Quote:
Originally Posted by TripletDaddy
Home game draw....we sell the majority of our tickets as is. This season is a good example of that, and we have nothing but crappy teams visiting our stadium (except UCLA, which, when scheduled, had a lot of name brand recognition). As long as we are winning, we will bring in fans.
I would be inclined to agree on the TV ratings, but truthfully, I really have no idea if that matters much. We are already locked into the mtn as long as we are in the MWC. You have to be a subscriber to watch the mtn. So if BYU schedules Nebraska at home next season, how many new people are going to buy the mtn to watch that one game? Not many. And how much do ratings have to improve to justify an increased payout? Is that payout split evenly amongst all the MWC conference members? I dont know any of these answers, so I can't really say that bringing in a marquee team is going to really affect our TV money that much.
The one thing that consistent scheduling will bring....the ability to increase season ticket prices amongst the current fanbase. Hard to increase the ticket prices significantly if you only get one good team at home every few years. But if we started scheduling 2 interesting (not powerhouse) BCS teams at home every season, then perhaps.
|
I agree. As I think about it, a couple of other points come up, although I have no idea how big of a role they would play...
1) I would think scheduling better teams would generate more booster enthusiasm.
2) While I agree that no one's going to subscribe to see a game against Nebraska, the percentage of people with the MTN who actually watch would go up, leading to higher ratings, higher advertising dollars, and better future contracts.
The magnitude of both of these would be debatable, so you may be right in the end. I just want to watch better football (or at least go to nice places, like you said earlier, so I'm just fine with Tulane and Hawaii).