Number of home games in the future

troy

Well-Known Member
Could Iowa have to give up having 7 home games every year if the Big 10 goes to a 9 game conference schedule?
ISU has only 6 home football games in 2011 because of conference realignment and the Big 12 adding a conference game. That could have a significant economic impact on Iowa State. Every other year, they will only have 6 home games.
FBSchedules.com - College & Pro Football Schedules, Future Schedule
 
Last edited:






it was stated by Delany himself during the realignment process that all big ten teams would play 7 home games every year in order for them to meet their budgets.
 


Based on what the Big 12 is doing, having the 9th games at a neutral sites, does anyone think that might happen in the Big Ten? As an example Chicago would host Iowa when it plays Michigan, when Nebraska plays Michigan State, and when Minnesota plays Northwestern. The same principle would apply in the other division, Chicago could host PSU vs Wisconsin, Indianapolis could host the IU vs Purdue game and the Ohio State vs Illinois game.

The arrangements do not have to be static. Iowa and Nebraska could exchange the Michigans. Just a thought about dealing with the nine game schedule.
 


I agree with you. If the Big 10 goes to 9 conference games, then Iowa will have to schedule ALL HOME GAMES every other year in order to get their 7 home games.

Which is exactly what they will do, if they keep the ISU series then when they come to IC, Iowa will have 3 home non conference games along with 4 home conference games.

Years Iowa goes to Ames, Iowa will have 2 home non-conference games and 5 home conference games.

Iowa won't be scheduling home and home series with Toledo and San Jose St. In fact if they keep the ISU series then you won't see anymore games against Pitt, Syracuse, Arizona, etc... because they will never agree to come to Kinnick without a return game. You will see 1 FCS school and the other game will be against the Arkansas State's and Ball State's of the world that just want the paycheck and don't care about a return game.
 


Having the 9th conference game at a neutral site only means that both teams lose money, as the neutral site is another party that takes a cut.

Delaney has recently said that the 9 game schedule may not happen, due to the 7 home game issue. I'll predict that the 9 game schedule never happens.
 


it was stated by Delany himself during the realignment process that all big ten teams would play 7 home games every year in order for them to meet their budgets.

Do you have that quote? That means Iowa will only play ISU on the road. Also, the Notre Dame versus Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue series is in jeopardy.
 


Do you have that quote? That means Iowa will only play ISU on the road. Also, the Notre Dame versus Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue series is in jeopardy.

No it doesn't, when playing 9 conference games you will have 5 home and 4 road then the opposite the following year. So when ISU comes to Kinnick Iowa will have 4 conference home games along with 2 more non conference home games for a total of 7 home games. When Iowa is at Ames they will have 5 home conference games with 2 home non conference games for a total of 7 home games.
 


No it doesn't, when playing 9 conference games you will have 5 home and 4 road then the opposite the following year. So when ISU comes to Kinnick Iowa will have 4 conference home games along with 2 more non conference home games for a total of 7 home games. When Iowa is at Ames they will have 5 home conference games with 2 home non conference games for a total of 7 home games.

So, in the non-conference schedule, they will only play ISU on the road. No more non-conference road games besides ISU. That's the only way to keep 7 home games if the Big Ten goes to 9 games. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:


So, in the non-conference schedule, they will only play ISU on the road. No more non-conference road games besides ISU. That's the only way to keep 7 home games if the Big Ten goes to 9 games. Is that correct?

Yes, Iowa can afford to pay the Ball State's and Arkansas State's of the world enough to come to Kinnick without a return game. The days of playing the Pitt's, Arizona's, Syracuse's, etc.... home and home will be over. It is also another reason I don't want to see 9 conference game schedules.
 


I agree that a 9th conference game kills the 2nd BCS game on the schedule. ISU-MAC-scub would be the standard schedule going forward.
 


Based on what the Big 12 is doing, having the 9th games at a neutral sites, does anyone think that might happen in the Big Ten? As an example Chicago would host Iowa when it plays Michigan, when Nebraska plays Michigan State, and when Minnesota plays Northwestern. The same principle would apply in the other division, Chicago could host PSU vs Wisconsin, Indianapolis could host the IU vs Purdue game and the Ohio State vs Illinois game.

The arrangements do not have to be static. Iowa and Nebraska could exchange the Michigans. Just a thought about dealing with the nine game schedule.

That would never happen unless the league fronted the money to each school that they would make if it was a home game. Iowa isn't going to give up 3 million plus for a home game, and Michigan certainly makes more than that.
 


Like somebody mentioned above I would assume the only away non-con games we play going forward are at ISU. We pay too much and are too prestigious of a program to be forced to go to places like Tulsa and Ball State.
 


I agree that a 9th conference game kills the 2nd BCS game on the schedule. ISU-MAC-scub would be the standard schedule going forward.

In the end, it's a wash, as we will play 9 conf. + ISU; it's still 10 BCS opponents.

And that 9th game could be an Indiana or OSU instead of a MAC team.
 




Top