Neutral Site vs Home and Home

I agree and think that some of the pageantry and campus connection is lost with these games. I've often said that if they take care of the game that the money will always be there, but if they take care of the money first that the game will go away. I think we've seen a lot of that with rules enforcement that favors high scoring games, the increased number of off campus games, an increased focus on commercialism, increased ticket and concessions prices, wanting to pay players more than the sweet deal they already have, and the astronomical explosion of salaries. There are some sane voices who seem to be making some good points lately, so I hope this game that I so enjoy is saved before it is too late.

I think CNS values the exposure and recruiting benefit over the pageantry and on campus atmosphere.

Hard to argue with him on it, but I understand your perspective too.

Problem for us is by the time you play that one good out of conference team at the neutral site, plus you sprinkle in our SEC schedule you're left with no room for a home and home if you plan to use a couple of the guaranteed wins as soft places on the schedule.

teamplayer said:

I agree and think that some of the pageantry and campus connection is lost with these games. I've often said that if they take care of the game that the money will always be there, but if they take care of the money first that the game will go away. I think we've seen a lot of that with rules enforcement that favors high scoring games, the increased number of off campus games, an increased focus on commercialism, increased ticket and concessions prices, wanting to pay players more than the sweet deal they already have, and the astronomical explosion of salaries. There are some sane voices who seem to be making some good points lately, so I hope this game that I so enjoy is saved before it is too late.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. I lean more to neutral sites for far away big time programs. Say if we played a home and home with USC. The year it is in la , this is assuming we actually play in the coliseum and not the rose bowl, our fans would be paying out the butt to fly out to there and they will be in a very bad part of town. Then when USC comes here the tide priders who care mor about quadrupling their money and the scalpers are going to jack up prices so only people with very deep pockets are going to see it. Also you have teams like Nebraska where the college is in a dump. Not all these big name programs have nice set ups like bama. I think teams like whisky, Texas, and Oregon could be great h and h, but then again second hand distributors will jack it up when those teams come here. Neutral sites you are more paying for your stomach than for a ticket or a flight. So it's more of an opinion really

I certainly understand why a season ticket holder would prefer a home and away series but like BamaMoon says above CNS sees the value in these games. In addition to having the best game available on the opening weekend of the college football season it affords our players with a bowl game or SECCG atmosphere especially the games in Atlanta. Our coach is a perfectionist and he schedules these games so they must be the right thing to do from both a recruiting and team preparation standpoint. I have attended two of these games in the Georgia Dome, last was against WV and thanks to someone on here last year who let us know we could join the Mountaineer club and get tickets at face value. Both games I enjoyed having more of the opposing teams fan base around to see their traditions and such. Haven't been to Dallas and probably never will make it to a game there but the Atlanta games have been exciting.

I think neutral site games are the way to go, even though I like Home and Home better.

Financially a neutral site game is much more advantageous. You never come out on the down side of the coin financially because you're getting a big payoff every year.

It also usually puts you into places that are major recruiting beds, and gives you maximum visibility.

It's also (typically) a much easier trip for the fan base. Having to travel to Los Angeles, or somewhere in the Midwest, is more expensive in most cases than going to the neutral site games.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The neutral site games are basically preseason bowl games. They are big moneymakers whereas h/h's are pretty much a break-even transaction, and they give maximum exposure for recruiting. Saban has explained this several times on his hey coach show, as he is intimately involved in the scheduling of these games.
Ex.-- the payoff the university gets this year for playing Wisconsin in Dallas will just about pay Saban's salary for a full yr.

Thank you guys for proving my point. All of you mention the financial advantage instead of what is better for the sport of college football, so, again, I say thanks for proving my point. From a business perspective, it may make the most sense. I get it. However, I don't think the sport is heading in the right direction for its longevity. As someone else stated, though, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

teamplayer said:

Thank you guys for proving my point. All of you mention the financial advantage instead of what is better for the sport of college football, so, again, I say thanks for proving my point. From a business perspective, it may make the most sense. I get it. However, I don't think the sport is heading in the right direction for its longevity. As someone else stated, though, everyone is entitled to his own opinion.

Click to expand...

Are you speaking from the point of a fan that doesn't go to many games or a fan that goes to many? Neutral site games are more affordable than games in t town in the long run allowing many fans the opportunity to go to a big game. If USC was to come here then the endzone sections could easily be 5x what they usually are. It being at jerry world it probably will die down to 2x when the big pocket fans are done buying.

81usaf92 said:

Are you speaking from the point of a fan that doesn't go to many games or a fan that goes to many? Neutral site games are more affordable than games in t town in the long run allowing many fans the opportunity to go to a big game. If USC was to come here then the endzone sections could easily be 5x what they usually are. It being at jerry world it probably will die down to 2x when the big pocket fans are done buying.

Click to expand...

There is no way the atmosphere in jerry world could come close to matching Bryant-Denny. Big games on campus is what college football needs. The lust for money is starting to ruin the game we love.

First to the original post...When I see Ohio St and schedule in the same sentence, I can't help laughing out loud.
Now to the question...I live in NC and make it to Tuscaloosa once a year, but have really enjoyed the convenience of also going to several games in Atlanta the past few years. That said I doubt that I will go to a game in Arlington, TX but I bet there a lot of Alabama folks that live in TX that are tickled with games being there. As for the Bama - Criminoles game in 2017 I will be in Atlanta no matter the price.

Another point...committing to a home/away every year could really hurt our playoff hopes with the current setup if the SEC were to go to a 9 game conference schedule as Coach Saban has been an advocate. Oddly enough, I think the more conference games Ohio St has the better for their chances.
Lastly, as someone else mentioned, there is something very special about being in a split stadium. I will never forget my times at the real Iron Bowl (please do not start the Legion Field stuff again :smile

CullmanTide said:

There is no way the atmosphere in jerry world could come close to matching Bryant-Denny. Big games on campus is what college football needs. The lust for money is starting to ruin the game we love.

Click to expand...

No it isn't the same, but the difference is that it is more affordable. Alabama scalpers and advantageous tide priders make big games nearly impossible to attend. 2011 lsu game was just ridiculous to acquire a ticket because of it. I would be in favor of going a home and home vs whisky and Oregon, but that's more because their fanbase doesn't travel well, but I think for big tradition schools ,not named ou, psu, and maybe fsu , I think should be on neutral site

TIDE-HSV said:

The trend is not going to reverse, any more than they're going back to leather helmets...

Click to expand...

Never say never Earle, I have friend in the helmet reconditioning business and he told me there was scientific proof the leather padding on the outer shell reduced injury to the head. Now the no facemask part is a different story

TIDE-HSV said:

The trend is not going to reverse, any more than they're going back to leather helmets...

Click to expand...

I was about to point out that they only played nine games a year when I started keeping up with college football, so one game at a neutral site of 12 is no big deal there are still eleven H & H..

81usaf92 said:

Are you speaking from the point of a fan that doesn't go to many games or a fan that goes to many? Neutral site games are more affordable than games in t town in the long run allowing many fans the opportunity to go to a big game. If USC was to come here then the endzone sections could easily be 5x what they usually are. It being at jerry world it probably will die down to 2x when the big pocket fans are done buying.

Click to expand...

I'm confused by the math you guys are using. When I went to Dallas for the game against Michigan, I paid for a plane ticket, hotel room, game ticket, food, and beverage. I had a great time, but it cost around $900 just for me. I went to the Bama v. MSU game in Tuscaloosa last year and paid for tickets for my dad and me, food for both of us, gas, and drinks and only spent about $250 total for both of us. Again, though, to each his own, and may college football continue to represent at least a shred of what it should be. Roll Tide!

teamplayer said:

I'm confused by the math you guys are using. When I went to Dallas for the game against Michigan, I paid for a plane ticket, hotel room, game ticket, food, and beverage. I had a great time, but it cost around $900 just for me. I went to the Bama v. MSU game in Tuscaloosa last year and paid for tickets for my dad and me, food for both of us, gas, and drinks and only spent about $250 total for both of us. Again, though, to each his own, and may college football continue to represent at least a shred of what it should be. Roll Tide!

Click to expand...

Flying to lax from bhm, getting a hotel, transportation, and a ticket would be a whole lot more expensive than going to jerry world. The concessions would be generally higher in Dallas, but ask people who went to the 09 national championship or the 00 ucla game how much a trip to LA would run you.

Also the 2014 MSU game was cheap because it was MSU. The 2011 lsu game was uber expensive because it was LSU. The media didn't really hyped up the MSU game and the general consensus was that bama was going to win.

You can blame USC (read Pete Carroll and Lane Kiffin &/or Pat Haden) and GT for the current trend. Let me 'splain.

In 2008 the Atlanta Sports Council (read Gary Stokan) reached a tentative agreement with USC (read Pete Carroll) to play in either the 2013 or 2014 Chick-Fil-A Kickoff Classic games. This was announced publicly. Pete Carroll's unannounced preferred opponent was Bama. Problem there was Bama was scheduled to play GT H/H in 2013-14. Very shortly after the public announcement, GT asked out of the series and Gary Stokan began negotiations with Bama for both years not knowing which year Carroll would choose. The USC (read Kiffin &/or Haden) part of the deal flew out the window when Carroll left after the 2009 season because they wanted no part of it. Especially the part about playing Bama. As we all know, the negotiations with Bama led to them (Bama) being contracted for both years.

Apparently at this point, Saban decided he preferred the annual neutral site game, refusing a H/H with Wisconsin, asking out of the Michigan State series, and dropping once again the GT series which had been rescheduled. As Earle said, the trend is not going to reverse.

It's nice to see people jumping on the media bandwagon. It shows that they really think for themselves.... wait, never mind.