Based just on admissions**, Michigan Stadium brings in $6MM to $7MM^^ per game. So if those are total finances and if they are non-negotiable terms for M compared to UGa, I'm going to be super confused in addition to having already been disappointed the next time the M AD schedules a neutral game. They're a middle finger to fans and maybe the maize and blue Scrooge McDuck bank vault should feel the same way.Might we be conflating money brought in and money made?
**(excluding everything else, like sponsorships, preferred seating "gifts," concessions, parking, and apparel royalties from merch sold at the stadium)
^^($6.7MM in 2018)
For those curious about the accounting (http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-17/2017-06-X-14.pdf)
Might we be conflating money brought in and money made?I considered it - was hoping the AD's accounting sheet in the link would get a critical eye from multiple posters to produce an answer. From my interpretation of those numbers, it does look like other revenue (food, concessions, parking, etc.) vastly exceed gameday expenses. Which is revenue I excluded. And though these expenses are for all sports** and maybe the things I've mentioned are not comprehensive of all revenue/expenses, the proportion is telling, and implies that the final profit margin is not less than $5.2MM / game. If anything, it made me think it's larger (maybe much larger) than I originally posted.
As in, Mich might bring in 6.7, but the net when accounting for operations costs is below the $5.2 threshold?
Might we be conflating money brought in and money made?UW nets $3MM from home games, which is exactly what the Packers paid them to play in Lambeau against LSU. I don't know what they got to play LSU in Houston or Bama in Dallas.
As in, Mich might bring in 6.7, but the net when accounting for operations costs is below the $5.2 threshold?
Michigan isn't going to play another neutral site game any time soon, if ever. They have their big non-con games scheduled through 2027 with series against Washington, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma.... Hopefully they'll announce 2028/2029 soon, because schools usually have those set up 10 years in advance.... USC and Tennessee appear to be two of the best possibilities if FBSchedules.com is accurate.Times change. Those kind of schools want 2/1 now.
My bigger concern is that the guarantee games won't be as good in the future. Bill Martin was lazy about them, but Dave Brandon did a good job with scheduling home games against the likes of Air Force, Cincinnati, SMU, UCF, Oregon State, and BYU..... So far, Warde Manuel has settled for MAC, CUSA, and SunBelt teams, except for Colorado State.
The figures listed are appreciably different for teams like Alabama who also has a 100+K stadium.That wasn't the motivation for UW. They just wanted to play Bama and LSU. The latter 2 name the terms.
I don't think these games can be as popular as they are without having higher payouts.
Times change. Those kind of schools want 2/1 now.I'm not saying any of those schools in particular will play another guarantee game against Michigan (UCF is clearly on the record that they're done with guarantee games), but there are some other programs in the AAC/MWC that will still play a guarantee game against a top program (eg. Fresno State, Utah State, Wyoming, Nevada, Tulsa, Tulane), that would be more interesting opponents than Bowling Green, Western Michigan, Ball State, Middle Tennessee, and Arkansas State, which are all future opponents.
the Badgers have Notre Dame a couple times, that's greatSadly, it's not home and away. Green Bay and Chicago.
I'm not arguing against the influence of money, just acknowledging that other influences exist:Why do H&H when two home games against body bags make all that $$$$?
Helmets tend to rarely/never be willing to visit a plucky non-Helmet with an imposing stadium. Even with equal H&H revenue, I don't think LSU ever would have scheduled to play UW if the stipulation was for one in Madison.
1 A one and done is much easier to schedule.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.
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.
This article states the TV rights are the same as for conference games etc.
"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."
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.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.
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.
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.obviously why there are so many 2 for 1's and paying a cupcake a million for a visit with no return
This article states the TV rights are the same as for conference games etc.I just don't get that. If Ohio State played Georgia in a H&H, the SEC Contract network would get the game in Athens and the B1G Contract network would get the game in Columbus. So how do we split that baby if Ohio State and Georgia play in Atlanta? I'm missing something here.
I've read several times that these neutral games are a bonanza for the athletic departments. This is just one more example, and is why programs like these games.CBS does not have a contract with the SEC for the first two weeks of the season. The TV rights for SEC games that CBS telecasts during those two weeks are leased from ESPN.
I am guessing CBS would not have dibs on this game, which I also guess will be at night and not at 3:30.
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.The ND-Wisconsin games are not neutral site games. They are off-site ND home games. Called the Shamrock Series. ND has control of ALL of the tickets and NBC has the TV rights. Just as they would if the games were played in South Bend.
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.Hate to tell you, but these are not neutral site games. Both are off-site ND home games.
And the SF family would MUCH rather it were a home-and-home.
I don't know how all of the neutral site games work, but using the Texas-UCLA game played at the Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington, TX a few years ago-- that was actually a UCLA home game, that they just chose to host in Texas rather than in the Rose Bowl. So the PAC television contracts covered the game, and Jerry Jones paid them some amount of money from the gate/parking/concessions to entice them to give up a home game and play it in Texas instead. If I were a UCLA season ticket holder I'd probably be pretty hacked off at that arrangement, but this is the world we live in I suppose.Interesting info about the TV coverage of the UT-UCLA game because the Big 12 TV contract would not allow ND to schedule Big 12 teams in San Antonio in 2009 and Arlington in 2013 in their Shamrock Series. ND wound up scheduling Washington State in San Antonio and Arizona State in Arlington. TV contract must have changed in 2014 when UT and UCLA played.
For TX-OU, the profits from gate/concessions/etc. are split half-and-half, the city of Dallas kicks in additional payments to each team, and obviously since it's an in-conference game, the B12 television contracts govern its broadcast.
lucky for the Badgers that Conference mates, Ohio St., Michigan, and Nebraska, are willing to travel to MadisonThey have no choice. Don't forget Penn State. They come too. Only OSU regularly wins there, but they beat everybody, everywhere, so...
The Husker helmet has just been, unfortunately, too pussy to win there
Of course, OSU COULD play UGA in Atlanta under other auspices later in the year.We can hope!
They have no choice. Don't forget Penn State. They come too. Only OSU regularly wins there, but they beat everybody, everywhere, so...Nits haven't been there since 2013, but I shouldn't forget
We can hope!You don't want to play UGA in Atlanta. Three of the toughest games Saban has had while at Bama were the 2012 and 2018 SECCGs and the 2018 CFPNCG against UGA. Bama won all three but just as easily could have lost all three. NM that Bama has won the last five games against UGA. ALL played in Athens or Atlanta.
are they coming back soon?2021. Opening game on Labor Day weekend. That's another story.. that sucks.
So, you don't want to play UGA because your team is 5-0 against them?I rather enjoyed our most recent tilt with UGA. Looking forward to the home-and-home series in a few years, too!
It's a shame that helmet schools are too pussy to come to Madison.Where has UW played south of the border in non-bowl games?
I rather enjoyed our most recent tilt with UGA. Looking forward to the home-and-home series in a few years, too!The most recent tilt was on a basketball court.
Where has UW played south of the border in non-bowl games?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.
Where has UW played south of the border in non-bowl games?In the past five years? South of what border? The Big Ten?
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.Such as?
And UW did play LSU in Texas in that weird series that was not H&A.
Against LSU in Texas.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
As I stated earlier, UGA has scheduled H&As with UCLA, Arizona State, Oklahoma State, Colorado over about a 20 year period.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.
I'm not counting Texas, Clemson, GaTech, and ND. They also had OSU scheduled a while back.
Why are they different than Wisconsin?
Against LSU in Texas.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.
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.
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.Exactly. Which explains why the helmets view Wisconsin as a lose-lose.
But, no shame in losing at Clemson or ND, right?
Losing to Wisconsin gets coaches fired.
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.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.
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.
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.this is true, but playing a game in Texas one season, then back home the nest, California the following season, then back home, then Florida the following and back home doesn't help much
If UGA is willing to schedule Texas, Notre Dame, and Clemson, I doubt they are scared to schedule Wisconsin because of some historic winning percentage.I think that's all correct. So let's make it happen!
If they schedule UCLA and Colorado and ASU, I doubt they are scared to travel that many miles.
And losing to any of them is more apt to get a coach fired than losing to a very credible Wisconsin team.
this is true, but playing a game in Texas one season, then back home the nest, California the following season, then back home, then Florida the following and back home doesn't help muchWisconsin sure plays in Florida a lot (9 of the last 15 years).
playing 3 games or more in one of those states in 6 seasons might be helpful
just showing up for one game gets you some exposure in the state, but doesn't really start anything
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.There was no deal because there was no contract. There was no contract because of the very reason we've been discussing.
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.hah, love it
hah, love itHa! I knew the pot-stirrer would latch onto that little tidbit of bulljive.
Ha! I knew the pot-stirrer would latch onto that little tidbit of bulljive.Badger's use of terminology - that's the art of the stir
If there was no contract, how can one "back out" of it? The word "negotiation" by definition means nothing has been resolved, no promises have been made.
Nice try though. :)
If you REALLY want to give Texas a hard time for backing out of something, then there is ample ammunition with the Hawaii game in the 90s, and the Minnesota series in the late 2000s, that Texas certainly did back out of, by paying out the exit clause in the contract.
I think a brand name like Texas doesn't really have to play in fertile recruiting grounds to get noticed, nor do any of the Blue Bloods and probably none of the near BBs either.But isn't this sort of what badgerfan is getting at?
I do think playing an upper tier P5 team OOC creates interest (duh) and can help recruiting. If Texas plays in Athens, they might not snag a player from Georgia, but somebody from New Jersey might notice and think it was cool.
that's were you get the pipeline for the RBs, WRs, and DBsExcept many of the really good UW RB's came from NJ. Dayne, Davis, Clement and now Taylor.
The Wisconsin series with the Irish makes more sense when it's viewed as ND using two home games for it. ND wants to play neutral site games to expand its TV sets reached. Wisconsin wasn't going to go to South Bend without a return to Madison and ND wasn't going to give up a home game to travel to Madison. Actually, I'm a little surprised that it happened at all as ND certainly doesn't need a bigger footprint in the Midwest and word is BA hasn't been a big ND fan since he was passed over for even consideration when Holtz left South Bend. Presumably, he felt like two games with ND would raise Wisconsin's profile in recruiting, and financially it worked out for the Badgers.All the hotel rooms within 50 miles of Green Bay are probably booked already, and the rooms in Chicago will be $350/night. If you come let me know. I won't be going to these games though.
Still trying to figure out if the SFFamily is going to bother going to either (not that it matters, plenty of local alums and fans will fill those stadiums).
Except many of the really good UW RB's came from NJ. Dayne, Davis, Clement and now Taylor.I knew there was a reason for the invite to the pinstripe bowl
My point is the opposite, Texas need not play JUST in fertile recruiting grounds to get noticed. They easily could play Wisconsin, and the attention of the game might snare a player from New Jersey.Sure, but Georgia's not going to get a lot of the chatter you're talking about, by scheduling Wisconsin. It's unfortunate, but true. And that's the basis of badgerfan's lament.
I seriously doubt Texas scheduled Georgia thinking they could enhance their shot at in state Georgia HS players. The good HS players know Texas. They might let say Virginia slip their minds as an option, but not Texas or Ohio State or the rest.
The point of these games, I think, is the chatter they generate on line and on ESPN etc.
Last year UGA had an awful OOC slate, the year before of course they played ND and the game chatter was significant. UGA isn't trying to recruit in Indiana to play ND, they are trying to get chatter and discussion and publicity for playing such a major opponent. Imagine if UGA ONLY played Tech and three LSotP teams, no chatter.
I think Badge would settle for ANY team from the SEC or P5 team from the state of Florida - wouldn't have to be a "helmet"I'd love to have Auburn. But I heard straight from Barry's right hand (at the time) that Auburn wanted a 2 for 1 deal. Not sure who they think they are, but they may as well have simply said no. Not a chance in Hell UW is gonna be treated like that. Georgia would be the obvious most likely partner here, but they are pretty loaded up already for the next decade.
Very few teams from the SEC travel north of the Mason/Dixon to play football - Georgia seems to be an exception, and of course LSU went to Green Bay
Sure, but Georgia's not going to get a lot of the chatter you're talking about, by scheduling Wisconsin. It's unfortunate, but true. And that's the basis of badgerfan's lament.they would have last season with the Badgers in the preseason top 5
St. Louis, too, I think. I know Fletcher, but I think several more recent guys, too.Pretty sure Montee Ball was from there. Maybe one more.
Pretty sure Montee Ball was from there. Maybe one more.yup--he was.
And--gasp!!--Wisconsin (Bennett, Calhoun, Clay, Gordon).And Brent Moss. He was good.
It's a shame that helmet schools are too pussy to come to Madison.MADISON, Wis. - Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have started a petition asking the chancellor to cancel classes due to extremely cold temperatures.
Why not bother with Wisconsin? What is the downside in scheduling them relative to Colorado or UCLA?Playing in Madison is not like playing in Boulder or Pasadena (for a UCLA home game, that is). You've been there. You know what I mean. The only advantage SEC speed has in Madison is against the police. True stuff.
I think it's just the normal matter of scheduling complexity, and number of potential programs to schedule, not some dark dank conspiracy not to play Wisconsin.
I do agree that SEC teams in general don't travel much, and Georgia famously didn't leave the South for something like 40 years for an OOC game after 1965. For the fans, the prospect of playing a Wisconsin or a Michigan or a Penn State (but not at night) is pretty exciting, same with Texas and Oklahoma and the rest.
I'd rather play an away game at Madison rather than at Boulder or SLC or someplace like that. Didn't Texas barely escape with a win @ Wyoming awhile back? Elevation is no joke.That's still a home game for Florida. It will not be a UW home game next year.
Of the 3 (UW, CU, UCLA), UCLA is the easy choice because of recruiting. All of the red-headed stepchildren in CA, TX, and FL should have zero trouble getting home-and-homes if they're P5 or 2-for-1s if they're not.
Hell, Florida is doing a 2-for-1 with South Florida in Tampa. I guess UCF is just too good for that. The balls it takes to take the "we're above that" road just 3 years after a winless season....
I'd rather play there than at Clemson or Texas or Notre Dame in general.Texas A&M can be LOUD
The loudest place I've been by far was Tennessee. That was physically painful.