Finances of Neutral Site Games

[MichiFan87]

I know that the BigTen has a mandate for at least one power-conference opponent per year, though occasionally teams get exemptions (I think Fresno State counted for Minnesota as will Cincinnati for Ohio State next year). The other power-conferences have implemented similar mandates, as well... The BigTen had originally banned FCS games, but apparently that's no longer the case.

Furthermore, my recollection is that when the BigTen decided to go to 9 conference games, part of the rationale was that it wouldn't be financially problematic because schools would still average 7 home games per year (and TV money would increase) and instead eliminate an extraneous guarantee game and series with a non power-conference schools.

[Cincydawg]

1  A one and done is much easier to schedule.

2.  Apparently it generates more income.

3.  You get the bonus point for playing another P5 team OOC on national TV before a CFB starved audience.

All that explains why these are popular, in general, and why they will continue and perhaps even expand in the future.  I think the neutral site has to invite prestigious teams that will buy all the tickets, or at least one has to be to make it work.

"Back in the day", we of course had 10,11,12 games to be played, only a few at neutral sites, and then a bowl game.  Things change and money largely drives the changes.

It would be interesting to see a somewhat lesser program up and schedule all P5 OOC opponents to see how that worked out over time.  It might cost them a bowl game for a few years by not reaching 6-6, but a UNC might attract a lot more attention and sell tickets even if to the opposition.

[Cincydawg]

I just noticed that UGA is playing in the Atlanta kick off game every even year 2020-22-24, all vs. ACC teams.  The odd years don't have a P5 opponent (other than Tech) until 2025 scheduled (@UCLA), so there is room for 2021-23.  In 2029, they have Texas, Clemson, AND Tech, which is fairly daunting looking, but a decade off of course.

Maybe they can add Wisconsin to fill in some gaps there, would be fine with me.  I don't mind playing two pastries, but only two.

[MichiFan87]

1  A one and done is much easier to schedule.

2.  Apparently it generates more income.

3.  You get the bonus point for playing another P5 team OOC on national TV before a CFB starved audience.

All that explains why these are popular, in general, and why they will continue and perhaps even expand in the future.  I think the neutral site has to invite prestigious teams that will buy all the tickets, or at least one has to be to make it work.

"Back in the day", we of course had 10,11,12 games to be played, only a few at neutral sites, and then a bowl game.  Things change and money largely drives the changes.

It would be interesting to see a somewhat lesser program up and schedule all P5 OOC opponents to see how that worked out over time.  It might cost them a bowl game for a few years by not reaching 6-6, but a UNC might attract a lot more attention and sell tickets even if to the opposition.

East Carolina used to schedule all power conference teams, albeit primarily from the ACC. When they were good, they could win all of those games..... When Utah was in the MWC, they would schedule quite a few Pac10 and occasionally other power-conference teams, too, and win their share..... BYU basically plays 4-6 power conference teams per year and fills out the rest with MWC and other non-power conference teams.

[Cincydawg]

Yeah, I was thinking about a lesser P5 program trying it.  The G5 programs also schedule other G5 team in their conference obviously.

What if UNC scheduled 4 P5 teams OOC plus their 8 ACC games?  They would get battered at least initially but they might also get enough attention to upgrade recruiting and attendance.

[MichiFan87]

Michigan's 1997 national championship team played all power conference opponents (Baylor, Colorado, Notre Dame).

In fact, from the 40s until the mid 90s, Michigan almost exclusively played power-conference programs in non-con play, with the exceptions being service academies and the Ivy League when it was still relevant. That was partly because they could get guarantee games from some of those programs (even schools like Florida State, Miami (FL), Georgia, Arizona, Virginia, and Maryland)..... Obviously that's no longer possible, though.

[Cincydawg]

I look at programs like UNC and Illinois and ponder "What might get them into some level of significance?".

A large infusion of capital (Oklahoma State) is one path, but not always possible.  Replacing everyone connected is another, but also not really viable.  So, I wonder if a UNC could schedule four P5 teams OOC each year and stir the pot, as it were, and use that to build recruiting and national attention, in lieu of playing Old Dominion et al.

The downside is they MIGHT in some years get to 6-6 and 7-5 and a minor bowl game, but rarely better than that, whereas 3-4 losses OOC would preclude that, at least initially, but I'm not sure it's much of a loss, IF it means building the program over time.

[medinabuckeye1]

I think the financial windfall for the teams that do these comes from the fact that they get 50% of the TV revenue instead of 1/14 of a much more indirect cash payment.  Allow me to explain:

Home games for all B1G teams are covered under the league's TV contract and in the B1G the TV money is share equally.  If the B1G gets $14 Million (just for easy figuring) then Ohio State and Illinois each get $1 Million.  It doesn't matter that Ohio State plays more big games, gets higher ratings, etc, they each get $1 Million.  

Now consider a more fair comparison of Ohio State and Michigan.  The Buckeyes and Wolverines each get 1/14 of the league's TV money.  If Michigan schedules a bunch of great OOC match-ups and gets great ratings and drives up the value of that overall league TV contract while Ohio State schedules the little sisters of the poor then the Buckeyes effectively mooch off of the Wolverines or vice-versa if the Buckeyes scheduled the great games and the Wolverines play the little sisters of the poor.  

If you think about the impact of that arrangement, it means that the financial benefit to Ohio State or Michigan of scheduling great OOC games is minimal.  The leagues contract as a whole is worth marginally more if a school upgrades their schedule but that isn't immediate, it comes years later when the next contract is signed.  Additionally, the increased value of the TV contract is then divided 14 ways so the school that caused the increase only gets 1/14 of that increase and only gets that years later.  

By contrast, if Ohio State or Michigan agrees to play Georgia in Atlanta the TV money for that game is split between Ohio State or Michigan and Georgia.  That is it.  It isn't parceled out to the other 13 B1G schools.  

[Cincydawg]

"The biggest difference between neutral kickoffs and bowls is that bowls sell their TV rights to networks, whereas neutral games fall under the existing TV agreements for the participating schools' conferences. Event organizers don't get a dime from TV."

This article states the TV rights are the same as for conference games etc.

[FearlessF]

I could see where revenue from FOX, FS1, and BTN are shared equally under that single contract

I could also see where ANY TV $$$ would be shared equally regardless of network, PPV, or contract.  This is what seemed different about the sharing in the B1G than the unequal sharing in the Big 12.

[Cincydawg]

A good question would be where the TV money goes when say Florida plays Michigan in one of these games.  Maybe the conferences split it, but it would be shown on which network?

I guess that's part of the deal.

I think I recall that the CFA Kick Off game is now going to be THREE games at the start of the year.  That is an indication as to how this model is spreading, and it spreads because of money.

[FearlessF]

whenever there is valuable content, Florida-Michigan, Ohio St.-Oklahoma, Georgia-Texas, the Networks make very good money

usually goes to the highest bidder

[SFBadger96]

I do not understand the Green Bay thing.  They did it with LSU obviously.  I kinda understand playing one game in some NFL stadium, OK, but two?  Especially when the campuses at Madison and South Bend are so traditional.

It HAS to be money.  And I don't quite understand the financial equation either except to note it MUST be favorable.

A ONE OFF game could be understood as a thing easier to schedule.

Because even if they make $3M on the home game, they make nothing on the away game. So if you do two neutral site games, it's financially like having an extra home game. This way neither ND nor Wisconsin has to give up home game revenue. I don't like it, but I understand it. 
And the SF family would MUCH rather it were a home-and-home.

[Cincydawg]

In a simple model, let's say a team makes $3 million on a home game and zero on an away game, but they make $1.5 million on a neutral site game.

Here the finances are equal.  I presume that is the difference, the home and away series is $3 million over two games and the one off is $3 million for one game.