I believe the idea of having a Conference Championship Game is a great one. It gives a clear Conference Champ as well as added Conference Exposure. Further more, the Game while being held at a member schools site will; generate fan interest and in these stringent economic times, help in selling tickets and filling the stands.
I think Tampa is the best place for it. I would do the Meadowlands, Tampa, Reliant, and Qualcom, depending on the teams involved. No you can't sell those buildings out but so be it. Otherwise put them on the campus sites if they can't sell enough pro stadium seats.
(05-24-2012 09:31 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote: i don't want a championship football game...
the ACC does this and it's embarassing....nobody goes. The SEC does it and it's packed. If we did it, we would look more like the ACC game than the SEC game.
pass
Hasn't the ACC CCG been played at a neutral site in the Georgia Dome? That might explain why attendance is so bad, especially since you don't necessarily know the participants until late.
I think having it at the host team's site will facilitate a lot larger crowd.
Neutral site? Yes.
Georgia Dome? No.
The SEC game is in the Georgia Dome. The very first one was in Birmingham in 1992. I think the ACC games have been in Jacksonville and maybe Charlotte.
Yeah, duh. I live in Atlanta. Just had a senior moment, lol.
(05-25-2012 08:27 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: Big East fans may get a glimpse of the future when SMU hosts the C-USA championship game this December.
If the future is a 4-loss team hosting championship games, let's hope they Mayans were right.
When will the my little ponies (and everyone else, for that matter) stop awarding preseason wins over Houston? Probably thought Craig James was gonna be a Senator...
Hosting championship games are awesome. UCF has hosted 3 championship football games in CUSA and the extra home game is a great reward for the best team in the league.
The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2012 10:52 AM by RUScarlets.)
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Disagree when it comes to a league like Big East or ACC. The big 10 can get away with it because they are the big 10. A neutral site for our league would be a disaster in all respects and certainly a money loser. There just isn't enough public interest for a neutral site big east championship be it corporate or local fan support.
ACC lost money on its champ game when it was in tampa.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Disagree when it comes to a league like Big East or ACC. The big 10 can get away with it because they are the big 10. A neutral site for our league would be a disaster in all respects and certainly a money loser. There just isn't enough public interest for a neutral site big east championship be it corporate or local fan support.
ACC lost money on its champ game when it was in tampa.
The Pac 10 is having its championship game on campus and not at a neutral site. That should tell folks something.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Maybe if you are the SEC...but not if you are the Big East...as no neutral site, city and stadium will risk BUYING/sponsoring that game in which both teams could be 1,000-2,000 miles away...and may not win their division till just 6-7 days prior to the Championship Game...hence why the Big East, just like Pac-12 and CUSA, are using the #1 "seed" as their Championship Game site.
Also, Pac-12 Championship Game last year had major sponsors in Dr Pepper and UPS...as even winning Coach Chip Kelly gave them a NASCAR shout-out in his post-game comments:
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Maybe if you are the SEC...but not if you are the Big East...as no neutral site, city and stadium will risk BUYING/sponsoring that game in which both teams could be 1,000-2,000 miles away...and may not win their division till just 6-7 days prior to the Championship Game...hence why the Big East, just like Pac-12 and CUSA, are using the #1 "seed" as their Championship Game site.
Also, Pac-12 Championship Game last year had major sponsors in Dr Pepper and UPS...as even winning Coach Chip Kelly gave them a NASCAR shout-out in his post-game comments:
No doubt. Which is why I agree that for the BE an on-campus site is the best, but I was just trying to give a reason why a neutral site *could* be preferred, but only from a money-grubbing perspective. Sponsors will be all over the game for ad spots no matter where it's played. I wasn't doubting that aspect at all. I was only suggesting that the overall conference had potential to make more money from a neutral site, but I agree that it is a bad idea for the teams and the fans.
(05-30-2012 10:51 AM)RUScarlets Wrote: The problem is the BE will never sell out a pre-determined site unless a local team within that vicinity is playing in the game. That's why you may have to let the first place team host it. The last thing we need is less than 10,000 show up for SDSU vs Temple in Tampa.
The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Disagree when it comes to a league like Big East or ACC. The big 10 can get away with it because they are the big 10. A neutral site for our league would be a disaster in all respects and certainly a money loser. There just isn't enough public interest for a neutral site big east championship be it corporate or local fan support.
ACC lost money on its champ game when it was in tampa.
But they more than made up for it the past few years in Charlotte. Having the game in Tampa didn't make any sense - it's not centrally located within the conference. Charlotte has been very successful for the ACC, as Atlanta has been for the SEC and Detroit for the MAC. The PAC, CUSA, BE and to some extent the XII (when they had it) are better suited to have it on-campus because they aren't really centered compactly like those others are.
(05-30-2012 11:54 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Disagree when it comes to a league like Big East or ACC. The big 10 can get away with it because they are the big 10. A neutral site for our league would be a disaster in all respects and certainly a money loser. There just isn't enough public interest for a neutral site big east championship be it corporate or local fan support.
ACC lost money on its champ game when it was in tampa.
But they more than made up for it the past few years in Charlotte. Having the game in Tampa didn't make any sense - it's not centrally located within the conference. Charlotte has been very successful for the ACC, as Atlanta has been for the SEC and Detroit for the MAC. The PAC, CUSA, BE and to some extent the XII (when they had it) are better suited to have it on-campus because they aren't really centered compactly like those others are.
which is the point, big east has no location where it can centrally host a champ game and make money, even if some pie in the sky sponsors come and pay big bucks for an empty game.
(05-30-2012 11:54 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: The only thing a pre-determined neutral site adds is revenue to the conference - the whole conference. A neutral site allows for more corporate sponsorships, more luxury box sales, etc. The B1G had to pay people to go watch their CCG in Indy last season, but they still made a boatload of money from it. On-campus sites help the home team immensely, but don't do much for the rest of the conference outside of TV revenue.
what are u talking about? All CUSA champ games have had major sponsors including Xbox, Mcdonalds, etc. Whether its at a neutral site or not isn't going to effect sponsorship money. Thats CUSA. Imagine the type of sponsorship a big east champ game could get.
Ad sponsors like CUSA has are only a portion of the sponsorship revenue. A neutral site gives more time to set up more corporate events and give the conference the revenue from ticket and luxury box sales. More events means more $$. More luxury box sales means more $$.
Maybe if you are the SEC...but not if you are the Big East...as no neutral site, city and stadium will risk BUYING/sponsoring that game in which both teams could be 1,000-2,000 miles away...and may not win their division till just 6-7 days prior to the Championship Game...hence why the Big East, just like Pac-12 and CUSA, are using the #1 "seed" as their Championship Game site.
Also, Pac-12 Championship Game last year had major sponsors in Dr Pepper and UPS...as even winning Coach Chip Kelly gave them a NASCAR shout-out in his post-game comments:
No doubt. Which is why I agree that for the BE an on-campus site is the best, but I was just trying to give a reason why a neutral site *could* be preferred, but only from a money-grubbing perspective. Sponsors will be all over the game for ad spots no matter where it's played. I wasn't doubting that aspect at all. I was only suggesting that the overall conference had potential to make more money from a neutral site, but I agree that it is a bad idea for the teams and the fans.
9 out of 10 times...the Big East Conf can make a lot more money playing in a guaranteed SOLD OUT campus/home stadium of the #1 team vs most neutral site situations. (Heck, most Big East Schools OWN their own stadium....so zero $$$ in "stadium rental" would be needed...only teams like USF, SDSU, Memphis and Temple (all have very favorable leases...much cheaper than renting a neutral site one-off game) would have direct extra stadium costs if they hosted a Championship Game.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2012 01:33 PM by KnightLight.)
