[BostonCard]

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I think more games between teams in the big five conferences would be better.  Generally speaking, while the Appalachian State thing is fun to see on the rare occasions it happens, how many people actually watched it (and, let's face it, most were in the Big House and not at all happy about it).  More games between top teams would give more excitement to the slate, and would also make it easier to determine which the best team is.  But I don't necessarily think it should be exclusively about the big 5 conferences.  As others note, there are good teams outside of the big 5.

As a start, I think that teams should stop scheduling FCS teams (yes, that includes us and Sac State), and I'm sorry, 7 home games is not a good excuse.  I would favor slates of 6 home games, 5 away games, and a neutral site game.

By the way, I believe the term that ESPN was looking for is "plurality".

BC

[BostonCard]

- Snyder's comments point out an interesting dilemna on the financial effect of such a move. For some schools it would hurt - i.e. the extra home game deal. For some schools it might help - does Stanford make enough home gate that paying for an extra home game vs a patsy helps the bottom line? The cost of such games is already one reason the Pac 12 and Big 12 have gone to 9 conference games.
Anyway, the finances might lead to ADs having a different opinion than coaches.

One word: Television

The gate receipts from a home game pale in comparison to the money brought in by television.  And, let us face it, hosting Southeast Missouri State (as Kansas does on Sept. 6) will appeal to no one outside of the states of Kansas and Missouri.  On the other hand, a game between, say, Kansas and Venderbilt would be much more palatable to the television powers that be (and even that would be limited).

I think more games between teams in the big five conferences would be better.  Generally speaking, while the Appalachian State thing is fun to see on the rare occasions it happens, how many people actually watched it (and, let's face it, most were in the Big House and not at all happy about it).  More games between top teams would give more excitement to the slate, and would also make it easier to determine which the best team is.  But I don't necessarily think it should be exclusively about the big 5 conferences.  As others note, there are good teams outside of the big 5.

As a start, I think that teams should stop scheduling FCS teams (yes, that includes us and Sac State), and I'm sorry, 7 home games is not a good excuse.  I would favor slates of 6 home games, 5 away games, and a neutral site game.

By the way, I believe the term that ESPN was looking for is "plurality".

BC