I think this will mean less bowl game opportunities for non BCS conference teams like the MAC, especially if they allow 6-6 teams to be bowl eligible. Included with this proposal, I wish there was some kind of mandate for BCS schools to have one of their non conference games AT a non BCS site. It would be nice to see us play some quality or or high profiles teams again at Huskie Stadium.

<a href='http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2005/04/13/sports/sports02.txt' target='_blank'>12 th Proposal</a>

Also, with the elimination of the bye week, adding a 12th game would probably eliminate any team from playing on a week night more than once in a season. Which may be a good thing for fans who do not like week night games. But, this could mean less TV exposure for the MAC. We could have multiple Friday night games, but not any other day more than once due to there being only 13 weeks between labor day weekend and the last Saturday in November.

I don't think it will affect multiple weekday games at all. Who knows, they may just have the season start a week earlier for everyone.

Field Turf Wrote:Included with this proposal, I wish there was some kind of mandate for BCS schools to have one of their non conference games AT a non BCS site.  It would be nice to see us play some quality or or high profiles teams again at Huskie Stadium.

<a href='http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2005/04/13/sports/sports02.txt' target='_blank'>12 th Proposal</a>

This will never happen because of $$$. When Michigan plays at home, their fans pay $40-$50/ticket *100,000 fans = $4-$5 million in ticket sales alone. A Huskie Stadium sellout is like 22,000 tickets sold (6,000 students get in free, for 28,000 total)*$15/ticket = $330,000 in revenue. A home game at Huskie Stadium generates less than 1/10th the revenue of a BCS conference team which sells out (or close to selling out) all of their home games. The good news for smaller programs like NIU is that we get a chunk of the big program money when we play there. On the other end, it is not worth it to a large program to play for a smaller pot of money at the stadium of a smaller program.

HuskieJoe Wrote:

Field Turf Wrote:Included with this proposal, I wish there was some kind of mandate for BCS schools to have one of their non conference games AT a non BCS site.  It would be nice to see us play some quality or or high profiles teams again at Huskie Stadium.

<a href='http://www.daily-chronicle.com/articles/2005/04/13/sports/sports02.txt' target='_blank'>12 th Proposal</a>

This will never happen because of $$$. When Michigan plays at home, their fans pay $40-$50/ticket *100,000 fans = $4-$5 million in ticket sales alone. A Huskie Stadium sellout is like 22,000 tickets sold (6,000 students get in free, for 28,000 total)*$15/ticket = $330,000 in revenue. A home game at Huskie Stadium generates less than 1/10th the revenue of a BCS conference team which sells out (or close to selling out) all of their home games. The good news for smaller programs like NIU is that we get a chunk of the big program money when we play there. On the other end, it is not worth it to a large program to play for a smaller pot of money at the stadium of a smaller program.

Precisely.

rocketfootball Wrote:I don't think it will affect multiple weekday games at all. Who knows, they may just have the season start a week earlier for everyone.

Another article I read on this said the football season would have to run from Labor Day weekend until the last Saturday in November. Thus making it impossible for one team to play multiple games on a weeknight (unless a team could play on a Thrusday after a Saturday, which I don't see happening).

their should definitely be a rule you have to be over .500 to play as in .501 and better 7 -5, 6-5, but no 6-6 teams in a bowl unless thats all that is left. It's ridiculous for a .500 team in a BCS to get in over a 10-2 non-BCS.

I dont know if it was an exception to the "rule" but NU & MSU needed to beat Hawaii for a seventh win this season because Cats and MSU played a 12 game schedule.

If 12 regular season games becomes the standard, will ncaa require 7 wins for bowl eligibility ? dunno.

There are too many bowls and not enough teams would be eligible if they required 7 wins in a 12 game schedule.

Speaking of bowls, I read this morning that because New Year's Day falls on a Sunday this year (2006), and the NFL is going to play their games that day, the Bowls that are usually played on New Year's Day will now be played January 2, a Monday.

Field Turf Wrote:

rocketfootball Wrote:I don't think it will affect multiple weekday games at all.&nbsp; Who knows, they may just have the season start a week earlier for everyone.

Another article I read on this said the football season would have to run from Labor Day weekend until the last Saturday in November. Thus making it impossible for one team to play multiple games on a weeknight (unless a team could play on a Thrusday after a Saturday, which I don't see happening).

That could happen, but seeing that the NCAA Board of Director's have not even voted on this rule yet we really don't know what the particulars will be and everything we are reading is just speculation at this point.

Quote: their should definitely be a rule you have to be over .500 to play as in .501 and better 7 -5, 6-5, but no 6-6 teams in a bowl unless thats all that is left. It's ridiculous for a .500 team in a BCS to get in over a 10-2 non-BCS.&nbsp;

Hear! Hear! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph

An interesting comment by JoeN in today's chronicle & why he and coaches association is opposed to 12game season and a suggestion of a change if 12 becomes the norm.

A 12 game season is wrong. This isn't the professional circuit, rather collegiate ball. University Presidents need to put their foot down and say no. For once, it would be nice if they placed emphasis on the student-athlete as opposed to easy revenue streams.

Regardless if there is an 11 or 12 game season, unless NIU once again starts sucking in football, it will never again play a quality OOC opponent in DeKalb. Success also means there routinenly being a home game or two played during the week in deference to ESPN or other major network coverage. No sense crying about it. I'd much rather be a more successful team gaining broader attention and dollars versus being a team that nobody respects but with an attractive home schedule.

Some teams may wind up playing 15 games in a season. All the teams that play at Hawaii (13), conference championship games (14), bowl games (15).

niu85alum Wrote:A 12 game season is wrong. This isn't the professional circuit, rather collegiate ball. University Presidents need to put their foot down and say no. For once, it would be nice if they placed emphasis on the student-athlete as opposed to easy revenue streams.

I don't understand you're thinking. If a school plays 12 regular season games and then a conference championship game and a bowl game that is a total of 14 games. That could possibly happen to a total of 10 teams because there are only 5 I-A conferences with championship games. Others could play 13 games though of course.

In I-AA it is currently possible to play 15 games if you make it to the championship game. Marshall played 15 games in 5 of their last 6 seasons in I-AA, the other year they played 14 games.


If certain presidents or conferences don't like the 12 game rule they can simply schedule 11 games. The ACC was the only conference that voted against the rule. So, if they wanted, their schools could just schedule 11 games and they won't have to worry about whatever academic strain another game would put on their universities.

All politics aside, I loved the last two 12 game seasons. Now, bring politics back in and it screws the non-BCS teams. I hope the coaches of non-BCS schools can hold out and get something in return. Maybe a 7 win total for bowl eligibility. Just a thought.

As for the mulitple weeknight games, they could just do what they did to Toledo last year and play 3 weeknights in a row.