notre Dame would alternate, so that no team would ever have to face them both in the same year (except Pitt or BC who automatically plays ND every season anyway).

Basically, it would create a situation where all ACC teams had either Notre Dame or Texas on their schedule 4 out of every 7 years I believe. That would be awesome. Then, of course, after testing the waters, it would open the door for full-time membership for both schools.

But I know that's probably a pipe dream.

 

[zipp]

Ever since Notre Dame announced their 5-game-per-year partnership with the ACC, my dream has been to add Texas in with the same setup...But I know that's probably a pipe dream.

We're getting a little OT here, but...

Never's a long time. It's understood that there are a lotta Texas haters around--a lotta ND haters for that matter. But the Big XII is a ticking time bomb. And reportedly, if Texas ever jumps conferences, they'll go east and not west...which from their standpoint makes perfect sense. I can't see them finding a home anywhere but the ACC on the terms that they want.

The scenario you describe is consistent with that. And full membership would be the next step for both schools. Regardless, those 16 schools (14 + 2) will wanna maximize and keep the revenue they generate playing one another, and the ACC Network will be at the center of that.

Closer to the subject, I'm for anything that generates more money and/or improves our schedules. It needs to do at least one of those, preferably both...

 

[DaytonCard]

The 2017 season is a big question mark for many Cards fans including myself. The way last season ended was not promising for the future of the team, but with the help brought in on the offensive line and other talent returning on that side of the ball it could still be a positive season if the Cards are firing on all cylinders. The Defense is possibly the biggest unknown with all that was lost on that side of the ball, however, with Stacy thomas and several Defensive linemen returning the cards will have some leadership in the front seven. Obviously everyone wants to beat Clemson at home, but to me, the game that will give us a good indicator of how the season will go on the larger scale is the UNC game in week 2. UNC loses most of their play makers on the offensive side of the ball with Trubisky, Elijah Hood and his back up RB, and Ryan Switzer all leaving, as well as some offensive linemen. However, they return two Senior WRs. On defense the Heels lose impact DE Mickey Bart, DT Naz Jones, S Dominique Green and CB Des Lawrence, but return their linebacking core (Andre Smith and Cole Holcomb) as well as a talented corner MJ Stewart. As far as personnel changes go I would say it's about even, but the key being the return of Lamar Jackson and a solid crop of skill positions (minus the injuries at RB) could tip the scales in Louisville's favor. This game being in a hostile environment at UNC on the road, and being the week before Clemson is definitely going to test the focus of the team. I'll give the Cards the edge on talent at the moment but this one will be all about attitude.

myself

 

[gocds]

We also need to remember that all of our ACC conference brethren are also P5 schools and that they can be developed into very good football programs. Several have been excellent in the past (Syracuse and Pitt come to mind) and I don't think we should give up on them being "any good". But I also think adding ND and Texas to the ACC has valuable merit along with going to a 13 game schedule including 10 conference games. The sooner that happens is when our schedule warrants playing "true" P5 schools like Alabama and Ohio State on a home and home basis instead of the final game of the year versus a P5 pretender. But until these situations become reality I don't think we should be proposing dropping the cayuts just yet. Also, I do think games versus the likes of EKU, Murray and WKU do hold some intrastate interest.

GO CARDS - BEAT EVERYBODY!!! God Bless America!!!

 

[Cardinal Cash]

myself

I love making up words. What can I say?
Edit: I consulted google and it appears this is a word. Not sure if I used it correctly or if correcting grammar was intent.

 

[topdecktiger]

Just FYI, Tim Brando has reported that Notre Dame and the ACC have been talking about full membership.

 

[zipp]

I stopped reading that article when UConn was mentioned with a straight face...

 

[topdecktiger]

I stopped reading that article when UConn was mentioned with a straight face...

That's not what Brando is reporting. He just said Notre Dame is in talks with the ACC. The UConn part was just an opinion by the blogger.

 

[zipp]

That's not what Brando is reporting. He just said Notre Dame is in talks with the ACC. The UConn part was just an opinion by the blogger.

Understood. I simply would have picked a better reference for Brando. I linked an audio file yesterday with the comment...

 

[WildCard]

Most important game depends on how you benefit from the win or suffer from the loss. So we don't know what game that will be for the coming season.

But looking at last year, would it have been the win over FSU (even with a loss, we still finish #2 in the Atlantic) OR the home field loss to UK as a 28 point favorite (which likely cost us a notch in the bowl pecking order). IMHO the loss to UK last year was probably the worse loss in UofL football history. And that seems pretty "important" to me.

Peace

 

[zipp]

Boy, the worst loss in U of L football history is subject for a new thread and worth some pondering and analysis...

BUT if you think reflexively that loss to the slappies is in the discussion for the "worst in history", again, you need to ask yourself why you're playing that game. You lose once in the last six years and can't get past THAT, you need some self-reflection.

I appreciate someone's honesty just like I appreciate P-Up calling it the 9th most important on the schedule. I understand those POVs, but what I don't understand is how you manage that POV. More is indicated than just prioritization and discussion...

 

[WildCard]

Boy, the worst loss in U of L football history is subject for a new thread and worth some pondering and analysis...

BUT if you think reflexively that loss to the slappies is in the discussion for the "worst in history", again, you need to ask yourself why you're playing that game. You lose once in the last six years and can't get past THAT, you need some self-reflection.

I appreciate someone's honesty just like I appreciate P-Up calling it the 9th most important on the schedule. I understand those POVs, but what I don't understand is how you manage that POV. More is indicated than just prioritization and discussion...

To begin with, it is our in-state rival. That alone makes it important. You play that game because it makes you feel good when the Cards win; much more so than a win over a comparable (non-conference) opponent. I do not attach my sense of "self worth" to the success of Cardinal athletics but I certainly enjoy success against others, especially UK. Especially now that we are striving to be something we were not during my time at school.

Secondly, a 28 point favorite historically wins (not covers) the game 97% of the time. Should the Cards have only been a 14 point favorite? A 14 point fav wins outright about 87% of the time.

FWIW, I have not rewatched that mess (only Jackson's fumble play) but my gut reaction is that defensive strategy/effort is what sent Grantham on his way. And Jackson tried to make a hero play rather than simply accept a 2 yard loss and run the next play. Not smart QB-ing plus a play that left not 1 but 2 play side defenders unblocked. IOW, A LOT of bad football in the last few minutes.

So matter how I look at it, it was a horrible football loss. I will wait for examples of "worse loss game" by others.

Peace

 

[zipp]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...

You seal your fate when you choose to play the football slapd!cks. And WHEN (not if) you lose, you stand a really good chance of losing it as a heavy favorite esp. with a high-scoring offense under Petrino. That's obviously because scores can get out of hand when you're not simply running a grind-it-out offense, e.g., Charlie Strong. And betting lines reflect that.

If THAT influences your POV in a worst-loss analysis, you're unfortunately forgetting some important stuff. Not to mention that records and stats kinda go out the window with the emotion of a so-called "rivalry" game that affects not just wins and losses but scoring margins. The slappies made Governor's Cup rings for crissakes!

I continue to maintain that some of you guys can't handle the results of this game despite your claims otherwise. Anyone who rejects the notion of losing every once in awhile or who calls a game that must remain on the schedule the "9th most important" is not completely in touch with himself. You're about at step 5 or 6 of a 12-step program.

LPT Football: You're a little psycho for voluntarily scheduling us...

 

[WildCard]

Well, we just disagree on this point Zipp. If, as a fan, you do not appreciate a rivalry game, so be it. Many others do. Not that it matters in the least, I think you are in a real minority position here. I know you like stats... those guys that make the numbers miss some but overall they know what they are doing.

Peace

 

[topdecktiger]

Understood. I simply would have picked a better reference for Brando. I linked an audio file yesterday with the comment...

Here is the source that was the basis for the article, unless you think a Louisville site isn't credible.

 

[zipp]

Here is the source that was the basis for the article, unless you think a Louisville site isn't credible.

I know all about that, heard the interview live, and linked the podcast. No mention in there about UConn...

 

[fredburgcard]

The loss to UK last year was disappointing. The loss to Rutgers in 06 was devastating. Win that game and the Cards likely would have played for a BCS Championship against an Ohio State team that stunk up the place against Florida.

 

[topdecktiger]

I know all about that, heard the interview live, and linked the podcast. No mention in there about UConn...

Right, and I never said UConn had anything to do with it. The original link I posted was to yahoo, which only featured the part about Notre Dame.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

The loss to UK last year was disappointing. The loss to Rutgers in 06 was devastating. Win that game and the Cards likely would have played for a BCS Championship against an Ohio State team that stunk up the place against Florida.

Imagine if U of L had won a national championship. Bobby may not have left if we were bringing in enough money to pay him big, we never would have had Krags, and we could be sitting here talking about a dynasty. That team may have been an isolated incident, but it takes championships to recruit with the big boys and that would be something that we could sell.