I wasn't saying that they don't care at all. Sure they would like to have a full stadium, but they don't want it at the expense of a lucrative TV contract. It's all about prioritizing what you care about more and right now it's TV money. The easiest way to get fans in the seats is to win games. You accomplish that by getting a good staff that will win games. Making fans happy doesn't win games and because of that it's low on the priority list.
The increased money schools are getting from these one-off games is from the host company and/or city of the game, not from TV.
And where do you think the host company and/or city is getting their money? Advertisement. Look at the bowl games for another example. There were about 15 people in Detroit for the whatever bowl that we played in a couple of years ago. That bowl still made money because of advertising.
Yes, they make money because of advertisement. But that's a different concept from building inventory for a league network. They're separate things.
True, but my original comment was about home games. Neutral sight games aren't really relevant to my original point. Although, in a way neutral sight games just go to prove my point that making fans happy is secondary. Like some of you have said, a home game would be preferable to having to travel and spend more money on a neutral sight game.
Oh definitely. That's what I was getting at when I wrote this:
I don't get it for the life of me, but a big chunk of our fanbase doesn't give a crap about football. Why is that? I don't understand. Do they not like football at all? Or are they just NFL fans? What's the deal?
I wonder if that offsides call on the onsides kick is still BS.
Completely agree. I'm not going to the opener, but if the game were at Sanford Stadium I would definitely be there.
Okay, I see the point you are making but.........FSU's Rivals site Warchant just did a piece about two weeks ago about how it's very concerning and frightening that, because of all these neutral site games (including moving Boise from Tallahassee to Jacksonville), high-profile OOC games at Doak Campbell are disappearing quickly. Which leads me to....
This is exactly my point. UGA-UNC home-and-home, for instance, is basically assured to never happen anymore because of these one-off neutral site games. Sure, it's making the schools a quick buck, but it's squandering opportunities for UNC and all schools to schedule high-profile home-and-homes. The SEC likes these neutral site games a lot because their schedule is already stacked every year.
And if they can do it, we certainly can. But again, it will require a loosening of ridiculous restrictions on the part of the University re: places to tailgate, parking, etc... As much money as athletics provides to the University, one would think they would be more friendly towards our sports teams and our fans. In 2015, each ACC team(with the exception of ND), received over $26 million in sports revenues. That's not chump change. And almost all of that was generated by football and basketball. Loosening restrictions re: tailgating and parking seems a small price to pay for all that revenue.
Not disappearing.....shifting to neutral-site games. Big 10? Wiscy is playing LSU in Green Bay this year (played in Houston last year). Pac-12? USC plays Alabama in Texas this year (JerryWorld?). The games are out there to be had, they're just not happening because of this neutral site trend.
FSU has always been the exception to the rule. They were independent and were really dang good. Then they were really dang good in a terrible ACC when they first joined. They were already smack dab in SEC territory. It's not hard to fathom why SEC teams have historically shied away from playing y'all.
You ought to be plumb ashamed of lying so boldly. Everybody knows the SEC is not afraid of anybody because the SEC wins everywhere.
