SiuCubFan8 said:

Again, who says these are two year week 0 agreements?

Click to expand...

4Afan said:

While I'm very interested in seeing how these scrimmages go I think you guys are over thinking it. I don't see these scrimmages having a game night atmosphere or resembling a game at all. As someone else mentioned they will most likely resemble college spring games where offenses and defenses run a set amount of plays and coaches may even discuss what they want to run. I don't think anyone is thinking about the gate, assuming they even charge, or the concessions, assuming they offer them. It's a scrimmage, nothing more.

Click to expand...

rocketnation said:

Thanks. I started following Rochester about the time they came into the CS8 from the Cornbelt. At the time, it was by no means a unanimous view that the switch was a good decision. Initially, the Rockets were the smallest school in the conference, playing mostly 5A-6A teams. QND may have an adjustment period but playing up can be an asset in the playoffs. Doesn't QND also have a chance to reschedule different teams for non-conference next year? Quincy and R-B is a tough Week 1-Week 2 start.

Click to expand...

SEHSSTORM1 said:

Would you do an away week zero with your team and have no guarantee of hosting the following year?

Click to expand...

colin2229 said:

I don't think we need to over think this. Just an opportunity for a test drive before week 1 game. I love it.

I don't think the coaches care about hosting, gate fees and concessions for this. Honesty, if I were the host school, I wouldn't charge a gate fee. Probably wouldn't have concessions either.

I haven't heard of the mechanics of the scrimmages but I'd bet they are going to look similar to a D1 spring intersquad scrimmage. No clock and several different situational periods.

Click to expand...

4Afan said:

Yes, it's a scrimmage so who cares if you have home field advantage? It has no implications on the regular season.

Click to expand...

SEHSSTORM1 said:

Would you do an away week zero with your team and have no guarantee of hosting the following year?

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Yes, I understand the enrollment spurring thing. But, those 180 players all come with COSTS -- academic costs, which apply to all students, and athletic costs, which apply to athletes only.

I'm a little leery of colleges that boast of huge percentages of the student body involved in athletics. Take Quincy University here in Illinois, for example. Almost 50% of their student body plays at least one sport. Is that healthy? As a sports fan, I'd say yes as a knee jerk response. The more I think of it objectively, however, what does that do in a school of about 1000 students? What kind of social dynamic is there between athletes and non-athletes? Is it really a sustainable model financially?

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Healthy from a program standpoint, for sure, but I have to wonder about the economics of this.

What must their coaching staff be like in terms of numbers?

Does it make economic sense considering...

• Only a HANDFUL of kids who enroll in Wartburg or any private liberal arts college pay the sticker price.
• Coaches, trainers, and other football related athletic department staff and infrastructure all must be paid.
• The cost of equipment, travel, etc. for a squad that size.
• No TV revenue sharing.
• Wartburg isn't a large school with athletic revenue and expense budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

No thanks

Hey Google what time is sundown today in Rochester, IL?

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

There's a 98.65% chance it'll be white... er right at 8:12pm today.

Click to expand...

SiuCubFan8 said:

Who says they are not just one year handshake agreements?
Interesting point since in past all schools got something from the inter-team scrimmage assuming they had concessions open.
Again, that assumes they are 2 years agreements.
It is all fluid and maybe we see changes as the summer/week 0 evolve.

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Yes, I understand the enrollment spurring thing. But, those 180 players all come with COSTS -- academic costs, which apply to all students, and athletic costs, which apply to athletes only.

I'm a little leery of colleges that boast of huge percentages of the student body involved in athletics. Take Quincy University here in Illinois, for example. Almost 50% of their student body plays at least one sport. Is that healthy? As a sports fan, I'd say yes as a knee jerk response. The more I think of it objectively, however, what does that do in a school of about 1000 students? What kind of social dynamic is there between athletes and non-athletes? Is it really a sustainable model financially?

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

Good stuff, per the usual, RocketNation.

My ultimate wish is that QND could become relevant again, in terms of product on the field, and get that QND/Rochester rivalry renewed at some point. It's a must, it's just a question of whether we'd be handing out charity or showing up to get the 2nd W in the series... as of now, it'd be charity, but the future is bright baby!

Click to expand...

Wassup13 said:

Payton was a good QB.

Click to expand...