In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I don't know if any of you were listening to Ainge's broadcast this morning, but he made a very interesting point. Last year Tennessee payed somewhere around 3 million dollars in its games against Montana, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and MTSU. That's quite a large some of money just to win a football game that doesn't generate a great attendance (outside of Cincy). Would you all rather Tennessee play quality opponents and lose, or pay a lot to hopefully beat an irrelevant program (once again, not considering Cincy in this group)?
I'd rather UT play quality opponents and win...
"When we step on that football field, everyone flips a switch. And it's on..." - Butch Jones
I'm not sure what Ainge's point is, or some of you guys for that matter. Is everyone who's in agreement with Ainge suggesting we play every out of conference game against BCS teams? Because when you consider we play at Oregon next year, followed by a home and home against Oklahoma in 2014-2015 and Nebraska in 2016-2017, I don't really see the need to play anymore BCS teams when you factor in our conference schedule. Most teams in BCS conferences are playing one OOC BCS team and 2-3 cupcakes every year and this shouldn't be anything to gripe about. It's more than an adequate schedule IMO. The only thing I would suggest is that we get away from these neutral site games and keep these home and home series going so that the schools can benefit from having such a high profile non-conference game on campus.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by jcoope16 17 months ago
This post was edited by Chartervol 17 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports