Boise State Wants NCAA to Require Home-and-Home Series
Lost in all this talk about BYU potentially going independent is this little nugget from Boise State president Bob Kustra and athletics director Gene Bleymaier:
Kustra: "...We want to propose to the NCAA a mandated home-and-home scheduling arrangement for I-A non-conference football games..."
Bleymaier: "I think we've really dropped the ball as an organization. The NCAA could mandate this at any time. Oregon, Oregon State are return games. Ole Miss (next year), Washington, Arkansas and Arizona State are not. It's so simple to legislate.
"We'll play anybody in the country home-and-home. You've got to do a better job of scheduling. You want us to go play three non-conference games on the road and they don't have to come here. Texas isn't going to do that, Oklahoma isn't going to do that, USC isn't going to do that, Florida isn't going to do that, Ohio State isn't going to do that, nobody's going to do that."
Here we go...
This will not happen.
The NCAA has always been hands-off when it comes to teams scheduling non-conference games. It does things like mandating the length of seasons and doing things like giving teams an extra game if they play at Hawai'i, but it doesn't get involved with scheduling contract negotiations in any sport on any level.
If the NCAA, which likes to stick its nose in so many things, hasn't gotten involved with non-conference scheduling by now, it probably doesn't want to.
It kills one-off neutral site games.
A rule that mandates home-and-homes would end the practice of neutral site games like we've seen get scheduled in Atlanta and Dallas of late. Any final rule would probably create an exemption for them, but it's worth saying.
This rule would not help Boise State get the big boys to come.
There's a very good reason why Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Florida won't travel to Boise State on a home-and-home. Their stadiums hold 94,116 people, 82,109 people, 93,607 people, and 88,545 people according to the NCAA's 2009 attendance figures (actual capacities may vary). Bronco Stadium holds 32,000 people. Not only is the payoff for going to the blue turf not worth it when compared to playing a road game at most AQ conference schools, it may not even pay for the travel costs.
It's not just Boise State that's in that boat. Take Vanderbilt, with its almost 40,000-seat stadium. Vandy played at Michigan a few years back with no return trip. Georgia Tech, with its 55,000-seat stadium, is about the biggest school it can get to come to Nashville in the non-conference.
Texas visited Wyoming (capacity: 30,517) as a part of a two-for-one, and that's about the best Boise State can hope for until it expands the stadium. Plans are reportedly in the works for going up to 44,000 seats, but I couldn't help but notice the last line of that article: "Boise State had two sellout crowds in its seven home games last year." Maybe the school might want to figure out how to sell out its 32,000-seat stadium for every game before lecturing schools that routinely sell out stadiums three times that size on what scheduling makes sense.
Anyway, Boise State would only be able to continue to get the Pac-10 guys from the Pacific northwest and Utah to come because it's not really worth anyone else's time to go.
Other schools need guarantee games.
A lot of non-AQ teams do need guarantee games to pay the bills. They only exist because they do work well financially for both sides.
If you kill off guarantee games, who among the major conferences will go play at Eastern Michigan? Or FIU? I can't say I'd miss seeing big teams beat those guys into a pulp, but the money from guarantee games is a big part of their business model.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in the wake of such a rule being passed, that a number of programs would have to jump back from I-A to I-AA. I doubt that's Kustra and Bleymaier would want to be known as the guys who caused that to happen.
So it's not happening, right?
Right. What the Boise State guys are doing is trying to solve a personal problem by getting everyone else involved. They don't want to play guarantee games anymore, so no one should play guarantee games anymore. I highly doubt that's going to fly with many of the other 119 teams who play I-A football.
College football is not a charity, so schools don't generally schedule series that will lose them a good deal of money over an alternative. Until Boise State expands up to that 44,000, it's not going to find any more sympathetic ears than it already has. Until then, the best it can hope for is two-for-ones and not introducing ridiculous proposals to the NCAA.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This.
Maybe the school might want to figure out how to sell out its 32,000-seat stadium for every game before lecturing schools that routinely sell out stadiums three times that size on what scheduling makes sense.
A thousand times this.
Please, please please
let this mickey mouse team lose to VA Tech, and then let VT lost about 6 games this year, so ESPN can look like the buffoons they are for promoting them, just so they can have an intersting story line.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
this is a sign that Boise State is afraid to go on the road to bigger schools
and that Virginia Tech is gonna kill them in the shallow southern heat
"It's here, it's here, it's finally here" :Strongbad on football season
You are calling Boise St. afraid?
That is a laugh. Boise St. is in an OOC road game at Virginia Tech and you say “they are afraid to go on the road to bigger schools.”
Florida hasn’t played an OOC away game outside the state of Florida in decades. Everyone knows home field advantage increases you chance of winning. It seems Florida is the one who is afraid to play when the odds aren’t stacked in their favor.
Utah went on the road with no return game against Michigan in 2008. We are doing it again with Notre Dame in 2010. We are not afraid of going on the road with big name teams. Now that we are going to the PAC 10 we will be expecting a return game though. ESPN tried to schedule a game between Utah and Florida. With Urban Meyer being Utah’s ex coach and Kyle Whittingham being friends with Urban it would have been big news. Especially since 2008 when Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar bowl by more than Florida beat Alabama in the SEC championship game. The game would have had a lot of national appeal. It would have happened if Florida would have been willing to do a return trip to Utah. They were not willing to do this.
I am not advocating home and home games be mandatory. I do think it would prove you are not afraid though.
This rule would probably work in Boise's favor, actually.
It’s not just that big-money teams don’t want to travel to Boise; they don’t want to go to Idaho, Nevada, Akron, UAB, etc. etc. etc. either. But if you’re forced to sign onto a home-and-home, would you rather make a deal with Boise and have both games draw national interest, or sign with Toledo and have only regional interest in both games? It’s not so much a matter of making Boise more appealing as it is making the other schools less appealing.
If this did actually become an NCAA mandate, then Boise would have a much easier time playing the big-name teams. I can’t blame a school that’s become an annual top-10 team for wanting home-and-home contracts.
Or would you rather play a decent BCS-league school with a larger stadium
And get more credit if you win, less blame if you lose and a better take? I would say that would be the option most schools would go with.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
Exactly.
The schools would simply call their bluff and play the mediocre AQ schools that can offer more money. This wouldn’t help Boise, it would hurt them. When the Boise St./Georgia game was scheduled, do you think Georgia would’ve scheduled it had it mandated a return trip to Boise freaking Idaho? No way. They would’ve scheduled a UCF or some school like that.
As a side note, there would definitely be ways for schools to get around this sort of thing, contractually. Let’s say this were the rule currently, and Louisiana-Lafayette wanted to schedule a home and home with Georgia (fully knowing Georgia has no interest in that sort of thing). They approach Georgia about it and work it out. Georgia agrees to schedule a home and home, with the first game in Athens and the second in Lafayette. The rules regarding the split of the money remain the same, but Georgia as compensation for Georgia agreeing to schedule the home and home, they lower the price of the guarantee game from the original 1 million (just ballparking) to 500,000. After the game is played, Georgia then decides to back out on its commitment to play a return game in Lafayette, and /surprise/ the buyout just happens to be 500,000. Both schools come out in the same boat as before and everyone’s happy.
I realize the scenario I just laid out is a crude model and may have kinks, but the point remains that there would certainly be ways to get around this sort of thing. I came up with that in about two minutes…if you don’t think that Greg McGarity could come up with something similar (albeit better) in around the same amount of time that will comply to all regulations, then I want some of what you’re smoking. Would Boise be okay with these kinds of stipulations? Probably not…but there are many other teams that would, especially when they’re faced with an empty wallet as an alternative.
by hailtogeorgia on Aug 19, 2010 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Specific performance.
Well, the NCAA just requires UGA to travel to LaFayette and doesn’t permit the return game to be bought out.
And yes, I haven’t stopped rolling my eyes since I read the initial suggestion that home-and-homes should be required in the first place.
Another Possibility
I could imagine we’d see cities close to the AQ conference teams looking to get in on the action as well. If the money is right, I’m sure Boise would play a “home” game against Georgia in Atlanta or Ole Miss in Memphis. Kind of like Vanderbilt playing their home game vs Tennessee in the Titans Stadium.
You know what you get if this passed?
NOBODY will Play YOU… you think Va tech wants to spend that much money to travel to Boise? If this was a mandate teams will schedule “local” teams in their area and fans will lose out for games such as Boise & Va Tech. Be careful what you wish for…
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the wake of such a rule being passed, that a number of programs would have to jump back from I-A to I-AA. I doubt that’s Kustra and Bleymaier would want to be known as the guys who caused that to happen.
Maybe they wouldn’t want to be, but I would. Almost everyone in the MAC, CUSA, the Sun Belt, the WAC, and the bottom half of the MWC should be in I-AA.

by 







