“I would rather have neutral sites,” Meyer said. “I’m not sure you can have a (typical) December day here in Columbus and have a southern team come up here and play. The southern teams I coached, that would have been a problem.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love Urban, and I'm thrilled that he's here. Having said that, I'm not sure I understand his thinking in the above quote. Why shouldn't an SEC team have to come north for a playoff game if Ohio State is the higher seeded team? Who cares if it's "a problem" for them to play a game in the cold and snow. It hasn't been "a problem" for B1G teams to play in Pasadena, or New Orleans, or Miami - virtual home games for the PAC-12 and SEC - since the bowls were established? Is Urban just preaching the B1G company line, or would he rather be guaranteed a neutral site game than to have to travel south for a playoff because he thinks the SEC, more often than not, will have the higher seeded/ranked team?
The first thing I want to see is that I think the whole southern teams can't play in the cold thing is totally overblown. Alabama and LSU play dominant defense and grind the ball out on the ground; weather is not going to stop that from working.
That being said I love this quote. On one hand Meyer is toting the company line, but on the other he is taking a nice dig at the SEC (Even though it is completely tongue in cheek).
Imagine, if you will, the SEC team that would be here in December. Cold, blustery weather that would turn said SEC team into something it wasn't. An OSU win and the entire fan base, ESPN, CBS, and all talking heads outside of B1G country would scream UNFAIR. The win would have an asterisk beside it in the books and it would never again happen. I think Urban sees that scenario playing in his head and would rather that not happen so he would prefer a happy medium.
Maybe it is because of the fact that he is building his team like a "southern team." Lets face it, the spread is tough to run when it is very cold and in the elements of December. I always hope for no rain and very mild temps when Denard is our quarterback.
Now, I do not think it will effect you guys during B10 play, because frankly it does not get too cold even in November. I was in short sleeves the last two GAMES at the Big House. But, I remember the week of the B10 championship was really cold. Crazy the difference a week makes.
Now, If I am Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa or MSU. I want those southern teams to come up here in December. Post Denard of course for Michigan :)
Cold, blustery weather has not stopped SEC players from succeeding in the numerous NFL franchises located in the north. You're insane if you think playing in moderatley colder weather is going to stop Alabama's defense from consuming everything in front of it.
The whole spread doesn't work in the cold is equally crazy. Oregon has pretty miserable weather, but I don't think it's done too much to stop them from having a consistently elite offense. Wind and rain never make it easy to pass, but even though it's pretty much entirely shot gun based, we're still a run first offense.
How many teams in the NFL run the spread? Also, they are in the NFL for a reason so they should be able to do whatever they need to.
Alabama would have success coming up North because they play that style that will still be successful in cold weather. Urban Meyers championship team that won it would not have the same success coming up in the middle of December. I think this statement by Meyer proves that.
But I am the insane one when your coach just said it too.
I'm with you Conroy. For all the hype that Alabama and LSU get as SEC teams, their brand of football is actually traditional Big Ten football. LSU is running Bo Schembechler stuff, and Saban is a Big Ten guy through and through. Their styles would adapt. Now, it's whether the athletes can keep up their stamina not having played in chilly weather is the bigger question. I don't think they'd have much of a problem, but who knows?
The fans are going to favor home games. But it just isn't going to happen. It is baffling, though.
Neutral site games in the north would be a logistical nightmare. First, the site won't know if it hosts the game until the end of the year, then it would only have a couple of weeks to put it on. Bowls spend all year getting their game ready.
If we're going 4 team playoff...that's 3 straight neutral or bowl site games for those that get to the national championship (and play in their conference title game). That's a LOT of travel for students and fans. Only so many can afford to make ONE bowl trip each year...now there is the potential for 3 such trips for two teams each year. Maybe I'm wrong and fans will just continue to shell out dough for tickets and hotels and airfare, but I would imagine attendance might drop at conference title games if fans just wanted to wait until the national semis.
Oh I have no doubt the cold would play a role in a game....could you imagine them playing if it was low 30's?....I would like to know how much fan support would come.
I liked the idea of a home site semi-final not because it would bring southern teams to the north, but because the atmosphere would be INSANE. I'm not one who believes the weather would impact things that much. I think it impacts both sides when the weather is shitty. Sure, B1G players may be used to cold a little more than Bama players, but Bama is a great team. If they played at Wisconsin in December last year, I'm still betting on Bama to win and the probably do so relatively easy.
I think ideally you have a situation where the elements don't impact the game, and the best team wins. That's what most coaches want, and that's why Urban makes that comment. Why would he support a system that puts his team with Braxton, Marshall, and all these speedy players on both sides of the ball on a freezing, cold, and possibly very wet field, when he can have a game in the Midwest at Lucas Oil stadium and capitalize on the teams best assets.
@BATALBERT - Completely agree on the weather front, but the real issue lies in the aforementioned travel problems. Unless we get a neutral site up north for a B1G team, getting people out to Pasadena/New Orleans/Miami/Glendale for a semifinal is going to be a tough order. So much so, in fact, that I think we see home field semis within 5 years. The atmosphere for an OSU-'Bama game in the 'Shoe would be absolutely insane.
I'm concerned about the impact this proposed system will have on the travelling fans. Prior to last year, an OSU fan could plan for one big trip a year, the bowl game wherever it might be. Now, the fan is potentially being asked to travel to the B10CG (not too bad, but an expense), a semi-final game (which is the travelling budget of most fans who have to observe such things as a budget), and finally a CG. Granted, the previous scenario only happens in the best possible season, but in one of those seasons, how many fans stay home from the semi-final game hoping to save their money for a CG that may or may not come? Can you imagine a semi-final game against LSU in the Sugar Bowl? Who spends the cash on that game when you're saving for a potential CG in the Rose Bowl? How many students can swing that in back-to-back weeks? B10 ADs are thinking about money, but not the fan's money, that much is certain.
@bucksfan:
I am not sure how another home game would be a logistical nightmare. There would not be anything to do but roll the teams out onto the field. Sure, it may be a little colder than normal, but really that is all.
I think you are all okay with it right now because it has not happened and you have not been a victim of the neutral sites yet. Can you imagine playing LSU in a playoff game in the superdome? Oh ya that happened already and how did it go? There is no doubt in my mind that game is a lot closer if it is played in Columbus in the middle of December. Sure, we all say that the conditions are the same for both. But one thing everyone here is underestimating is 105,000 fans cheering for your team, rather than it split in the middle. That is intimidating and is something a team with a better record or season should be rewarded with. Also, something SEC teams do not have to deal with on a consistent basis.
I am all for a campus playoff then a rotating neutral site for the championship game. I think every B10 team should. I do not like going to play USC in the Rose Bowl, which will be a "playoff game" and a "neutral site" when the USC campus is 8 miles away.
Couldn't agree more with the OP -- would love to see southern and west-coast teams have to come to the north if they are playing a higher seeded northern team. Even Urban said in the interview yesterday that it would be a "problem" for some of the southern teams. Sure would be nice for us to have an advantage for a change.
Yes, the weather factor doesn't matter to me. And, lately, who knows what's up with Ohio weather, anyway? It was 90 degrees for a couple weeks in March this year and the "winter" was extremely mild. My point being, you just don't know if it'll be 10 degrees or 45 degrees in November/December up here.
As Rational alluded to, the homefield advantage and distance factor is HUGE. I would be ecstatic if Lucas Oil, Metrodome, Ford Field, Edward Jones Dome, Carrier Dome, etc. would take on major bowl/playoff games. Sure it takes the "destination" away from Florida, New Orleans, and California, but it would be great for midwestern fans' teams.
Those who stay will be CHAMPIONS!
~Bo Schembechler
Here's some random thoughts:
Where I do kind of see the neutral site argument, though, comes from how these playoff teams are determined. It is fair in the NFL for the Falcons to have to go to Lambeau in January if the Packers are the higher seed because it's all based on record and solid tiebreakers, and strength of schedule does not vary too much for team to team, so it's more legit when you say an 11-5 team deserves a higher seed than a 10-6 team. But in college football, strength of schedule and strength of conference all come into play. There could be debate over who deserves to be #2 vs. who deserves to be #3. Where have we seen that debate before? For on-campus playoff games, that debate could determine where a game is played. With neutral sites, who's #2 vs who's #3 will only determine which team is wearing their home unis, which team wears their road whites, and which team gets to call heads or tails. I don't agree, but I understand a bit.
Class of 2010.
My bad, I misspoke, Rational MFan. I meant neutral site venues up north would probably have a hard time getting a semi-final game together...not home venues on campuses. If you don't know if you host a game until the final rankings come out, that doesn't leave a whole lot of time. Plus, it might ultimately interfere with the NFL games, since I'm assuming those venues are what we're talking about when we say neutral site.
I guess I'm saying I'm not surprised neutral site venues for semi's are a low-priority option. It'd be like inventing new bowls.