BCS Doubts A College Football Stadium Can Host A College Football Game

- Scoreboards aren't big enough for all attending the game to see.

- The grass is not used to being stepped on after November.

- The airports/roads in said areas can't handle all the extra traffic

- Change is scary

- I have a tough time cheating on my wife in Nebraska

- My limo doesn't have snow tires

The Raiders played their games at the Colliseum, this argument makes no sense. Not sure if including the colliseum pic was part of that argument. 

They cannot just come out and say "We are happy with the current system of corruption and greed". The stupidity of their statements confirms that this is the case, regardless.

But who would have the onerous task of bidding out the sites... oh please save us BCS.  Only you could do that with the scruples required such a difficult and unrewarding a task. 

So, it appears that Hancock has not been to a big time college football game in a while.  Let's take Michigan - Notre Dame from this past year or Michigan - Ohio from 2006.. You're telling me that there will be more media attending those games than a National Semi-Final?  Maybe a handful. 

As for fans, if he would walk around a campus he would easily see that for the 100,000 fans inside the stadium, there are another 25,000 outside without tickets tailgating, watching at bars, etc.  Infrastructure.  Laughable.

The real reason is cold weather and money.  Southern teams / conferences don't want to entertain the thought of playing at Michigan Stadium or the Horseshoe in December.  Also, the power brokers are looking at having a windfall of money by having sites bid on the games while charging $300 plus per ticket for the semi-finals and probably a Super Bowl-esque $500+ for the National Championship. 

That is absurd.  It will lead to less than optimal attendance at the semi-final games and the less affluent fans will save their money and only travel to the Championship game. 

The in-game revenue from these things isn't just about the overall capacity - it's also about the skyboxes.  It's quite possible that a modern NFL-style stadium that seats 60k would generate more revenue than a college stadium that holds 80k if there are a lot more skyboxes in the modern stadium.  Corporate interests and all.

I don't agree with the decision - I agree that the semifinal games should be held at the higher-seed's home site - but if the argument is that an 80k seat stadium necessarily generates more revenue than a 60k stadium, I'm not quite sure that's accurate.

When the Metrodome roof caved in, one of the options explored was playing at Minnesota's TCF Stadium. It was abandoned, at least in part, because the field did not have any heating built in, and thus would be like playing on pavement. Anybody out there know whether Michigan Stadium's field is heated? I'm guessing not.

Play the semi-final games a week after the championship games. Yes, It's December and cold, but each of those northern stadiums will be above capacity. 

The higher seeds are meant to have an advantage, hence the home game format. You would not have the infastructure problems becasue, well, the oposing teams will only have the number of tickets that are usually sold to such teams. This should not even be an issue. Any one of those college towns can accomodate all media that would like to attend. 

The only travel problem that could occur is Dave Brandon securing the donor dollars for the band to make the trip. 

I think that's an over-simplification of Hancock's comments.  I'm guessing he meant more about the logistics of having a large number of people coming from outside of the area as opposed to having 95% local people attending regular home games.  Regardless, it's probably still not a very good argument

Just like everything else these days, it seems, it really all boils down to money.  I assume the powers-that-be have information or have summarily decided that more money is to be had by keeping the bowl game system intact and are merely coming up with reasons to justify that all-powerful deciding factor.  Right?  

Cold weather versus warm weather

Warm weather teams do not want to play a playoff game hosted by a BIG 10 whoops B1G team. Playing a college football playoff game hosted by the #1 or #2 team would eventually see a game hosted by a B1G team. Playing a playoff game in the BIG 10 country in the winter would be an advantage to the B1G team.

Decisions are made by emotions. Brian is exposing the emotion because there is no logic for not rewarding the top two teams in a four team playoff by allowing them to host the first two playoff games.

Brady Hoke has pointed the way to argue with some of the comments coming from the BCS. “What is best for the student athletes?” Playing at home or playing at a neutral site? Playing at home is better for 50% of the participating teams versus playing at a neutral site would be worse for 100% of the student athletes because of travel time and time away from their studies. Let the emotion of college football rule and reward the top two teams with a home game. More spirit, more bands and more fun because it benefits more students.

PS: The Rose Bowl is awesome and I hope the B1G can maintain its relationship with the PAC12.

As I deconstruct Bill Hancock's statements, here's what I think his true meaning is:

1.  Moar money for guys in yellow jackets;

2.  Moar junket trips for guys in yellow jackets;

3. Moar bowl game like perks for guys in yellow jackets; and

4. Moar ways for guys in yellow jackets to skirt non-profit laws and get even moar of that  moar money.

that this sport has been twisted like this. it makes me long for the days when there were just bowl games and a split championship once every decade. this feels like 10 bad solutions to what was, in hindsight, not really that bad anyway.

If the games are home games, who would get the money for tickets, broadcast rights, and concessions?  I feel like that is the biggest reason the BCS would fight against the home stadium semifinals.  It would also potentially kill the attractiveness of the other bowl games because the top 4 teams wouldn't be there.

If no home games then noreal difference between the team finishing 1st or 4th now is there?  It would seem that other than the all-important jersey color selection there would be no advantadge in finishing 1st and undefeated (for example) over a team finishing 4th with potentially two losses.

I'm now in my 40's and these idiots have now deprived me and more importantly thousands of coaches and players of 30+ years of fantastic football and intrigue and resolution.

So may great games have been cockblocked by these idiots it is staggering.   We as fans have been robbed of intrigue down the stretch over and over again.  As Michigan fans we have suffered some of the worst as over the last 40 years how many times would Michigan been in a playoff or at least close enough to getting a plyoff spot that the build up and intrigue down the stretch would have been incredible.   We missed out on all these games for what?

I hate these guys so much.   Ever since the early 80's  when Miami claimed the NC by beating Nebraska in their home stadium and Michigan was made fun of because we couldn't beat USC in their home stadium I have dreamed of the day we could host a playoff game and play Miami or USC at Michigan and see how it turned out for them.

Fuck the BCS so Hard!!!!!

So my question is this: Why the hell do 20K tickets matter every year, let alone once out of 28 games?

For the sake of mental math, let's say a team with a 55k stadium hosts a semifinal. Tickets go for $200. The alternate neutral site stadium holds 75k. (We can do this with different numbers but I don't really want to get a calc out).

Holding it at this on-campus location will generate $4million less than imaginary 75k neutral site stadium, not including variance for total suites available to sell.

Now, the television rights per year number that has been tossed around for a couple years now (I can't remember if it was Dennis Dodd or Dan Wetzel) is $700+ million for a 4-team playoff. Let's be conservative an go with $600 million, $300 for the Championship and $150 for each Semifinal.

Yes, the BCS commissioners are worried about potentially generating $4-milliion less once over a 28-game period when each yearly television payout is $300 million plus for the semifinals.

This does not count the points Brian makes about the most likely collegiate stadiums to host a semifinal being larger than the neutral site alternatives. Makes a lot of fucking sense. AHH I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS IN CHARGE.

There are a couple parts of the infrastructure complaint that make sense to me. For games that are more than say, 1,000 miles away, it is going to be very difficult to drive. Most people going to a home game of their preferred team are within an 8 hour drive, making it feasible to go to a game in a weekend, and not miss work. This is true for almost all conference games. For instance, I can get to almost all Michigan games, home and back, inside of one day. (The exceptions are Nebraska and Penn State, with Minnesota and Ohio being borderline.) If you have to fly, the infrastructure of areas outside of a major metro airport would make it challenging. Would there be enough flights into Lincoln? University Park? Iowa City? And flights to those cities would cost a lot more than flights into Chicago or Detroit.

The other issue, forgetting about the cold, is safety in driving in blizzard conditions. Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, and Colorado can be bad places to travel in December and January. I can see the headlines now if a hundred SEC fans froze to death on I-80 outside of Lincoln one winter in a blizzard.

One reason not to have higher seeds host is that it puts a lot of pressure on the polls or selectors to get the top seeds right, because the home field is such an advantage. If the 2-3 game is at a neutral site, it really doesn't matter th is seeded higher, but if the 2 plays at home, it is a huge deal. For example, if Okie St. and Bama played last year at in New Orleans, it is basically neutral in terms of fans and venue. But, if it was at one campus or the other, the one team that the polls decided was better would have a significant home field advantage.

It just opens the process up to more shenanigans among the voters and top teams.

...is the sticky issue of home field advantage being determined by poll position/ranking.

If you think fans are screaming now when somebody gets left out of one of the top two spots for the BCS game, just wait until teams start getting screwed out of home field advantage because of poll politicking. 

That's the real reason neutral fields might end up being the consensus amongst the power players trying to decide this thing.

[edit:  shit, beaten to th punch by bojangles above.  sorry for the redundant comment]

link

Listen, it may or may not be a good decision, but the derision is unwarranted.  Wondering whether many small campuses could handle the influx of media, out-of-towners, etc., not just for the game but for potentially a few days is reasonable.  You can't assume that those schools listed will make it.  What about Pullman (pop <30,000), and that's a PAC12 school?  What if a small school makes it?  What if the school isn't particularly close to any professional football stadium?  Boise State plays at a stadium that seats 35,000 and will soon seat 40,000.  What's the closes pro stadium?

Also, a semifinal is a lot more likely to sell out than a bowl game, in my opinion, because bowls have suffered by being outside the championshiop format. 

Perhaps the best thing to do would be play the games at college campuses, but these reasons given aren't so crazy.  The anger and derision detracts from the credibility here.