Started By
Message
re: Future sched news - '24 M&W game on 4/20
Posted on 5/22/15 at 3:34 pm to finestfirst79
Posted on 5/22/15 at 3:34 pm to finestfirst79
0 inches of rainfall in Shreveport on gameday.
1
Posted on 5/22/15 at 3:49 pm to Farmer1906
You guys crack me up sometimes. Oh, if it didn't rain then there was obviously never a threat, right?
ETA: I mean, just LOOK at that pussy storm the day before the game:
ETA: I mean, just LOOK at that pussy storm the day before the game:
This post was edited on 5/22/15 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:13 pm to finestfirst79
I'm not saying Isaac wasn't a bitch, but it effected Shreveport in no way to move the game.
This post was edited on 5/22/15 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:17 pm to Farmer1906
Is that Yoda-speak? 
I get that Shreveport didn't have bad weather on gameday. But there was no way to predict that even 2 days before, when the game was canceled.
ETA: Meant to say postponed, not canceled.
I get that Shreveport didn't have bad weather on gameday. But there was no way to predict that even 2 days before, when the game was canceled.
ETA: Meant to say postponed, not canceled.
This post was edited on 5/22/15 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:18 pm to finestfirst79
I think I'm drunk. I was editing my shite and didn't complete my thought. I'm trying to keep up with Vandy's arse pounding of Bama. Its ugly. I think we pissed tham off.
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:22 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
I think we pissed tham off.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Also that Bama has run out of pitchers after 3 games in 3 days. Oh well... beat that arse again tomorrow!
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:41 pm to finestfirst79
If you want to believe meteorologists can't predict a hurricane path or that Shreveport, given how far it's inland, is really in danger from a Cat 1 storm, that's your prerogative.
But you're hung up on stuff that really isn't why this is a problem. LTU demanded a king's ransom to play on that specific date because they knew we had no options. They were dicks about it before the hurricane was ever a concern. We gave in to them because we had to.
Then when the tropical storm developed, they wouldn't even discuss options with us. We suggested waiting to Sun/Mon and they flat refused to discuss it. They unilaterally decided the game would be moved and when it would be played and since we had no option of not playing it, it was a big frick you. That's not how you do business with people, especially people paying twice the going rate for your product
FTR, Rice played that same day at home. LSU played at home on Sat
But you're hung up on stuff that really isn't why this is a problem. LTU demanded a king's ransom to play on that specific date because they knew we had no options. They were dicks about it before the hurricane was ever a concern. We gave in to them because we had to.
Then when the tropical storm developed, they wouldn't even discuss options with us. We suggested waiting to Sun/Mon and they flat refused to discuss it. They unilaterally decided the game would be moved and when it would be played and since we had no option of not playing it, it was a big frick you. That's not how you do business with people, especially people paying twice the going rate for your product
FTR, Rice played that same day at home. LSU played at home on Sat
Posted on 5/22/15 at 4:51 pm to tmc94
quote:
FTR, Rice played that same day at home. LSU played at home on Sat
Rice played at home. LSU played at home. Shreveport is not at home for LTU.
I don't have any particular love for LTU and in truth would prefer not to play them (or UTEP, SHSU, Lamar, etc.) ever again, but not because they screwed A&M. The angst over that game I'm guessing is all about if we had played that game on schedule, Kingsbury would have known what JFF was all about and we'd have finished the regular season 11-1 rather than 10-2 and maybe played for the NC. I get that. But they weren't wrong to postpone that game.
Posted on 5/22/15 at 5:00 pm to finestfirst79
that's not what the angst is about at all. No one has even brought up that angle.
They thumbed their noses at us and we're out $10m+ because we trusted them as business partners. Baffled how it's not obvious to you
They thumbed their noses at us and we're out $10m+ because we trusted them as business partners. Baffled how it's not obvious to you
Posted on 5/22/15 at 5:15 pm to tmc94
quote:
They thumbed their noses at us
Boo-hoo?
If the $10m isn't about A&M possibly extending the season I'm not sure what you're talking about. How did a postponement cost A&M $10m? What does "trusted them as business partners" have to do with anything?
Posted on 5/22/15 at 6:12 pm to finestfirst79
honestly it's a little annoying that you don't seem to read posts. I'm just restating things at this point
- we don't do home and homes with schools like La Tech. Ever. We do 2-for-1s at best. We did so at that time because they were willing to play that specific week. A home game vs a school like LT is worth about $5-6m to us
- they were already getting an amazing deal from us with the 1/1 and yet they still wouldn't give us the home game in 2012. We are required to have 6. So we had to move the Arkansas game (a school willing to work with us), to home/home. That cost us a 3-year extension to the bad Jerryworld contract which we now estimate costs us about $2m per year
We had other (bad) options and could have chosen them had we been willing to play 12 weeks straight or were willing to buy out a bunch of games to get other schools to move schedules around. The truth is we were up against it and took a really bad deal because we considered the other options worse.
We would have done anything possible including moving days, changing venues, etc to get it in. Yet they were completely unwilling to work with us even knowing full well what we went thru, and how much we gave up, to get it scheduled as is. And now they've cancelled the return game a year out.
- we don't do home and homes with schools like La Tech. Ever. We do 2-for-1s at best. We did so at that time because they were willing to play that specific week. A home game vs a school like LT is worth about $5-6m to us
- they were already getting an amazing deal from us with the 1/1 and yet they still wouldn't give us the home game in 2012. We are required to have 6. So we had to move the Arkansas game (a school willing to work with us), to home/home. That cost us a 3-year extension to the bad Jerryworld contract which we now estimate costs us about $2m per year
We had other (bad) options and could have chosen them had we been willing to play 12 weeks straight or were willing to buy out a bunch of games to get other schools to move schedules around. The truth is we were up against it and took a really bad deal because we considered the other options worse.
We would have done anything possible including moving days, changing venues, etc to get it in. Yet they were completely unwilling to work with us even knowing full well what we went thru, and how much we gave up, to get it scheduled as is. And now they've cancelled the return game a year out.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 7:30 am to tmc94
I guess I don't have too much of a problem with what LTU did in 2012. I understand their predicament, and I also understand that them not having ultimate control of the stadium could have had something to do with it. Either way, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
I like playing La Tech from time to time. I even don't mind giving them a game in Shrevport every 10 years or so because we recruit the area so heavily, and we need to keep Shrevport in our backyard. We also played there in 1999 so the 2012 game wasn't too big of a stretch.
I wonder, however, why they are mysteriously off our schedule in 2016. It would suck if we replaced them with a FCS team.
I like playing La Tech from time to time. I even don't mind giving them a game in Shrevport every 10 years or so because we recruit the area so heavily, and we need to keep Shrevport in our backyard. We also played there in 1999 so the 2012 game wasn't too big of a stretch.
I wonder, however, why they are mysteriously off our schedule in 2016. It would suck if we replaced them with a FCS team.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 8:28 am to The Balinese Club
quote:
I wonder, however, why they are mysteriously off our schedule in 2016.
For the '16 game their AD is much more deserving of the rotten tomatoes.
La. Tech shuffles 2016 schedule to get out of SEC West
Posted on 5/23/15 at 12:25 pm to finestfirst79
So they paid us to cancel? I'm confused now.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 2:31 pm to The Balinese Club
Yep, $500K to cancel a game they were only going to make $200K on. Weird stuff.
The trouble for A&M and what has folks mad is it might be tough to find a good replacement before '16.
The trouble for A&M and what has folks mad is it might be tough to find a good replacement before '16.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 5:25 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
For the '16 game their AD is much more deserving of the rotten tomatoes.
wait, what? For the '16 game they took advantage of a clause specifically written into the contract. I mean, it sucks on our end, but we put a value on it and they decided it was worth it. That's why you have a contract
In '12 they unilaterally declared disaster relief and made no good faith effort to come to an agreeable solution for both schools
Posted on 5/23/15 at 5:47 pm to tmc94
?
The Oct. 13 game was a pretty good solution.
The Oct. 13 game was a pretty good solution.
Posted on 5/23/15 at 6:01 pm to finestfirst79
We had multiple options to schedule a game on Oct 13th. We had already considered that option and decided to spend millions more to schedule on Aug 30th. Whether you agree with that valuation or not, that's the choice we made. It clearly mattered to us a great deal and in any other year, we'd have just cancelled the game
Just because you view it as an agreeable solution does not mean the parties do. And LTU made no good faith effort to work with us. Period.
Just because you view it as an agreeable solution does not mean the parties do. And LTU made no good faith effort to work with us. Period.
This post was edited on 5/23/15 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 9/1/15 at 2:42 pm to tmc94
quote:
Texas A&M will host North Texas at Kyle Field in College Station on Sept. 12, 2020. North Texas, a member of Conference USA, will receive a $1.25 million guarantee for the game.
The Aggies and Mean Green have met a total of seven times on the gridiron, but not since a 28-9 Aggie win in 1998. Texas A&M has won all seven games in the series, including six in College Station and one in Irving.
Texas A&M now has two non-conference games scheduled for the 2020 season. The Aggies are also slated to host Colorado on Sept. 19, which is the first game of a home-and-home series that concludes in 2021.
LINK
This post was edited on 9/1/15 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 9/1/15 at 3:28 pm to Dr RC
seems pricey but also the going rate these days. I like scheduling UNT type schools as our buy games though. In state, G5 teams should be our primary buy games. Much better than the Ball States and Nevadas of the world. Though I guess if we're going to start aggressively recruiting Gorman players Nevada or UNLV aren't bad options.
Page 19 of 27
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News