Pac 12 prohibits neutral site games
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 6, 2012 5:18 PM MST
Email
Print
Today the Pac 12 announced that there will be no more neutral site football games like last years match between Oregon and LSU in Cowboy stadium. There are permissible exceptions that include the Pac 12 gettinging TV rights to the game, or the match-ups being an 'away' game like next years contest between USC and Syracuse at Met Life Stadium.
This rule doesn't effect Utah too much as there were no neutral site games ever in the works that I know of. But it does, once again, limit the games that Utah can schedule. With the 9 game conference schedule and the BiG - Pac12 scheduling agreement that will start in 2017, Utah will only have 2 flexible games per year. If the rivalry game stays as is, the Utes will be looking at one game a year to surprise fans with. A part of me was hoping on an exciting neutral site game against an AQ team in a large stadium once in a while. These games are usually brokered by a network and take the negotiations out of dealing with other schools and trying to find time to do home and homes. Now, it looks like the Utes will likely look to use that one game a year for a FCS warm up.
As much as I love the Pac 12 schedule, it may mean Utah will not play any FBS team outside of BYU, the P12 or the BiG during the regular season for a very long time, and I find that thought deflating.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good points, however......
I;m not too bummed until we’ve had some of the B1G teams in RES. Let me get over the thoughts of those games first.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Especially BYU. - Conan the Barbarian (ok, maybe he didn't say the BYU part)
Good point
We still don’t know how the agreement will work. If there is a true rotation we will see some good teams in RES over a 24 year period. However, I’ve seen others suggest record based rotations, and others suggest divisional rotations. I want to see the format before I get too excited.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 6, 2012 6:37 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
They need to drop the 9-game conference schedule
by darklightning8 on Feb 6, 2012 6:55 PM MST via Android app reply actions
Personally, I like the nine games
More often than not, that extra game would be another Montana State-type game rather than something that as a fan I’d prefer to see. A 9th game means one more compelling matchup every season.
by fountainofute on Feb 6, 2012 11:41 PM MST up reply actions
2 big reasons that it is unlikely they will drop to an 8 game schedule
1.) The AD’s love the 9 game schedule because it takes a lot of pressure off of scheduling
2.) This is the biggie – The North division teams won’t agree because it decreases the times they get to go to So Cal. If we go to an 8 game schedule each division would play the 5 other teams in their division. That only leaves 3 games for them to play in the other division. Just like us with Stanford and Cal, U Dub, WSU, OSU and U of O will never play USC and UCLA in same season. Currently they only play in So Cal every other year. With an 8 game schedule they would have rotations that may not get them to So Cal for 2 possibly 3 years in a row.
The SEC and Big 10 don’t have a geographic “golden goose” like the Pac 12 does. In all fairness the entire SEC geographic footprint is great for recruiting so they don’t care if they don’t go to a particular area in a given year. That is why the 8 game schedule works so well for those conferences and there is no pressure for them to go to a 9 game schedule.
3) Money, money, money and then more money.
Larry Scott knows that an additional conference game means guaranteed revenue to the conference. Sure, if the conference slate were 8 games, there would likely be at least six home games that the Pac12 would have television rights to, if not more. Who would they be against though? What the commissioner knows is that 6 conference games is worth more than 8 games pairing Pac12 teams against Wac and MWC schools.
The only downside to this is it means an extra loss for half of the conference members- making bowl eligibility more difficult. Money trumps Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl bowl candidate.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 7, 2012 9:23 AM MST up reply actions
Bowl Eligibility Will Get Even Harder
When the NCAA moves to require 7 wins for bowl eligibility.
Good idea...but not happening
There are way too many bowls in my opinion. But for the NCAA to reduce the number of games by instituting this rule they would be in for a fight. Are they going to go tell certain bowl games that they cannot exist any more? Which bowl games would they be? Most likely the ones that are currently contracted with the non AQ schools which means complete uncertainty for those teams hoping to go bowling. Lastly, doing so would limit the likely-hood any meaningful non conference games would ever be scheduled again.
Too many people feel that more football is a good thing, even if it’s mediocre.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 7, 2012 10:32 AM MST up reply actions
There is currently strong support for just such a rule
Ratings this year showed that people don’t want more football if it’s only going to be mediocre football.
Attendance and Ratings as a whole were down greatly this year.
It was also the lowest rated championship of the BCS era.
Another point that you are forgetting is that most schools lose money on bowl games, especially the really crappy games that typically feature two 6-6 teams.
I agree with this premise
I just don’t think this is a war the NCAA will try to fight. It’s not as though they have much control over the post season.
I don’t know this year’s stats but I read last year that 13 of 68 teams lost money on their bowls, and that it was the bigger bowls that were the problem. It’s the lemon BCS games, and bowls in NFL stadiums that are the problem. It was the successful teams playing mid-week in big bowls that were the key losers. Not necessarily the 6-6 teams playing in smaller bowls.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 7, 2012 12:11 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
The NCAA will do whatever the Big Six want.
It isn’t the NCAA picking this fight, it’s the Big Six conferences picking this fight. And they honestly couldn’t care less about the small teams. Which is why I’m willing to bet that not only would 2014 see a plus one, but also a 7 win requirement.
That's gonna mess up the Zoobs
Donko and the boys would have missed out on the New Mexico bowl!!! Oh, no!!!
When they start getting punked by every halfway capable team on their schedule and only beat the Idaho State’s and LA Tech’s the Cracked Bowl would have been all they had to look forward to. And now that will be gone.
Sucks to be blue.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Especially BYU. - Conan the Barbarian (ok, maybe he didn't say the BYU part)
I thought that too.
As I was reading the link Unholy Ram posted I couldn’t help but think of the Poinsettia and Kraft Fight Hunger bowls- the destination for the team down south over the next two years. What would they do if those bowls disappeared? I would guess there would be some bowl that would end up scrambling to find an eligible team like them, but it would be stressful for any team having to rely on conferences not fulfilling their quota in order to get a bowl. Even then it might not be in a desirable geographical area.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 7, 2012 3:59 PM MST up reply actions
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, & USC play each other every year
Getting to the LA area only affects the other four schools in the Northern Division
"I... am a librarian." - Evelyn from "The Mummy"
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Feb 14, 2012 4:13 PM MST up reply actions
It looks like 9 game schedules are the wave of the future
The ACC just announced they would be playing 9 games in conference when Pitt and Syracuse join. The Pac 12, BiG, and Big 12 already play a 9 game schedule. The Big East is hard to predict, but with Memphis joining now, it looks like they will be an 11 team league until Navy joins in 2015. My money says they will follow suit, which just leaves the SEC of the AQ’s to remain at 8, although it sounds as if the BiG might go back to 8 when the Pac 12-BiG agreement starts in 2017.
What does this mean? Not much for Utah. As previously mentioned the schedule is basically set from here on out. But it is a concern for other teams who rely on non-conference games. I think you all know who I mean. I can’t help but find it a little humorous.
This week a state Rep from South Carolina proposed a bill that would require the So Carolina-Clemson game to be played every year by law. There are some that see the writing on the wall that inter-conference games will become fewer and fewer as TV contracts become larger and larger. Sure glad Utah doesn’t have to worry about a) scheduling year in and year out, and b) a TV contract in 7 years from now.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 8, 2012 6:49 AM MST up reply actions
Not totally true
the B1G does not currently play a 9 game schedule, and they have said that now that they joined with the Pac-12 on the scheduling agreement they are seriously going to re-think the 9 game schedule that was supposed to start in 2017.
The Big XII plays a 9 game schedule because they are a 10 team league. There has been no indication whether they would stay that way should they go back to 12.
Larry Scott has said that they are going to have a “fresh conversation” about the 9 game schedule.
SEC has said that even though they are at 14 teams they will stay at 8 games.
You're absolutely correct
I don’t know why I was under the impression that the BiG was moving to 9 games. Regardless, these conferences are all growing. They are all either playing a 9 game schedule or are entertaining the idea.
My previous post was somewhat due to the radio program I was listening to. There was a lot of Big East bashing now that they have Memphis. I find the arrogance funny since these same fans are basically de facto members of the new and improved WAC. With conference expansion I don’t see why any BCS teams would schedule a non conference game after September. Therefore the question is this: will the team down south ever have a stronger SoS than the BE teams?
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 8, 2012 11:20 AM MST up reply actions
Well the impression was there because...
.. They were committed to the 9 game schedule prior to this agreement.
Now it’s still in the wind.
Your right.
This is why the S.C. legislature may have to pass this bill. If the SEC goes to 9 games, then the S.C. v. Clemson game is gone.
by Bisquick_in_da_MGM on Feb 8, 2012 11:48 AM MST up reply actions
For the Big 10 thing. . .
Bring Minnesota to RES. I get to see a few friends from my hometown team (Minny) get killed by my Utes.
But seriously, which Pac 12 teams would be facing which Big 10 teams. If we matched up current rankings for next year’s teams, it would be:
1. USC vs. MSU: with Barkley, Lee, and Woods, USC wins
2 Oregon vs. Michigan: I don’t think Brady Hoke could handle OU’s offense, so Oregon.
3: Ohio State vs. Stanford: I give this to OSU, because of Urban Meyer and no Luck
4. Nebraska vs. Washington: Nebraska easy, they’ve been producing for years.
5. Wisconsin vs. Utah: Even with Ball, a weak O-line and no Wilson vs. our D has Utah winning.
6. Penn State vs. UCLA: PSU only lost to highly ranked teams, so I’d call PSU
7. Purdue vs. Cal: Cal could stop the run, so they’d have this.
8. Iowa vs. Arizona: Iowa, nuff said, UA has weak depth at qb and wr.
9. Northwestern vs. WSU: if Hallady’s starting, Washington State.
10. Illinois vs. ASU: both teams had similar seasons, toss up.
11. Minny vs. Oregon State: Minny improved throughout the year, so I’m giving the win to the Gender Confused Squirrels over the Beavers
12. Indiana vs. Colorado: . . . do we really care?
So, if we started next year, that would be maybe 5 wins, 5 losses, and two toss ups. And we thought this was a good idea?
Is IS a good idea
At least it should be. Sure, it may add a few counts to the L column for the conference, but overall it should boost conference prestige, at least to the intelligent pollsters. This means each year your teams will have 10 guaranteed BCS opponent games, with many teams guaranteeing 11. SOS should go up across the board.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
But wins look a lot better than strength of schedule
If we didn’t have a nine conference game season on top of this big ten deal, I would agree with you, but multiple FCS games help pad the stats section. Alabama got into the National championship based on past performance, beating 3 ranked SEC teams, a # 24 ranked non SEC team and then Kent State and North Texas. A strong conference and padding the W column with weak teams does pay off more in my mind then these inter conference games.
So, though the agreement might help the strength of schedule if we win most of the games, any losses will decrease the rankings of Pac 12 teams, which will hurt the SOS just as much as the wins will help.
Illinois
NW can still schedule a game at Wrigley if they count that as their home field, correct? It will be weird seeing the Utes play the Illini. Even though I’m a bigger Ute fan, if the game is back in Champaign, I’ll feel a little conflicted going into that stadium and rooting against the Illini.
Pure conjecture on my part
I think the games in Asia are Larry Scott’s remedy to my original post. If he can get the NCAA to grant the ‘Hawaii’ rule to any team playing across the pacific, those teams pick up a 13th game. This means more revenue for the conference. More flexibility for scheduling. And more equality across the conference schedule if all teams play 4 home, 4 road, and 1 neutral game in the eastern hemisphere.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 6, 2012 10:01 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
From what I've read, this is more about Olympic sports
There is virtually no appetite for American football in Asia. Football is a rather complicated sports that is not well understood outside of the U.S. and Canada. Olympic sports, on the other hand, are a big deal in Asia, especially since the Beijing Olympics. It’s much more likely that we’ll see Pac-12 basketball, gymnastics and baseball exhibition games in Asia than football.
The main reason Scott sees Asia as an untapped market is the high number of Asian elite who attend a Pac-12 school and then return to their home country. UCLA also has a huge presence in Asia as a clothing label. (No, really. Read this and this.) In fact, I worked with a guy who was visiting from China for a few months, and he wanted to see what this “football” thing was all about. I showed him Utah’s home schedule and the game he immediately said he wanted to go to was UCLA. “I know them,” he tells me. I tried to talk him into going to a game that I thought would be more competitive, but he wouldn’t hear of it.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
True
In the Conference championship game press conference Larry Scott stated that playing football in Asia would be a promotional venture, but not a long term option.
However, during the halftime show of the Fiesta Bowl he stated that he hopes to be playing football in China by 2013 with the Notre Dame – Stanford game.
There is obviously not a huge interest in Asia right now. However, it’s not necessarily about catering to a football crowd in China as much as it is about promotion, additional televised games, and marketing. It is always about money.
I have attended a “gridiron” game in Australia and it was a joke. However, it was interesting to see an “American wanna-be” culture with the youth there. With the right promotion I think you would find viewers, especially with all of the Americans overseas, the students that have returned home (30k or so just from USC), and those that are simply curious.
by Drum and Feathers on Feb 7, 2012 10:12 AM MST up reply actions
Neutral sites not completely eliminated
You can do a Neutral site game, as long as it’s part of a Home and Home series. So Utah v. Alabama in Jerry World can happen, as long as Alabama then returns the favor by coming to Utah in a return game.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
