WARNING: This almost certainly can't happen, so consider it a thought exercise.

Could a college football or basketball program pull off a schedule of nothing but home games?

Obviously, it'd have to be an independent program, and BYU football is the only one that could even hint at doing it. But let's say Texas decided for whatever dumb reason to go full independent.

Could Texas fill a 12-game football or 28-game basketball schedule with nothing but home games? Could they do it consistently, or would it have to be a deal where everything aligns properly? And could they get a good enough class of opponent that it wouldn't hurt them when it comes to bowl/NCAA tournament bids, or would major-conference schools tell them to pound salt instead of accepting buy games?

(08-26-2015 01:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  WARNING: This almost certainly can't happen, so consider it a thought exercise.

Could a college football or basketball program pull off a schedule of nothing but home games?

Obviously, it'd have to be an independent program, and BYU football is the only one that could even hint at doing it. But let's say Texas decided for whatever dumb reason to go full independent.

Could Texas fill a 12-game football or 28-game basketball schedule with nothing but home games? Could they do it consistently, or would it have to be a deal where everything aligns properly? And could they get a good enough class of opponent that it wouldn't hurt them when it comes to bowl/NCAA tournament bids, or would major-conference schools tell them to pound salt instead of accepting buy games?

Notre Dame maybe too

(08-26-2015 01:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  would major-conference schools tell them to pound salt instead of accepting buy games?

This.

If UT asked OU to play in Austin every year, or Notre Dame asked USC to play in South Bend every year, those would be very short and unproductive conversations.

The quickly dwindling list of available opponents would become very expensive.

(08-26-2015 01:29 PM)Jimmy Wrote:  The quickly dwindling list of available opponents would become very expensive.

In the end, strength of schedule would not be good (because any team that's any good won't agree to this).

I suppose, theoretically, you could pull this off ONCE - perhaps by scheduling home games one year and away games the next?

Say that you had 4 buy games, 2 2-1, and 6 home and away, all of the home and away lined up to be home on the same year, so you have (#H-#A):
Year 1: 5-7
Year 2: 12-0
Year 3: 5-7

Satisfying the minimum 5 home games rule.

The first thing that the AD does is get on the phone and see if he can re-arrange some of those A/H/A/... games so they are H/A/H ... move two and you have:

Year 1: 7-5
Year 2: 10-2
Year 3: 7-5

... which is more valuable, because that 5/12/5 pattern would be a killer on season ticket sales, and also because the media value of the "5 home game" years with 4 buy games and 1 school willing to sign a 2-1 would stink.

On top of the fact that 4 buy home games and 2 2-1 games would make for a very weak Strength of Schedule.

So (1) you probably couldn't and maintain strength of schedule, as noted above, and (2) even if you could, you wouldn't, because a more even spread of games against the better schools that you have to schedule Home & Home is more valuable. That's why, for instance, Notre Dame plays the Cardinal and USC on offsetting schedules, finishing the season away at Stanford on odd years and away at USC on even years.

That's why the big stadium schools aim for 7 home games a year ... not 8 one year and 6 the next.

It would be a monumental task entering into absurdity, but I could see Texas pulling it off once every 3-4 years.

YEAR 1:
Lamar (payday)
North Texas (payday)
UTEP (payday)
Boise St. (2-for-1)
LSU in Houston (N)
Oklahoma St. in DFW (N)
Texas A&M in Houston (H-H-N)
@Oklahoma (H-H-N)
@Notre Dame (H-H)
@Baylor (H-H)
@Kansas St. (H-H)
@Rice (2-for-1)

YEAR 2:
Sam Houston St. (payday)
UTSA (payday)
Rice (2-for-1)
Boise St. (2-for-1)
Oklahoma (H-H-N)
Texas A&M (H-H-N)
Notre Dame (H-H)
FSU (H-H)
Ohio St. (H-H)
Texas Tech (H-H)
Baylor (H-H)

YEAR 3:
Incarnate Word (payday)
Texas St. (payday)
Rice (2-for-1)
Kansas St. (H-H from Year 1)
Oregon in DFW (N)
Arkansas in Houston (N)
Oklahoma in DFW (H-H-N)
@Texas A&M(H-H-N)
@FSU (H-H)
@Texas Tech (H-H)
@Ohio St. (H-H)
@Boise St. (2-for-1)

Only four true home games in Years 1 and 3 and only one decent true home opponent - but 3 neutral site games in DFW/Houston in each of Year 1 and Year 3.

But, Year 2 would have an epic home schedule.

Notre Dame might be able to pull it off one season. But they would owe a lot of people.

Could fans afford the travel and tickets? Season tickets would be expensive plus most people would not want to travel each weekend for a whole fall.

Notre Dame pre-ACC affiliation would have been the only program to be able to to get 12 "home" games in a season, but not every year. It would have to include neutral site games where Notre Dame controls half of the ticket sales. And the USC game would need to be played at home that particular year.

Hawaii is the only school that could pull it off due to the Hawaii exception (I guess Alaska-Fairbanks could do the same. But I think we're talking FBS).

Hawaii makes an exclusive deal with the PAC. The PAC fronts Hawaii the money for stadium renovation and signs a twelve year deal where every PAC school plays at Hawaii annually. The PAC retains all broadcast rights, increasing PAC content, and uses Hawaii as a platform for reaching Asian markets. Every PAC school plays a thirteen game season, so they retain a normal home schedule. Hawaii, as per the Hawaii exception, gets to play a thirteenth game on the mainland, which they rotate between PAC stadiums and where Hawaii is the "Home" team. This game is scheduled as a lead in to the CCG.

Nebraska only played 4 road games in 2013. that's not far from all home. Closest I can remember that happening.

(08-26-2015 10:44 PM)Okielite Wrote:  Nebraska only played 4 road games in 2013. that's not far from all home. Closest I can remember that happening.

Most SEC schools have had eight home games at some point since the advent of the twelve game season.

That Hawaii scenario is intriguing, actually. Since this is a purely hypothetical scenario, under this agreement Hawaii could work iBYU and UNLV into its schedule, with each rotating a trip to Honolulu.

Or maybe it's a 6-game schedule against the Pac-12 each year, with alternating visits. Then you plug in alternating visits from BYU/UNLV; San Diego State/San Jose State/Fresno State; an FCS scrub; One school each from the Central and Eastern time zones (maybe on Thanksgiving weekend if that team doesn't have a rivalry game); Army/Navy (I put this because of Ken Niumatalolo's UH ties).

I don't know. It's unrealistic, but a good thought exercise, I guess? Maybe I should give up liquor for breakfast.

(08-26-2015 01:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Could Texas fill a 12-game football or 28-game basketball schedule with nothing but home games? Could they do it consistently, or would it have to be a deal where everything aligns properly? And could they get a good enough class of opponent that it wouldn't hurt them when it comes to bowl/NCAA tournament bids, or would major-conference schools tell them to pound salt instead of accepting buy games?

Th problem with this scenario is, assuming they want some decent teams on there, those games require a home and home. which means the year they had all home games, means one of either the next year or the second year would be chop full of a lot of road games.

(08-26-2015 05:13 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Notre Dame might be able to pull it off one season. But they would owe a lot of people.

ND could not pull it off between their ACC commitments, or their alternating USC/Standford games.