With the talk of a possibilty of a neutral site game in the future who would you like to see play Michigan. On the list of revenge games: Oregon, Nebraska, USC, Texas, Tennessee. On the list of interesting games because MIchigan former/current coaches games: West Virginia, LSU, Stanford. Who else would you like to see San Diego State lol? Include where you would like it played.
neutral-site game a future possibility
I would rather just do a home and home though if they'd agree. Kind of a fun battle with the largest stadium race and all. And of course the thrashing they gave us in the Citrus Bowl.
That and my ongoing (probably for the rest of my life) hatred for all things related to the University of Tennessee because of the 1997 bull shit. Every time I see them in any sport, I cheer for their opponents.
at Lambeau field in November...
I just want to see them deal with the weather.
yes this please!
The revenge game seeker in me would like to see UofM play Nebraska. There is still so much lingering animosity on both sides, I'd love to see a semi-regular match-up. On the other hand, the UofM alum and current UT grad student in me would like to see a UofM v. UT game.
That game already happened. We lost.
That will be a conference game
perhaps in Baltimore
which is why it should be in Baltimore or somewhere else.
but I was not aware of the large capacity discrepancy. So yeah, never mind.
No neutral-site games, ever.
Everyone else has a smaller stadium. What revenue is there to be gained by not doing a home-and-home? The only reason Michigan should ever agree to a neutral site game is as the road portion of a home-and-home. Home-and-neutral, as it were. But other than bowl games, college football should be played on college campuses. I sort of like to cling to the notion that "college football" isn't a synonym for "quasi-pro" and that the football team should be readily available for students to go see without making a road trip out of it. Get off my lawn with your neutral-site games.
What revenue is there to be gained by not doing a home-and-home?
The money comes from the sponsor of the game like the Chick-Fil-A game
"Payout to each team depends on the amount of revenue gained in excess of the Kickoff's $5.5 million budget. In 2008, Clemson and Alabama were both expected to receive more than $2 million. For both the 2008 and 2009 games, each participating school has sold out their entire allotment of 31,200 tickets, so there has never been a need for a public sale of tickets."
The benefit of this type of game is that you don't have to give up a home-and-home to play a good team, which is all but required at this point.
While, like you, I would prefer to play all games on campus there is certainly money to be made by playing a neutral site game against a high quality opponent.
That $2 million payout is in lieu of gate revenue and is cut into by travel costs - and I assure you gate revenue at the Big House far, far exceeds $2 million. It only makes sense for Michigan if the alternative is another road game on the schedule. LSU and UNC are playing this year; LSU is playing three other home games OOC, and UNC can afford to call it a "home" game because Kenan Stadium isn't even half the size of the Big House and they don't fill it up.
And right now that's the only "organized" neutral site game. Boise State and VT are doing it entirely on their own, because for VT it's better than trying to get all their fans to make the four-hour trip to Bleaksburg to sit in a small stadium and watch them play some crap team. And BSU is a whore for attention. U-M is guaranteed 105,000, every time. It doesn't make financial sense to agree to play someone in Indy or Chicago or what have you.
UM's take on ticket sales is ridiculous.
A simple equation $60 (just throwing that number out there for a ballpark average of ticket prices) multiplied by 110,000 (again, not the exact number, but easy for math purposes) is $6,600,000 just from ticket sales. I'd say we're doing fine with home games. The revenue lost on this alone would make it pointless for Michigan to play a neutral site game.
$60 is just about right. The cheapest single-game tickets this year are $50 and the marquee games are $65. Michigan counts everyone in the stadium whether they occupy a paid seat or not, so paid attendance is probably closer to 102 or 103,000 for the UMass-type games. On average I'd guess about $4.5-5 million per game once you get through with the expenses of hosting a game. So it really takes upwards of a $6 million payout for a neutral site to even start making financial sense. You can see why there's basically zero chance of U-M deciding to do a VT/Boise-style game.
We're talking about the back-end of a home and "home". That would make a lot of sense, IME.
Edit: I just read your reply to 'shoe below; forget I commented, ok?
and merchandise? And $30 parking at the golf course.....They probably net another 1 or 2 million on this stuff, as well. If not for the university, at least some local organizations that run similar operations on game day.
And what about the kid who sells bottled water in his front yard on game day? Who is looking out for him?......lol...
Financially, that'd basically be a net zero for us, wouldn't it, as an away game? Indiana is getting a $3 million payout from the Redskins to play the game - I guess the Redskins are keeping the gate. Penn State is doing it because they're traveling anyway and this way they get a favorable crowd. If we played IU in Indy we wouldn't get the crowd behind us, just a larger IU contingent - we'd be better off in the smaller on-campus stadium anyway. It'd make sense for Michigan only if we got a cut of the pie or a favorable location; Indy isn't really "neutral" when you're playing Indiana.
It's still one of the many college football equivalents of running around on my lawn, though. Especially if it's indoors.
Granted the Rose Bowl is a nice setting for college football, but it isn't close to UCLA's campus and traffic can be a bi%$h.
I agree that we should never have a home game at a neutral site, but suspect our road game with UConn will be played on one.
DALLAS COWBOYS IN LONDON!
in Amsterdam's Red Light District.
Michigan v. Florida.
Rungrado May Day Stadium, Pyongyang, North Korea. 150,000 capacity.
Or, if that's not feasible, how about Michigan plays Alabama at Texas Stadium?
If it resulted in greater revenue I would be OK with "road" games at Ford Field vs. the directional schools.
Michigan vs. anyone, in September, at Nou Camp in Barcelona. Huge stadium, awesome city. I'd go in a heartbeat.
The last thing anyone should want is to tear up that beautiful field, or for anyone other than Barca to grace it with their beautiful style of play. With the rumors coming out in the past couple of hours that Fabregas and Villa might sign for Barca this summer, the idea of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, Fabregas and Villa having to play on a choppy field is almost unbearable.
Have them play in Espanol's new stadium instead.
our boys with dreads are not beautiful?
Estadi Olimpic is pretty and I love the area, but that track would drive me nuts. The capacity is just under 56k. That won't work.
Camp Nou fits a little under 99k. Now that's more like it!
How about we just win the B10 and go to the Rose Bowl
University of Phoenix Stadium, 2011, night game.
Let's make it in January.
...is that it should be easier to fit in a one-time neutral site game than trying to get a home and home with a big opponent. The home and home is still a better option, but this would be a nice compromise to spice up the schedule once in a while. Ideally, this would be in a year where the schedule is weaker and lets say you have ND at home, you can afford to play a game at Lucas Oil or Soldier Field or whatever.
Nebraska at Soldier Field. OR
Cal at Mile High Stadium.
See, you're just trying to force the square peg of reality into the round hole of your fantasies. It would make absolutely no sense at all for Michigan to play Nebraska at the smallest stadium in the NFL. Both would incur travel costs and sacrifice millions in revenue at the same time.
App State @ Ford Field. They have a winning record against us and that needs to change.
where michigan "buys" an opponent's home game [like we did in the '70's with northwestern] and the game is played in ann arbor rather than, for example, dyche stadium......non-tomato can and traditional opponent, check.....unbridled market power unleashed on a smaller school, check.....more money for both michigan and the opponent, check,.....
I want to pay back Oregon for what they did in the Big House, I don't care where we play them as long as we we get some revenge.
college football should be played on college campusesI wish that could just be the end of it. That statement sounds awfully like something Bo would've said. Honestly, must every freakin' thing be about money?? I don't discount the need to rake in as many big bucks as possible. But can't we have this one thing not be about money? Sure, you can blast my opinion out the window with all kinds of sound logic. It's just the way I feel.
No neutral site games. Loss of revenue, and the loss of atmosphere. I'd much prefer to see home and home or a home and neutral if that is what is needed. For example, home vs. Georgia Tech and at the Georgia Dome for their Game. I doubt you'll see many more home an home with the Pac-10 as we have done in the past (WaZu, Oregon, UCLA, Washington).
Georgia, Texas, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Nebraska, Oklahoma
USC in the cold
Texas in the cold
for no other reason than revenge
Minn at the Metrodome felt like a boring pro game. But if they were playing a good opponent it would be nice and alot of the Bowl Games are in pro stadiums so it would give them a little experience.
I would be all for seeing NW Michigan at Soldier Field or as someone mentioned before Wrigley Field, that would be neat.
I'd take a neutral site game against someone over a MAC game anyday. I'm sick of MAC schools.
As long as we are just making shit up, why can't Michigan play in Laramie Wy? I mean, I would like it...
What is the point of this thread again?