Stricklin to Fans: Don't expect P5 and possibly not home

[TheRef]

Scott Stricklin
@stricklinMSU
Ideally, would like a seventh @HailStateFB home game in ?16, but options limited at this point. Don?t anticipate adding another P5 team.

8:12pm ? 19 May 2015 ? Tweetbot for iΟS

Read into that what you wish. But it looks like we'll have to go on the road.

[BeardoMSU]

Scott Stricklin
@stricklinMSU
Ideally, would like a seventh @HailStateFB home game in ?16, but options limited at this point. Don?t anticipate adding another P5 team.

8:12pm ? 19 May 2015 ? Tweetbot for iΟS

Read into that what you wish. But it looks like we'll have to go on the road.

Wow...thanks Tulane.

[War Machine Dawg]

**** Stricklin if he can't find another home game. It can't be that damn hard.

And LT: **** YOU for these shitty long term, low buyout contracts. Your legacy of shit never seems to be completely flushed.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I still expect the 7th home game to be a FCS opponent for a check.

ETA: just realized Samford on the schedule so no other FCS can be scheduled.

[Quaoarsking]

Stricklin tweeted that Samford is on the schedule, and apparently we're getting rid of the road game at La Tech?

[Todd4State]

Stricklin tweeted that Samford is on the schedule, and apparently we're getting rid of the road game at La Tech?

From what he said, it sounds like we're playing La Tech in 2017.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Stricklin tweeted that Samford is on the schedule, and apparently we're getting rid of the road game at La Tech?

The La Tech game is in 2017 he tweeted.

[Maroons]

**** Stricklin if he can't find another home game. It can't be that damn hard.

Can't get much more ignorant than this.

[TheRef]

He also said that if it's between a non-P5 on the road or an FCS at home, he'll take the road game.

Remember that scheduling is important now. Yeah...it might not have hurt us this past year, but we still need to try to avoid FCS from now on.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

He also said that if it's between a non-P5 on the road or an FCS at home, he'll take the road game.

Remember that scheduling is important now. Yeah...it might not have hurt us this past year, but we still need to try to avoid FCS from now on.

We already have 1 FCS opponent if we add another it wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility.

[BulldogBear]

If LaTech is moved with Samford in place then there May be truth to UMass rumor. They certainly need games but probably can't play another road game next year. They already have seven. Remember you have to play five home games. They have an opening same day as Tulane game was.

[FlabLoser]

**** Stricklin if he can't find another home game. It can't be that damn hard.

And LT: **** YOU for these shitty long term, low buyout contracts. Your legacy of shit never seems to be completely flushed.

To be fair, non-conf scheduling inflation has skyrocketed by amounts no one could have anticipated. Tulane can easily pull $500k-$750k in exchange for backing out on us. That wasn't nearly the case when the deal was signed.

[BossDawg]

And LT: **** YOU for these shitty long term, low buyout contracts.

Amen! Sometimes I wonder if he was just lazy or did he hate State and intentionally made crappy decisions. I'm convinced he is 100% responsible for the dive MSU baseball took. He made decisions that wouldn't require any work and let the rest of the SEC ease right on by.

[1bigdawg]

To be fair, non-conf scheduling inflation has skyrocketed by amounts no one could have anticipated. Tulane can easily pull $500k-$750k in exchange for backing out on us. That wasn't nearly the case when the deal was signed.

I don't have to be fair. A clause could be put into the contract that makes the buyout the market price of a comparable opponent, or alternatively, the cost of replacement. If someone intends to play, they should not care what the clause says so it should be as harsh as possible if someone is coming to your place last.

[BulldogBear]

I don't have to be fair. A clause could be put into the contract that makes the buyout the market price of a comparable opponent, or alternatively, the cost of replacement. If someone intends to play, they should not care what the clause says so it should be as harsh as possible if someone is coming to your place last.

This^ ...I still say make a nice billion* ....but if not, I like the idea of a clause that fully compensates you cost for having to schedule another game plus a little extra for the BS.

[fishwater99]

We will have to pay close to $1 million to get a good home opponent for just a one game deal.
I say pay up, we should have the money.

[PMDawg]

Can't get much more ignorant than this.

+1

[Johnson85]

This^ ...I still say make a nice billion* ....but if not, I like the idea of a clause that fully compensates you cost for having to schedule another game plus a little extra for the BS.

That's not really practical if you want flexibility also. It's entirely possible this was a reasonable contract and that unforeseen events just caused it to go against us.

It's much safer to assume that since it was LT, he was either just lazy or maybe made a stupid decision because he was focused on the cost side to the exclusion of the revenue side. If LT wasn't involved, I'd say it's 50/50 whether this was the result of a stupid deal. Since LT was involved, I'm guessing closer to 95/5 it was a stupid deal.

ETA: Nevermind. Just realized the date. There's a 99.99999% chance it was moronic to negotiate a relatively cheap buyout that could be exercised with less than 18 months to go. We also should bring out the lawyer that advised him on this contract and if they can't show documentation where they advised him he was being a stupid 17 again, they should get a public lashing.