Looking Forward: Neutral Site Games in a Ten Team Conference?
by KennyGregoryRockThaCradle on Aug 13, 2010 6:33 PM CDT
Email
Print
The other night I was thinking about the implications of playing in a no-divisions, everyone plays everyone else conference starting (likely) next year. In all likelihood, any team that hopes to win this new conference will either have to win at Texas, or at Oklahoma... except for those two teams. Is this fair?
The Red River Shootout has a long and storied history. Traditions are one of the best things about college football. And we all know that UT and OU now run the show. But the fact is, both of those teams get the luxury of playing what is traditionally the most difficult team on their schedule at a neutral site every year. Meanwhile, the other 8 teams in the conference do not get the same luxury.
The Big Ten, Pac 10, and Big East all currently play some form of a round-robin schedule for football. As far as I know, none of those games are played at neutral sites. So this doesn't seem like a problem that has been addressed before. You could argue that OU/UT already have this same advantage in the current 12-team conference, but they still have to go out and win the Big 12 championship game (which hasn't been difficult for them recently, but in the past, the game was known for its wild upsets).
After everything the rest of the conference gave up to keep Texas and Gang around, is it time they reciprocated by giving up the neutrality of the Red River Shootout? Could they modify the current setup so that the "home" team each year gets 75% of the tickets instead of 50%?
Or should we embrace the neutral site game? Obviously, KU has played in a very successful neutral site game for several years now for the Border War. As fans we complain about not getting a shot at Misery in Lawrence any more, but you can't argue that the game in Arrowhead hasn't been profitable for both schools, and produced great games from a neutral perspective.
So what if the conference decided to expand the neutral site games so that every team in the conference has one each season? K-State and Iowa State played in Arrowhead last year--why not make that permanent? Here's how I foresee it working out:
UT/OU- Dallas Cowboys Stadium
KU/MU- Arrowhead
KSU/ISU- Arrowhead
OSU/Baylor- Cotton Bowl
ATM/TT- Houston Reliant Center or Alamo Dome
Obviously, OSU/Baylor/ATM/TT would have to be sorted out as far as opponents and locations. But in a round-robin format, it just doesn't seem fair to me that certain teams have one less true road game a year than others. So what solution do you think is best? Or is there really no problem here at all?
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My vote is for no problem at all.
The neutral site games aren’t mandated by conference. The school chooses those venues because they increase revenue.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
But should they?
Would it be in the best interests of the conference to create a setup where each team has 4 true home games, 4 true road games, and one neutral site game?
"Got a bill that's big enough to twist the Tiger's tail. Husked some corn and made those SORRY HUSKERS BAIL!"
by KennyGregoryRockThaCradle on Aug 13, 2010 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think they should.
Organize the dates and let the schools decide where to play. Some schools may feel like playing at a neutral site won’t be as sound financially or fair to their patrons. I see no positive in forcing a school to play away from home if they don’t feel it would be beneficial to the school.
Interesting idea but I do believe that if a school thought it was a harmful practice, they wouldn’t choose to play neutral site games.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
No Probs
By playing a neutral site game you have one fewer road game – one year, but the next year you have one fewer home game.
Forcing the neutral site game balances out the schedule a bit (4-4-1 vs. 4-5 or 5-4), but doesn’t make sense if the schools ($) and fans are opposed to it.
You make a great point here.
But since TX/OU traditionally win the Big 12 every year anyway, this isn’t really affecting us other teams. Maybe when someone steps up and is consistently only 1 game out of first every year then things should be changed. But right now it’s TX, OU, and the rest.
I think geography is a big factor
And negates the other ones. I mean Arrowhead is great because the KC area is loaded with KU and MU people, the game is sold out, etc. I mean, what would the point be in having OSU and Baylor play in the cotton bowl? Would that really sell out? My gut tells me no.
The SEC has a few neutral site games as well. IMO, if the game is big enough and full of fans both ways, its great. If you can fill it and make it profitable, go for it. Just don’t see that happening for every team in the conference. But if every team wants to take a crack at it I’m not opposed
Shit happens when you win championships
I'm with you on this...
it doesn’t seem like something you can force, but when it’s good for the programs involved and makes sense…it can be a great thing.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
I'm old school
scrap all neutral site games. Get back to a more traditional scheduling. One benefit of this is that it would de-emphasize the $$$$ factor (which is slowly killing the game I love).
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
