NC State To Play ECU 4 Out of The Next 5 Years

Not sure what was newsworthy about this item in the N&O this morning. I thought all of this was released a couple of weeks ago.

East Carolina has adjusted its future scheduling agreements in football with Virginia Tech and N.C. State, athletics director Terry Holland announced Monday.

June’s original agreements featured eight meetings against the Hokies and four against the Wolfpack. The new version adds one game against Tech and two against NCSU. The agreements extend into the 2016 season.

The Pirates and Wolfpack will meet in Raleigh during the 2006, 2009 and 2013 seasons. N.C. State will play at Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium in 2007, 2010 and 2016.

You can see how VPI views their series with ECU by clicking here, and you can view NC State’s future out of conference games (and some recent conversation about the East Carolina series by clicking here.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

General NCS Football

31 Responses to NC State To Play ECU 4 Out of The Next 5 Years

  1. Trout 11/08/2005 at 11:58 AM #

    Old news, but I’ll bite again.

    I guess the question begs, what does ECU offer NC State that another, say another CUSA team, could not offer?

    1)More local interest. 2)An easier travel requirement.

    I’m fairly confident that NC State could have signed a home and home with just about any CUSA school (and have done so with USM). I’m wondering if Fowler looked at UAB (we have had recruiting success in Alabama), Memphis (Tenn is a border state), Marshall…..what would those schools offer over ECU:

    1)Exposure in a different state; 2)chance for a TV game shown outside the state of NC

    I think the original 4 games with ECU were enough, and would have liked to see NC State add a school outside NC to the OOC schedule.

  2. BJD95 11/08/2005 at 12:57 PM #

    I’ll be selling my family’s packet of 5 to Pirate fans, as my (admittedly immature) protest over the extra games. A season ticket package that includes home games vs. Akron, App, and ECU means I have to get some of my $$ back where I can. Sitting through 2 noncompetitive games is enough for me.

    Other downsides to playing ECU instead of another C-USA or mid-level conference opponent: (1) potential for property damage and/or rioting; (2) playing a team that will be especially “up” to beat us; (3) a game where we have everything to lose and nothing to gain – it can only possibly help ECU raise their profile.

  3. Mr. O 11/08/2005 at 12:58 PM #

    We are going to need 4 out of conference games. So my guess is that the games with ECU aren’t instead of games with Conference USA type of teams, but in addition to games with Conference USA teams.

    I know Pitt and Tennessee are on future schedules, so those are good games. Personally, I like the ECU game on our schedule. Last year, it made the trip to Charlotte for the game somewhat interesting despite it not being much of a contest on the field. We need to schedule wins and from a fan’s standpoint it helps if those games are also interesting.

    I realize a lot of Packs fan don’t like ECU, but the game makes sense in a lot of ways with all of the obstacles everybody faces in terms of making schedules and maximizing revenues.

  4. Mr. O 11/08/2005 at 1:01 PM #

    Also, I thought it might make sense to have this game occasionally in Charlotte. If both schools can sell 35,000 tickets, then why not? Maybe we could have somehow worked a deal for 2 home games, 1 in Gville and 1 in Charlotte.

    Again, there is no reason to assume that ECU is instead of another mid-level conference opponent. Hopefully, it will be in addition to those teams and maybe even luck into a year with someone like Pitt on the schedule.

  5. SaccoV 11/08/2005 at 2:49 PM #

    This is exactly why Lee Fowler should be drawn and quartered. We don’t need more games with ECU. ECU is not an opponent for recruiting purposes, nor is ECU an opponent that should waste time and effort on because the benefits are not there. Our schedule has been weaker than ever recently, and more contests with ECU aren’t going to improve our team’s ability to win close games. If ECU does provide that sort of game with us now, then Amato needs the gate. Also, those before who have mentioned money really don’t see how this is not financially advantageous to NCSU. It’s not like ECU has produced a bevy of wealthy alumni nor will the contest grant either school a nice paycheck in terms of TV money (not to mention the lack of any exposure in a big time for recruits who I’m sure were drawn in because of the Gator Bowl and two close losses to the Buckeyes.) More games need to be scheduled against big conference teams. You beat Tennessee on national television and I guarantee our top ten players won’t haul tail out of the state to play big time football. So congrats to Lee for assuring that our players probably won’t play a meaningful conference game in their tenures at NC State.

  6. SaccoV 11/08/2005 at 2:49 PM #

    Correction on the last statement, out-of-conference game.

  7. BJD95 11/08/2005 at 3:31 PM #

    Mr. O – I respectfully disagree. The ECU game would be fine if it were occupying the #3 spot on our OOC schedule. It isn’t. It’s #2, after a mediocre “marquee” matchup at Southern Miss (another C-USA team). You could get an opponent the caliber of ECU to come to CF without a return visit, or maybe a 2-for-1 arrangement. But, no, we have to treat ECU as an “equal” for political purposes.

    You can bet that in at least 4 years out of 5, we will choose (it’s Fowler’s athletic department, remember) to maximize revenue and have 7 home games. That means only 2 OOC slots for “home and home” series per year, and ECU will occupy 1 of those 2 for 80% of the next 5 seasons.

  8. Mr. O 11/08/2005 at 4:11 PM #

    I got this from Pack Pride:

    “The only non-return 1-A games since 2000 have been Ohio, Ark. State, and New Mexico. Only NM approaches the status of ECU nationally (as far as conference affiliation) and that was the special BCA game.”

    New Mexico was a part of the BCA Classic or whatever, so that doesn’t even really count. I would put a game against ECU well above eitehr Ark. State or Ohio University.

    I understand that fans want appealing schedules, but considering the teams we have actually played in no return games and considering all the teams that have backed out of home and homes, then maybe we don’t understand all of the dynamices involved with college football schedules today.

  9. Trout 11/08/2005 at 4:33 PM #

    ^ I dont think there is much to understand when you are talking about scheduling home and homes with teams from conferences whose status is BELOW that of the ACC’s. I think the 4 games we had scheduled with ECU were enough, why add 2 more?

    Why not do a home and home with Shane Montgomery’s Miami of Ohio team? How about a home and home with UAB or Memphis? Once you agree to do a home and home, I think basically ANY team from the Mt West, MAC, CUSA would jump at the chance.

  10. Mr. O 11/08/2005 at 4:50 PM #

    To make sure we have the schedules in front of us:

    2006: Akron, Appalachian State, @ Southern Miss, ECU

    2007: Louisville (Sep 29), ECU (road?), The Citadel

    2008: William & Mary, @ Tennessee

    2009: Pittsburgh, ECU

    2010: Cincinnati, @ ECU, Western Carolina

    2011: @ Cincinnati

    2012: Tennessee, UConn (home or away?)

    2013: @ Pittsburgh, ECU

    2016: @ ECU

  11. Trout 11/08/2005 at 4:57 PM #

    Well, on the bright side, in 2006, NC State can really play for the mythical state of NC championship. We play UNC, Wake, ECU and App State. All that is missing is Duke and Western Carolina!

  12. Mr. O 11/08/2005 at 5:26 PM #

    06 – Not a good schedule, but we probably needs some wins next year.
    07 – Not bad, maybe the 12th game will be at least the type of game Trout is refering too.
    08 – two games to add, with UT on the schedule
    09 – Nice start w/ Pitt already there, with two games to add
    10 – Needs help. MAC, ECU
    11 – 3 games to add w/ MAC team already there
    12 – Good start with UT and UConn
    13 – again good start with Pitt and ECU

    Maybe we all have different expectations and goals here on OOC scheduling. I guess I don’t expect to see very appealing OOC games going forward because of the nature of college football (BJVD addressed this above) so my disappointment in adding ECU to our schedule for more games is tempered.

  13. J.R. 11/08/2005 at 5:54 PM #

    I was real disappointed that ND dropped us. It would of been nice to go into that stadium. The Ohio State game was awesome. The Tenn. games will be pretty cool. ECU is fine as long as it’s one of the lesser games each year. Why did Texas never have to return the visit from a few years ago?? I would like to get the Gators on our schedule one of these seasons.

  14. J.R. 11/08/2005 at 5:56 PM #

    Then again, the ACC schedule is going to start getting pretty tough.

  15. newswolf 11/08/2005 at 9:20 PM #

    I don’t want to rehash this again… but how smart is VT playing ECU in Charlotte one year, and being in eastern NC the rest of the 10 years.

    Smart move for them recruiting wise

  16. SaccoV 11/09/2005 at 12:09 AM #

    Again, Va Tech can afford to play ECU for some years because Va Tech has much more national recognition that State does. Also, there is no way I expect that we could schedule an SEC and BigTen team each season. In my estimation, there is nothing impressive or even remotely commendable about how Fowler and Amato have scheduled this team for the coming years. Yes, Tennessee looks really good NOW, but how much do you want to bet that Tennessee ends pulling a Louisville and bailing on us for two straight years? Where’s the Michigan States or the Mississippis? Kentucky, Vandy, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, there HAS to be a solid team from a solid conference that we should have had scheduled for the last few years. I’m beginning to think that Fowler could be the REAL reason none of these teams have kept their deals because either we couldn’t sweeten the pot OR he tried to make demands on them that they didn’t care for or didn’t have to worry about.
    Secondly, why the hell should Charlotte get any ACC games whatsoever? If UNCC was an ACC school with a football program, I wouldn’t mind. But there’s a NFL franchise in Charlotte and that’s tons better than getting ACC schools to play conference games there. Charlotte doesn’t need to host ACC football. If Charlotte wants the Championship game, fine. Take it. But the ACC is perfectly fine in terms of drawing fans and generating good television revenues without having Charlotte stick her snout into the picture. It’s upsetting that for some reason people think that the ACC won’t survive without Charlotte’s TV revenue and that’s garbage. We don’t have Richmond or Norfolk in VA either but that doesn’t effect how we look at games between UVa and Va Tech. There’s nothing wrong with holding a championship game or a tournament in Charlotte but the regular season should NEVER be there. Ever.

  17. Slader4881 11/09/2005 at 12:22 AM #

    I agree with SaccoV, Charlotte make no sense to me to host ACC games. Would Va Tech and UVA ever play in DC or Richmond? I would think not. The only time it makes sense is when there is a large national game like Va Tech and USC last year in DC. Otherwise Charlotte should only get bowl games and a possible ACC championship game. It used to drive me crazy when the NCSU and UNC game was in Charlotte. My freshman yr. it was in Charlotte on Thursday night. How in the world can the students support traveling 3 hours away on a school night? All it boils down to is $$ in the AD’s eyes trying to cash in on the state’s largest city.

  18. Class of '74 11/09/2005 at 6:49 AM #

    The scheduling is reflective of the morons involved. WEAK, ineffective and tired. As long as 56k fill C-F they really will take the path of least resistance in the scheduling. Do not see any changes on the horizon.

  19. BJD95 11/09/2005 at 9:59 AM #

    I don’t expect GREAT schedules, but if finances mean you only get TWO home-and-home slots, they should at least be decently competitive, interesting games. Why not a traditional rival like South Carolina? An interesting cross-sectional battle against a team like Purdue, Michigan State, or Arkansas? IMHO, we need a “Tier One” OOC game that everyone is excited about (doesn’t have to be a great opponent, South Carolina would suffice), and a decent “Tier Two” matchup every year. then, I don’t care about a MAC opponent and a team like App filling the other 2 slots to give us 7 home games.

    ECU is not good enough to get into “Tier Two,” so we shouldn’t play them home and home any more often than forced to by the legislature.

    And I don’t by the “need wins” argument for 2006. There’s nothing I hate more than uber-weak scheduling to make your overall record look better than your underlying team really is. That is not a championship mentality.

  20. Mr. O 11/09/2005 at 10:43 AM #

    South Carolina already plays Clemson and the SEC. They may not want to play anyone else, but they did just sign a game with UNC to be played in of all places but CHARLOTTE. Purdue and Michigan already play Notre every year Dame and the Big 10 schedule. Arkansas is struggling in the SEC, do they want to schedule more games they could possibly lose?

    Charlotte makes sense because no matter who you play you get to sell 35k to 40k tickets. Football is a huge source of revenue. We aren’t going to give up revenue from home games and other programs don’t want to do it either. So Charlotte is a way for two programs to essentially have home game revenue for both teams.

    Playing conference games in Charlotte doesn’t make sense. But it does make sense to try and get an attractive OOC game. Unfortunately, UNC already beat us to the punch with South Caroline. ECU would be an option too with the idea of trying to negotiate 2 home games for 1 away and a game in Charlotte. So again, using Charlotte would provide us the home game revenue for 3 games instead of only 2. But this isn’t going to happen because of the home and home we just signed.

    There is more to scheduling than just picking appealing games for fans. There are many, many issues in play and all I am saying is that we don’t know all the issues involved.

  21. BJD95 11/09/2005 at 1:22 PM #

    South Carolina expressed public interest in playing us, and the silence from NC State officials was deafening. The teams I listed were just examples, not a comprehensive list. And I do think that a great many schools would be willing to play a home-and-home with NC State. Not every university subscribes to the Bill Snyder school of OOC scheduling (and even he is softening up a bit).

    Our scheduling philosophy seems to be (i) rack up as many “bunny” games as possible to give us a chance to bowl even at 2-6 in the ACC (clear “loser” thinking); (ii) maximize revenue from ticket sales by having 7 home games; and (iii) to hell with what the fans want, since they’re locked into season tickets via the LTR concept. We’ve already seen that maddening philosphy bore us to tears in basketball season, I don’t know why I was surprised to see it infect football as well.

    All I’m saying is that it’s GOOD to challenge your team at least a little bit during OOC play (especially now that it’s expanded to 4 games), and GOOD to get the fans enthused about the games on the schedule. Does anyone really argue with that?

  22. SaccoV 11/09/2005 at 1:27 PM #

    We are very aware of the two main issues here, Mr. O–money and inflated records. Since Amato and Fowler have monopolized our athletics program, we’ve seen exactly TWO games against quality competition in the regular season (the home and home against Ohio State). There should be at least ONE game available each year to play with some national attention. Playing ECU doesn’t give NC State anything substantive. Since hopefully we will never lose a recruit to ECU, that definitely can’t be a factor. Also, if “tapping” into the Charlotte market were possible, I would see a difference, but the combined Triad and RDU markets are bigger than Charlotte alone. I remember hearing some comments during the UNC/NCSU games in Charlotte about giving Charlotte fans the opportunity to see the game. Well, they should drive to Raleigh or Chapel Hill just like everyone else. With that logic in play, we should occasionally have Wilmington host the Tarheel/Wolfpack Classic. Who cares if some people in Charlotte have to drive to the game. I WALKED to most of the football games when I attended NC State. Fowler and Amato want easy wins and nominal pay-offs. I can almost guarantee that put 35,000 at Ericsson can’t be as beneficial as a full house at Kenan or CF. This is just inane.

  23. SaccoV 11/09/2005 at 1:33 PM #

    One more thing, considering the proximity of the Big Four, there really shouldn’t be an issue of tickets for visiting teams either. Yes, playing a game on the road isn’t nearly as lucrative as playing a home one, BUT, the overall fan appeal of more ECU games, either at home, in Greenville, or in Charlotte is one of apathy. In contrast to games with Big Four teams, which will always sell plenty of tickets (except games @ Duke). State, UNC, and Wake always haev good crowds for each game at both stadiums and there is no reason to think that for some reason playing ECU ANYWHERE would be beneficial to the program, other than a cosmetic record improvement. State fans don’t really care that our team can crush ECU. We could hold that game on the moon and no one would watch it, no one would televise it, and few people would pay to see it. Hell, even for the return game to Columbus, we had a significant collection of fans attend. For ECU, I wouldn’t even listen to the game, much less watch on TV or attend.

  24. Mr. O 11/09/2005 at 1:46 PM #

    I missed the South Carolina public interest in playing NC State. I wouldn’t have expected to miss that great piece of news and would love to see the article on that.

    With all of the teams canceling home and homes with us, then I think there is a lot of evidence to support that scheduling is more difficult than we think. With the low number of Div. 1 teams that have been willing to come to Raleigh with no return trip(Ark. St and Ohio University from Div 1), then I think that is pretty strong evidence that “no return trip” games against decent division 1 opponents are tough to schedule.

    The Pitt series was a good one to add and was just recently added. UT is probably biting off more than we can chew, but those games are there also from a fan’s standpoint. Well, I guess they are there for now anyways. I think we all want exciting games, however maybe I just have set my expectations very low because I don’t expect to see many exciting non-conference games in coming years.

    Or maybe Fowler and co. are just the worst schedule-makers in the NCAA? That is certainly possible considering that we have struggled so much to have entertaining basketball schedules in a sport where strong OOC schedules benefit your program.

  25. BJD95 11/09/2005 at 2:12 PM #

    Just like with basketball, after awhile it can’t just be “random coincidence” that so many contracts get cancelled and the “everybody’s scared to play us” argument is specious at best.

    UT is what, 4-5? 3-5? Biting off more than we can chew? Please. It’s ONE tough game out of four. ONE. Is it so terrible to only be favored to win 3 out of 4 games out of conference?

    Much like Sacco alluded to, I can’t wait to walk into Neyland (sp?) Stadium to see NC State play. That’s going to be a very special day, assuming that Fowler and Company let it actually happen. Just like with the Ohio State series – it was a great opportunity, and did absolutely no harm to our program, despite the fact that we lost both games. Those that made the trip to Columbus will never forget it. And had we won EVEN ONE of the matchups, it would have been HUGE for us.

Leave a Reply