header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Finances of Neutral Site Games

 (Read 6286 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71555
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2019, 01:22:13 PM »
I would never disavow any populist screed, mostly because I'd be shouted down and it's pointless to argue with folks who believe such things.

We don't have (m)any around here though.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25234
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2019, 01:23:58 PM »
Where has UW played south of the border in non-bowl games?
In the past five years? South of what border? The Big Ten?

at ASU (South?? Yes, but..), Bama in Dallas and LSU in Houston. Next year against USF in Tampa. Virginia Tech in a few years. Not much.

And Florida? How about Florida playing anywhere North of Kentucky? Madison would be good.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25234
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2019, 01:28:12 PM »
The argument appears to be that no southern team will travel to Madison, for whatever reason.  I'm unconvinced that is the case, as some southern teams have scheduled other programs that appear no different to me than UW.
And UW did play LSU in Texas in that weird series that was not H&A.
Such as?
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2019, 01:32:57 PM »
Oh, we also forgot the neutral site against Alabama (also Texas).

I have it on good authority that the Badgers want to have a travel game for every class that's a cool destination, whether that's California, Hawaii, Law Vegas, or some place like it. I suspect playing in an NFL stadium in Texas fits that bill. The economics of it make powderpuff games in Madison a sure thing. So there's one game per season--maybe every two because of the home/away scheduling--that's available for that game.

Before Alvarez was the AD, there were also at Oregon, at Oregon State, at UNLV, at San Diego State, and at San Jose State, though the latter two were probably scheduled before the Badgers were any good (San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area are nice places to visit, though).

I would bet that Athens, because of its proximity to Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Chapel Hill/Durham, Charlottesville, Miami or Tallahassee, and Austin are all places that would fit the AD's perspective about nice travel games.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71555
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2019, 01:38:07 PM »
As I stated earlier, UGA has scheduled H&As with UCLA, Arizona State, Oklahoma State, Colorado over about a 20 year period.
I'm not counting Texas, Clemson, GaTech, and ND.  They also had OSU scheduled a while back.

Why are they different than Wisconsin?


SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2019, 01:40:25 PM »
Also, Auburn at Washington comes to mind.

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18855
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #76 on: January 29, 2019, 01:47:05 PM »
Against LSU in Texas.

I know this isn't what you're thinking, but in the Alvarez era ('90 to present): at North Carolina, at Miami, at Arizona, at Arizona State, at Stanford, at Washington, at Colorado, at Syracuse, at Fresno State, at West Virginia, at SMU (in the SWC days), upcoming at Virginia Tech, at UCLA.

The Badgers are willing to travel to play good opponents, but they won't play just anyone--there has to be a reason for it. And, as Badge suggests, they have traditionally run into problems with teams' willingness to come to Madison. My recollection is that they were close with Texas a few years back, but the Horns backed out.
Teams like Wisconsin should play all the games they can in CA, TX, and FL for recruiting purposes.  Those you listed are helpful, I was just genuinely wanting to know when/if they had and where, so thanks.  


Maybe if we compared Wisconsin and a northern team with a dome, like Syracuse or someone, and see if their teams hosted are markedly different, we'd have something.  But back when Alvarez started, Wisconsin didn't matter and Syracuse was legit.  Then they sort of flip-flopped along the way there.  



I think what we may find is that while the Bastage whines about no one going to play in Madison....maybe no one is going anywhere up that way to play anyone else.  When teams might have been willing to, UW might not have mattered enough and since they've started mattering enough, teams are now unwilling.  Makes sense that that's how it works out, eh?  
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17678
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #77 on: January 29, 2019, 01:50:09 PM »
The most recent tilt was on a basketball court.
No idea what you're talking about. This message board is called "College Football Fan Site" is it not?

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #78 on: January 29, 2019, 01:53:02 PM »
It's complicated. The ADs tend to schedule these games 8-10 years out, unless there are unexpected changes to the schedule (I think that's what happened with the Alabama game in Texas), which can include that the powers that be offer enough money to reschedule another game already have on the schedule. ADs want to schedule games that are interesting to their players (like the travel thing), that help their bottom line, and that position the team for success. One thing they do is judge the relative merits of the teams they might play. So Arizona State gets a bump because it's essentially Phoenix, a travel destination (of sorts), but why would the Badgers play Oklahoma State? The Badgers might want to play Alabama, but Alabama might have no interest in playing Wisconsin--particularly at Wisconsin. Georgia and Wisconsin probably could arrange a deal, but it's got to check all the boxes for both teams--and fit both schedules.

Another issue is that traveling long distances wears on a team. So do you really want to take your team across the country to play someone that's a threat to your season? Especially if your season doesn't depend on winning a game like Georgia/Wisconsin?

You would think that not-quite elite programs, like Auburn, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Washington, etc. would jump at playing each other because a win would turn heads, but that doesn't seem to carry as much weight as travel and--get this--economics.

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1243
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #79 on: January 29, 2019, 01:55:45 PM »

Teams like Wisconsin should play all the games they can in CA, TX, and FL for recruiting purposes.  Those you listed are helpful, I was just genuinely wanting to know when/if they had and where, so thanks.  



Maybe if we compared Wisconsin and a northern team with a dome, like Syracuse or someone, and see if their teams hosted are markedly different, we'd have something.  But back when Alvarez started, Wisconsin didn't matter and Syracuse was legit.  Then they sort of flip-flopped along the way there.  
I don't think the dome makes any difference because in the BigTen almost all out-of-conference games are played in September, when the weather is normally pretty good. But that's another issue: the BigTen normally plays all its conference games in a row--at least it has--whereas the SEC starts conference play right away. Just another scheduling headache.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25234
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2019, 01:56:20 PM »
As I stated earlier, UGA has scheduled H&As with UCLA, Arizona State, Oklahoma State, Colorado over about a 20 year period.
I'm not counting Texas, Clemson, GaTech, and ND.  They also had OSU scheduled a while back.

Why are they different than Wisconsin?


A check of historical winning percentage over 20 seasons shows that UW is higher than all of those, in many cases, MUCH higher. Over 10 seasons, Clemson is higher (#3) than UW (#6). The rest are pretty far down the list, save ND, which is at #14.

But, no shame in losing at Clemson or ND, right?

Losing to Wisconsin gets coaches fired.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17678
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2019, 01:58:23 PM »
Against LSU in Texas.

I know this isn't what you're thinking, but in the Alvarez era ('90 to present): at North Carolina, at Miami, at Arizona, at Arizona State, at Stanford, at Washington, at Colorado, at Syracuse, at Fresno State, at West Virginia, at SMU (in the SWC days), upcoming at Virginia Tech, at UCLA.

The Badgers are willing to travel to play good opponents, but they won't play just anyone--there has to be a reason for it. And, as Badge suggests, they have traditionally run into problems with teams' willingness to come to Madison. My recollection is that they were close with Texas a few years back, but the Horns backed out.
Texas didn't "back out" of any contract with Wisconsin.  But I'll agree with the general sentiment that Texas views playing Wisconsin as having too much downside and not enough upside.  The Badgers are a team that's good enough to beat you (twice), and yet you're still not going to get much credit for scheduling tough.
For reasons that are likely obvious, Texas prefers to schedule the top national brands like Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Alabama,cand Michigan (all of which have been on the schedule in the past 4 years or are on the upcoming schedule over the next decade) plus other well-perceived brands like LSU and Georgia (both of which are on Texas' upcoming schedule over the next decade).
Now, Texas actually DID back out of a contract with Minnesota about a decade back.  When it was signed, I said I'd wished it had been Wisconsin, and when it was canceled, it certainly looked bad.

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17678
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #82 on: January 29, 2019, 02:03:20 PM »
A check of historical winning percentage over 20 seasons shows that UW is higher than all of those, in many cases, MUCH higher. Over 10 seasons, Clemson is higher (#3) than UW (#6). The rest are pretty far down the list, save ND, which is at #14.

But, no shame in losing at Clemson or ND, right?

Losing to Wisconsin gets coaches fired.
Exactly.  Which explains why the helmets view Wisconsin as a lose-lose.
Virginia Tech was probably viewed similarly in the mid 90s, before they made it to the MNC game and gained some glory/helmetosity of their own.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25234
  • Liked:
Re: Finances of Neutral Site Games
« Reply #83 on: January 29, 2019, 02:05:07 PM »
Texas didn't "back out" of any contract with Wisconsin.  But I'll agree with the general sentiment that Texas views playing Wisconsin as having too much downside and not enough upside.  The Badgers are a team that's good enough to beat you (twice), and yet you're still not going to get much credit for scheduling tough.
For reasons that are likely obvious, Texas prefers to schedule the top national brands like Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Alabama,cand Michigan (all of which have been on the schedule in the past 4 years or are on the upcoming schedule over the next decade) plus other well-perceived brands like LSU and Georgia (both of which are on Texas' upcoming schedule over the next decade).
Now, Texas actually DID back out of a contract with Minnesota about a decade back.  When it was signed, I said I'd wished it had been Wisconsin, and when it was canceled, it certainly looked bad.
There was no contract, but they definitely backed out of the negotiations. ESecPN had the deal brokered, and UW was set to travel to Texas to start 2008, I believe. Dodds wouldn't commit to a return game, so it died.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.