This should be a good draw for both schools, as Central and Eastern both have a ton of alums and current students in the Detroit area. A controlled-climate game in November means it's a family-friendly event, and Ford field is a great venue. Moreover, I believe both schools can count this as a home game for attendance purposes.
I know this is "good" for both schools, but I think being able to count as home attendance for BOTH schools is ridiculous.
Good luck. EMU got a little fired up after their coach hit the road last year and perhaps they are due for a run ala Buffalo b-ball.
CMichFan Wrote:Moreover, I believe both schools can count this as a home game for attendance purposes.
I'll be very surprised if that turns out to be true. This is an EMU home game that is being moved to a different venue. It is still listed as a home game on the schedule.
<a href='http://www.emich.edu/goeagles/football/2004/fbsched.html' target='_blank'>EMU 2004 Football Schedule</a>
I believe all the attendance will be credited to EMU, just as it would if the game was played in Rynearson Stadium.
DE: You could be correct about the attendance; I'll have to look into it.
CMichFan Wrote:DE: You could be correct about the attendance; I'll have to look into it.
If it were deemed a neutral site game -- which is reasonable -- then perhaps both schools could count attendance in meeting the NCAA requirement.
As it stands, Central Michigan is unlikely to need the boost. They host Western Michigan, and that should be enough.
Congratulations! I hope it draws 25K+.
If this experiment turns out to be at least mildly successful, I'll be keeping an eye on it as I wouldn't be surprised if EMU "hosts" WMU at Ford Field in '05.
FWIW, I'd be surprised if both schools will be able to count the attendance as their own. I had assumed it was just EMU's pie.
Motown Bronco Wrote:If this experiment turns out to be at least mildly successful, I'll be keeping an eye on it as I wouldn't be surprised if EMU "hosts" WMU at Ford Field in '05.
FWIW, I'd be surprised if both schools will be able to count the attendance as their own. I had assumed it was just EMU's pie.
The 12,500 in 65,000 FF will look really cool.
I'm sure NIU reps will be watching....there's been mention of a Soldier Field version of what you are doing. A good turnout could possibly bring this to fruition...NIUvs. UofI/N'Western/Wisc??? :chair:
Isn't the purpose of garnering greater attendance to increase revenue?
Somebody please tell me how putting 25,000 fans in an NFL stadium, paying them the rent, giving them the parking and concessions is going to generate more revenue for the host team than putting even 10k in a stadium they already own and getting all the parking, concessions, etc.?
Is the 25k (or whatever) all a cosmetic benefit? A number without real meaning? It looks that way to me. It goes to the heart of why the attendance regulation is bogus in the first place.
Axeme is correct about how these changing NCAA attendance regs keep "walking us around by our willies".
First, we all have to add stadium capacity (to get to 30K), so we can meet the old regs (spending lotsa cash in the process), and now the rules change so that is somewhat meaningless, but now cash-strapped programs like EMU are forced to look for other "creative" (and expensive) ways to keep their IA program, or be forced to "IAA land" where revenues are probably much worse. A tough spot.
No, the purpose of increasing attendance is to get all MAC schools above the 15,000 level. This condition is the vehicle that the the NCAA & the BCS will use to dismantle the MAC. That is why it is so critical that these games at NFL stadiums be successful. It's not a cosmetic benefit, the Mac has made great strides in the past several years, and it would be tragic if should fail now, when it is so close to getting a share of the 120 million dollar BCS pie...
The most creative solutions should involve putting together a decent football team. It's not that you have to compete for championships every year, but to play well enough that the POSSIBILITY exists in the minds of your fanbase.
Just curious..........what did EMU average in home attendance during their las MAC championship (87) year? I think they were still in the "old" Rynearson then, though, which only had capacity in the low 20's I think. I went to a game at the old stadium when Miami played there in 1985.........that was the game our RB Swarn ran for 326 yards on what was the muddiest field I've ever seen. In those days the away stands consisted of only 15-20 rows of wooden bleachers.
By the way, when did they renovate Rynearson to bring it up to 30K plus.....around 1990? And it was much more than what I'd call a "renovation".......in essence most of the stadium was completely rebuilt.
Tomznj Wrote:No, the purpose of increasing attendance is to get all MAC schools above the 15,000 level. This condition is the vehicle that the the NCAA & the BCS will use to dismantle the MAC. That is why it is so critical that these games at NFL stadiums be successful. It's not a cosmetic benefit, the Mac has made great strides in the past several years, and it would be tragic if should fail now, when it is so close to getting a share of the 120 million dollar BCS pie...
Well, if that's not cosmetic, I don't know what is. What is the true value of having a 15k avg.? If it's a symbolic number that indicates a certain level of support for the program that's one thing, but when you have to LOSE money to get that number it more than borders on absurd.
I understand much better playing OOC games in venues that will attract larger crowds, but playing conference games in NFL stadiums may work out once or twice, but I don't see them having much long term benefit. And even if that game at Ford draws well and gets some people to games that would not ordinarily go, might it not also have the effect of
decreasing attendance at the now "less special" games at Rynearson?
Let's say (hypothetically, of course--I have a rich imagination) all of the teams who are struggling with wins and attendance--Akron, EMU, Kent, and OU--suddenly turn it around, start winning more and getting more fans. Will the other teams who are then losing more, lose correspondingly in their attendance? Is it zero sum? Are we simply transferring the problem?
Does anyone have the time and sources to compile the total MAC football attendance for each season, say for the last five or so? Has total attendance trended up or down? This would factor in the ups and downs of individual teams--when one team improves on the field and attendance improves, is there a corresponding downturn for another team?
Good questions, Axe. If every team was .500 and competitive every year, the league would be viewed as entirely mediocre. It could be said that having a weaker bottom has allowed the MAC to have a more noticeably stronger top. But it doesn't have to be the SAME bottom all the time. Ideally, it would be cyclical. As long as the POSSIBILITY or even the memory exists of competitiveness, your fan base might go into stasis during bad times, but enough true-believer fans linger around because the possibility exists of solid football.
What some teams have though is fanbases that have zero memory or hope. Nothing to sustain them during lean times, because they've known mostly lean times.
A few years ago, BG and NIU were written off. But they had a fanbase with some memory of quality football. The worm turned when they won again. Currently WMU, CMU and Ohio are teams that most would agree whose fans would reappear pretty quickly if they got solid. All three would be hurting if they endured, say, 3 more years of lousy play. EMU has become a bit far removed from their past glories. Kent, Buffalo, Akron, these are the teams that have not won big in recent memory. If they were to win big, someone else might have to lose big, but I think most of the other schools could sustain a couple down years.
MacLord Wrote:The most creative solutions should involve putting together a decent football team. It's not that you have to compete for championships every year, but to play well enough that the POSSIBILITY exists in the minds of your fanbase.
HERES MY THOUGHT!
If any school wnts to stay or move up to d-1 it is coming out of the schools pocket...isn't it? I mean if revenue sharing is taking place then the school should make up the cost for what they can't put in the kitty...This is idiotic to force people out of were they want to spend their money...If Western Pennsylvania U want to move to D-1 even though they may average 200 a game...let them move and increase thier cost...if EMU wants to stay let them pay for the full shollies..it is their choice these institutions have pride...let them succumb if they want or fight their way out...this kicking people out is awful... :mad:
I agree with that statement IKE, to an extent. I just think that we have often approached this with purely marketing solutions, when the only proven solution has been teams actually turning it around on the field.
The extent to which I don't agree: Anyone who pays and gives out the scholarships is in Division IA. Okay, great. But being in Division IA theoretically gives you some benefits, things different than I-AA. Otherwise why have a Division IA at all? In order to derive any benefits, it is reasonable to set some minimum standards that show you are at least making a modicum of effort to be at the I-A level. If Western Penn U. pays just enough to field a team and then makes zero effort to sustain the team, it doesn't only hurt them. It drags down other teams in their conference and is unfair to schools who are really trying. It's like somebody buying a lot in an exclusive neighborhood, paying just enough for the taxes and storing junked cars in the overgrown yard. It is their property, but it hurts the property values of those around them.
Quote:Let's say (hypothetically, of course--I have a rich imagination) all of the teams who are struggling with wins and attendance--Akron, EMU, Kent, and OU--suddenly turn it around, start winning more and getting more fans. Will the other teams who are then losing more, lose correspondingly in their attendance? Is it zero sum? Are we simply transferring the problem?
I've always thought the same. In the hypothetical scenario, if EMU is the worst for a while, draws the fewest fans, and gets "booted out", it would invariably get replaced by another School X who would be in last place. Once School X slips under this mystical, magical 15K figure, another School Y must fill the last-place slot, and so on. It would seem that there always going to be a team that will have a 1 or 2-win conference season.
It still amazes me how so many fans of college football have accepted "15K" as exact science. As if scientists - after a lot of painstaking research - devised a formula that concluded that 15,000 is that x figure symbolizing a successful program at the Div 1A level, while others 14,999 or lower deserved to be banished.
No, 15K was an arbitrary number chosen to (a) stop the flow of Div 1-AA programs from moving up, being competitive, and grabbing more loot, and (b.) put the fear of God into conferences like the MAC, who have been defeating more and more BCS programs over the last several years.
Who's to say that once some red-headed stepchilds are gone due to 15K, that they simply won't raise it to 25K a few years down the line? Or more? Clean out the exciting upstarts so all we see on TV, 100% of the time, are the boring stalwarts like Notre Dame, Michigan, Oklahoma, FSU, and USC playing each other week in and week out.