Neutral-site game craze
Army is now slated to play its 3rd game in Yankee Stadium agsint Rutger, another against Notre Dame, which is also play a neutral-site game versus Wash St. in San Antonio. There have been rumors of a college football game in Wrigley Field (NW and or Illinois) swirling in Chicago sports radio. This along with the NHL’s Winter Classic seems to be the sports marketing rage.
I generally like this idea for the college game: exposure to a new fan base, new scenery, publicity, etc. At the same time, I would not want to see Michigan sacrifice a home game to play at Comerica or Ford Field. Some college stadiums/programs just have too much history and lore to not play every game at its home field.
With that being said, I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing UM play an away game at a neutral site. Northwestern v. Michigan at Soldier Field or Wrigley would be pretty neat. Wisconsin v. Minnesota in Lambeau Field. Boston College versus whomever at Fenway Park is another.
What teams/venues would make a good match up?
i detest the whole concept
neutral site has always been a way for powerful programs to bully around smaller programs and screw over the other school's fans and (most of all) students so they can rake in a little more cash
So which one in the Texas-Oklahoma game bullies the other?
Most of these neutral site games are actually "home" games for the "lesser" team, who moves games to one of these stadiums in hopes of drumming up extra interest in seeing the game, or in the case of a team like Toledo who is playing their "home" game against OSU in Cleveland Browns Stadium, an opportunity to double or triple their capacity in order to take in big bucks. Toledo is apparently going to make as much money for just the OSU game as they did for their entire football season last year.
I can see Northwestern doing a game at Wrigley against a team like Minnesota or Indiana, a team where they wouldn't sell that many tickets for the game otherwise. The only way playing Michigan, Wisconsin, or others who normally help them sell out Ryan Field, would make any sense is if they doubled the price of the tickets for the game at Wrigley compared to regular home games. They could probably do this.
...If Minnesota played Northwestern at Wrigley, they'd get 10,000 Gopher fans there. Minnesota Twins fans regularly travel in large numbers to Kansas City, Milwaukee and Chicago for baseball games, and Vikings fans do to. The concept of a novelty game at a baseball park would undoubtedly cause many Gopher fans to travel to Chicago.
maybe we can get slippery rock again?
I'd be fine if we played a directional school at Ford Field.
Rest assured that there is zero chance we'll ever give up a home game to play at a neutral site. No neutral-site game could ever generate as much revenue as a game at Michigan Stadium. If we ever do it, it would have to be one of our nonconference "road" games.
For sure. You play a neutral-site game in order to boost revenue and play in front of a bigger crowd than you ordinarily might. Michigan's not going to find a bigger crowd outside of Ann Arbor.
I just don't see this happening for Michigan.
No way Wisconsin ever plays a football game at Lambeau. I know they have done Hockey, but they love Camp Randell too much.
count Madison/Camp Randall in that category of places that are too cool to sacrifice a home game.
For whoever negged me, I meant as part of a "home and home". Imagine if we played EMU on the "road" one year... it would be cool for a lot of Michigan fans in the Detroit area who, for whatever reason, can't make the games in A2.
Why would we want to do that? We would be forsaking hundreds of thousands in revenue to play a game against a team that doesn't have the leverage to schedule a home-and-home with us. If EMU wants to play us two consecutive years, they can visit us both times.
It was something I'd be okay with, not something that will ever happen.
it appears as these two gentlemen are engaged in a youthful Paterno vs. Bowden style mgopoints battle.
It is getting harder and harder to find FBS (1-A) schools that are willing to go on the road with nothing in return. That is why you are starting to see so many FCS schools playing top programs (eg Delaware State), and why Ohio State is willing to play Toledo at Cleveland (a home game for Toledo). BGSU played Wisconsin at Cleveland in the last year or two as well. Notre Dame also plans to play a game in Orlando, opponent still not determined.
I agree if it wasn't our home part of the home and home. But it wouldn't have to be; it could be a regular non-conf. road game against a MAC school, and would still be pretty cool.
Unless I'm missing something...
Edit: I'm definitely not advocating it in lieu of a home game, to clarify.
If you cannot ever make it to a Michigan game and you live in Detroit then you either have a job that forces you to work on Saturdays or you really do not want to go in the first place. Either way, its a dumb idea. The only way I'd support M playing at Ford field is if they have to play there after a crappy year in the Motor City Bowl or MSU wants to play there for soem reason in place of their home game.
uofm vs Texas Tech at the cowboys new stadium?
until we have a (proven) secondary
It would probably be more likely to be UT playing in the new cowboys stadium, they are closer to it and all.
I hate neutral site games. Get off my lawn, yes, but college football should be played on college campuses in college stadiums, outdoors. Students should not have to organize caravans and whatnot and drive several hours to go see what should be a home game.
UofM Vs Notre Dame across the pond at some big soccer stadium in England
There are stadiums in the UK that aren't geared toward soccer. Wembley is one, Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is another.
Also, we have a very limited British following. The alumni base over there is kind of on the weak side. There is a tall building near Piccadilly Circus that flies a Notre Dame flag year round, on the other hand.
ND v Navy in Dublin, Ireland in 2012, anyone else gonna be there?
Wouldn't BC make more sense?
Maybe to an extent but I would guess half the stadium will be filled with Navy officers and such. Park a couple destroyers off the coast and fill the stadium, if anyone on our regular schedule would travel that far I think Navy would be at the top of the list.
And just to clarify it is already on our schedule and should be our season opener in 2012
"A couple destroyers" would give you maybe 10-15 Academy grads. A sizeable portion of the rest of the crew might enjoy a football game but would never, ever root for the Naval Academy and would likely resent being forced to go on their liberty Saturday, especially in uniform.
I'M AN IDIOT
really you think they would resent it?
my mistake I guess
I know they would resent it. Ask any enlisted man in the Navy and the chances are pretty good they'll have at least once in their career run into an Academy grad they hated.
law school has a graduate legal masters' program in London, and owns a building in that general area. That may be the building you're talking about.
I checked around and no, it's not the same building. Although they also have a flag and are in the same general area... ie Westminster.
Let the NFL do the football-promoting across the pond.
Yeah. Lest we forget, these are student-athletes we're talking about. How'd you like to fly to London on a Friday, fly back to the U.S. Saturday night/Sunday morning, and then go to class on Monday?
Plenty of business people do just that. But point taken.
I'll bring the dip.
I think there are 3 things really that make these games attractive;
1. Recruiting
Its very helpful to play games in the area of the country you recruit. ND will be playing in Texas a few times over the next few years as Neutral Sites, I believe and I am sure this is an incentive to get down there. Plus when recruiting now, coaches can point to those games in the future for parents to be able to actually watch them in person and not just on TV.
2. Money
As mentioned above, if the team travels well. An 100,000 filled seats will always be more attractive than a 40,000 seat venue for both teams there. Especially to teams who may not be expecting to make a bowl game a given year. And also the "exotic" location will also generate publicity, for the stadium owners and the schools involved in the games
3. Alumnus/Community
As national as ND's fanbase is this has pretty significant weight in our AD's eyes. He wants Alumni to have the opportunity to see the team in person because not everyone is able to make the trek to South Bend. There is also some significance with why each location is selected, the San Antonio game this year is much more than just a game. Its supposed to be 4 or 5 days with a local pep rally and much more than just a football game. I read the article on it quite a while ago so I don't remember all the details but there was a big tie in to the local churches and organizations (like habitat for humanity and other charities).
I heard somewhere that ND is scheduling a lot of the neutral field games in part because NBC wants more games to televise. Presumably NBC wants to televise 8 games a year, but ND wants to travel (for the reasons you mention). Is that true?
I know that will be true this year with the San Antonio game but I am not sure about the years after, but it wouldn't be too surprising.
finger to San Antonio. Unfamiliar with power tools."
I like the whole idea for neutral site games, I mean, if your capacity is 50,000-ish and the stadium that you'll play at is 80,000, sure it would be a revenue boost. I still fail to see why Wazzou would play in S.A., it didn't really make much sense from their standpoint to me.
As for 'Bama - VT, bring it on!
well if your washington state, your last bowl game was in 2003, last year they were 2-10 with a 2nd year coach and there isn't much expectation to see them climb higher than 2nd worse in the Pac10. Based on the attendance numbers last year they're biggest opponent (usc) still left 10k of the 35k capacity empty.
Then looking at San Antonio, the capacity of the stadium is 65,000 and ND fans will show up for the game, I don't know that there will be enough to sell it out but they must see a good profit there to have agreed. Plus with the NBC coverage it helps their recruiting and I would guess they are going to get some NBC money from it as well.
Not trying to sound condescending but if it comes off that way, just ignore it
I think it deprives a local economy of a jolt that would normally be had if you kept your games where they belong. That Toledo/OSU game to be played in Cleveland, for example. Sure, U of Toledo itself will make big bucks from playing in a larger venue. But it bugs me that the move will deprive the Toledo economy of money that would've been spent there on hotels, food, other shopping, etc. that is now going to be spent in Cleveland instead. The Glass Bowl holds 26,000+ so maybe we're not talking a huge impact (compared to a place like the Big House, anyway). But I imagine if somehow Michigan were to take one of its home games down to Ford Field, the City of Ann Arbor would be none too happy about it, economically speaking.
i cant imagine OSU ever playing a true road game at Toledo. there just isn't enough in it for them.
so while it would be better for the city of Toledo to have OSU come to town, if that's never going to happen, then the big payday for the University of Toledo for a "home" game in Cleveland is better than nothing.
also, no Michigan should never do this. unless it was the road portion of a home-and-home with a major team who for some reason have a tiny stadium, or renovations or something.
My intention was not to demonstrate the impact of OSU coming to Toledo, but the impact of taking a home game away from Toledo. If UT normally sells out their games no matter who plays them (I don't know if this is true, maybe someone on this board lives in the area and could comment), then it's indeed unfortunate for the area's economy to have any home game taken away. Similar to when Michigan plays 7 home games instead of 8.
But your point is well-taken. That it's OSU in this particular instance, resulting in a big payout for UT... yeah, better than nothing, since OSU will never play UT at home in Toledo.
And make no mistake, I have NO interest in Michigan moving one of their home games somewhere else. Besides, there's not a stadium in the entire country where it would be beneficial to UM (once we return to being the largest in 2010). Unless they could do something like re-configure MIS (capacity 132,000) for football. But that'd just be silly.
For these same reasons, I've been irritated by the NFL's recent trend of playing an opener in another country. On top of the economic impact, you've now deprived the home-team fans of going to one of their home games, except for those who have the means to make such a trip.