Help me understand the $cheduing dilemma

Since 10 games are already set each year (9 BIG + ISU), you will always have 5 home/5 away BSC games. For the 11th game, I'm OK with it being a home "cupcake" against FCS or lower tier MAC/Sunbelt.

However for the 12th game, Iowa needs to get creative. Maybe alternate every other year between another home "cupcake" (especially in years where the BIG schedule looks difficult), and neutral site games. While a neutral site game may not generate the same revenue as a home game, if scheduled strategically Iowa can make these successful events. What I mean is that Iowa recruits a lot out of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and recently NJ/Maryland. If the BIG schedule doesn't have Iowa playing in those states every year or every couple of years, use the neutral game concept as a way of keeping a presence their for recruiting. While they wouldn't necessarily be marquee games, Iowa could play in Cincinnati agianst Cincy or the Ohio MAC schools, play in DC against Virginia, Va Tech, maybe Navy. Play in Pennsylvania against Pitt or Temple. Schedule a game in Giants stadium against Syracuse or UCONN. Or in Dallas against SMU. Anything to mix it up a little and avoid falling into a trend of 2 home cupcakes + ISU before the BIG conference games.
 
tubahawk said:
Point of clarification;

Who determines the schedule? Ultimately I understand the AD does this, but I look at the Basketball team and they've upped their strength of schedule for next year (I assume because Fran wanted too).

Is the football scheduling debacle Barta trying to keep the finances flowing or KF's wishes? Granted there is probably an element of both at play, but if KF went to Barta and asked for a tougher non-conference I would think he would get it.

I'm not sure this is squarely on the shoulders of Barta.
Click to expand...

I know FB schedules are made longer in advance, often times a series is scheduled 5-10 years in advance. Whereas basketball schedules appear to be drawn up 6-8 months in advance of the season (other than maybe tourneys like Great Alaska).

You have a much better idea how good someone will be when you play them in basketball. When Iowa scheduled the 4 Football games vs Syracuse, they were pretty good, then by the time we played they were pretty bad....

I'm guess since bball has like 14 non-conf games to schedule the coach has much more input and AD has more flexibility. Whereas FB, with the ISU series locked in, you are talking about scheduling just 3 more games (soon to be 2 games).
 
Last edited:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by deanvogsI am not sure why anyone is saying or even thinking that we should go below 7 home games a year. The budget is set up with 7 home games in mind. Also remember that football revenue pretty much pays for all the non revenue sports. Plus all of the money that come into IC on a game day is quit considerable, and local business would not like losing one of their most lucrative days.

I guess in the end why leave millions on the table to play 11 BCS conference opponents, when every other program in the country is playing 10 tops, with lots of teams playing 9 BCS opponents? It would be suicide.

Eda said:
Agreed. It seems that some are very willing to just toss a home game away like it ain't no thang. And for what? So we can go play a top tier school and pad their athletic department?
I don't think many realize that the budget for the athletic department is huge ($85 million, this year alone), and the millions a home game generates is critical to the financial stability of the department.
Click to expand...

2012 Big Ten Football Ticket Revenue : Iowa grossed $21.034 million or $3,004,857 per home game.

For Small Schools there's a big pay-off to Road Trips: And Navy will receive an eye-popping $1 million for playing at Ohio State for the first time since 1931."I think $1 million is going to be the market price in the coming years," Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith says. He says Ohio State usually nets $3.8 million to $4.5 million on a home game, depending on things such as weather and concession and merchandise sale.

Arkansas State has signed for $1 million payouts from Auburn next season and Virginia Tech in 2011. This season (2009), the Sun Belt Conference team has guarantee games against Nebraska for $750,000 and Iowa for $900,000.



Now what I'm saying which some keep ignoring is NOT that we give up a 7th home game EVERY season, but rather explore options such as neutral site games. Are we going to blindly listen to Barta say "7 games all or nothing for the budget" or get creative.

Payouts for these neutral site games are pretty good too. Iowa/NIU at Soldier Field paid Iowa $1 mil as the visitor, but marque matches pay $2.0 to 5.0 million.

Dollars just keep climbing for college kickoff games - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global


TN vs NC St pd $2M
Clemson vs Auburn $2.3M
Mich vs Bama $4.7M
LSU v OR $3.5M

Rutgers played Army at MetLife Stadium in 2010, and in Yankee Stadium in 2011. The school reportedly received a $2.7 million payday for the 2010 game, nearly twice what it made in a typical home game.

"Let's say you make $3.5 million off a home game," Stokan said. "Now you're paying $1.1 million out, so you net $2.4 million. We're knocking on that door and we give you national exposure."
 
Last edited:
So I get it that we leave some money on the table by doing a neutral site game, like $2.5 million, but if you get a payday like listed above, say $2M now you are getting closer to break-even. (we got $1M from NIU last year).

Home game ticket revenue $3,000,000
pay-out to small school opp$1,000,000
Game day expenses ...........$ -400,000
Concessions @$10/person $ +700,000 (made-up#)
Net Home Game Income Est$2,300,000

Payday for neutral site game $2,000,000

Net Shortfall losing 7th home gm $300,000

Now if we can get into a neutral site game every 3 or 4 years so that each recruiting class has the opportunity to do at least one, you can allocate that $300k over 3-4 years of Budgets.

Additionally, some intangible benefits would be increased exposure, TV, recruiting, excitement for fans and players in non-conference schedule. If we get a recruiting bump, better recruits hopefully leads to more victories, which leads to increased revenue via merchandise sales and donations which more than off-sets the small opportunity cost of losing a ONE home date every 3 or 4 years.

“For us (Alabama), these games fit Coach [Nick] Saban’s philosophy of playing high-profile opponents at neutral sites,” said Shane Lyons, Alabama’s deputy athletic director. “It gives the players something to look forward to all summer and something to build toward. And it’s good for recruiting. We’re playing big games on a big stage, and we’re going into some major cities like Dallas and Atlanta where there are lots of recruits.”
 
Last edited:
HawkinGoferLand said:
So I get it that we leave some money on the table by doing a neutral site game,...
Click to expand...

I don't think that is accurate. How I read your previous post is Iowa grossed $3 Mill per home game. Out of that amount we had to pay our opponent $750,000 - $1 mill. Leaving $2 - $2.25 million for Iowa. If we are willing to schedule a higher end opponent on a neutral site we can see a $2 Million + payday. (If TN v NC State pulls in $2 mill for each team, an Iowa v Missouri type of game should be able to bring at least that. )
 
Ok I found some more detailed data. » 2010-2011 Football Revenue

From 2010-11 Season Data:

Annual Ticket Sales $20,272,653 (including away ticket sales) = ave $2,896,093 per game
Annual Concessions, Merch, Programs, Parking $1,225,863 = ave 175,123/gm
Annual Game Day Expenses $2,138,085 = ave $305,441/gm
Guarantees paid to visiting teams $1,751,816 = ave $583,940/gm
________________________________________________

so back to my game day example:

Home game Ticket Revenue $2,900,000
Concessions, Parking,Merch $ 175,000
Total Home Game Day Rev $3,075,000

Average Pay-out to visitor ($ 600,000)
Average Game Day Expense($-300,000)

Net Profit for Home Games $2,175,000


So let's trade a game where we pay an Arkansas State-type school $900,000 ($1mil soon to be the norm) for a neutral site game once every 3 or 4 years. Collect $2 million plus in guaranteed money and actually make MORE than hosting a home game (?)

Net Profit to host home game $2,175,000
add'l paid to Ark States of world ($400,000)
Net Profit $1,775,000

Neutral Site Guarantee $2,000,000 to 2,500,000 > $1,775,000 Home Game Profit for Ark St
 
Last edited:
Once again why walk away from the money? Not just the money, but why play an 11th BCS conference opponent, when nobody else in the country will be doing that. There is a reason teams don't schedule that way.....because it is an absolute bat sh1t crazy thing to do. Let along play 11 BCS games, and only have 6 of them at home.

I'd be all for every other year against ISU, and then the other years bring in another BCS opponent. As it stands if ISU is on the schedule, we will play 2 other non BSC teams at home every year, as we should.
 
deanvogs said:
Once again why walk away from the money? Not just the money, but why play an 11th BCS conference opponent, when nobody else in the country will be doing that. There is a reason teams don't schedule that way.....because it is an absolute bat sh1t crazy thing to do. Let along play 11 BCS games, and only have 6 of them at home.

I'd be all for every other year against ISU, and then the other years bring in another BCS opponent. As it stands if ISU is on the schedule, we will play 2 other non BSC teams at home every year, as we should.
Click to expand...

You're not walking away from any money and in some cases making more. From a purely financial perspective this is a feasible concept.

It's up to discussion what the cost/benefits are for playing a tougher schedule away from Kinnick.

Pros
More exposure to markets otherwise untapped by Iowa
Potential to be seen as more of a national presence
Helps with recruiting

Cons
Tougher schedule can backfire if team constantly struggles.
Makes it harder to get to elite bowls with losses even if it is a loss from a higher quality opponent
More expensive for fans who would likely need to travel further.
Takes other revenue away from Iowa City establishments


There are tons more pros and cons to add. But that discussion is not as clear cut as the financial. From a program financial viewpoint, tougher scheduling at a neutral site can be equal or greater than revenue generated from home games
 
deanvogs said:
Once again why walk away from the money? Not just the money, but why play an 11th BCS conference opponent, when nobody else in the country will be doing that. There is a reason teams don't schedule that way.....because it is an absolute bat sh1t crazy thing to do. Let along play 11 BCS games, and only have 6 of them at home.

I'd be all for every other year against ISU, and then the other years bring in another BCS opponent. As it stands if ISU is on the schedule, we will play 2 other non BSC teams at home every year, as we should.
Click to expand...


the 11th BCS opponent is good argument against, but if you're only doing it every 3 or 4 years?? Also, in other posts, I've been in favor of reducing ISU series to every other year or 3 out of 4.
 
tubahawk said:
You're not walking away from any money and in some cases making more. From a purely financial perspective this is a feasible concept.

It's up to discussion what the cost/benefits are for playing a tougher schedule away from Kinnick.

Pros
More exposure to markets otherwise untapped by Iowa
Potential to be seen as more of a national presence
Helps with recruiting

Cons
Tougher schedule can backfire if team constantly struggles.
Makes it harder to get to elite bowls with losses even if it is a loss from a higher quality opponent
More expensive for fans who would likely need to travel further.
Takes other revenue away from Iowa City establishments


There are tons more pros and cons to add. But that discussion is not as clear cut as the financial. From a program financial viewpoint, tougher scheduling at a neutral site can be equal or greater than revenue generated from home games
Click to expand...

Lets just say I'm not a huge believer of those revenue numbers that were posted. How does 1.7 mil. in payout to visiting teams equal 600K per game when we host 7 home games? Plus what about travel expenses for going to a neutral site? Heck some bowl game payouts don't cover the expense of travel for the teams.

I think the one thing that would be kind of cool, would be having 4 home games, 4 road games, and 1 neutral site game in the BIG schedule. This article brought it up.
Big Ten Football: Why More Neutral Site Games Would Be Bad for the Big Ten | Bleacher Report
 
All I know is Delany wants the league to begin to toughen up their schedules. If Barta wants to follow a "softer" non conference schedule for any number of reasons including financial.......... my money will be on Delany.

Between Barta trying to defend our non conf scheduling and Ferentz saying "any bowl is a good bowl" it really makes me wonder what the goals of the program are these days. While the BIG is trying to move forward with improving its reputation and ramping up for playoffs in the future we seem to be yearning for the good old days.
 
deanvogs said:
Lets just say I'm not a huge believer of those revenue numbers that were posted. How does 1.7 mil. in payout to visiting teams equal 600K per game when we host 7 home games? Plus what about travel expenses for going to a neutral site? Heck some bowl game payouts don't cover the expense of travel for the teams.

I think the one thing that would be kind of cool, would be having 4 home games, 4 road games, and 1 neutral site game in the BIG schedule. This article brought it up.
Big Ten Football: Why More Neutral Site Games Would Be Bad for the Big Ten | Bleacher Report
Click to expand...

I could stomach this if the whole B1G Conference went to it, but I don't know that I would like it. I want home games to be at home. As I stated in my list of cons (and mentioned in the article you linked) there is a lot of money that gets spent at local venues in Iowa City (restaurants, gas stations etc..) that would then go to other out of town places at neutral site games.
 
deanvogs said:
Lets just say I'm not a huge believer of those revenue numbers that were posted. How does 1.7 mil. in payout to visiting teams equal 600K per game when we host 7 home games? Plus what about travel expenses for going to a neutral site? Heck some bowl game payouts don't cover the expense of travel for the teams.
Click to expand...

I think because we only pay the non-conf teams to come to Kinnick, not B1G and there were only 3 visiting teams we paid. So $1,700,000/3 games = $566,667. I rounded up to $660k because the price of these games is going up, especially with a smaller pool of teams to choose from
 
Last edited:
deanvogs said:
Lets just say I'm not a huge believer of those revenue numbers that were posted. How does 1.7 mil. in payout to visiting teams equal 600K per game when we host 7 home games? Plus what about travel expenses for going to a neutral site? Heck some bowl game payouts don't cover the expense of travel for the teams.
Click to expand...

for 2010-11, UI incurred $1,799,053 in Football related travel expenses. Now I can't say with certainty which bowl game is included in that number (Orange or Insight) but I'll go with the cheaper trip to Insight for which we incurred $1,195,895 for 10 days and 651 people in some capacity. (Orange Bowl travel exp was $1.9M)

So travel expenses for regular season totaled $603,158 or ave of $120,632 per game for trips to Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan and Arizona.

and you are correct, bowl games tend to be a break even to slight profit venture in best case scenarios and loses are common...

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/18/stanford-breaks-even-on-orange-bowl/
 
As a season ticket holder, I want 7 home games a year. So I'm happy that Barta is trying to maintain that. However, Barta needs to get more creative (I know that is hard for him) with his scheduling. There are BCS teams that are willing to go on the road without a return trip. It doesn't happen often, but Colorado did that with Ohio State last year. Colorado needed some money and was looking for a game that could get them more on the road then at home. I'll bet a team like Wake Forest or Kansas could be willing to do that. These would be better games than an FCS team.

He could also schedule teams like San Diego State or East Carolina or a host of other MWC, C-USA, former Big East type teams that would probably be willing to take a 1 time game. Again these would be more entertaining games and should help the SOS. Barta just needs to get creative.
 
I'm a season ticket holder as well, and honestly, I would trade a 7th home game vs Ark St, Missouri St, WMU, CMU, NDSU etc for a neutral site game any day. Although I'm only suggesting we do this once every 3 or 4 seasons. But honestly, I would rather watch Iowa vs BCS-to-be-named at neutral site from my living room or possibly road trip to said site.
 
TecmoSuperHawk said:
It doesn't happen often, but Colorado did that with Ohio State last year. Colorado needed some money and was looking for a game that could get them more on the road then at home. I'll bet a team like Wake Forest or Kansas could be willing to do that. These would be better games than an FCS team.
Click to expand...

Colorado was a one-time thing due to scheduling issues caused by switching from B12 to P12.

Kansas and Wake Forest were ranked 98th and 109 by Sagarin last year, behind many 1-AA teams. UNI was ahead of both at 92. WFU had 15 1-AA schools ahead of them.

USA TODAY
 
Wisconsin making headlines again - working on series with LSU. You don't think this helps recruiting? Which helps winning, which helps marketing which helps fundraising, which sells advertising and merchandise which all help off-set losing a home date?

Recruits outside the state of Iowa don't care about Iowa vs ISU. Let's change that to every other year or something or grow some balls and play another BCS school along with ISU once every 3-4 years.

Don't spew that finance crap and the vague, general statement by Barta that we need 7 home games every year. These neutral site games are just as profitable or moreso than a home game. And again, I'm NOT saying do a neutral site game or 6 away games every season, just once in 3 or 4.

LSU, Wisconsin talking 2014 in Houston, Lambeau between 2016-18 - CBSSports.com

Neutral-site games are trendy in part because of the payouts. The average per-team revenue from such games among power-conference teams is roughly $3 million-$4 million, according to several administrators familiar with the process.


The hardest part to justify is the impact on the local economy.
 
Last edited:
HawkinGoferLand said:
Wisconsin making headlines again - working on series with LSU. You don't think this helps recruiting? Which helps winning, which helps marketing which helps fundraising, which sells advertising and merchandise which all help off-set losing a home date?

Recruits outside the state of Iowa don't care about Iowa vs ISU. Let's change that to every other year or something or grow some balls and play another BCS school along with ISU once every 3-4 years.

Don't spew that finance crap and the vague, general statement by Barta that we need 7 home games every year. These neutral site games are just as profitable or moreso than a home game. And again, I'm NOT saying do a neutral site game or 6 away games every season, just once in 3 or 4.

LSU, Wisconsin talking 2014 in Houston, Lambeau between 2016-18 - CBSSports.com

Neutral-site games are trendy in part because of the payouts. The average per-team revenue from such games among power-conference teams is roughly $3 million-$4 million, according to several administrators familiar with the process.


The hardest part to justify is the impact on the local economy.
Click to expand...

Ok, you make some good points. But I'm not sure going on the road and getting trounced does much good for recruiting.

Thoughts?

FreedComanche
 
Based on their ticket sales for the Chick-fil-A Kickoff, Auburn’s contract calls for a payment of $2.3 million, slightly more money than it made when it last hosted Clemson in Auburn.

Like Auburn, Clemson senior associate athletic director Katie Hill also says her team will net $2.3 million.

“This is a good game financially, but the Saturday night Chick-fil-A season opener exposure is just as important as any additional revenue,” says Hill.

Chick-fil-A Bowl President Gary Stokan says the games should be an easy sell to coaches.

“The athletic director can go to coach and say, ‘You’re in the No. 1 recruiting base per capita in the country and No. 4 overall: Georgia. You get great recruiting exposure.’ People talk about this after the season, through spring ball and summer workouts, all the way up to the first game of the year.”

Chick-fil-A Kickoff college football kickoff big win for Atlanta - ESPN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top