This week,
Clemson and Auburn announced a home-and-home series starting in 2016. It led
many to realize that September 3, 2016, is going to be a truly epic day.
A deeper
look at the games on that date revealed the changing dynamics of college football scheduling.
The six biggest games that day are evenly split between traditional home games
and neutral site games.
Neutral: Alabama vs. USC in Cowboys Stadium, LSU vs.
Wisconsin in Lambeau Field and Houston vs. Oklahoma at the Texans’ stadium.
Traditional: Notre Dame at Texas, Clemson at Auburn and
UCLA at Texas A&M.
Are these
neutral-site games good or bad for college football?
Pro: The Atmosphere
One of the best atmospheres
for a sporting event in my life came from the most unexpected place – the 2007 Continental
Tire Bowl. Yeah, yeah, get your laughs out. I
was there for the titanic UConn/Wake Forest tilt that didn’t quite sell out
the stadium in downtown Charlotte but drew a decent crowd of about 55,000. What
made it exciting was the split between Wake Forest fans and the roughly 15-20,000
UConn fans that made their way down the East Coast.
There’s a
different vibe in the stadium when the crowd is split. You cheer harder and
yell louder. It contributes to a heightened sense of excitement and intensity. It’s
different.
These
neutral-site games can provide an atmosphere that is unmatched in college
sports. It’s like a bowl game except it means something. Do you remember Alabama/Michigan in Cowboys
Stadium or Alabama/Clemson in the Georgia Dome? Those were electric
atmospheres. You felt it coming through your television screen. It’s
intoxicating.
Con: The Atmosphere
Why did Oklahoma
State play Mississippi State in Houston last year? Why did TCU play Oregon
State in JerryWorld a few years ago? Does Ole Miss and Boise State in Atlanta
this year do anything for you?
There are now too
many neutral-site games, just as there are now too many bowl games. In 2008, it
was just the Georgia Dome. Then JerryWorld and the Cowboys Classic got
involved. By 2016, these two will be joined by potential annual games in
Houston, Orlando, Nashville and Charlotte, if not more. The saturation point is
about to be met and that means we are going to start seeing neutral-site games
that just don’t move the needle.
Two years ago,
Cincinnati played Virginia Tech in FedEx Field. It was a really, really good
game. There was absolutely no need for it to be played in a half-empty
NFL stadium.
Pro: Unique, Different Venues
This November,
Yankee Stadium will host UConn and Army. In two years, Virginia Tech and
Tennessee will play at Bristol Motor Speedway in front of an estimated gazillion
people. Cowboys Stadium is a remarkable venue that college athletes would
be thrilled to play in. Lambeau Field, the site of the 2016 Wisconsin/LSU game,
is one of the most cherished football stadiums in this country.
It’s all a
long-winded way of saying that these venues add something. Would UConn/Army
be circled on the calendar if it was played at Rentschler Field? Would anyone
be talking about a Virginia Tech/Tennessee matchup if they weren’t playing at a
speedway?
These add to the
charm of college football. Neutral site games in other sports – think the NFL
in London or the MLB in Australia – go over very, very poorly. Neutral site
games in college football go over very, very well.
Con: Not College Football Venues
Would you rather
see LSU play Wisconsin in Green Bay or at Camp Randall? Would you rather have
Wisconsin play LSU in Houston or visit Death Valley after dark?
It’s not the
same. If LSU was playing more than one top team in the nonconference, maybe
this would matter less. But they don’t. And neither does Alabama. Is it fair
that Death Valley is closed to major opponents from different conference? Is it
right that no campus outside of the SEC will get a visit from Alabama?
Pro: Matchups We Never See
Alabama vs. USC
has not happened in my lifetime. Florida State vs. Oklahoma State to kick off
this season would not happen without a neutral-site.
Everything in
college football is driven by money so the money from these neutral-site games
means matchups that don’t happen. Would LSU and Wisconsin have agreed to a
pseudo home-and-home without a ton of money being involved? According to Barry
Alvarez, the answer is clearly, “No.”
Con: Matchups We Never See Again
The best part of
a true home-and-home series is the rematch. It’s different than a one-off.
Georgia and Clemson means more than a one-off kickoff classic because of last
year. The recently announced Clemson/Auburn series will feel different because
it’s an actual series.
Alabama playing
USC once is great. Alabama playing USC twice in back-to-back season would be
epic. Is there any doubt that Alabama playing in Los Angeles at the venerable
Coliseum would be more memorable than Cowboys Stadium?
Pro: Tougher Non-Conference Schedules
These
neutral-site games give us better matchups and these are critical as the
looming college
football playoff arrives. Strength of schedule is expected to be a key
component to the selection process. There’s no doubt that this year’s opening
week slate is boosted by LSU/Wisconsin and Florida State/Oklahoma State.
Con: Weaker Non-Conference Schedules
By playing
Wisconsin, LSU would satisfy the SEC’s “one power five non-conference opponent”
rule. In LSU’s eyes, that game is tough enough to get credit from the selection
committee for aggressive scheduling. LSU’s other three non-conference opponents
are Sam Houston State, Louisiana-Monroe and New Mexico State.
Give me a break.
In addition to
West Virginia in Atlanta, Alabama this year plays Western Carolina, Southern
Miss and Florida Atlantic. After playing LSU, Wisconsin hosts Western Illinois,
Bowling Green and USF. Cue the yawns of indifference.
College football
programs are using neutral-site games to game the system. We’ve been told they
need seven home games to merely remain afloat – cue the snorts of derision. Yet
they use the neutral-site game, with a huge payoff, as essentially another home
game in terms of profits.
It’s not good for
the future of college football. There is nothing inherently wrong with scheduling
a tough opponent in a neutral-site game but it shouldn’t automatically mean the
rest of the schedule needs to be laden with cupcakes.
Pro: Way Better for Television
This is
self-explanatory, right? Better games between better teams means for a better
viewing experience.
This is especially important since the mid-2000’s – when
I-A went to 12 games and ended the first iteration of neutral-site games – was
filled with largely indifferent opening weekends. Look at
2006, which featured zero ranked matchups and a noon slot where
Vanderbilt/Michigan was the most interesting.
Con: Way Worse for Attendance
Why is attendance
a problem for college football teams? Because the home slates are awful –
check out the
issues at Iowa – due to expanded conferences and far fewer visits from top programs.
Look back at
LSU’s schedule. If you’re a season ticket holder, you get the pleasure of
watching Sam Houston State, Louisiana-Monroe and New Mexico State play football.
Those are three likely blowouts that will be over by halftime. Do you care?
Now imagine if
Wisconsin is on that slate – then the three cupcakes are easier to choke down.
Instead, you have to pay an arm and a leg to travel to Houston to subsidize a
big game for your program.
The Solution?
These games
aren’t going anywhere.
Even if most
college football fans would rather games largely stay on campus, the ship has
sailed. In my perfect world, the regular season is expanded
to 13 games, so teams can play a neutral-site game and traditional home-and-home series. That’s not happening.
So here’s my
suggestion: move the neutral-site kickoff games to the week before Labor Day.
When the schedule was at 11 games, the kickoff games were exceptions that gave a
team 12 games and were played the last weekend of August
before Labor Day.
Let’s revisit
that. Make that Saturday a true kickoff day, like a New Year’s Day in the
summer. Take the six cities who want kickoff classics – Atlanta, Arlington,
Orlando, Houston, Charlotte and Nashville – slot them over a glorious day.
And while we’re
at it, we will limit how often a team can appear in them. So instead of Alabama
opening every season in Atlanta or Arlington, they could only do so once every
three years. Which would mean for two years, they could not playing in a true
neutral-site game – moving home games like Army at Yankee Stadium would not
need an exception.
What could
Alabama do in those two years? Hmm, maybe schedule a home-and-home with
Michigan State?
Follow me on Twitter
You know this is nothing new. From 1983 to 2002 they had the Kickoff Classic, a game play in New Jersey, at a time when you could open play 11 games in a season. This was follow by the Pigskin Classic, which at first played in 1990 in Anahiem California, sponsored by Disneyland and referred to as the Disneyland Pigskin Classic. Then in 1995 they play the game as a one extra to the higher ranked team. In 1997 the Eddie Robinson classic was started but as with the Pigskin classic, they play it at someone home field. All three games ended after the 2002 season, because the NCAA wasn't going to allow for a 12th game any longer.
ReplyDeleteI liked that setup better for better nonconference games, since it kept nearly all home & home series going. Now, teams like Alabama don't do any home & home series and that's a huge problem to me.
DeleteGreat post! I'm so pumped up for this season, keep up the good work here!
ReplyDelete