Furman to play Mizzou in 2009 [Archive]

runHENrun

February 16th, 2009, 08:05 PM

Actually, a loss to an FBS team looks better than a loss to an FCS team. Last year JMU got beat bad by Duke. No one noticed when it came down to playoff selections. In 2005, ASU got demolished by Kansas and shut out by LSU. Not only did they get two nice paychecks, but they also got the number two playoff seed.

With UD on your schedule you had at least a 50/50 chance for a D1 win, now with missouri on the schedule it's probably more like a 1 out of 20 chance for that D1 win. I dont see how this helps Furmans playoff chances, after all it takes wins not losses to make the playoffs.

GaSouthern

February 16th, 2009, 08:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2MS2f7KfvM

GSU fans would like to stand up and say that to your playoff chances.

BigHouseClosedEnd

February 16th, 2009, 08:27 PM

Actually, a loss to an FBS team looks better than a loss to an FCS team. Last year JMU got beat bad by Duke. No one noticed when it came down to playoff selections. In 2005, ASU got demolished by Kansas and shut out by LSU. Not only did they get two nice paychecks, but they also got the number two playoff seed.

Uhhh ... JMU was 10-1 and ranked #1 last year. No comparison.

Furman will need to go 6-2 in the SoCon if they want to make the playoffs.

PaladinFan

February 16th, 2009, 09:06 PM

Potentially, but these are likely 2 losses. And losses to FBS teams don't help the resume when it comes to playoff-selection time.

This schedule, if anything, helps Furman. The committee doesn't even look at FBS losses. Two examples

James Madison gets throttled by Duke (let's face it, less than stellar competition). Did they even drop in the polls? It certainly didn't matter come selection time.

2005 App State gets thumped by LSU and Kansas. They get the #2 seed.

Furman could likely have lost to Delaware (we may never know). But a loss to Missou will have no effect while a loss to Delaware would drop us and hurt us come playoff time.

I'm not convinced that Furman won't give Auburn more than they bargained for, either.

PaladinFan

February 16th, 2009, 09:08 PM

Uhhh ... JMU was 10-1 and ranked #1 last year. No comparison.

Furman will need to go 6-2 in the SoCon if they want to make the playoffs.

It's same as every year. in 2008 the #3 SoCon team got left at home. If Furman finishes in the top two in the conference, they go to the playoffs (I simply can't imagine a senario where only one SoCon team gets a bid). If they finish third, doesn't matter what they did against the FBS, they stay home.

This doesn't change a thing for the Paladins. If we finish third in conference, no playoffs. If Wofford, Elon, GSU, etc. finish third, likely no playoffs for them either.

BigHouseClosedEnd

February 16th, 2009, 09:09 PM

This schedule, if anything, helps Furman. The committee doesn't even look at FBS losses. Two examples

James Madison gets throttled by Duke (let's face it, less than stellar competition). Did they even drop in the polls? It certainly didn't matter come selection time.

2005 App State gets thumped by LSU and Kansas. They get the #2 seed.

Furman could likely have lost to Delaware (we may never know). But a loss to Missou will have no effect while a loss to Delaware would drop us and hurt us come playoff time.

I'm not convinced that Furman won't give Auburn more than they bargained for, either.

I think the point he's trying to make is that if you're planning on going 7-4 and making the playoffs... no matter your competition, history is working against you.

If you are planning on winning one of the FBS games, you may want to lower those expectations too.

NovaHater

February 16th, 2009, 09:11 PM

What a classless act to dump UD this late in the game. So what do the Hens do with open date now created ?

I hope some type of penalty will be involved, screw SoCon schools if this is how they act.

For what, a bigger payday ? Imagine if other schools adopted this type of "We changed our minds, you came to our stadium last year, but we're not going to yours".

Real class Furman

Eight Legger

February 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM

This schedule, if anything, helps Furman. The committee doesn't even look at FBS losses. Two examples

James Madison gets throttled by Duke (let's face it, less than stellar competition). Did they even drop in the polls? It certainly didn't matter come selection time.

2005 App State gets thumped by LSU and Kansas. They get the #2 seed.

Furman could likely have lost to Delaware (we may never know). But a loss to Missou will have no effect while a loss to Delaware would drop us and hurt us come playoff time.

I'm not convinced that Furman won't give Auburn more than they bargained for, either.

It's pointless to try to predict which loss will hurt more. If you are assuming you'll lose those games either way, what's the point? I think the argument is that you had a pretty decent chance of beating Delaware, and you have almost no chance of beating Missouri -- that's the comparison that matters.

R3TRO

February 16th, 2009, 09:36 PM

LarryBoy

February 16th, 2009, 10:28 PM

I agree... completely classless.

I generally cheer for any FCS program over FBS, but will not be the case during these two games.

Ouch. You'd get the feeling on these boards that no team has ever dropped a scheduled game before.

Look, I'm not saying that I agree with the decision to drop the game, but I also don't know the situation at all, just like the rest of us. And nothing (outside of Bobby's occasional "fire" on the sidelines) has ever suggested to me that the Furman Athletic Department is anything but classy. Trust me, no one's really ever accused these guys of being over-aggressive or over-competitive. This is the same department that has been bending over backwards for years to schedule multiple lower-echelon road games as favors to old friends.

Hmmmm....or is this a CAA/SoCon slander-fest we have going on here?

g-webb1994

February 16th, 2009, 10:37 PM

Blue Hens have a right to be upset, but trashing the entire institution makes them look ignorant as hell. Furman is an academic stalwart, period. The fact they run a squeaky clean program while keeping such high academic standards can't be argued.

MSUBear42

February 16th, 2009, 10:59 PM

GO FURMAN!!

kirkblitz

February 16th, 2009, 11:04 PM

dont worry ccu will take furmans spot just fine....

GannonFan

February 16th, 2009, 11:09 PM

Hey, what Furman has done in the past is all well and good. But they dropped an FCS team, mid contract, after taking the home game, and did it with only 6 months before the game - heck, I'm pretty sure UD's already started printing everything from tickets to season ticket packages to brochures, etc. And Furman's basically doing it all for the money here. There's nothing classy about that. They haven't really put Delaware in a very good spot at all - again, just because it's contractually allowed doesn't mean it's a good thing to do to another program.

ur2k

February 17th, 2009, 08:08 AM

This schedule, if anything, helps Furman. The committee doesn't even look at FBS losses. Two examples

James Madison gets throttled by Duke (let's face it, less than stellar competition). Did they even drop in the polls? It certainly didn't matter come selection time.

2005 App State gets thumped by LSU and Kansas. They get the #2 seed.

Furman could likely have lost to Delaware (we may never know). But a loss to Missou will have no effect while a loss to Delaware would drop us and hurt us come playoff time.

I'm not convinced that Furman won't give Auburn more than they bargained for, either.

If you guys win one of these games, great - it helps your playoff chances. But if these 2 games go like most others in FCS v FBS, in an 11 game season, you're starting your season 0-2. That means you have to go 8-1 (maybe 7-2) in your other games to make the playoffs.

FCS_pwns_FBS

February 17th, 2009, 09:14 AM

Auburn looks to be winable. Didnt they beat UT-Martin in the final minutes last year? If we catch them off guard while they are looking ahead in conference play... WATCH OUT WAR EAGLE! We have a strong tradition of playing very well against FBS teams, anyone remember UNC three years ago? VT last year? Out-gaining Clemson and holding Spiller and Davis under 40 yards the year before? We will play lights out in both of these games.

Also, Chase Daniels will be gone from Missouri. You guys might have a decent chance - I'd say more of a chance than you had versus Va Tech.

By the way, do we know for sure that the FU-UD game is cancelled or is it merely postponed?

PaladinFan

February 17th, 2009, 11:07 AM

UD gets PAID for the game. Furman plays at Delaware they get butkiss. Furman plays at Mizzou they likely bring in somewhere around $400,000. No brainer. Sorry Hens.

GannonFan

February 17th, 2009, 01:08 PM

UD gets PAID for the game. Furman plays at Delaware they get butkiss. Furman plays at Mizzou they likely bring in somewhere around $400,000. No brainer. Sorry Hens.

Yup, and that's the reason why Furman won't be on any UD schedule in the future, without the game being in Newark first. Furman can't be trusted.

ur2k

February 17th, 2009, 01:08 PM

UD gets PAID for the game. Furman plays at Delaware they get butkiss. Furman plays at Mizzou they likely bring in somewhere around $400,000. No brainer. Sorry Hens.

So I'll ask the question - are you saying that a paycheck for the school is more important that putting your team in a position to make the playoffs?

ElSissy

February 17th, 2009, 01:23 PM

Also, Chase Daniels will be gone from Missouri. You guys might have a decent chance - I'd say more of a chance than you had versus Va Tech.

Mizzou is losing more than Chase Daniel. Virtually all of their productive skill players from the past two years will be gone. Mizzou also has some significant problems in the defensive unit. Furman could make this game very competitive.

PaladinFan

February 17th, 2009, 01:28 PM

So I'll ask the question - are you saying that a paycheck for the school is more important that putting your team in a position to make the playoffs?

Again, 2005 App State. Throttled by two FBS schools. #2 seed and national champs.

I'm sure Furman has no problem playing UD in the future. I expect we would. However, in this economy and with the SoCon struggling financially, this seems like a no brainer.

UNH_Alum_In_CT

February 17th, 2009, 02:20 PM

Again, 2005 App State. Throttled by two FBS schools. #2 seed and national champs.

I'm sure Furman has no problem playing UD in the future. I expect we would. However, in this economy and with the SoCon struggling financially, this seems like a no brainer.

I'm sure Furman won't have any problem, but I betcha Delaware will. And guess what, a lot of schools are probably now going to demand the first game in a home and home series be played at their school.

I don't see many other schools breaking contracts to add a money game due to the struggling economy or league fiscal problems. xwhistlex xwhistlex Odd, how to some Paladin Fans all that money Mizzou is paying seems to justify the bad practice of breaking a contract at such a late date. xrolleyesx xsmhx xsmhx

GATA

February 17th, 2009, 02:42 PM

Why on earth would Furman do this?

R3TRO

February 17th, 2009, 02:51 PM

This whole thing reminds me of this...

Money Talks: $100 to take a hit from Kimbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt8AQCnMBjU&feature=related

ur2k

February 17th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Again, 2005 App State. Throttled by two FBS schools. #2 seed and national champs.

I'm sure Furman has no problem playing UD in the future. I expect we would. However, in this economy and with the SoCon struggling financially, this seems like a no brainer.

Yeah, but they also went 8-1 with the rest of their schedule. 6-1 in the SoCon to win the conference - they didn't get an at-large bid that year. That's tough to do. Do you see Furman going 8-1 this year in FCS and rolling through the SoCon?

http://www.soconsports.com/fls/4000/socon/stats/football/2005/CONFSKED.HTM

aceinthehole

February 17th, 2009, 03:07 PM

Furman has to do what it thinks is best for its program. If it means getting out of the contract, OK. There will be adverse results, but I assume they already calculated that into their decision. What makes me question their AD is the appearant fact that they did not find Delaware another opponent.

Twice now, CCSU has been a "replacement" for a team that had to back out of a deal. We replaced Northeastern for the game at Georgia Southern and we are replacing ODU for the game at William and Mary.

Leaving UD with an open game this late in the year is poor judgement on the part of Furman AD. These thinkgs happen sometimes, but they should do some of the legwork to get UD a replacement game.

OL FU

February 17th, 2009, 03:07 PM

Yeah, but they also went 8-1 with the rest of their schedule. 6-1 in the SoCon to win the conference - they didn't get an at-large bid that year. That's tough to do. Do you see Furman going 8-1 this year in FCS and rolling through the SoCon?

http://www.soconsports.com/fls/4000/socon/stats/football/2005/CONFSKED.HTM

Very few people thought ASU would do that at the start of the 2005 season;)

ur2k

February 17th, 2009, 04:06 PM

Very few people thought ASU would do that at the start of the 2005 season;)

I didn't say it was impossible, it just seems as if you're starting your team behind the 8-ball to start the season.

But in this case, it seems like the paycheck was more important than anything else.

OL FU

February 17th, 2009, 04:08 PM

I didn't say it was impossible, it just seems as if you're starting your team behind the 8-ball to start the season.

But in this case, it seems like the paycheck was more important than anything else.

I know you didn't but the question would have been ask of ASU in 2005, so who knowsxsmiley_wix

Although I do know that ASU didn't seek two games, I believe they had someone back out of one and they had to feel it with Kansas if my memory serves me correctly.

And yes, I think FU is saying the paycheck is the most important thing.

FURMANFAN

February 17th, 2009, 04:10 PM

Yup, and that's the reason why Furman won't be on any UD schedule in the future, without the game being in Newark first. Furman can't be trusted.

There is no trust involved. That's why there is a contract. Furman doesn't owe UD anything beyond the terms of the contract and vice versa. Furman did not break the contract. Put simply the contract says you get the game or you get some money. UD is getting some money. Contract fulfilled.

furman94

February 17th, 2009, 04:17 PM

Guess what?! NO ONE ON THIS BOARD CAN CHANGE ANYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED! It was the fault of the AD, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Please stop ranting on a message board; it is pointless and will not do any good.

If you have any more grievances with our program, our university, or our administration, please feel free to call AD Gary Clark at (864)294-2150 to express your profound unpleasentness. Thank you.

mizzoufan1

February 17th, 2009, 05:08 PM

Hey, guys...
Just to let you know...there is another side to this. Mizzou and SMU mutually cancelled a series that was supposed to start this year. And from reports around here in CoMO, two other FCS schools who had agreements to come to Columbia, should things change, backed out. Furman was willing to take the game after those two schools left us high and dry.
Plus, Furman may be walking into a hornet's nest after OUR first two games. (vs. Illinois in St. Louis and home vs. Bowling Green).
Thank you Paladins for coming. Your fans will be treated well by the fans here but don't expect any sympathy on the field. Hope you bring your marching band!

See you here in CoMO in September!

furman94

February 17th, 2009, 05:34 PM

We dont want your sympathy :D! I'm betting on our band traveling to Auburn, so that probably means its a no for the Mizzou game.

mizzoufan1

February 17th, 2009, 05:41 PM

We dont want your sympathy :D! I'm betting on our band traveling to Auburn, so that probably means its a no for the Mizzou game.

Fine then take a butt-kicking and the $$$...lol. Rats on no band...Was hoping to hear your fight song live...Oh well....Wait...I don't go to MU football games anyway...I will be listening on the radio!

youwouldno

February 17th, 2009, 06:35 PM

If Furman had Delaware's resources, they wouldn't have bought out the return game. As a Furman fan, I hate the switch, but stuff like this happens all the time and money is a huge problem right now.

There is zero question it hurts Furman's playoff chances. But if the Paladins are really good, it shouldn't matter, and what's the point of limping into the playoffs only to get wiped out in the first round (e.g., @ Montana St.).

PaladinFan

February 17th, 2009, 08:05 PM

blukeys

February 17th, 2009, 11:41 PM

I'm sure Furman won't have any problem, but I betcha Delaware will. And guess what, a lot of schools are probably now going to demand the first game in a home and home series be played at their school.

I don't see many other schools breaking contracts to add a money game due to the struggling economy or league fiscal problems. xwhistlex xwhistlex Odd, how to some Paladin Fans all that money Mizzou is paying seems to justify the bad practice of breaking a contract at such a late date. xrolleyesx xsmhx xsmhx

I have refrained from posting on this as I have so much respect for Furman fans on this board BUT this was a totally classless act performed by a heretofore classy school.

To those of you Paladin fans who have questioned your own schools decisionmaking in this matter, Thank You.xbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowx

To the Paladin fans who say "Well anyone would take the money first" I say you are all hypocrites.

Where is your Southern sense of honor????

Delaware and the Citadel had longstanding home and home arrangements for years that neither school backed out of. Both schools had ample opportunities to schedule money games in those periods but not once did it happen.

Georgia Southern actually bailed Delaware out after the Tressel cowards at Younstown State reneged on a long term deal.

Thank You GSU from a long time Hen fan. :D:):D:):D

It appears that some on this board think that abandoning a very solid FCS matchup should be negated by a big pay day. Well in the end you get what you pay for.

I worked for the Delaware football staff in the 70's and I can tell you that Furman will not ever be on Delaware's schedule again unless Furman gives AT LEAST 2 games at Newark before a return visit is even considered.

I hope the Furples understand the depth of this insult.

GSU and the Citadel have our respect as opponents and adversaries.

Furman now has the reputation of being welchers and whiners.

I hope the extra money earned is worth the cost of your reputation from a first rate FCS school.

Furman has now earned the lowest level from the Delaware administration and staff.

I worked there. I know the people. You guys totally blew it. You could have had a great OC home and home series.

The UD scheduling team will now work in other areas. There are certainly other SOCON teams out there who would benefit from UD coming there.

I will say that with the exception of the Citadel and GSU, no UD team will do a Home and Home with a SoCon team again without the first game in Newark.

Book it.

Furman taught us a big lesson about "Southern Honor"xnodxxnodxxnodx

GaSouthern

February 18th, 2009, 08:59 AM

Georgia Southern actually bailed Delaware out after the Tressel cowards at Younstown State reneged on a long term deal.

Thank You GSU from a long time Hen fan. :D:):D:):D

I'd love to continue a series with UD anyday!

FURMANFAN

February 18th, 2009, 11:13 AM

I'd love to continue a series with UD anyday!

Yeah. And if UGA or Tech called and offered a game that interfered with the UD game, you'd send them a check and head to Athens or Atlanta budget shortfall or not.

I've a question for all you outraged UD fans. How did you leave the America East or whatever conference you were in before you moved to the CAA? Didn't that entail opting out of an agreement? I'm sure UD did it correctly within the terms of the contract. Either gave notice or paid some money, but within the terms of the agreement. That probably didn't keep some schools and/or fans from feeling bitter, but UD did what they considered best for UD, not the other parties involved. Not pleasant, but certainly not unethical. Do the admins of your former conference mates shun you, refuse to have any dealings with you? If they do they're shortsighted and petty.

henfan

February 18th, 2009, 11:39 AM

I've a question for all you outraged UD fans. How did you leave the America East or whatever conference you were in before you moved to the CAA? Didn't that entail opting out of an agreement? I'm sure UD did it correctly within the terms of the contract. Either gave notice or paid some money, but within the terms of the agreement. That probably didn't keep some schools and/or fans from feeling bitter, but UD did what they considered best for UD, not the other parties involved. Not pleasant, but certainly not unethical.

With all due respect, you might want to stick to a subject you know something about and spare us the crapbag-to-oranges comparison. Trust me, I'm not big fan of UD's AD but, at the very least, they do honor contractual obligations for games.

Anyone who followed the AEC fiasco knows that UD worked its damndest for years to keep that conference together and land a FB league, up to and including orchestrating an unsuccessful AEC takeover of the CAA. What efforts did Furman make to assure that they wouldn't leave UD in the lerch in this instance? Did they suddenly just become aware that the AD was in financial straights or was it a quick and easy solution?

As Blukeys suggested, and I'm not talking as a fan here, UD's AD is absolutely livid about the way FU handled this. It'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see UD-FU matched up in any sport, which is really unfortunate for we fans of both schools, IMO. xsmhx

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 11:41 AM

I've a question for all you outraged UD fans...
Maybe I'm biased, but I've seen an awful lot of pretty level headed UD fans.

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 11:43 AM

Yeah. And if UGA or Tech called and offered a game that interfered with the UD game, you'd send them a check and head to Athens or Atlanta budget shortfall or not.
Speculation at this point FF. Let's stick to facts. xrulesx

LarryBoy

February 18th, 2009, 11:58 AM

Trust me, I'm not big fan of UD's AD but, at the very least, they do honor contractual obligations for games.

Furman did honor their contract. They were either supposed to play the game or pay up. They took the second option.

I understand that many people were looking forward to this game, but I don't understand the outrage at all. Their must be 50 or so opt-outs in Division I football every year. Missouri came to us because SEMO opted out of their scheduled game. Where's the outrage for that?

Is it just because it happened to Delaware? Because Delaware wants revenge for last year's loss? Would there be this outrage if Delaware came down to Greenville last fall and smacked us around? Probably not, but instead, a "look at them run scared" attitude.

Was it about money? Absolutely. But so are most of the other dozen or so opt-outs reported in the last few weeks.

Furman was approached with an opportunity to help out the entire athletic department financially, and did so in a contractually-appropriate way. The scumbags.

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 12:01 PM

Missouri came to us because SEMO opted out of their scheduled game. Where's the outrage for that?
Probably on a Missouri message board. xpeacex

LarryBoy

February 18th, 2009, 12:03 PM

Probably on a Missouri message board. xpeacex

Nope. Joy that SEMO opted out, then loud anger for replacing them with us.

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 12:05 PM

and did so in a contractually-appropriate way
Contractually "legal" might be more "appropriate" IMO. xpeacex

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 12:06 PM

Nope. Joy that SEMO opted out, then loud anger for replacing them with us.
So why did you ask the question? If Mizzou was happy about SEMO backing out... where's the issue? xconfusedx

LarryBoy

February 18th, 2009, 12:27 PM

So why did you ask the question? If Mizzou was happy about SEMO backing out... where's the issue? xconfusedx

That is the issue...the opinion here seems to be that opting out at this point is wrong. My point is that it happens all the time, and in nearly every other scenario, no one seems to care.

henfan

February 18th, 2009, 12:28 PM

Furman was approached with an opportunity to help out the entire athletic department financially, and did so in a contractually-appropriate way. The scumbags.

Larry, again, it's not that FU backed out; it's when they backed out. I'm fairly certain there would not have been such hard feelings in the UD AD if this had been done a few months ago and not right before the school was getting ready to release its schedule and season ticket packets.

In the off chance that Mizzou is approached by School X with a better, more lucrative offer and exercises the buyout option in, say, July, you mean to tell me FU would be OK with that? Come on. In that instance, when does Mizzou cross the line from acting financially responsible to becoming "scumbags"?

Come on. You can still love your football team and acknowledge when they haven't exactly conducted business above board.

ChickenMan

February 18th, 2009, 12:39 PM

If Furman breaks a contract in order to take the 'money'.. they are going to have to take some 'heat' as well.

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 12:44 PM

That is the issue...the opinion here seems to be that opting out at this point is wrong. My point is that it happens all the time, and in nearly every other scenario, no one seems to care.
Then you obviously weren't around when Montana backed out of the second half of a home and home with another I-AA team. Almost every one of the back-outs you site were NOT I-AA vs I-AA and NOT the back half of home and homes. xpeacex

And I'm not sure I understand your point. Mizzou was happy when SEMO backed out. UD obviously is not. Apples and oranges.

FURMANFAN

February 18th, 2009, 12:51 PM

With all due respect, you might want to stick to a subject you know something about and spare us the crapbag-to-oranges comparison. Trust me, I'm not big fan of UD's AD but, at the very least, they do honor contractual obligations for games.

Anyone who followed the AEC fiasco knows that UD worked its damndest for years to keep that conference together and land a FB league, up to and including orchestrating an unsuccessful AEC takeover of the CAA. What efforts did Furman make to assure that they wouldn't leave UD in the lerch in this instance? Did they suddenly just become aware that the AD was in financial straights or was it a quick and easy solution?

As Blukeys suggested, and I'm not talking as a fan here, UD's AD is absolutely livid about the way FU handled this. It'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see UD-FU matched up in any sport, which is really unfortunate for we fans of both schools, IMO. xsmhx

And with all due respect to you, regardless of the history bottomline when you decided to make a move you had to opt out of whatever agreement you had with the AEC. And as I said I'm sure you did it by the book but still feelings were hurt. Being left in the lurch with "only" six months to find a replacement game is what the money is for per our contractual obligation. Contractual obligation as set out in the terms of the deal, not your implied definition of the term by which if you never broke one you'd still be in the AEC and you're not. Besides, I don't know that Furman didn't offer a return game in another year or help in securing a new opponent this year that your livid AD turned down. The point is Furman did nothing wrong UD fans' bruised feelings and your AD's anger notwithstanding.

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 12:56 PM

I don't think we're going to get anywhere as long as one side is arguing it as a legal issue and one side is arguing it as an ethical issue. xrotatehx

blukeys

February 18th, 2009, 12:57 PM

Yeah. And if UGA or Tech called and offered a game that interfered with the UD game, you'd send them a check and head to Athens or Atlanta budget shortfall or not.

I've a question for all you outraged UD fans. How did you leave the America East or whatever conference you were in before you moved to the CAA? Didn't that entail opting out of an agreement? I'm sure UD did it correctly within the terms of the contract. Either gave notice or paid some money, but within the terms of the agreement. That probably didn't keep some schools and/or fans from feeling bitter, but UD did what they considered best for UD, not the other parties involved. Not pleasant, but certainly not unethical. Do the admins of your former conference mates shun you, refuse to have any dealings with you? If they do they're shortsighted and petty.

As Henfan has clearly noted you are totally out of your league regarding the America East situation. It is a good idea if you have no clue what you are talking about regarding a topic then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about it. In this instance it is apparent you are clueless.

The fact is ALL of the America East Football teams migrated to the CAA and are affiliate members (if not full members) . Not all are happy with the arrangement (ask Mainejeff) but that is more the fault of the America East Basketball schools kicking aside a perfectly reasonable proposal to take over football from the Yankee Conference. The refusal of the AE left the former Yankee teams without an established conference and in danger of losing the Yankee autobid for the affected schools.

Furman will pay the buyout and fulfill the legal obligations of this contract. What Furman has done is not illegal. However, in other threads (Montana) when this subject has come up I have called it unethical.

Other fans including Furman fans have agreed with me on those threads.

I refuse to change my position that this unethical based on the school that chooses to do it. But, more important is that this practice is destructive to building good long term relationships among competitive FCS teams. Why should UD attempt to establish a long term relationship with a school that will dump them within 6 months of the game???

There are plenty of schools that would love to get a home and home with UD (personally I would love to GSU again)

I have worked with the UD administration in the past and as I originally stated they trust personal relationships and the word of others as being honorable.

They prefer to deal with folks face to face with handshake agreements based on the honor of those they have dealt with in the past.

Furman is now off that list. I am not enraged about it. I am saddened, as I thought the potential for a long time relationship was destroyed by a short sighted administration.

That is why I asked, in My original post what about "Southern Honor"???

Don't you guys in the South believe that your word is your bond?? I guess not.

blukeys

February 18th, 2009, 01:05 PM

ChickenMan

February 18th, 2009, 01:08 PM

The point is Furman did nothing wrong UD fans' bruised feelings and your AD's anger notwithstanding.

Talk about blind loyalty... :p

State Line Liquors

February 18th, 2009, 01:51 PM

The point is Furman did nothing wrong UD fans' bruised feelings and your AD's anger notwithstanding.

No, the point is now actually: moot. UD and Furman will probably not be playing again outside of the playoffs for a very, very long time (if ever, depending on FU's finances). Unfortunate that it had to be that way. The decision has been made, and there is no point in arguing this anymore.

Effectively the Furman athletic department has admitted that they are a financially unviable athletics program and were required to smear egg on themselves further by ducking from the away game in a home and home agreement, in order to get a short term cash infusion.

There are too many other FCS teams out there, including more prestigious programs in the SoCon, that would be much more fun to develop a series and a friendly rivalry with. So lets stop crying over spilled milk and start dealing with the programs that view agreements as more than an escape clause.

Edgar, get on the g'darned phone and get that series with GSU back!!

henfan

February 18th, 2009, 01:52 PM

And with all due respect to you, regardless of the history bottomline when you decided to make a move you had to opt out of whatever agreement you had with the AEC.

Ah, no. A conference membership agreement is an open end arrangement; it's not a scoped 2-year contract. Again, apples to oranges.

UD gave the AEC two years notice that they would be leaving for the CAA after exhausting almost every possible option in attempting to remain in the AEC. Did FU exhaust their options before back out of the UD deal?

The UD's membership agreement with the AEC required that the school give 2 years notice prior to leaving or they would have to pay a withdraw penalty. UD was not interested in exercising its buyout in the AEC case; FU obviously did with their FB contract.

Surely you understand the difference between the UD making a considerable effort to remain in the AEC and the 2 years notice they gave the conference after exhausting their options versus FU's quick money grab. Then again, maybe not.xsmhx

fuEMO

February 18th, 2009, 01:56 PM

No, the point is now actually: moot. UD and Furman will probably not be playing again outside of the playoffs for a very, very long time (if ever, depending on FU's finances). Unfortunate that it had to be that way. The decision has been made, and there is no point in arguing this anymore.

Effectively the Furman athletic department has admitted that they are a financially unviable athletics program and were required to smear egg on themselves further by ducking from the away game in a home and home agreement, in order to get a short term cash infusion.

There are too many other FCS teams out there, including more prestigious programs in the SoCon, that would be much more fun to develop a series and a friendly rivalry with. So lets stop crying over spilled milk and start dealing with the programs that view agreements as more than an escape clause.

Edgar, get on the g'darned phone and get that series with GSU back!!

I'll admit it as a Furman Fan, I wish we were still playing the Hens, I was looking forward to the trip.

But I would love to hear you name and define the "more prestigious programs" of the SoCon. Maybe you can give me a SoCon history lesson?

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 01:56 PM

Edgar, get on the g'darned phone and get that series with GSU back!!
Or El Cid. I'd love to see their new digs and Charleston is a great place to visit.

State Line Liquors

February 18th, 2009, 02:37 PM

I'll admit it as a Furman Fan, I wish we were still playing the Hens, I was looking forward to the trip.

But I would love to hear you name and define the "more prestigious programs" of the SoCon. Maybe you can give me a SoCon history lesson?

Start a thread called 'Southern Conference's Most Prestigious Football Program', and I'll get back to you in a couple hours. xnodx

89Hen

February 18th, 2009, 02:40 PM

But I would love to hear you name and define the "more prestigious programs" of the SoCon.
Right now.... everyone not named Furman. :p

93henfan

February 18th, 2009, 02:40 PM

Or El Cid. I'd love to see their new digs and Charleston is a great place to visit.

Agreed. I also wouldn't mind another game or two against App St, so long as the zebras aren't from the MEAC. I've never tried moonshine, and if I'm ever going to, I may as well get it fresh from the hills.

FURMANFAN

February 18th, 2009, 02:44 PM

UD left the AEC within the terms of their agreement. So did Furman. It's disingenuous to try to make anything more out of this than the pre-negotiated end to a business transaction.

ur2k

February 18th, 2009, 02:54 PM

But, more important is that this practice is destructive to building good long term relationships among competitive FCS teams.

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner !!!

Well said, bluekeys xthumbsupx

GannonFan

February 18th, 2009, 04:06 PM

UD left the AEC within the terms of their agreement. So did Furman. It's disingenuous to try to make anything more out of this than the pre-negotiated end to a business transaction.

So says the fan of the team that just coined the term "Furmaned". Apparently when details make those two scenarios night and day it's best to just ignore the details. xrolleyesx

fuEMO

February 18th, 2009, 04:18 PM

Start a thread called 'Southern Conference's Most Prestigious Football Program', and I'll get back to you in a couple hours. xnodx

I'm cool with your insult… Were all passionate fans of our schools and you have every reason to be steamed. But considering Furman's history in the SoCon and athletics across the board. I don't think one business decision ruins Furman's reputation or prestige.

FURMANFAN

February 18th, 2009, 04:59 PM

So says the fan of the team that just coined the term "Furmaned". Apparently when details make those two scenarios night and day it's best to just ignore the details. xrolleyesx

Yep so says me. However, Furman coined no term. That was some numb nut UD fan. So it seems if you agree with taking advantage of an opt out clause it's fine to do it. If you don't it isn't. That's a pretty self-serving stance, and intellectually dishonest.

93henfan

February 18th, 2009, 05:15 PM

Yep so says me. However, Furman coined no term. That was some numb nut UD fan. So it seems if you agree with taking advantage of an opt out clause it's fine to do it. If you don't it isn't. That's a pretty self-serving stance, and intellectually dishonest.

Imaginary rep points to you for staunchly defending a weak cause. One invisible chiclet headed your way.

State Line Liquors

February 18th, 2009, 06:11 PM

I'm cool with your insult… Were all passionate fans of our schools and you have every reason to be steamed. But considering Furman's history in the SoCon and athletics across the board. I don't think one business decision ruins Furman's reputation or prestige.

I'd view it as an opinion rather than an insult. To be honest with you, I'm over it. It's time to move on. Thanks for tipping the bartender on your way out.

GannonFan

February 18th, 2009, 08:21 PM

Yep so says me. However, Furman coined no term. That was some numb nut UD fan. So it seems if you agree with taking advantage of an opt out clause it's fine to do it. If you don't it isn't. That's a pretty self-serving stance, and intellectually dishonest.

Huh? Taking advantage of an opt out clause, with multiple years notice, and one where you turn down the cash out option to opt out even sooner, and one where you take all your football playing brethren with you, is significantly different than the option where you leave another party high and dry at the very last minute and where you do take the cash out option to leave immediately. If you can't see the difference in that when it's been explained to you several times, then I'm not sure you're the most qualified to be judging self-serving (which is ironic because the position you're taking is self-serving) or intellectually dishonest.

blukeys

February 18th, 2009, 11:40 PM

I guess it is time to wrap this up.

Larryboy has left the house. Maybe he finally read the threads on the Montana dumping of other FCS teams for big payouts and the outrage it caused. Larryboy, people cared about this kind of unethical behavior long before Furman did it.

Furmanfan is left with the lawyer's strategy of "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue the law, try to muck things up as well as you can. "

When folks ask on this board, Why can't we get more good FCS on FCS competitive games? This situation should be public exhibit number one.

When schools such as Montana and Furman renege on the back end of a home and home arrangement, other schools (such as UD) say "to hell with it" and schedule a school who needs the stature of simply playing a top notch FCS school to advance their program. There are plenty of such schools in the Mid Atlantic and Northeast for UD.

UD has had plenty of opportunities to break long term contracts for big pay days. They have chosen not to do so in order to build and maintain a potential OOC rivalry and relationship. I was saddenned when Youngstown State backed out of their contract in the 90's. They destroyed a healthy and respectful rivalry that began in the 70's.

I would have loved to have seen a CAA/SoCon weekend early in the year where all the games are OOC games between these 2 conferences. It was possible (in the future) and would have created a lot of interest not to mention some playoff possibilities. It was a remote idea that has now become much more remote.

We all know that Furman did nothing illegal. That has never been alleged. But just because a certain behavior is not illegal does not make it right. I can lend a friend $20.00 for drinks because he forgot his wallet one night when we were going out. I have no promissory note from the guy or a contract. Yet, if he never makes any attempt to return my "loan", then I will be hesitant about ever doing a financial favor for him again.

For those Furman fans who have expressed disappointment in a classless decision by athletic administrators, I respect your integrity and will not even expect to get my $20.00 back!!xsmiley_wixxsmiley_wix

For those who want to continue to defend what is indefensible, I hope you are just as willing in your personal relationships to allow others to dump on you. I hope you will never hold anyone accountable for breaking their word to you. I hope that you are Ok with someone taking your money with no effort to pay you back. I hope you allow a woman to bail on you without hard feelings because "she found a better deal" (I think we ALL have been there!!xsmiley_wixxsmiley_wix)

kirkblitz

February 19th, 2009, 12:04 AM

50 on furman to win by 10

blukeys

February 19th, 2009, 12:12 AM

50 on furman to win by 10

I'll take that bet.

BDKJMU

February 19th, 2009, 02:04 AM

It's same as every year. in 2008 the #3 SoCon team got left at home. If Furman finishes in the top two in the conference, they go to the playoffs (I simply can't imagine a senario where only one SoCon team gets a bid). If they finish third, doesn't matter what they did against the FBS, they stay home.

This doesn't change a thing for the Paladins. If we finish third in conference, no playoffs. If Wofford, Elon, GSU, etc. finish third, likely no playoffs for them either.

BS. If the #3 team in the So-Con wins 8 Div I games (on an 11 game schedule) they'll be in the playoffs, esp if they play a I-A.

08' Elon didn't get in because at 8-4 they had played no I-A, I believe they only had 7 Div I wins (Presby a non counter last yr?) & they got handled by Liberty the last game.

07' GSU didn't get in at 7-4 because they had only 6 Div I wins.

So quit it with this conspiracy against the So-Con BS. They'll get 3 teams in if 3 teams deserve to get in. It might happen this yr.

BDKJMU

February 19th, 2009, 02:14 AM

This schedule, if anything, helps Furman. The committee doesn't even look at FBS losses. Two examples

James Madison gets throttled by Duke (let's face it, less than stellar competition). Did they even drop in the polls? It certainly didn't matter come selection time.

2005 App State gets thumped by LSU and Kansas. They get the #2 seed.

Furman could likely have lost to Delaware (we may never know). But a loss to Missou will have no effect while a loss to Delaware would drop us and hurt us come playoff time.

I'm not convinced that Furman won't give Auburn more than they bargained for, either.

Yes JMU did drop several spots in the polls after losing to Duke. JMU also went:
-8-0 in the CAA
-6-0 against ranked teams (UMass, ASU, Maine, UR, Nova, W&M)
-4-0 against playoff teams (ASU, UR, Nova, Maine)

BDKJMU

February 19th, 2009, 02:43 AM

I know I'm being technical here, but I've seen some posters state Furman pulled out 6 months before the game was to be played. If they pulled out late last week (around Feb 13) with the FU-UD game set for Sept 19, that's 7+ months.

ChickenMan

February 19th, 2009, 08:51 AM

Unfortunately for UD and other FCS fans.. Furman's choice to break their contract with UD may lead to a reluctance on the part of UD to schedule future home/home series with non-traditional FCS opponents. As a result.. we are more like to see more games involving less attractive FCS opponents who are willing to play at UD without requiring a return home game. No doubt UD fans will now see a lot more of the NEC and a lot less of the SoCon.

FURMANFAN

February 19th, 2009, 08:52 AM

For those who want to continue to defend what is indefensible, I hope you are just as willing in your personal relationships to allow others to dump on you. I hope you will never hold anyone accountable for breaking their word to you. I hope that you are Ok with someone taking your money with no effort to pay you back. I hope you allow a woman to bail on you without hard feelings because "she found a better deal" (I think we ALL have been there!!xsmiley_wixxsmiley_wix)

Furman didn't break their word. If Furman had called up and said
'we ain't coming sue us" you'd have a point. The contract was play or pay, and Furman paid. As you say perfectly legal. A contract between two institutions is not a personal relationship. It is certainly not a marriage. This was a couple of athletic departments signing a contract not a ceremony before a priest. It was a business deal that both parties agreed to, not a deep spiritual commitment. And an above board legal contractual end to it is all you have a right to or should expect.

ChickenMan

February 19th, 2009, 09:07 AM

And an above board legal contractual end to it is all you have a right to or should expect.

I.. as would most FCS fans.. expect Furman to 'honor' a contractual agreement by 'playing' the contracted return game at UD. If every FCS school decided to pick and choose which contracts they elected to fulfilled based on their own selfish desires.. there would be total chaos and scheduling of OCC games would become a nightmare.

Of course FU didn't do anything illegal.. but just because it wasn't illegal.. doesn't mean that it wasn't unethical. Any reasonable Furman fan should certainly understand the difference.

LacesOut

February 19th, 2009, 10:32 AM

FURMANFAN

February 19th, 2009, 10:39 AM

I.. as would most FCS fans.. expect Furman to 'honor' a contractual agreement by 'playing' the contracted return game at UD. If every FCS school decided to pick and choose which contracts they elected to fulfilled based on their own selfish desires.. there would be total chaos and scheduling of OCC games would become a nightmare.

Of course FU didn't do anything illegal.. but just because it wasn't illegal.. doesn't mean that it wasn't unethical. Any reasonable Furman fan should certainly understand the difference.

See the point you keep trying to make is that the contract was broken. It wasn't. It obviously didn't end the way you wanted or expected, but it ended per the terms of the deal. You folks seemingly ignore the fact that the buyout clause was part of the agreement from day one. The possiblity that one or the other of the games wouldn't take place was acknowledged and accounted for. This is not some obscure extra-contractual connivence that Furman invented to beat UD out of a game. An end to a contract that was agreed to ahead of time by both parties is the essence of ethical business. It is the way it's supposed to work.

FCS Go!

February 19th, 2009, 10:40 AM

I'd like to nominate FurmanFan as an honorary Griz Supporter. I'm with you brother (sister?)!

FURMANFAN

February 19th, 2009, 10:57 AM

I'd like to nominate FurmanFan as an honorary Griz Supporter. I'm with you brother (sister?)!

It's brother. And thanks. I'm kind of sorry I got involved in this back-and-forth, but for the life of me I just don't understand some of these folks reaction. Of course I did go to business school and not seminary. I've got a suspicion that if the roles were reversed these same people would be saying "hey it's just business".

henfan

February 19th, 2009, 11:05 AM

An end to a contract that was agreed to ahead of time by both parties is the essence of ethical business. It is the way it's supposed to work.

Are we talking spirit of the contract or letter of the contract? Yeah, I'm pretty sure both schools entered into a written deal with the possibility that FU would back out after playing that first game in Greenville. Sure.

Since FU did everything by the book according to its own apparent sliding scale of business ethics, the AD should have no trouble whatsoever lining up future home-home deals. Most other FCS opponents are now probably going to want to come to Greenville first though. Given FU's stellar reputation for honoring the letter of their contracts, future opponents will feel that they can bank on that return date.xrolleyesx Say, good luck with that.

And, no, if UD's AD pulled this sort of stunt, our fanbase would absolutely crucify them... and deservedly so. Our AD takes a lot of heat from the fans and it's usually deserved. To their credit, one thing the UD has done consistently is honor the spirit and letter of their game contracts.

mizzoufan1

February 19th, 2009, 11:06 AM

Here is a point of view that may not be heard often around here...

This ENTIRE scenario is all about MONEY! No ifs, ands, or buts about it. This whole situation STARTED when the Mizzou AD signed on for a continuance of a neutral site game with their archrival (kU) (that has made both schools a cool million dollars plus a year each). MU AD has always maintained to have AT LEAST 6 home football games. Since we play Illinois in St. Louis and kU in Neutral site games this year that leaves us our four conference home games and one OOC game home game. We "need" two. Since we were supposed to play SMU at home this would have been fine and the Furman thing would never have come up. The 2010 season was the issue. Since 2010 was going to be the same but Mizzou would have had only 4 home games we desired to boost our OOC home games. This is where the break with SMU comes in. That and SMU really did not want to go against Mizzou considering the standing both schools are at in football. But the root cause of this is $$$. Any other arguements are mearly window dressing.

mizzoufan1

February 19th, 2009, 11:08 AM

Are we talking spirit of the contract or letter of the contract? Yeah, I'm pretty sure both schools entered into a written deal with the possibility that FU would back out after playing that first game in Greenville. Sure.

Since FU did everything by the book according to its own apparent sliding scale of business ethics, the AD should have no trouble whatsoever lining up future home-home deals. Most other FCS opponents are now probably going to want to come to Greenville first though. Given FU's stellar reputation for honoring the letter of their contracts, future opponents will feel that they can bank on that return date.xrolleyesx

Say, good luck with that.

The only way to fix this is to have the penalties for "buying out" heavier than what the AD would have made if the game were a home game. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the the Delaware AD is getting a check from Mizzou...and I REALLY don't like that idea...

henfan

February 19th, 2009, 11:14 AM

As a result.. we are more like to see more games involving less attractive FCS opponents who are willing to play at UD without requiring a return home game. No doubt UD fans will now see a lot more of the NEC and a lot less of the SoCon.

I'm not sure I agree with that. While this may be the first time a noncon opponent hasn't had the decency to complete its commitment, the UD has successfully dealt with dozens of other schools across all sports. The overwhelming majority of FCS schools aren't going to back out of the second half of a home-home after having gotten a home game. However, we may see UD approaching potential opponents more cautiously and making first games in Newark a precondition of all deals. We'll see.

ChickenMan

February 19th, 2009, 11:14 AM

Of course I did go to business school and not seminary. I've got a suspicion that if the roles were reversed these same people would be saying "hey it's just business".

I bet 'Wall St' is your favorite film... xrolleyesx

henfan

February 19th, 2009, 11:17 AM

Unfortunately, I have a feeling the the Delaware AD is getting a check from Mizzou...and I REALLY don't like that idea...

Don't think of it as payment for the scheduling fiasco. Think of it as compensation for getting the basketball transfer we sent you.;)

mizzoufan1

February 19th, 2009, 11:23 AM

Don't think of it as payment for the scheduling fiasco. Think of it as compensation for getting the basketball transfer we sent you.;)

Keep my basketball team out of this...for the first time in five years around CoMO there is hope for a post season!

Seriously...you know that that was because of whose uncle is now running Mizzou Men's Basketball...

We do love him though!

ur2k

February 19th, 2009, 11:36 AM

The only way to fix this is to have the penalties for "buying out" heavier than what the AD would have made if the game were a home game. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the the Delaware AD is getting a check from Mizzou...and I REALLY don't like that idea...

Anyone know what this mystery buy-out figure to UD is?

bluehenbillk

February 19th, 2009, 11:38 AM

However, we may see UD approaching potential opponents more cautiously and making first games in Newark a precondition of all deals. We'll see.

Here's a solution, UD should just not play road OOC games, problem solved.

mizzoufan1

February 19th, 2009, 11:58 AM

Here's a solution, UD should just not play road OOC games, problem solved.

I hope you are being sarcastic because you will find yourself with a lot of idle time until conference season rolls around...

bluehenbillk

February 19th, 2009, 12:10 PM

I hope you are being sarcastic because you will find yourself with a lot of idle time until conference season rolls around...

Nope...dead serious.

henfan

February 19th, 2009, 01:03 PM

Nope...dead serious.

And for good reason. UD doesn't need home-home series with FCS opponents.

In the last 18 years, aside from FU, the UD has only done home-home deals with the Citadel (twice), GSU, YSU and Lehigh. I venture a guess that few other D-I schools can claim so few OOC home-home series during that span.

BDKJMU

February 19th, 2009, 01:03 PM

Maybe in the end this could turn out good for UD assuming they can get another OOC I-AA to come to Newark. They get a check for ? which should more than cover whatever they have to pay the replacement to come to Newark. Then still get revenue from a hopefully sold out home game- I know a UD poster earlier said it was about 400k.

After West Chester, UD faced a 3 game gauntlet of UR, FU & then @ W&M. UR would obviously be favored. Not sure who would have been with FU, but FU should have a good team in the top half of the So-Con. W&M beat UD last season & returns 15 starters I think, & UD going on the road to Williamsburg the Tribe would probably be favored. The way I see it is there would have been a decent chance that UD would be 1-3 after those 4 games, with probably an equal chance of 3-1, with the most likely scenario 2-2. Getting a lesser opponent to replace FU pretty much eliminates any chance of being 1-3, and increases the chances of 2-2, 3-1, and even increases the still very slim chance of 4-0. After those 1st 4 games UD has @ Maine & UMass next. Those are certainly no gimmies. Still later @ Navy, JMU & @ Nova. FU cancelling just increased UD's playoff chances (although I still think the winner of the UD/W&M game goes 7-4 & the loser goes 6-5 xpeacex)

BDKJMU

February 19th, 2009, 01:04 PM

My point is, UD's schedule was tough enough without FU. I had actually thought about trying to get tickets to the the UD-FU game if it wasn't televised (I live about 45 min away) as opposed to driving all the way to JMU (4 hrs) to watch JMU wax VMI on Sept 19. I looked at it as almost a playoff elimination game, being that both teams were likely to lose their I-A game, each would lose at least a couple of conference games (I don't either was going to go 7-1 in their respective conference) so I figured the loser of the UD-FU game no way would make the playoffs. Its all moot now.

ChickenMan

February 19th, 2009, 01:20 PM

Maybe in the end this could turn out good for UD assuming they can get another OOC I-AA to come to Newark. )

There is a post on UD's 'GoHens.net' board relative to UD/Del St reaching an agreement to play and that the announcement will be forthcoming in a couple of days.

AtlantaMountaineer

February 19th, 2009, 02:45 PM

Northwestern State did the same thing to App in 2005 (backed out of a return visit after App) except Northwestern waited until around July to back out leaving App with only 4 home games for the season and two FBS games. Needless to say App was not happy. I think the pay off was around $55,000 for not showing up. I had always been a fan of Northwestern State until then but never again. However, App ended up winning their first natonal champtionship that year so it all sort of worked out. There is always a buy out clause in these home and home contracts, but that still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

apaladin

February 19th, 2009, 07:48 PM