(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2012 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I would think we could have more of these match-ups, and have them more profitably, if they were scheduled home and home.
I'm not so sure. You just demonstrated pretty conclusively that Auburn makes the same money hosting UAB as the would hosting USC. So how do you justify the increased risk of losing a game, and maybe a playoff spot, major bowl berth, etc.?
TV is the answer, but only at contract negotiation time, or in a unique contract renegotiation time, like when the Big 12 loses valuable teams and has to ask Fox for a big favor--then TV has the leverage to get 9 conference games. When the ACC is asking ESPN for more money for Pitt and Syracuse, ESPN has the leverage to get more conference games.
The PAC went to 9 games, and remember they own their own TV rights after the first couple of dozen games. The SEC seems to be sticking at 8 games, for a while at least, but maybe that's part of the negotiations with ESPN for the details of the SEC Network.
Yes, but remember that current SEC schedules usually include one decent FBS out of conference opponent in a home and home series. Auburn just concluded such an arrangement with Clemson prior to the neutral site game in Atlanta. I am sure both Auburn and Clemson made a lot more with their home game in that series than either will make in Atlanta. I might add that since Auburn charges $55 for a home ticket against an FCS opponent the same would have been true had we played East Tennessee State (provided we sold it out, which if it were the opening game of the season we might well have done).
My comment about a home and home being more likely than a neutral site game doesn't replace FBS teams from a smaller conference like the Sun Belt, or the usual FCS game, but rather this year the neutral site game for Auburn replaces the home and home FBS slot on the schedule. So all we are losing is the home concessions and half of a reduced gate. But, that's still a loss for the local business people no matter how you look at it. If it had been the home side of a new series instead of a second straight year of playing Clemson away from Auburn they would have earned much more.
If the game was replacing one of the home only FBS games against a Sun Belt, or WAC team (like last year's Utah State game) then it would be the loss of a home game and an even greater reduction in revenue.
The only point you made that I would disagree with is that a home conference game (you said South Carolina) would earn the same as a game against UAB. The UAB tickets would be $60 and a sellout, the South Carolina tickets would be $70 and a sellout. For the single game Auburn makes more playing a conference foe. The point I think you were trying to make (forgive me if I assumed incorrectly, or misread your point) was that a game against UAB two years running (at home both years) would earn Auburn more than an extra conference game in which we would only be at home 1 out of the two years. And, that would be correct.
Your points about games already included in television contracts is an important one to make as well. Realignment driven by market expansion is about to conclude, at least for the SEC. The SEC really only has two large markets left to pursue, North Carolina and Virginia. After that if there is any further realignment it will have to be over content and include teams within the existing footprint that can add in that regard.
Depending upon how realignment plays out beyond potential additions in Virginia and North Carolina the SEC could pick up another new state but it would almost certainly be from a state with a very small television market so content would still have to be the prime motivator in that regard.
That is the reason I do not think many of the "rules" about realignment that I have seen posted really apply. Is a team that can bring you $1 dollar for every cable subscription in a large market, and add 1 or 2 million to the earnings of every school in a conference by doing so, any more valuable than a national brand that will create 8 great prime time match-ups against teams already in your conference, thereby adding to your content a value equal to or greater than that of a new market, somehow magically less valuable just because they are already within your footprint? Of course not.
As long as the economy is soggy schools will be looking at all angles to either increase revenue, or cut costs. This is all that is really driving realignment. This first round was over market share increases for cable networks. The next round will conclude that and begin content additions. Future rounds will be over cost consolidation. Do we really need to duplicate conference expenses by 2 or 3 times what they should be. To me going to 4 conferences will in the end be more about eliminating redundant expense and increasing bargaining power than about playoffs and egos. The smaller programs in the FBS will be doing exactly the same things. Coaches, fans, and teams think it is about playoffs. Administrators and college presidents know it's about revenue.
As long as there are large programs they will need the smaller programs to have those extra home games, because it is more about money than championships. There is one champion every year now. But there are 126 other programs trying to stay in the black. JR