Online Now 3353

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2123
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3359
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Mike Slive is skeered to play up north

  • SignalBama said...

    In the last 6 BCS title games.... Alabama traveled to the Rose Bowl in 2009. Florida to Phoenix in 2006. Auburn to Phoenix in 2010. 2 times it was played in SEC territory where the opposing team had to travel further than SEC teams. The final matchup was Alabama vs LSU a wash. So 60% of the 5 BCS title games involving SEC teams... The SEC team traveled further. They won all 5.

    Makes you wonder why Slive is so skeered.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    I get the warm weather argument, especially if we were talking about Northern fans and one trip/game. Getting out of the North for a week during the winter and heading someplace warm is fantastic. And it's relatively easy to do even with families over Christmas/New Years. Most people take time off work over the holidays and kids are on break from school.

    But it's entirely different asking fans from to do it twice in a month. And families with kids are not going to pull their kids out of school for a semifinal game. Also, I would think that "going someplace warm" would hardly be a big deal for fans from the South who live in warm weather year round. All of the major bowl games are already in the South and West. Even under the Delany Plan, one or both of the semifinal games and the championship game probably would be in the South or West. What we are basically talking about is maybe one semifinal game a year in a cold weather locale. And fans from the South consider that unthinkable.

    I also think that as a rule fans like to see the game decided by the play on the field as much as possible, but severe weather (temp, wind, snow, rain) detracts from this. If the game were played in a dome (e.g,. Detroit), that would make the game more appealing overall... but again, the ideal northern destination would be one with a dome and a great city that could handle a very large even like a playoff game and also be appealing to a fans who are traveling. (Note: this last condition excludes Detroit lol)

    tlhwg ●

  • tlhwg said...

    b/c all things being equal people prefer warmer weather to colder weather.

    Either way, I don't think that's a good enough reason to only hold games in warm weather states.

    Trevor Barnes

  • devidee said...

    Makes you wonder why Slive is so skeered.

    Has nothing to do with being "Skeered". It is what is marketable and cost efficient. They are running a business and we see it as fans.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • tlhwg said...

    I also think that as a rule fans like to see the game decided by the play on the field as much as possible, but severe weather (temp, wind, snow, rain) detracts from this. If the game were played in a dome (e.g,. Detroit), that would make the game more appealing overall... but again, the ideal northern destination would be one with a dome and a great city that could handle a very large even like a playoff game and also be appealing to a fans who are traveling. (Note: this last condition excludes Detroit lol)

    The problem with that logic though is that the NFL has playoff games all the time in outdoor stadiums with "severe" weather. They take the Playoffs pretty seriously in the NFL. I see no reason why the NCAA wouldn't have similar standards.

    I don't consider snow to be severe incidentally, a white-out blizzard, maybe, but not an average snow shower.

    Trevor Barnes

  • SignalBama said...

    Has nothing to do with being "Skeered". It is what is marketable and cost efficient. They are running a business and we see it as fans.

    You actually believe a semifinal home game in the north wouldn't sell out?

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • tlhwg said...

    I also think that as a rule fans like to see the game decided by the play on the field as much as possible, but severe weather (temp, wind, snow, rain) detracts from this. If the game were played in a dome (e.g,. Detroit), that would make the game more appealing overall... but again, the ideal northern destination would be one with a dome and a great city that could handle a very large even like a playoff game and also be appealing to a fans who are traveling. (Note: this last condition excludes Detroit lol)

    Well, then all games played at Bryant Denny and Tiger Stadium should be moved to domed NFL stadiums, because heat and rain and wind clearly affect the outcome of football games. And despite what some of you seem to think, American football originated in the Northeastern U.S. That is a cold weather region of the country. And American football originated as an outdoor sport (domed stadiums came much, much later). Weather conditions are supposed to affect the outcome. It's considered part of the game.

    MrWoodson ●

  • Trevor Barnes said...

    The problem with that logic though is that the NFL has playoff games all the time in outdoor stadiums with "severe" weather. They take the Playoffs pretty seriously in the NFL. I see no reason why the NCAA wouldn't have similar standards.

    I don't consider snow to be severe incidentally, a white-out blizzard, maybe, but not an average snow shower.

    Well the NFL is built into their markets. They also handle profit sharing differently than the NCAA. You have to pay teams a ton to travel to play you in college football. In a playoff format how would they regulate that if it were a home game for a team instead of neutral site ? They would have to guarantee a certain amount of money to the traveling team in that scenario. What if however they guarantee that money and a team like Boise ends up with home field in the playoffs with their small stadium ? They couldn't cover much of the cost on ticket sales. That is why you see them wanting neutral stadiums they know fans will travel to.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • devidee said...

    You actually believe a semifinal home game in the north wouldn't sell out?

    That has nothing to do with it. They look at the big picture. I pointed out in my last post. What if a BigEast team or Boise gets a home field game ? How are they going to cover costs at those small stadiums ?

    This post was edited by SignalBama on 4/26/2012 at 2:56 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • @schadjoe
    A big reason why campus sites for example not eliminated officially is conferences want to formally discuss w leadership

    Trevor Barnes

  • SignalBama said...

    That has nothing to do with it. They look at the big picture. I pointed out in my last post. What if a BigEast team or Boise gets a home field game ? How are they going to cover costs at those small stadiums ?

    BSU has 6-7 home games a year. And profitably. What in the world are you talking about?

    MrWoodson ●

  • SignalBama said...

    That has nothing to do with it. They look at the big picture. I pointed out in my last post. What if a BigEast team or Boise gets a home field game ? How are they going to cover costs at those small stadiums ?

    The television money would more than cover the cost in that scenario.

    Besides, why is that scenario worse than making fans travel twice in two weeks?

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    BSU has 6-7 home games a year. And profitably. What in the world are you talking about?

    Look at what bowls pay teams to play now. More importantly BCS games. You think Boise's gate at their stadium can cover that cost ? The teams that travel their and lose will make less for their "Playoff" game than they would for their BCS game in that scenario. Boise makes profits because they are a home team with their gate money. They are also profitable in their stadium as a lower tier bowl. But you will have to guarantee a certain amount of money on par with what a BCS game would have paid them or the teams are losing money by switching to this format and traveling their. This is what they look at when deciding these things. You honestly believe the payout would be the same ?

    This post was edited by SignalBama on 4/26/2012 at 3:07 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • devidee said...

    Translation: I'm skeered.

    im petrified of cold weather

    its all cold and stuff

    signature image

    Ichabod

  • devidee said...

    The television money would more than cover the cost in that scenario.

    Besides, why is that scenario worse than making fans travel twice in two weeks?

    They aren't worried about fans honestly. They are worried about profit. They want their money guaranteed like bowl games. Look how much payout a conference gets from bowl revenue a year. Either way the fans of lower seeded teams would have to travel twice if their team won in the playoffs.

    This post was edited by SignalBama on 4/26/2012 at 3:10 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    Look at what bowls pay teams to play now. More importantly BCS games. You think Boise's gate at their stadium can cover that cost ? The teams that travel their and lose will make less for their "Playoff" game than they would for their BCS game in that scenario. Boise makes profits because they are a home team with their gate money. They are also profitable in their stadium as a lower tier bowl. But you will have to guarantee a certain amount of money on par with what a BCS game would have paid them or the teams are losing money by switching to this format and traveling their. This is what they look at when deciding these things. You honestly believe the payout would be the same ?

    They are estimating the televison money from a semifinal game would be triple that of BCS bowl game.

    I'm sure the added revenue could be used to accomodate the travelling team in a smaller venue situation.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • SignalBama said...

    They aren't worried about fans honestly. They are worried about profit. Either way the fans of lower seeded teams would have to travel twice if their team won in the playoffs.

    The lower seed team would only be guaranteed a small precentage of tickets. That would be the advantage of being a higher seed.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • devidee said...

    They are estimating the televison money from a semifinal game would be triple that of BCS bowl game.

    I'm sure the added revenue could be used to accomodate the travelling team in a smaller venue situation.

    That is an estimate and not a guarantee. You are dealing with business people who likes their guarantees. I am not against home games. But this is what they look at. They don't want to lose any of what they already make.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • devidee said...

    The lower seed team would only be guaranteed a small precentage of tickets. That would be the advantage of being a higher seed.

    Then you are asking them to do something they will never do. Give up money the bowl system already pays them... Win or lose.

    This post was edited by SignalBama on 4/26/2012 at 3:13 PM

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    That is an estimate and not a guarantee. You are dealing with business people who likes their guarantees. I am not against home games. But this is what they look at. They don't want to lose any of what they already make.

    I understand but you are focusing on the worst case scenario (which, let's be honest, will rarely happen). Even if it did you could make a provision that the home stadium had to have a minimum capacity. If it didn't the game would be moved to the closest appropriate venue.

    Regardless, worrying about Boise State or the Big East champion is NOT a reason to trash the home game semifinal plan.

    This post was edited by devidee on 4/26/2012 at 3:15 PM

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • SignalBama said...

    Then you are asking them to do something they will never do. Give up money the bowl system already pays them... Win or lose.

    Who would be giving up money?

    This post was edited by devidee on 4/26/2012 at 3:16 PM

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • Keep in mind, Slive's argument against home semi games is based purely on this supposed disadvantage.

    signature image

    devidee ●

  • devidee said...

    I understand but you are focusing on the worst case scenario (which, let's be honest, will rarely happen). Even if it did you could make a provision that the home stadium had to have a minimum capacity. If it didn't the game would be moved to the closest appropriate venue.

    Regardless, worrying about Boise State or the Big East champion is NOT a reason to trash the home game semifinal plan.

    That was just one example of how they would look at cost. They will do what makes them the most money.

    signature image

    SignalBama

  • SignalBama said...

    Look at what bowls pay teams to play now. More importantly BCS games. You think Boise's gate at their stadium can cover that cost ? The teams that travel their and lose will make less for their "Playoff" game than they would for their BCS game in that scenario. Boise makes profits because they are a home team with money. They are also profitable in their stadium as a lower tier bowl. But you will have to guarantee a certain amount of money on par with what a BCS game would have paid them or the teams are losing money by switching to this format and traveling their. This is what they look at when deciding these things.

    That's absurd. First, even a 50,000 seat stadium with tickets priced at $50 each would generate $2.5 million. That is 5-6 times what it would cost for the visiting team to travel to the game. Second, the vast majority of money is made on TV revenue. That is how BCS bowls can pay each team close to $20 million. TV revenue for a semifinal game will be equally massive regardless of whether the game is played at a 50,000 seat college stadium or a 65,000 seat NFL stadium. Any difference in ticket revenue will be relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Third, most major college stadiums are as large or larger than nearly all NFL stadiums. That means unless you believe BSU or UConn regularly will end up ranked #1 or #2 and get home field advantage in a semifinal, the stadium size argument actually supports the home field advantage model.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by MrWoodson on 4/26/2012 at 3:20 PM

    MrWoodson ●

  • devidee said...

    Keep in mind, Slive's argument against home semi games is based purely on this supposed disadvantage.

    I would say that publicly as well. You don't want the fans to know you are being greedy. You want them on your side.

    signature image

    SignalBama

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports