Would you rather have 5 Home and 7 Away

[TheSizzle36]

games, assuming that two of the away games are against top-notch BCS teams, or have 6 or 7 home games with one against a BCS team?

With most of the top BCS teams desiring a 2 for 1 to play them (Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc) BYU's best shot at landing some of those teams may be to go to a 2 for 1 system. And let's be honest, playing two away games at any of those schools is pretty tough for any school, let alone BYU.

I'd love to see BYU with home-and-homes every year with top teams. I just don't see it as a likely solution.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

games, assuming that two of the away games are against top-notch BCS teams, or have 6 or 7 home games with one against a BCS team?

With most of the top BCS teams desiring a 2 for 1 to play them (Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Tennessee, etc) BYU's best shot at landing some of those teams may be to go to a 2 for 1 system. And let's be honest, playing two away games at any of those schools is pretty tough for any school, let alone BYU.

I'd love to see BYU with home-and-homes every year with top teams. I just don't see it as a likely solution.

I think there are plenty of decent BCS teams that would schedule us for a home-and-home. Sure, maybe not Texas, Tennessee, Nebraske, ND, but plenty of mid-level BCS teams should be willing to do it. Why not an occasional top-level 2-for-1 with mostly mid to lower level BCS teams?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I think there are plenty of decent BCS teams that would schedule us for a home-and-home. Sure, maybe not Texas, Tennessee, Nebraske, ND, but plenty of mid-level BCS teams should be willing to do it. Why not an occasional top-level 2-for-1 with mostly mid to lower level BCS teams?

"mid to lower tier BCS team" is a fictional term...a creation of the media to get fans like you to buy into their system. You have obviously fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I think there are plenty of decent BCS teams that would schedule us for a home-and-home. Sure, maybe not Texas, Tennessee, Nebraske, ND, but plenty of mid-level BCS teams should be willing to do it. Why not an occasional top-level 2-for-1 with mostly mid to lower level BCS teams?

We had one and one with Miami, USC and the only team where we had an unequal balance was ND.

So I disagree with your analysis, but I don't even know what a mid to lower level BCS team is. It's a fiction and lose that bullshit.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

"mid to lower tier BCS team" is a fictional term...a creation of the media to get fans like you to buy into their system. You have obviously fallen for it, hook, line, and sinker.

I can't tell if you're being facetious here, but apparently Archaea is falling for it so I'll elaborate...

There are absolutely different levels of BCS teams. Arizona is different than USC. Nebraska and Oklahoma are different from Kansas or Baylor. It's not about quality of teams, but about marketplace, fanbase, tradition, etc. There are teams with enough clout that they can demand 2-for-1 trades with BYU and teams that can't. I think the former is a fairly small group.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We had one and one with Miami, USC and the only team where we had an unequal balance was ND.

So I disagree with your analysis, but I don't even know what a mid to lower level BCS team is. It's a fiction and lose that bullshit.

So I said ND could demand a 2-for-1, but not many other teams could. Remind me again where you disagree with my analysis? I guess you're saying Miami and USC are top NCAA teams. I'll agree with that. Sizzle's point was that we can't schedule BCS teams without sacrificing home games. I disagree with that and it seems you're just proving my point.

[TripletDaddy]

I told you homosapiens yesterday that Homoe has made it clear...we are NOT getting into 2-1 deals because we need all the home games we can get.

In 2006, we were one of approx 12 teams that operated in the black. It is a very difficult thing to do. Giving up home games is not the way to stay profitable when you are also tied to a crappy TV and no direct BCS bowl money.

Utah, BSU, and Hawaii have shown that you do NOT need to schedule really difficult teams to make a BCS bowl, so why would BYU schedule them? The BCS is an economic model, not a quality football model. So until the BCS business model changes, BYU has to plan accordingly.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I told you homosapiens yesterday that Homoe has made it clear...we are NOT getting into 2-1 deals because we need all the home games we can get.

In 2006, we were one of approx 12 teams that operated in the black. It is a very difficult thing to do. Giving up home games is not the way to stay profitable when you are also tied to a crappy TV and no direct BCS bowl money.

Utah, BSU, and Hawaii have shown that you do NOT need to schedule really difficult teams to make a BCS bowl, so why would BYU schedule them? The BCS is an economic model, not a quality football model. So until the BCS business model changes, BYU has to plan accordingly.

Completely agree from a business standpoint, although I do think that BYU's capable of getting plenty of BCS teams on even grounds, and that would help our home game draw and TV ratings, right?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Completely agree from a business standpoint, although I do think that BYU's capable of getting plenty of BCS teams on even grounds, and that would help our home game draw and TV ratings, right?

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.

[ERCougar]

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).