[Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.

[Dave Ratchford]

Further weakening?  That would be difficult from what we have now :)

Don't worry, smarter guys than you or I are working on this.  The net
result will be more better games with plenty of money to go around. Smith
even says that the additional conference games are often better than most
of the non-conference match-ups and he is right.  If it results in one less
home game every few years, and programs like OSU and Michigan aren't afraid
of it, then Nebraska shouldn't be as well.

Dave


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Exactly.  The games that disappear under a 9 or 10 game conference
> schedule are the games that you really DON'T want to disappear, unless (and
> this is a BIIIIIG if) the television networks incentivize teams to play on
> the road.  In other words, the television revenue of playing a game at LSU,
> Alabama, Tennessee, Florida State, etc., more than offsets the $5 million
> that a school receives for scheduling Florida Atlantic.
>
> I don't see that happening.  And so this will have the net effect of
> further weakening non-conference schedules.
>
> Mike Jaixen
> http://huskermike.blogspot.com
> http://www.cornnation.com
>
> --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.
> To: "Jon Johnston" <jon.johnston at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Husker Discussion List" <husker at tssi.com>
> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 7:49 AM
>
> In my line of work we call the issue of 7 vs 6 home games 'measurement
> space'...the deltas between proposed courses of action that actually mean
> something.
>
> I'm more than skeptical that this move would increase the overall strength
> of schedule of the conference, as I think it would guarantee that any
> non-conf away games would disappear and be replaced with pay-for-play
> teams.  I'm not even sure that this should be considered a second order of
> effect...it's so obvious that it should be considered a first order effect.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Jon Johnston <jon.johnston at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I have no idea how this can be considered good news.
> >
> > Jon Johnston
> > Corn Nation
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Good news.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8937704/big-ten-increase-number-league-games-eight
> > >
> > > Last paragraph talks about school budgets that rely upon 7 home games.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > husker site list
> > > husker at tssi.com
> > > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> >
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>