3 DB’s (one could play WR too). Plus an OL and (I guess) TE
In reality, the B12 has a50/50 chance of even remaining a P5…
we have 12 TEs on the roster?
Like this idea…3 to 5 years play, again.
Great idea.
We can certainly all disagree
I think the current Miami vs uc series is excellent. 5 home games vs uC in 13 years and 3 neutral site games
I would rather do that then play a home and home with Umass or James Madison
However the future is a challenge - I doubt Uc ever plays in Oxford again
I would say though that UC is currently rolling and a better long term comp for this series would be Colorado vs Colorado State. I think the Buffs win about 75% of the time
1 Like
Good comparison. Buffs 23 Rams 7 in the last 30 meetings going back to 1985.
2 Likes
And counting it seems, guys keep moving to TE from DE and LB.
1 Like
my proposal would be:
- if you want to cancel (minimize) the rivalry for purposes of money - get a 3rd P5 buy game
- if money is not an issue and you want to be able to realistically compete for a D1 out-of-conference win - get a G5 scheduled with a 50/50 home away schedule
i dont think the Michigan - OSU example is a realistic comparison. that is a rivalry of peers. we are simply no longer peers of UC, they have won the arms race against us.
5 Likes
Call me stubborn but I hate to entirely lose the UC series…I can certainly see the perspective that it should be an occasional game vs. a yearly occurrence.
2 Likes
And that is why they can go suck a bearcat’s left teat. They are 30 mins away, and are in the B12. Miami doesn’t need to play at PBS for a home game to just to satisfy UC’s pride
4 Likes
Why? This is exactly what’s been screwing the program the last decade. We’ve constantly been playing one more P5 program than everyone else. Well, that and not getting paid for it.
2022- 2.5 P5 games, getting paid for 2
2023- 2 P5 games, getting paid for 1
2024- 3 P5 games, getting paid for 2
2025- 3 P5 games, getting paid for ONE
With the difference in resources, were walking into conference play every season with ~1.1 projected wins each season. Do what everyone else in the conference is doing: 2 buy games, 1 home and home with an interesting G5 team (WKU in 27/28 fits), and a tune up FCS game.
For reference, here’s Toledo and OU
1 Like
Who cares…beat Kentucky. Kill Will (legally). Beat the mayonnaise out of him.
1 Like
jive…i guess what i’m trying to say is, if miami wants to emphasize making more money (think opportunity cost of keeping a P5 team and not getting a comparable payday) then you put a third P5 on the schedule with a sacrifice of a win. if miami wants to emphasize increasing our odds at another out-of-conference win, then you go with another G5 opponent and you forgo the $$.
keeping UC on the schedule accomplishes neither of these scenarios…our chances of winning a game against them are no more than another P5 that does come with a payday.
i’m not sure miami needs the payday as of yet, so i’d opt for another win…also, let’s say year-in year-out we start conference play 1-3 (1 FCS win / 3 P5 losses), is it reasonable to expect that we aren’t 6-2 in conference play? if we say goal #1 is win the MAC-East, then we have to go 6-2…and goal #2 is MACC? even if we lose that game we’re 7-6 and probably bowling
but the day of reckoning is coming that we’re going to need that 3rd buy game…dont know when, but i believe it is coming. Everyone outside of the MAC appears to be making business decisions here, i think the time for us to adapt is near.
7 Likes
So why don’t we just tell UC they gotta pay us like any other team they’d play from The Mac. Even if it was nominal (100-200k) it might be viable to them.
I agree. We all are aware that our athletic budget receives major support from student fees. IIRC, our student fee support is greater than any school in the conference. It is over $1,000 per semester. At some point, college costs must be contained. The easiest way is to cut back student fees for athletics which, at the present time, has very little student support. Thousands of students/parents are paying the fee and have no interest in attending Miami games.Therefore, income is more important than the UC game if it is a money game we must have.
I am a '73 grad. I detest UC. Maybe more than OU. In the '70s, UC would disparage us–“This is Miami’s bowl game. To us, just another game.” Then, we’d go out and beat them. It took 15 straight losses to UC for them to catch us in the series history. However, as much as I hate to say it, if UC is not a big money maker, which it should be, we need to change directions. Losing to UC and playing by their rules as to location of games is a poison pill. They want to play us, come to Oxford every 2 yrs and we sell out. And I still believe we can compete with them most years.
2 Likes
If it’s a buy game (always at UC), 100k-200k is way too low. Even an FCS buy game costs 350k+. If it’s not a buy game, why would UC pay us? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
2 Likes
Speaking of future schedules, is it bad that I began my initial prep work for NEXT year’s UMass game today? I didn’t get the chance to be in Amherst the last time Miami traveled there. I’m not missing out on the game 13 months from now.
2 Likes
I don’t know the maths very well. was simply trying to give a arbitrary amount that was more than nothing. the other way to do it is, to say “well, if you don’t pay us, then we need to be on the basketball schedule.” That would be worth something in my book.
1 Like
Very good point. Home-home with UC bball would be of benefit to us. However, we have to get paid for fball, either with an equal split for all games played or significant payment from UC for their home games as they are now “P5”.
1 Like