NCAA Football '11-'12

[Valmy]

Wow.  Bad break for TSU.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Texas State is way better off than Idaho and New Mexico State right now.

[PDH]

They can go independent like BYU.

[Valmy]

They can go independent like BYU.

LOL

Seriously Texas State is a huge school but nobody goes to their games.  They were sort of gambling this big move to the WAC would generate interest and fill their stadium.  Going to the Sunbelt is hardly more exciting than the Southland Conference and they have spent a ton of money not just hiring Coach Franchione but remodeling their facilities.  They lack the legions of brainwashed Mormons who think attending BYU games is a Commandment of God.

[derspiess]

Seriously Texas State is a huge school but nobody goes to their games.  They were sort of gambling this big move to the WAC would generate interest and fill their stadium.  Going to the Sunbelt is hardly more exciting than the Southland Conference and they have spent a ton of money not just hiring Coach Franchione but remodeling their facilities.  They lack the legions of brainwashed Mormons who think attending BYU games is a Commandment of God.

Wow, that sucks for them.  As I understand it, football is sort of a religion in Texas.  Must be really painful to not have anyone go to your games there.

At Delaware, it sort of made sense.  It was a I-AA school in the northeast and a large majority of the student body were women (which was awesome for other reasons).  It was still painful.  I had friends from high school who were at Big 10 & SEC schools and didn't know how good they had it.

[grumbler]

At Delaware, it sort of made sense.  It was a I-AA school in the northeast and a large majority of the student body were women (which was awesome for other reasons).  It was still painful.  I had friends from high school who were at Big 10 & SEC schools and didn't know how good they had it.

At least your team had the second-best-looking uniforms in all of football. 

[Valmy]

Wow, that sucks for them.  As I understand it, football is sort of a religion in Texas.  Must be really painful to not have anyone go to your games there.

Well...yes and no.

Texans are very laid back people so we are fanatical for football in a relaxed show up if we feel like it sort of way (when Texas is down like they have been the past two years, there are plenty of tickets to be had for example).  It is true that football is the only sport anybody cares about but the perception we are super fans is misplaced.  Further communities tend to rally around one team.  University of Houston crowds are infamously bad because Houston really only cares about the NFL.  In central Texas people love UT so Texas State tends to be forgotten.  In the smaller cities and towns they are all about High School football but nobody in cities with a big College program or a NFL team really cares about High School football.

Which is why this is a huge opportunity for UTSA, they can become that team for San Antonio, an enormous market which has always wanted a football team.  But for Texas State?  It is a longshot.

[derspiess]

At Delaware, it sort of made sense.  It was a I-AA school in the northeast and a large majority of the student body were women (which was awesome for other reasons).  It was still painful.  I had friends from high school who were at Big 10 & SEC schools and didn't know how good they had it.

At least your team had the second-best-looking uniforms in all of football. 

Marshall fans used to call us "Baby Michigan".  My response was "So?"

I'll take a uniform imitating one of the more storied NCAA programs any day over the horrible green uniforms Marshall wore and still wears.

[CountDeMoney]

Texans are very laid back people so we are fanatical for football in a relaxed show up if we feel like it sort of way (when Texas is down like they have been the past two years, there are plenty of tickets to be had for example).  It is true that football is the only sport anybody cares about but the perception we are super fans is misplaced.

My Dad spent a few years growing up in Texas, back in the mid-late '50s, and for some of those small towns out in the middle of nowhere, the local high school game on Friday night was The Big Fucking Deal(tm).

The hot rod drag races and demolition derbies on Saturday night were a distant, distant second.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Eh, I think TSU will be okay, Valmy.  They're not ever going to be Texas (no one is), and they probably won't ever have the following of UTSA simply because they're in San Marcos vs. San Antonio, but they'll be alright in the 'belt. 

It'll be rough for football for a while, but their baseball team is going to do pretty well in that conference IMO.  Biggest challenge is going to be selling those teams they play to their fans when the football team sucks and all that.  They'll probably need to do some gimmicky giveaway type things for several of the games to at least get people out there and talking about football, etc.  In the meantime, UTSA is most likely going to be getting fuckstomped by more "name" schools for a longer period of time.

E: Oh hey, the Horns won that Lone Star Showdown thing again, so I guess that stays in Austin forever.

[grumbler]

I disagree with you. First off, some colleges/towns are more suitable than others. Could Ohio State or Michigan or Florida or USC do it? Probably. But what about TCU or Boise State? Or Kansas State? or WVU? There are plenty of colleges with small stadiums that are completely inadequate for hosting a BCS playoff game.

And there are plenty of non-college statiums that would be completely inadequate as well, so we have to eliminate all college venues and all non-college venues, because having an unsuitable site within a grouping invalidates all sites in that grouping, right?

Also, a lot of these colleges are in remote locales without a lot of hotel/motel rooms around. This isn't a problem in the regular season because most of the attendees of games live locally or within a day's driving distance. Since the games are scheduled far in advance, people can arrange accommodations far in advance. It's a completely different story for a BCS play-off game.  You will have a lot of people having to make accommodations quickly, both fans of the other team as well as media. It's going to be a hassle, not to mention expensive to arrange all that when you're dealing with the Gainesvilles, Tallahasees, Auburns, etc. of the world.

Again, we are talking about the top two teams in Div-1A.  Not many of the candidates are located in remote locales, and those which are would be tasked with coming up with an alternative that met whatever criteria you are establishing for the game, just like the bowls do.  If BSU has to move their game to some pro stadium to meet the standards, they will have to plan for that or sacrifice their opportunity to host.

Most of the fans at these games will be hmoe team fans anyway, and they already know where to stay and how to get there.

On the other hand, I do see merit in home team hosting, primarily out of the maximizing attendance due to convenience to the home fans. Also, it is easy to foresee scenarios where BCS playoff games get crappy attendance due to the neutral site- e.g. Boise State vs. USC in Indianapolis in late December.

Don't have to foresee it; look at the attendance at the 2008 ACC championship game: 27,000 people in a 78,000 seat stadium.   Both teams were going to bowl games and BC fans preferred to hang on to their money to spend on the bowl.

I think the ideal plan would somehow maximize attendance while also making sure the games are in appropriate stadiums with appropriate surrounding infrastructure. I think a good compromise would be that each conference has a home, centrally located neutral site that would be used for the number 1 and 2 seeds. The SEC could have Atlanta/Nashville/, Big 10 could have Indianapolis/Detroit, Pac 12 could have LA etc. This would help ensure good attendance(because the sites would be convenient to regional fanbases) while also making sure the stadiums and surrounding infrastructure are appropriate.

I can't see moving the game from Michigan Stadium (113,000) to Soldier Field or Lucas Oil (62,000) and giving up 50,000 seats at $200 a seat.  That's ten million dollars you are leaving on the table, for no good reason.  The NFL does home playoff games, and is apparently prospering. 

[stjaba]

And there are plenty of non-college statiums that would be completely inadequate as well, so we have to eliminate all college venues and all non-college venues, because having an unsuitable site within a grouping invalidates all sites in that grouping, right?

That's irrelevant because if the BCS chose sites in advance there would be a guarantee that the stadium would be appropriate. Not so in the case of college stadiums.

Again, we are talking about the top two teams in Div-1A.  Not many of the candidates are located in remote locales, and those which are would be tasked with coming up with an alternative that met whatever criteria you are establishing for the game, just like the bowls do.  If BSU has to move their game to some pro stadium to meet the standards, they will have to plan for that or sacrifice their opportunity to host.

I would disagree here. I guess it depends on how you define remote. Obviously remoteness can differ by degree, but I think most college towns are in relatively remote locations.

Just to cite a couple examples from the SEC:
Athens- 73 miles away from Atlanta
Gainesville- 72 miles away from Jacksonville
Auburn- 108 miles from Atlanta
Tuscaloosa- 58 miles from Birmingham(which really isn't a major metropolitan area)
Oxford - 85 miles from Memphis

I can tell you that all of these cities have tiny airports.

I assume the problem is worse in certain Big 10 and Big 12 locates- e.g. Lubbock, Manhattan, Lincoln.

Second- even if some stadiums/locates are adequate, where do you draw the line where you don't let a home team host ? Some sort of formula involving number of seats and luxury boxes? I guarantee you that every single home team would want to host, if given the option. Seems like formulating appropriate criteria would be difficult, and possibly subject to criticism, and uncertainty.

Third, if some college stadiums are inadequate, what stadium do you go with? Let the lower seed host? That seems unfair. I'm not sure how easy it is to find a vacant, staffable, usable stadium on three weeks time.

I can't see moving the game from Michigan Stadium (113,000) to Soldier Field or Lucas Oil (62,000) and giving up 50,000 seats at $200 a seat.  That's ten million dollars you are leaving on the table, for no good reason.  The NFL does home playoff games, and is apparently prospering.

First off, it's more than a number of seats game- luxury boxes/premium seats matter too. Second, I assume the BCS is trying to look out for its sponsors/business partners. I think it's fair assumption that sponsors/business partners would be more likely to buy tickets/sponsorships if they are absolutely certain the semi-final games are in accessible, major metropolitan markets. These sponsor relationships may be less lucrative if there's a chance that the semi-final games are occasionally in the middle of nowhere.

All that being said, I agree that home team hosting is the most preferable option. You would think that with all the extra money  coming from a new TV deal that the BCS would be willing to deal with the possible headaches that arise from having home team hosts.

[ulmont]

Auburn- 108 miles from Atlanta

Auburn - 54 miles from Montgomery.  Only about 15 flights into Montgomery airport a day, though, all from Atlanta / Charlotte / Dallas.

[stjaba]

Auburn- 108 miles from Atlanta

Auburn - 54 miles from Montgomery.  Only about 15 flights into Montgomery airport a day, though, all from Atlanta / Charlotte / Dallas.

Opps- forgot about Montgomery. Still being 54 miles from Montgomery isn't exactly the height of accessibility. And Auburn itself is tiny. But it's a bit nicer than some of the surrounding cities. In 2006, I stayed in Colombus, Georgia for the UF-Auburn game. As far as I could tell, in Columbus there are three kinds of businesses: pawn shops, strip clubs, and liquor stores. 

[grumbler]

That's irrelevant because if the BCS chose sites in advance there would be a guarantee that the stadium would be appropriate. Not so in the case of college stadiums.

That's irrelevant because the NCAA could require that schools meet a minimum standard for stadium size, etc, before they could host.

I would disagree here. I guess it depends on how you define remote. Obviously remoteness can differ by degree, but I think most college towns are in relatively remote locations.
Just to cite a couple examples from the SEC:
Athens- 73 miles away from Atlanta
Gainesville- 72 miles away from Jacksonville
Auburn- 108 miles from Atlanta
Tuscaloosa- 58 miles from Birmingham(which really isn't a major metropolitan area)
Oxford - 85 miles from Memphis

I can tell you that all of these cities have tiny airports.

And yet these college stadiums fill up every Saturday. 

Sorry, I have to disagree with the idea that college football stadiums can't host college football games.

Second- even if some stadiums/locates are adequate, where do you draw the line where you don't let a home team host ? Some sort of formula involving number of seats and luxury boxes? I guarantee you that every single home team would want to host, if given the option. Seems like formulating appropriate criteria would be difficult, and possibly subject to criticism, and uncertainty.

Nonsense.  You establish the criteria (pro baseball does it, for instance) and teams that can't meet the criteria have to find alternate hosting options, or play as the away team.

Third, if some college stadiums are inadequate, what stadium do you go with? Let the lower seed host? That seems unfair. I'm not sure how easy it is to find a vacant, staffable, usable stadium on three weeks time.

If a team cannot host, then it is the away team.  That's a perfectly fair outcome, if they can't come up with a plan over the course of the two years between the plan's acceptance and the first playoff game.

First off, it's more than a number of seats game- luxury boxes/premium seats matter too. Second, I assume the BCS is trying to look out for its sponsors/business partners. I think it's fair assumption that sponsors/business partners would be more likely to buy tickets/sponsorships if they are absolutely certain the semi-final games are in accessible, major metropolitan markets. These sponsor relationships may be less lucrative if there's a chance that the semi-final games are occasionally in the middle of nowhere.

The BCS will still be able to look after it's leeches and bloodsuckers, just as it does now.  The NCAA can simply remove a pair of games from anything to do with the BCS, and even let the losers play in the BCS's bowls, if the semifinal games are a week after the conference finals.

Major college stadiums have as many luxury boxes/etc as pro stadiums.  The one issue that would arise is student seat costs - if you make $100 on 20,000 student tickets, you just lost $2 million.  If you don't give the students a big discount, how do you justify using the university's stadium?

Still, the average of 10,000 more ticket sales (based on the averages for games actually played in 1998-2012 versus what they would have gotten with the home-hosting plan) is a powerful lure.  Especially when you consider that at least some of these teams are going to play again, and fans won't be able to go to two bowl games in a single offseason.
(see http://mgoblog.com/content/michigan-museday-fears-nippert#comments for some analysis)

All that being said, I agree that home team hosting is the most preferable option. You would think that with all the extra money  coming from a new TV deal that the BCS would be willing to deal with the possible headaches that arise from having home team hosts.

Agree.