88 wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Let's go back to this point . . .
88 wrote:Big 10 team vs. ND = major TV network appearance (likely most of the nation) and relatively even split revenue in home and home series
Big 10 team vs. MAC team = BigTen network apperance (national if you have DirectTv) and grossly unfair revenue split in BigTen home game only
As I understand it, Purdue charges a surcharge for tickets to the ND game (the only game for which they do so, even including the Big Ten games). And that game is a sellout, whereas they usually wind up about 20,000 short of a sellout if it's an OOC matchup vs. a MAC team.
So let's look at the revenue from ticket sales
Vs. ND: Once every two years (70,000 tickets x $70/seat) = $4.9 million
Vs. typical MAC opponent: (50,000 tickets x $50/seat) = $2.5 million
What's more, they can tie another game, say against Ball State, to the ND game. Want tickets to the ND game? Then you'll have to buy tickets to Ball State as well. Another 20,000 tickets sold vs. Ball State
20,000 tickets x $50/seat = $1 million
So the difference in ticket revenue, based on ND being on the schedule, is $4.9 million - $2.5 million + $1 million = $3.4 million over two years. Yeah, they can offset this by scheduling two different one-off MAC opponents and playing both at home. But you still have a $900,000 shortfall over two years.
That's on top, of course, of the considerably lesser TV exposure they get if they're dropped from ND's schedule.
So as to Steve's point about why the Big 10 should help ND, the answer is quite simple: because the Big Ten is supposed to look out for
all of its members, not just Michigan and tOSU. Purdue and Sparty get hurt, rather obviously, if they're dropped from ND's schedule. You haven't had to deal with this situation yet, of course, but that's only because our AD doesn't have the balls to make such a threat. Of course, White won't be the AD at ND forever, and when he is replaced eventually, there's at least a 99% chance that the next AD will have considerably more balls.
I suppose you could counter that Michigan could threaten to end its series with ND if ND pulls the plug on the series with either Sparty or Purdue, but then again, Michigan benefits from the ND series as well.
Even the "meatgrinder" argument doesn't work quite as well, when you consider that: (a) the Big Ten moved up the start of its conference schedule last year; (b) the Big Ten also moved the conclusion of the conference season back to Thanksgiving weekend; (c) the Big Ten doesn't play a full round-robin; and (d) the results of (a) and (b) mean that teams now should have ten weeks to fit in eight conference games, one OOC game and a bye week. While it's possible for either Sparty or Purdue to draw a schedule that includes tOSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State and Notre Dame, the likelihood of either team drawing such a murderer's row over five consecutive weeks is rare indeed (I suspect ND might even be willing to move its game to avoid that situation). A little foresight with respect to scheduling, i.e., make sure that neither Sparty nor Purdue has the bye in the first week of conference play, would go a long way.
You are looking at this the wrong way. Gate revenue is only part of the picture. The BigTen wants to protect its teams during the conference season for a possible BCS bowl, which is giant money to the conference. Playing ND does nothing for the BigTen once the conference schedule starts, except put the BigTen teams at risk of losing a game to an OOC opponent that will blast them out of the BCS picture. Losing to ND in game 1 or 2 or 3 isn't such a big deal, if you can rip off several wins in a row during conference play. But lose to ND during the conference schedule, and you are BCS toast.
Fwiw, as I've said before, I think ND should continue to play Michigan early on in the season. I would think that ND could be satisfied by playing either Purdue or Michigan State in September, and the other later in the season, maybe even rotate those games.
Purdue and Michigan State are rarely in the BCS picture. Michigan State has not been to a BCS bowl since the inception of the BCS; IIRC, their last Rose Bowl appearance was in '88. Purdue has been to one BCS bowl since the BCS began. That was in 2000, when Purdue received the Big Ten's automatic bid via the conference tiebreaker procedure. Purdue was unranked in the final BCS standings that year (at the time only the Top 15 were ranked in the BCS standings), so obviously that was a down year for the Big Ten.
Where it could hurt Purdue or Michigan State would be with respect to a lesser Big 10 bowl. Purdue or Michigan State might have to play ND in their OOC game down the stretch, whereas, say, Iowa would have to play Northern Illinois. Purdue or Michigan State might end up on the short end of the stick in that regard. But if the game were not played at the very end of the season, but say, mid-to-late October, a loss against ND might not be the backbreaker you consider it to be. As long as Purdue or Michigan State wins seven games, they'll be in a bowl game somewhere. And they have a shot at a bowl game with six wins.
What is wrong with the current arrangement? ND gets three BigTen teams at the beginning of the season, a game against each of the service academies, a game against BC and a game against USC. Throw in a couple games against BYU, UCLA and you're good to go.
Coupla points.
First, the problem with playing three Big Ten schools in September is that it leaves us with absolutely no flexibility whatsoever when it comes to scheduling for that month. Because of various allegations on both sides, the "gentlemen's agreement" is irretrievably broken, and ND-Michigan will never again be the season opener for either school. That means finding another team to be the season opener, and since neither Purdue nor Michigan State wants ND for its season opener, that means a team outside the Big Ten, and a lesser power than Michigan.
If the ND homer boards are to be believed, within the past year both Alabama and Georgia contacted ND for a home-and-home, but no deal got done. Of course, given the reluctance of the SEC teams to board an airplane for a game, it's possible that the AD's at those schools were aware of ND's September logjam and told ND they only had open dates in September. That way they could go to their critics and say, "We tried to get ND on the schedule, but they didn't have any open dates that fit our schedule." In any event, just one open September date a year would make it possible for us to respond under those circumstances.
Second, you have a misperception about our schedule. We don't play all three service academies every year. We did in '06, but Army was added as the 12th game when the NCAA approved same on short notice (yeah, we added a creampuff, but at least it was a 1-A team with whom we have some history). Other than that, we've played all three service academies in the same season only once since I graduated (that was in '95, I graduated in '86). We play Navy every year, I don't see that changing unless Navy wants it to change. Air Force once was a more or less annual matchup, but that ended in the mid-90's, and we played them only twice between '97 and '05 inclusive. Army has become a relatively rare opponent, and in fact you have to go back to the 1940's (when Army was still a national power) for the last time we played them in more than two consecutive seasons. The BC series is ending soon, btw, although I've heard conflicting reports on exactly when that'll happen -- anywhere from after next season until after the '13 season. We're also slated to play three Big East teams annually beginning in '10 -- Pitt will be an annual, it looks like UConn could be an annual (Rutgers was the first choice, talks with Rutgers apparently broke down when they refused to play their "home" games in the series at the Meadowlands), and the third game is slated to be rotated between the remaining schools.
.