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

Tue Feb 12 09:51:34 CST 2013

And how much of that is posturing for the negotiations about the conference scheduling.

It ties back to the point I made:  Schools must be have an incentive to schedule road games against USC, LSU, Alabama, etc.  Ohio State says that they want to pull money from the conference to lessen the impact of six home games on budgets.  We'll see how that actually materializes.  I'm skeptical of that actually coming to fruition...though I'm not completely dismissing it.

Of course, that money isn't going to magically appear.  And since it's conference money, it's money that would be going back to the school anyway.  So I'm going to retain my skepticism because the temptation to play a home game against Florida Atlantic for a $5+ million payday is going to be too great to resist.  

(And lets not forget that Ohio State scheduled eight home games last year; their biggest non-conference game was a home game against Cal...)

I don't believe that the additional conference games are necessarily better.  I think Nebraska is beefing up their future schedules with games against Fresno State, Southern Miss, and Northern Illinois.  Those are the games that are going away with 9-10 game conference slates, and frankly, I'd rather play those teams than Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, or Iowa.  (Or Penn State, once the impact of NCAA sanctions fully hits.)  There's a certain amount of inbreeding that occurs when you restrict yourself to only playing a certain set of schools and only those schools.  You only get limited opportunities to measure yourself with other teams around the country, and those are the matchups that need to be retained.

Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com

--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Dave Ratchford <ratchfromneb at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Husker] Big 10 to increase number of league games.
To: "Mike Jaixen" <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Paul Dalen" <quesohusker at gmail.com>, "Husker Discussion List" <husker at tssi.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2013, 8:59 AM

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