Here is my humble opinion on why having playoff games on-campus is essential:
Everyone always talks about how important it is to fill seats in these games (a la the ncaa tournament's attendance problem), and they are right. nothing kills the playoff mood quite like empty seats. Of course, it is possible for some fans to travel to the game if they are given enough time to prep, take off from work, book flight, etc. BUT it is nearly impossible for the most important fans to attend these games. I'm talking about students. It is a logistical and financial nightmare for a student to attend any football game that is not on-campus.
For example, the gator bowl took place on monday january 3rd. the very next day, a mere 18 hours after the game which took place halfway across the country, classes started. Between the cost of travel (which is massive since you are buying tickets so close to the day you are traveling), hotels, and missed class time, traveling to this game is virtually impossible.
The same thing happened with the final four. I knew someone who attended, but they couldn't afford plane tickets and a hotel. They drove down, stayed in a hotel miles outside of new orleans, and then left right after the game. They ended up missing at least 3 days of class (it was a while ago, i can't remember the exact number).
In my humble, and worthless (at least to the people who will ultimately decide these matters) opinion, it is, for lack of a better term, horseshit that these games will be played hundreds of miles from the most rabid portion of the fanbase, simply because they do not have the financial resources to attend games so far away.
With all due respect, regardless of where the playoff games are held, every game will be sold out and filled within an instant of availability. You can't really compare the Gator Bowl to a college football national semi-final.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
My question is where is the cutoff mark on capacity? The Big House, Ohio Stadium, Beaver Stadium all hold considerably more than any midwestern "neutral" site. If they want to sell more tickets, why wouldn't they want the game to be at a 100k capacity stadium? Instead, they move it to Lucas Oil Stadium 63k or Soldier field 61.5k capacity? I have a hard time believing that a top 4 team + the opposing team is going to have trouble filling seats in home team's region.
I mean, even Ross Ade stadium at Purdue holds 62.5k, Kinnick Stadium 70.5k, and Memorial stadium at Nebraska 81k. In comparison the Superdome 72k, Cowboys Stadium, 80K, and the Metrodome 64k.
So I think it's a flawed argument that home games wouldn't offer adequate capacity. If an IU or a Minny ever made it, a move to Lucas Oil or the Metrodome would be suitable substitutes. That would apply all around the country where the game could be moved to an NFL stadium or a dome that is within 100miles of the home team's campus.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
I actually disagree with your reasoning. Students have the first opportunity to get tickets with the student lottery before they even go on sale to the public. Which helps them get tickets at face value instead of having to pay for over priced tickets. Also university's especially for bowl games usually have package deal of bus and hotel that is pretty reasonable for the student. Obviously maybe not the most ideal situation but if you ever go to a bowl game you will see the students have no problem getting there. You could also argue that they are on break where someone would have to try ang get off work.
As for being a home game for the semis, I'm not sold on that idea yet. If Boise State were to be the #1 or 2 ranked team in the nation you are now trying to put 40k fans in a stadium. This exact reason is why I the NCAA will not this happen. The chance is too high for then to lose out on a lot of money for both schools. I also think if you made it to the top 4 it should be a neutral site that is named after the ramkings are out. This would eliminate two Midwest teams going to California for a game. Also it gives both fans equal opportunity for tickets.
@HAIL - I don't think it's capacity that the BCS overlords are fretting about, I think the real issue is that some of these small towns lack the infrastructure to handle a massive influx of people. And it's not just limited to the audience:
So if we add an extra 50,000 people--plus tailgaters from across the state (and possibly further), you're looking at seriously cutting into or overflowing the town's capacity for hotel rooms. Sure, places like Columbus or Austin could handle that volume of people, but could Ann Arbor handle 175,000 for a national semifinal? Y'all have a beautiful college town up there, but there's no way in Hell that that volume of people could be accomodated (Detroit could help). State College is another one: it's in the middle of nowhere, there's no way you could even handle the inevitable overflow.
I think that the stadium capacity argument is kind of dumb--but look at the "Sisters of the Poor," perennial favourite Boise State's stadium seats a whopping 37,000. With their move to the Big East, Boise will one day host one of these games--and this is a troubling reality for the men in charge. Now BTALBERT is right about the fact that tv revenue reigns king , but to host a semifinal match in Boise, Idaho, whilst simoutaneously foregoing neutral venues in Denver and Seattle is like lighting a Cuban cigar with hundred dollar bills.
Fans will travel to neutral sites. I just hope that when the inevitable happens, the powers-that-be make sure to offer a preferred location to the higher seed. I'd love to see UM/PSU/OSU/UW playing an SEC team in Indianapolis or Detroit--and I know for a fact that we would own the attendence, as well. I want home games, but this is a more realistic solution.
@Hodge I do see the travel accommodations being a problem, but I'm not sold on that yet. For example if a team host a semi game are they receiving 90% of the tickets or is going to be split 50/50? Either way, tons of fans make the trip and don't stay in Ann Arbor because they are in driving distance. I live in Columbus and don't even need to get into how many local fans are here that don't stay in hotels. My point is it's kind of like a big regular season home game. 175k for accommodations is way off IMO. Michigan has 112k every home game and they manage. Now if the tickets were split 50/50 I could see a problem. But still only fans with tickets and a few just to experience the tailgating would be making the trip.
You also have to remember that the Presidents vote on this. If you're telling me they wouldn't care about a game being in Idaho with 37k tickets sold to a place where at least 70k can be sold you're crazy. With the tickets probably costing closer to $100, parking and concessions thats a million and some dollars they would miss out on.
@ITSMICHIGANFERGODSAKES - Okay, you're right. Home crowds do count for a lot. I'd say, though, you'd have to free up more tickets than the average 10% for the visiting squad. Personally, I'd say at least 25%. But still, tailgaters and people traveling to just be there will be a significant amount. I'd argue that semifinals might actually be a bigger deal than the championship--if I'm going to only take one trip for the postseason, and my team's playing in potentially two games, I'm going to attend the first; since I don't know if we'll make the next one.
So most cities should be able to host these home games--but again, what of Boise? How do you tell them no, while everyone else gets a massive homefield advantage? I'm in complete agreement there--it's throwing money away. That's why--in the spirit of fairness and goodwill towards all men--I like the geographically-preferred neutral sites. Give the higher seed 70% of the tickets, and if they can't sell 'em they go to the visitors. You get a homefield atmosphere in the somewhat friendlier confines of a pro stadium (read: nicer seats, less like being packed into a sardine can). Sure, it's a compromise designed to avoid the worst-case scenario, but I think it's a good one.
What would be cool, is if the home stadium were allowed to bid in the process. Still allot 70% of tickets to the home team, but they get to do it in their enviornment. Sounds almost like LSU in the Sugar Bowl...
@Hodge - I agree with all of that. Far fetched but smaller stadiums of 60k and under move to the biggest stadium closest to their city.
But it all comes down to money. They were already talking about cities bidding on these games. I think we're heading to an off site game, I just hope they do a neutral off site game.
As BT pointed out, tv revenue is driving this bus. Why not allow the higher team home field advantage. So what if Boise gets a game here or there in their 37k seat shoebox? The game itself will be more exciting at the home stadium and easier for fans to get there. I've got season tickets and drive home to BG every home game. Hotels will fill up, but maybe new ones will open for the opportunity. If Boise's stadium isn't big enough this might be the impitus for them to expand.
There is no perfect scenario, but the higher ranked home stadium is the best option. Plane and simple. Driving to Indy for a "home" Buckeye game is weak sauce.
Even if you did a 50/50 split of tickets, you still would have almost 50% of the fans being local. There for the thought of 175,000 people drops to under 100K. If the visiting team gets 30% of the tickets, that's only 52,500 fans for the other team. You wouldn't see an influx of people unless OSU played at IU or something along those lines.
I think the higher ranked team should have home field advantage, regardless of stadium size, fan base, etc. If you are a season ticket holder at OSU, you make a playoff home game and you can't get a ticket because Iowa decided to have their once a decade good season and their fans get half the tickets. Not much of a home field advantage if you give the other team half the tickets. The visiting team should get the same amount as during the regular season games. They earned the advantage and majority of the $ comes from TV revenue anyway.
"Michigan and "huge mistake" are synonymous"
-Mark Titus
Another point to consider is the after market ticket sales. If it went to a place like Boise or UC and there are only 37k seats, those tickets are going to be sold $500-$1000 a piece to anyone that couldn't get their ticket from their school.
While I like the idea of playing in the elements, I'd be happy with a major bowl game or semifinals of a tourney being played in Indy or Detroit, St. Louis, etc., rather than Florida, New Orleans, or California. It would still be a considerable home crowd advantage, the same one we complain about when we face SEC schools in the south or PAC 12 schools out west.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
http://247sports.com/Article/The-Simplest-Best-Playoff-Plan-71677
I don't think I like the idea of a top 4 team still getting to go to a BCS bowl if they lose in the semis, but it pretty much reitterates a lot of what we've discussed.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
@HAIL - I can only hope that such a plan happens.
I can't even imagine the enviornment at a play in game for the National Championship in The Shoe. Number one or two Ohio State vs. Alabama, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, ect... at night in late November. Sign me up please.
I have to agree. I'm kind of sick of the big 4 sites for the BCS bowls (call it blasphemy that I'd hold such little reverance for the Rose Bowl---meh).
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
I've always felt like a 12-team playoff would work best with the champion of every conference getting in (maybe 16 teams where you could do 4 at-large bids on top of the conference champions) and then seeding them in order of BCS ranking.
The first 2 rounds would played at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. After that it would be neutral sites for the remaining games.
Some have pointed out that attendance isn't what drives the revenues, but rather TV. This is only partially true. Let's say you have Ohio State vs. Boise State in New Orleans or Nashville for a semi-final. I'm not holding my breath for sold out stadiums. But even so.. consider this. Ohio Stadium can seat approximately 40,000 more people. If the pricing for these games is commensurate with the going rate for BCS bowl tickets, we're talking about $100+ for the average ticket. That's a $4 million difference at the gate. Then there's additional concession revenue, fewer travel expenses for the teams and equipment, and one more additional cost: the cost of renting these fields. Don't forget, these fields don't gof or free. They cost money. In the instance of any dome, you'll have to shell out extra bucks for preparing the facilities. All toll, the difference in profit (given the extra revenue and lower costs of having on-campus games) could be upwards of $5 million between playing a game at the Shoe and playing a game in New Orleans. That's not chump change. The payout to a conference for a BCS game is, what, 12 million? So $5 million is a significant chunk of additional money. And sure, if Ohio State is playing, it will probably sell out. But what if it's Oregon vs. Boise? Will they sell-out in Glendale or New Orleans? I'm not certain. In the case of New Orleans, you may have the tickets swooped up by SEC fans who just want to see a good football game, but what's the fun in attending or watching a game where half the fans are indifferent about who wins? The environment would suck. And in Glendale, don't count on a sell out, especially if the title game is going to be all the way across the country the next week. They'll save their money and see who wins first.
Remember, the inaugural Big Ten Title game almost didn't sell out, despite it being in driving distance and relatively affordable for most people. Are you certain Boise-Oregon would sell out in Glendale, New Orleans, Miami, or even Pasadena? I wouldn't bet on it. Not everyone loves college football as much as us, and some just can't justify pissing away money for a semi-final. Hell, my brother in law went to Butler and lives two hours from Indy. He didn't go to the Final Four matchup in 2010. He waited first, and then when Butler won, he decided he didn't want to miss the championship game and drove up the day of with my sister and scalped tickets.
@Conroy, I'm totally with ya. The Shoe would be off the hook crazy with a playoff type game. The 1vs2 AACC game in '06 was insane, ramp that up another few notched for OSU/ 'Bama or some one else. WOW! That is boner inducing.
Everyone needs to read this Wetzel article. The obligatory prices that the bowls, hotels, restaurants, etc are charging is off the hook. Hell, they're charging full ticket prices for the freakin bands. The same bands that are providing free entertainment as part of the event... which the schools are contractually required to bring to the event.
The article also talks about the lavish expenses of bowl officials that have been documented. Presidents and ADs apparently have had enough.
So when Bill Hancock says the status quo is dead, he might be talking about how bowls conduct themselves in general in addiction to a post-season playoff.
#fistpumpgobuckeyes
Here's the thing, the league presidents like Delaney have been saying for years the money a playoff would bring would be far greater than what the BCS generates. If you believe what he said, and judging from the ratings of recent BCS games I think I can believe that, the TV money generated by the new football for each school is going to be INSANE. I really think that a final four is going to have incredible TV ratings, and whatever the new deal is, the FOX, NBC, CBS, and ESPN/ABC are going to be battling to land that contract. In my opinion, the TV money is going to be out of this world huge for that new playoff system.
You have a wildly popular sport that is going to become incredibly more popular because they'll actually have a playoff, well if 4 teams is sort of a playoff I guess. It's going to attract casual fans. A sport that has always had an effed up way of determining a champ will finally bring resolution to their season. It's going to be something EVERYONE wants to see. Add to it, that sports TV contracts are going through the roof because people don't DVR sports and fast forward through commercials like they do sitcoms and regular programming. People, not everyone of course, tend to tune into sports live. Look at some of the money baseball teams are pulling in. I have a feeling the TV revenue is going to be HUGE, plus there will still be bowls that draw money to the conferences and school too.