neutral-site game a future possibility

Submitted by preed1 on May 18th, 2010 at 2:05 PM

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.

Comments

Kilgore Trout

May 18th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

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.  

GoBlueInNYC

May 18th, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

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.

MGoShoe

May 18th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

...would want to do that game at FedEx Field like this year's Boise State tilt.  I'd be up for that matchup in a major way, especially since my son's enrolling there in the fall. 

MGoShoe

May 18th, 2010 at 2:15 PM ^

...for something like this is for us to convince a Big Ten team to move its home game versus us to a neutral site.  Since IU moved its home game this year against PSU from Bloomington to FedEx Field, I'd propose we see if IU would move the 2012 game from Bloomington to Lucas Oil Stadium. Or ask Illinois to move the 2012 game from Champaign-Urbana to Lucas Oil Stadium. 

The Big Ten needs to start testing out Lucas Oil Stadium for future Big Ten Championship Games anyhow.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 18th, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^

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.

me

May 18th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_College_Kickoff

 

"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.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 18th, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^

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.

Maizeforlife

May 18th, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

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.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 18th, 2010 at 3:59 PM ^

$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.

JD_UofM_90

May 18th, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^

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...

MGoShoe

May 18th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^

...the financials of my favored approach as described above: arrange for a Big Ten foe to schedule their home game with us at a larger venue, a la 2010 PSU at IU (played at FedEx Field). 

I don't fundamentally disagree with your principled "college football should be played on college campuses" stance, but a one off event like this doesn't effect our college students, just theirs.  If an opponent chooses to sell out its students for a larger payout than they'd normally get, I don't see how that negatively affects Michigan.  The way I see it, A2 is closer to Indy than to Bloomington or Champaign-Urbana.  With the extra seats, more Michigan students could take in the game than in the normative case.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

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.

jg2112

May 18th, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

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?

jg2112

May 18th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^

Uh, no.

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.

Marcus818

May 18th, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^

There was an article yesterday that the Fiesta Bowl wants to host a game at University of Phoenix Stadium. Being in L.A. I would love for them to come out west and play a Pac10 team like Cal or Washington. Texas or Boise St would be other options.

ameed

May 18th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

...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.

My votes:

Nebraska at Soldier Field.  OR

Cal at Mile High Stadium.

 

jsimms

May 18th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^

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,..... 

a2bluefan

May 18th, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^

I'm gonna jump on MaizeAndBlueWahoo's wagon here for a moment.
college football should be played on college campuses
I 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.

Srock

May 18th, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

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).

My favs:

Georgia, Texas, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Nebraska, Oklahoma

KidA2112

May 18th, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^

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.