CSNbbs

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark.

That's just pitiful crap! ULM is NOT the home team if it played in Little Rock and Arkansas handles all game arrangements. This is BS and the NCAA should disallow this as a home game for ULM.

This is the sort of thing that NIU has been trying to get off the ground in Chicago the past few years with teams like Illinois or Wisconsin. Some think that we should try to get Iowa State to play us at Soldier Field.

Why is this crap? If the game is played on a neutral field, someone has to be designated the home team. If Arkansas agrees, what's the problem?

This is a perfect example of one of the ways that schools will get around the 15K attendence requirement.

Maybe Kent State should schedule their OOC games to be played in Cleveland and EMU's should be scheduled for Ford Field. Get named opponents to come play bringing their fans plus those that would go just to go drink would help both teams hit the 15,000 average.

If I remember the new NCAA rule correctly, a home game is one that is played in either a neutral location or in a facility that hosts the home team for more than 1/2 there games. The neutral location loophole can be used for 1 game per year.

John52168 Wrote:Maybe Kent State should schedule their OOC games to be played in Cleveland and EMU's should be scheduled for Ford Field. Get named opponents to come play bringing their fans plus those that would go just to go drink would help both teams hit the 15,000 average.

Actually, all that would need to happen is for EMU to play UM at their little field (whatever it's called). Guaranteed sellout. Guaranteed largest attendance ever for EMU.

EMU should work a deal where UM gets a bigger portion of the profits than normal for allowing this.

EMU and UM have a good relationship. EMU's AD, Dave Diles, taught one of my classes at UM.

But think about it - why would UM play at EMU, where the crowd would be at best 1/5th of the potential in Ann Arbor. EMU would have to guarantee more money to UM than they could expect to make on home games in a normal GOOD season in Ypsilanti (assuming they could even then fill the place regularly). This just won't happen. See, the chicken ***** are the likes of Illinois & Northwestern. These guys don't come close to filling their stadiums, yet won't come to DeKalb OR play us in Soldier Field.

This is an interesting arrangement, considering Arkansas does play several "home" games in Little Rock, which would seem to immediately contradict the nomination of a game there as being for ULM's benefit.

Possibly more interesting is that an SEC school is willing to make a deal with their facilities to aid an area mid-major, while an entire mid-major conference (CUSA) seems hell-bent to throw all other mid-majors under the bus whenever possible.

HuskieDan Wrote:But think about it - why would UM play at EMU, where the crowd would be at best 1/5th of the potential in Ann Arbor.

Uh, in case you haven't noticed yet, nobofy plays all their games at home. Every team plays road games.

Further, EMU's stadium holds 30,200. Your "at best 1/5th" is thus flawed. Every single seat in that little stadium would be full if UM played at EMU. Every seat. Guaranteed.

Now, UM could play "on the road" at EMU, have the crowd packed and rooting for UM, and get a significant cut of the gate, concessions, parking, etc. and help keep their little brother EMU in division 1 all at the same time.

Or, they could travel to play...I don't know...Rice or Houston.

You tell me which makes more sense.

Has UM actually played at Houston and Rice? I always figured those teams were 1-for-0 or 2-for-0 series, much like when WMU plays them.

I can't see UM playing at a 30K stadium. They are too used to playing the Oregons, Colorados, and Notre Dames on the road.

Michigan will never set foot inside Rynearson Stadium. It's just the way it is. Also, no, U-M has never played at Rice or Houston and likely never will either. Michigan is the 800 pound gorilla of college football and pretty much calls it's own shots. If Michigan ever played at EMU the U-M faithful would be mortified.

The best EMU could hope for would be a game at a neutral site like Ford Field and declare that a home game. But don't hold your breath on that either.

It would be cool to see the Buffalo Bills hold a late August practice sometime at UB Stadium prior to a Bulls game. Not sure how many people would hang around for the UB game but if they could count total attendance for the doubleheader it would definitely be a huge draw. UB and the Bills do have a relationship but I'm not sure it's close enough to do something like that.

HuronDave Wrote:Michigan will never set foot inside Rynearson Stadium. It's just the way it is. Also, no, U-M has never played at Rice or Houston and likely never will either. Michigan is the 800 pound gorilla of college football and pretty much calls it's own shots. If Michigan ever played at EMU the U-M faithful would be mortified.

The best EMU could hope for would be a game at a neutral site like Ford Field and declare that a home game. But don't hold your breath on that either.

how about playing michigan at michigan and counting it as our home game (idaho has been doing it for years at washington state).

would michigan be willing? would the ncaa accpt it (they've accepted the idaho - washington state thing)?

one game at michigan (5 at our place) and we average 18,000 even if no one comes to rynearson. done. hell, i'd give u of m the entire gate and a free lunch at denny's for the president to do that.

no worries, baby!

How about EMU hosting say UT at Ford Field?

Sure it costs some money, but it could draw a curious crowd.

If that game drew 35K, EMU would have no problem with the 15K requirement.

bobcat95 Wrote:Why is this crap? If the game is played on a neutral field, someone has to be designated the home team. If Arkansas agrees, what's the problem?

The reason this is crap is that this stadium is Arkansas's home stadium for half of it's games every year and the game isn't even in the same STATE as the home school.

I have no problem with neutral site games. This is NOT a neutral site.

RocketWolverine Wrote:

HuskieDan Wrote:But think about it - why would UM play at EMU, where the crowd would be at best 1/5th of the potential in Ann Arbor.

Uh, in case you haven't noticed yet, nobofy plays all their games at home. Every team plays road games.

Further, EMU's stadium holds 30,200. Your "at best 1/5th" is thus flawed. Every single seat in that little stadium would be full if UM played at EMU. Every seat. Guaranteed.

Now, UM could play "on the road" at EMU, have the crowd packed and rooting for UM, and get a significant cut of the gate, concessions, parking, etc. and help keep their little brother EMU in division 1 all at the same time.

Or, they could travel to play...I don't know...Rice or Houston.

You tell me which makes more sense.

Right.....so, UM gives up ALL the income from 108,000+ fans including parking & concessions, to get a cut of the 30K fans that would fill Rynearson? It'd be nice, but IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

UM will not play at the likes of Rice & Houston, and would certainly not play at EMU (or any MAC team, for that matter) for the same reason. Why give up the customary huge payday for a puny payday? EMU makes more sense than Rice, but neither makes any sense because of UM's stature.

There are schools that don't have to come to our houses, and thus contracts with them do not include return visits. Maryland thinks they are one of these schools now, but they weren't 10 years ago when they signed the contract for a 2 & 1 with NIU. Pitt, Syracuse, Indiana, Boston College, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State - these are all schools that don't have enough stature to be able to avoid a road trip with a MAC school now if they want to have us at their home.

UM needs to just go ahead annex EMU as a branch campus in all honesty.

EMU will never be able to do much in their shadow anyway.

HerdKixButt Wrote:UM needs to just go ahead annex EMU as a branch campus in all honesty.

EMU will never be able to do much in their shadow anyway.

The schools have very different academic missions. What you are suggesting shows a lack of understanding about the evolution of Michigan's public universities and their roles today.

Others can probably explain this a lot better than I can, but this is my understanding:

Michigan is the state's first university, chartered in 1817 when the region was still known as Michigan Territory. It now has two branch campuses, in Flint and Dearborn, and in that sense is a "system."

Michigan State (known as Michigan A&M right up until it joined the Big Ten in the late 1940s), came along a bit later as an ag-oriented land grant university.

These two universities -- along with Wayne State -- are essentially statewide institutions, with boards of regents that stand for statewide election every few years.

The state's other public universities came about to fill a educational niche, to serve a region of the state or as a pork barrel attempt to create jobs in troubled northern Michigan.

Eastern Michigan, for example, started out as Michigan Normal College. Churning out teachers is still a very important part of its mission -- and not one shared by the University of Michigan.

FWIW, Michigan's other public universities are: Central Michigan, Ferris State, Grand Valley State, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech, Northern Michigan, Oakland U., Saginaw Valley State and Western Michigan University.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Michigan State (known as Michigan A&M right up until it joined the Big Ten in the late 1940s), came along a bit later as an ag-oriented land grant university.

These two universities -- along with Wayne State -- are essentially statewide institutions, with boards of regents that stand for statewide election every few years.

A few clarifications:

MichState was never known as MichiganA&M. They were Michigan Agricultural College (so they were the original "MAC") until the early 20th century. They were then "Michigan State College" for a few decades before changing the name to MichState "University" in the mid century.

Also, while UofM is a system (UofM-AA, UofM-Flint, UofM-Dearborn) unto itself, MichState is not part of a system - it is a stand alone land grant school. The smaller public schools (CentralMich, WesternMich, EasternMich, GrandValley, SaginawValley, LakeSuperiorState, NorthernMichigan, MichiganTech, OaklandU etc) are the state's other "system" - but they have no connection to the UofM system or to MichState.

And Wayne State was origianlly established as a city college (Wayne College - named after the county and early local "Mad" Anthony Wayne). It was taken over by the state in the 1960's or 1970's - thus becoming a "State" school - but was not originally part of the state system. That may be why it still has a seperate board of governors - like MichState and UofM, while the other public universities do not.

But WayneState is no more a part of the state consciousness than SaginawValleyState, GrandValleyState or LakeSuperiorState or many of the other public universities. It may be the state's second largest university (behind only MichState) - but the undergarduate school at WSU is academically a far cry from State or UofM - or even the 3 MAC directionals. Other than the Grad and Medical Schools (which number about 10,000), Wayne State is of no higher profile than any other public school in Michigan.