I was having a discussion with some friends about home and home series and 2-for-1 games that MAC schools use to fill their OOC schedule when I had a thought: The bad economy could force larger schools to play more 1-for-1 games with MAC schools to keep travel costs down in the future.
Whereas in the past a MAC school would have to play two and three away games to get a return game, I wonder if some schools are starting to feel the pinch of the economy and schedule road games closer to their campus; and eliminating air travel?
I'm sure this wouldn't apply to OSU or Michigan, but I could see smaller BCS schools playing their in-state MAC counterparts.
Iowa St. or Northwestern vs. NIU
Syracuse v. Buffalo
UConn v. Temple
Pitt v. Akron or Kent
Mich St. v. EMU, WMU etc.
If such a situation did happen, could you see this happening in football or basketball first?
Technically speaking, Toledo has a 1 for 1 with Ohio State. Our home game was in Cleveland this past year. We received all of the receipts on ticket sales and so forth. We make one return trip to Ohio State in 2011 to complete the 1 for 1 series.
Toledo also has future home and home deals (home game at the Glass Bowl) against Iowa State, Navy, Missouri, and Boise State. Navy and Boise State are not technically BCS schools, but are pretty well known and nice deals nonetheless.
We already have it with UConn, and we have it for basketball haha
I think that what Akron is doing sort of works. They're running three 2-for-1s with BCS schools, having one BCS home game per year and one bought home game against a FCS team. That gets you 6 home games per year and two paychecks per year lined up for at least three years. It gets you the good parts of both worlds, although I'd rather have 1-for-1 games because it seems more respectable.
Buffalo and SU completed a 3-1 deal and no plans for a future contract are imminent. We have equal terms deals with UConn, Pit, BC, and Baylor but SU will not want a straight 1-1 with us. They don't consider themselves a smaller BCS with the perennial success of their basketball and lacrosse, and their football history, so they won't budge for UB.
We haven't played them in BB either in 9 years. We want an deal with 1 at Alumni, but SU simply won't play in Buffalo unless it's at the HSBC Arena (it's where Niagara and Canisius "hosts" their SU home games). UNC, Miami, BC, PSU, NW, Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn will play here, but not SU.
(01-23-2010 02:54 PM)imradioboy Wrote: [ -> ]I was having a discussion with some friends about home and home series and 2-for-1 games that MAC schools use to fill their OOC schedule when I had a thought: The bad economy could force larger schools to play more 1-for-1 games with MAC schools to keep travel costs down in the future.
Whereas in the past a MAC school would have to play two and three away games to get a return game, I wonder if some schools are starting to feel the pinch of the economy and schedule road games closer to their campus; and eliminating air travel?
I'm sure this wouldn't apply to OSU or Michigan, but I could see smaller BCS schools playing their in-state MAC counterparts.
Iowa St. or Northwestern vs. NIU
Syracuse v. Buffalo
UConn v. Temple
Pitt v. Akron or Kent
Mich St. v. EMU, WMU etc.
If such a situation did happen, could you see this happening in football or basketball first?
This makes no sense.
First of all, the economy is getting better. If this was going to happen, it would've happened already.
Second, I don't see how the economy and the MAC getting more 1 for 1's is related in anyway. The Big Ten and/or Big East schools would get more money just playing home games. The Big Ten AND the MAC schools get more money for playing more games at the bigger stadiums.
(01-23-2010 04:33 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote: [ -> ]Technically speaking, Toledo has a 1 for 1 with Ohio State. Our home game was in Cleveland this past year. We received all of the receipts on ticket sales and so forth. We make one return trip to Ohio State in 2011 to complete the 1 for 1 series.
No, but nice try. Just because you got to wear your blue jerseys, doesn't make it a home game. OSU had 90% of the fans at the game.
We did the same thing with Iowa at Soldier Field, but no one called that a one for one.
(01-23-2010 06:56 PM)niubrad00 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2010 04:33 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote: [ -> ]Technically speaking, Toledo has a 1 for 1 with Ohio State. Our home game was in Cleveland this past year. We received all of the receipts on ticket sales and so forth. We make one return trip to Ohio State in 2011 to complete the 1 for 1 series.
No, but nice try. Just because you got to wear your blue jerseys, doesn't make it a home game. OSU had 90% of the fans at the game.
We did the same thing with Iowa at Soldier Field, but no one called that a one for one.
I don't think you understood my post. I said technically speaking.......because technically it was our home game. We paid for the rent of the facility and we got all of the ticket revenue, including the revenue from the tickets that OSU sold......just like it would be for a regular home game.
And when NIU hosted Iowa at Soldier Field, technically speaking, it was a home game for NIU. It might not have seemed like it based on fan support, but technically speaking it was a home game.
(01-23-2010 06:56 PM)niubrad00 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2010 04:33 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote: [ -> ]Technically speaking, Toledo has a 1 for 1 with Ohio State. Our home game was in Cleveland this past year. We received all of the receipts on ticket sales and so forth. We make one return trip to Ohio State in 2011 to complete the 1 for 1 series.
No, but nice try. Just because you got to wear your blue jerseys, doesn't make it a home game. OSU had 90% of the fans at the game.
We did the same thing with Iowa at Soldier Field, but no one called that a one for one.
Just like BG's home and home with Wisconsin a few years ago which gave the idea for UT's home and home with Ohio State ... you do it for the paycheck. Do your best to sell out an NFL stadium and keep the winnings. Problem for BG was that Ohio State refused to leave C-Bus to play us (last time before that game we played was '03, a one possession game, so they refused the invite), so we had to do a home and home with Wisconsin and their fans didn't travel well.
You get to keep the earnings, but in general it's just a nice way to claim a "home" game against a big team.
Miami has completed home and homes with Syracuse and Vanderbilt and start a home and home with Missouri next year. We also have an ongoing home and home series with UC. We have a home and home with Kentucky with our home game being played at Paul Brown stadium. We had home and home arranged with Boise and Colorado but let them out of the trip to Oxford as compensation for changing their schedules to accomodate the Miami-UK series. That is a sore point for Miami fans.
(01-23-2010 05:21 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]We already have it with UConn, and we have it for basketball haha
This was negotiated out as part of your Big East parting gift package.
Sort of the MAC noting they wanting bball games w/Temple.
This makes no sense. Its based on the false notion that AQ Conference teams are playing significant numbers of non conference road games to begin with and playing them close by would be a financial benefit. The fact of the matter is that nearly every team in an AQ conference is trying to play as many home games as possible even if they need to dip into FCS to fill a schedule. So there are limited opportunities to begin with, and it is not more financially lucrative for either party to play at the smaller stadium. This thread makes no sense.
(01-24-2010 05:15 PM)conrock Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2010 05:21 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]We already have it with UConn, and we have it for basketball haha
This was negotiated out as part of your Big East parting gift package.
Sort of the MAC noting they wanting bball games w/Temple.
Just curious, but i have never seen this said before??? Do you have any sources on this statement?
(01-23-2010 06:26 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote: [ -> ]Buffalo and SU completed a 3-1 deal and no plans for a future contract are imminent. We have equal terms deals with UConn, Pit, BC, and Baylor but SU will not want a straight 1-1 with us. They don't consider themselves a smaller BCS with the perennial success of their basketball and lacrosse, and their football history, so they won't budge for UB.
We haven't played them in BB either in 9 years. We want an deal with 1 at Alumni, but SU simply won't play in Buffalo unless it's at the HSBC Arena (it's where Niagara and Canisius "hosts" their SU home games). UNC, Miami, BC, PSU, NW, Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn will play here, but not SU.
I love that Jim Calhoun also called out Boeheim after the Huskies almost lost at UB last year saying that he was willing to take his team and play anywhere, while other Big East coaches prefer to play all non-conference games at home.
Boeheim has said that they will NEVER play UB at Alumni Arena, and will only play UB at HSBC Arena along with a 3 for 1 deal. I say no thanks.
As for football, UB and Syracuse should be playing each other every year. They are natural geographic rivals.
(01-24-2010 06:50 PM)templefan1 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2010 05:15 PM)conrock Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2010 05:21 PM)JHG722 Wrote: [ -> ]We already have it with UConn, and we have it for basketball haha
This was negotiated out as part of your Big East parting gift package.
Sort of the MAC noting they wanting bball games w/Temple.
Just curious, but i have never seen this said before??? Do you have any sources on this statement?
They weren't in the BE when we left.
(01-24-2010 06:07 PM)emsg06 Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense. Its based on the false notion that AQ Conference teams are playing significant numbers of non conference road games to begin with and playing them close by would be a financial benefit. The fact of the matter is that nearly every team in an AQ conference is trying to play as many home games as possible even if they need to dip into FCS to fill a schedule. So there are limited opportunities to begin with, and it is not more financially lucrative for either party to play at the smaller stadium. This thread makes no sense.
Actually, signing a 1 for 1 with the MAC does make some sense for about half of the AQ schools who do not clear big gate receipts.
Scheduling 4 or 5 non-conference games is a lot. To address this, BCS conferences are interested in playing longer conference schedules. The PAC-10 moved to a 9 game round robin schedule a few year ago. The effect was PAC-10 schools needed less games to buy because essentially with the 9th home-and-home series annually vs. a confernce school.
Given the success of Big East basketball at 16 teams, I could see the MAC someday expand to 16 all-sport members to enhance basketball and to generate more NCAA tourney and bowl bids.
With 2 divisions of 8 football playing members the schedule could be 7 divisional and 2 cross divisional games.
I could see in the future.....
MAC adding ISU, UMass, UDel to 16
CUSA adding UNCC, GSU, JMU, ODU to 16
SBC adding LaTech, NMSU, Missouri St., UTSA, Texas St., Appy St. to 16
I just don't think you are going to see a CAA or MVC FBS football conference as much as you'll see the MAC, CUSA, SBC, ect...try and load up beyond 12 members if they think it can help them in either travel, TV, or postseason bids.
(01-24-2010 08:54 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2010 06:07 PM)emsg06 Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense. Its based on the false notion that AQ Conference teams are playing significant numbers of non conference road games to begin with and playing them close by would be a financial benefit. The fact of the matter is that nearly every team in an AQ conference is trying to play as many home games as possible even if they need to dip into FCS to fill a schedule. So there are limited opportunities to begin with, and it is not more financially lucrative for either party to play at the smaller stadium. This thread makes no sense.
Actually, signing a 1 for 1 with the MAC does make some sense for about half of the AQ schools who do not clear big gate receipts.
Scheduling 4 or 5 non-conference games is a lot. To address this, BCS conferences are interested in playing longer conference schedules. The PAC-10 moved to a 9 game round robin schedule a few year ago. The effect was PAC-10 schools needed less games to buy because essentially with the 9th home-and-home series annually vs. a confernce school.
Given the success of Big East basketball at 16 teams, I could see the MAC someday expand to 16 all-sport members to enhance basketball and to generate more NCAA tourney and bowl bids.
With 2 divisions of 8 football playing members the schedule could be 7 divisional and 2 cross divisional games.
I could see in the future.....
MAC adding ISU, UMass, UDel to 16
CUSA adding UNCC, GSU, JMU, ODU to 16
SBC adding LaTech, NMSU, Missouri St., UTSA, Texas St., Appy St. to 16
I just don't think you are going to see a CAA or MVC FBS football conference as much as you'll see the MAC, CUSA, SBC, ect...try and load up beyond 12 members if they think it can help them in either travel, TV, or postseason bids.
You really need to lay off the pot.
(01-23-2010 02:54 PM)imradioboy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure this wouldn't apply to OSU or Michigan, but I could see smaller BCS schools playing their in-state MAC counterparts.
Iowa St. or Northwestern vs. NIU
Syracuse v. Buffalo
UConn v. Temple
Pitt v. Akron or Kent
Mich St. v. EMU, WMU etc.
If such a situation did happen, could you see this happening in football or basketball first?
In basketball the MAC is actually moving backward in scheduling as there are more D1 schools then ever before that are willing to play on the the road at a AQ conference school.
It is much more difficult for the AQ to maintain their grip on basketball power since they don't control the postseason like they do in football. What they do is leverage the fact that on average 66% of basketball games are won by the home team. With this is mind and with almost 300 non-AQ basketball schools out there, the AQ schools schedule almost exclusively at home.
The only exception to this is if they are a national power they'll try to schedule a few national TV game matchups non-conference against the top 20 to try and wed themselves to that level in the public and recruiting minds. A few non-AQ programs have managed to wed themselves into the top 20 like Gonzaga and Xavier.
The average AQ program needs a steady diet of cupcakes at home to ensure an NIT bid with a losing AQ conference record.
In football there are simply less schools out there. About 66 AQ schools to 54 non-AQ schools. AQ schools can only count 1 FCS a year toward bowl eligibility and need 9 FBS wins if they want to go to a bowl. This gives conferences like the MAC some leverage.
Some MAC schools are trying anyway they can to get the most attractive home schedule possible (Miami, Toledo). Others are attracted to payday cash (EMU).
Ohio is using the 4 game non-conference schedule to try and ensure 6 home games a year and 3/4 winnable. In 2013, Ohio has a record 7 home games.
Ohio football opponents for the next 6 years:
FCS 6
CUSA 6
WAC 5
Big Ten 3
Big East 2
SBC 2
SEC 1
Notice we have an FCS, CUSA, and a WAC school on the schedule every year. No more 0-4 starts in Athens.
(01-24-2010 09:01 PM)utpotts Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2010 08:54 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ] (01-24-2010 06:07 PM)emsg06 Wrote: [ -> ]This makes no sense. Its based on the false notion that AQ Conference teams are playing significant numbers of non conference road games to begin with and playing them close by would be a financial benefit. The fact of the matter is that nearly every team in an AQ conference is trying to play as many home games as possible even if they need to dip into FCS to fill a schedule. So there are limited opportunities to begin with, and it is not more financially lucrative for either party to play at the smaller stadium. This thread makes no sense.
Actually, signing a 1 for 1 with the MAC does make some sense for about half of the AQ schools who do not clear big gate receipts.
Scheduling 4 or 5 non-conference games is a lot. To address this, BCS conferences are interested in playing longer conference schedules. The PAC-10 moved to a 9 game round robin schedule a few year ago. The effect was PAC-10 schools needed less games to buy because essentially with the 9th home-and-home series annually vs. a confernce school.
Given the success of Big East basketball at 16 teams, I could see the MAC someday expand to 16 all-sport members to enhance basketball and to generate more NCAA tourney and bowl bids.
With 2 divisions of 8 football playing members the schedule could be 7 divisional and 2 cross divisional games.
I could see in the future.....
MAC adding ISU, UMass, UDel to 16
CUSA adding UNCC, GSU, JMU, ODU to 16
SBC adding LaTech, NMSU, Missouri St., UTSA, Texas St., Appy St. to 16
I just don't think you are going to see a CAA or MVC FBS football conference as much as you'll see the MAC, CUSA, SBC, ect...try and load up beyond 12 members if they think it can help them in either travel, TV, or postseason bids.
You really need to lay off the pot.
I guess (know) you are one of those guys who believe the end goal of all conferences is to have 12 and a conference championship game, the thinking beyond that expansion cuts into revenue rather than increase it.
If expanding beyond 12 can radically alter a conference from 1 bid in the NCAA's to 2 or 3 bids then why not? The TV networks would find more value in a larger conference that can provide more inventory. Its about market share and a larger conference is going to have more market share.
Once again nobody makes more money by playing in a MAC stadium when the alternative is the stadium of an AQ conference. Travel expenses for road games are not a problem for AQ teams, and if they did need to play a road game to get a pay day they would be very much in demand because of the need for large programs to play 7-8 home games to fuel their massive athletic budgets. They do not NEED 1 for 1 with the MAC to save on travel. Its not even close to being among the top considerations.