How many name teams will play a home and home with Iowa and want to play in Kinnick? My guess very few.I think Hawk fans will travel well to California. Hopefully they alternate UCLA and USC every year.
I'm going to use this opportunity to advocate shit canning non conference games. I don't need to see the Hawkeyes play the Clowns, UNI, or any other mid major in the non conference.
That should never happen. Get rid of ISU, fine, but you can’t get rid of non-cons. You’d be putting yourself at an unbelievable disadvantage to everyone else.I think Hawk fans will travel well to California. Hopefully they alternate UCLA and USC every year.
I'm going to use this opportunity to advocate shit canning non conference games. I don't need to see the Hawkeyes play the Clowns, UNI, or any other mid major in the non conference.
Not many will want too but if they move to all conference games then they have no choiceHow many name teams will play a home and home with Iowa and want to play in Kinnick? My guess very few.
Who is everyone else? It’s boiling down to the Big Ten and $EC.That should never happen. Get rid of ISU, fine, but you can’t get rid of non-cons. You’d be putting yourself at an unbelievable disadvantage to everyone else.
P2 teams aren’t going to give up cupcake non- games. They’re free home games, and they’re a chance to work bugs out and pad your record.Who is everyone else? It’s boiling down to the Big Ten and $EC.
I understand the thought behind what you’re suggesting, but it’ll never happen. Schools like having those easy games up front too much, and there are too many benefits.Not many will want too but if they move to all conference games then they have no choice
I think Hawk fans will travel well to California. Hopefully they alternate UCLA and USC every year.
I'm going to use this opportunity to advocate shit canning non conference games. I don't need to see the Hawkeyes play the Clowns, UNI, or any other mid major in the non conference.
I understand the thought behind what you’re suggesting, but it’ll never happen. Schools like having those easy games up front too much, and there are too many benefits.
Look how much Iowa makes during a Kent State or Northern Illinois game, even after paying them to appear. It’s almost always a guaranteed win and a chance to work out any playbook/personnel issues. Schools aren’t going to go away from that. You think Alabama wants to give up its mid-season game against Upper Gainesville County Welding School it has every year?
As a fan I like them too. They’re fun and it makes it so we have 7 home games every year.
Teams aren’t going to give up games at home against lower-tier opponents. Whether people hate them or not, they’re needed for schedule padding and working the bugs out. That’s why they exist.Don't say never, a few months ago you and I probably would have both said USC and UCLA to the Big Ten will never happen and here we are.
But I do agree schools won't want to give up the extra home game, so bring it all down to 1 non conference game and a 12 game conference schedule. With divisions going a way I could careless if they do a conference championship game or not but they will do one anyway since it's a money game. With expanded playoffs the bowl games will be toast so going to a 13 game schedule gets everyone an extra game.
Honestly I don't need to go to Kinnick to watch Iowa play Nevada, UNI, or South Dakota State. Hell I might sell my Iowa State tickets.
This. There's a reason every P5 school is willing to pay no-namers hundreds of thousands (and sometimes millions) of dollars to get pounded in what typically amounts to an uncompetitive game. If you want to tell me the SEC does away with the awkward late season nonconference game for more money and better ratings in the next five years, I'll buy it. But after two thirds of a year without college football people are more than willing to tune in to boring matchups for the first three weeks of the season.Teams aren’t going to give up games at home against lower-tier opponents. Whether people hate them or not, they’re needed for schedule padding and working the bugs out. That’s why they exist.
Teams aren’t going to give up games at home against lower-tier opponents. Whether people hate them or not, they’re needed for schedule padding and working the bugs out. That’s why they exist.
This gets to my post. I doubt that, on average, they make much difference at all. Yeah, the big matchups will get more eyes, but those eyes would have been watching the creampuffs anyway. I don't see a net benefit for the TV networks. A quarter of the people watching Alabama vs. UTSA on the SEC Network might switch to Notre Dame vs Penn State on NBC at 3:00 the second week of the season, but is there actually an overall increase in viewership? If there is, is that increase enough to overcome the programs A. wanting to start the season against creampuffs, and B. losing 1.5-2 home games on average each year each year? You will get more spending at the stadium, but that's fairly negligible in comparison to the TV revenue.Which makes teams more money, a Big Ten matchup or a game against a creampuff? I'm guessing a Big Ten game, the gate is likely better and the games generate more TV revenue.
In order to get rid of low tier non-cons, you’d have to get every school to agree to it. It’s just not going to happen. Take Iowa for example. We get two games every year where the Hawks are (almost) guaranteed a win for their record. Home games. These are also games that almost always happen before conference play starts, so the staff can see any weaknesses that need to be worked out before games actually count. How are you going to get coaches to get agree to that? Force them? Make it a directive at the conference level? That ain’t gonna happen.Which makes teams more money, a Big Ten matchup or a game against a creampuff? I'm guessing a Big Ten game, the gate is likely better and the games generate more TV revenue.
In order to get rid of low tier non-cons, you’d have to get every school to agree to it. It’s just not going to happen. Take Iowa for example. We get two games every year where the Hawks are (almost) guaranteed a win for their record. Home games. These are also games that almost always happen before conference play starts, so the staff can see any weaknesses that need to be worked out before games actually count. How are you going to get coaches to get agree to that? Force them? Make it a directive at the conference level? That ain’t gonna happen.
Conference decisions aren’t made from just a couple guys in Chicago, those decisions are influenced by a whole lot of ADs and presidents. And even if a particular school wanted it to happen, you’d have to get everyone to do it, and good luck getting consensus on that.
This gets to my post. I doubt that, on average, they make much difference at all. Yeah, the big matchups will get more eyes, but those eyes would have been watching the creampuffs anyway. I don't see a net benefit for the TV networks. A quarter of the people watching Alabama vs. UTSA on the SEC Network might switch to Notre Dame vs Penn State on NBC at 3:00 the second week of the season, but is there actually an overall increase in viewership? If there is, is that increase enough to overcome the programs A. wanting to start the season against creampuffs, and B. losing 1.5-2 home games on average each year each year? You will get more spending at the stadium, but that's fairly negligible in comparison to the TV revenue.
No, I am serious. Every game involving a game in a real conference is already televised. I am not convinced that you are going to net more total viewers on the first three Saturdays of the year with better matchups. Football fans are deprived and will watch regardless of who the teams are. You are just talking about rebalancing what particular channel viewers are already tuned to.You can't be serious? The more good conference matchups then the more likely these games get picked up by Fox, ESPN, or another network. Conference games draw more viewers than non conference and make everyone more money. If I am tuning into a SEC game I'm tuning in to a Alabama vs Georgia than I am a Alabama vs CreamPuffU
No, I am serious. Every game involving a game in a real conference is already televised. I am not convinced that you are going to net more total viewers on the first three Saturdays of the year with better matchups. Football fans are deprived and will watch regardless of who the teams are. You are just talking about rebalancing what particular channel viewers are already tuned to.
Some qualitative data for you:
College Football TV Ratings
College football TV ratings for the 2023 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.www.sportsmediawatch.com
The first three weeks already have some of the highest viewership of the season.