re: ESPN - Alabama not happy with start times - UPDATE - Gus takes shots at Alabama

quote:

---

1 and 3 make #2 true.

Again, you (as a bama fan) are only looking at the bama side.
1) college football fans like to travel. That includes the opposing team who would like to treat their fans with a trip to tuscaloosa
3) homefield is real. Every team in the country would love to beat Bama. Every team in the country likes their odds much better at home than a neutral site.

You can figure out that 1+3=2.

Hell... you've stated yourself that you see instant momentum with the home and homes that you are scheduling.

---

The neutral site game is easier to schedule than the H/H because it is a 1 year committment that doesn't require manuevering of your H/H schedule over multiple years. It is a revenue generator that can be tacked on to a year in which you might already have an away game against a P5 team.

It was, during the heyday, an instant eyeball game that would be the primetime game week 1 and draw tons of eyeballs (and still is, see Auburn/Oregon).

It is absolutely, without fail, easier to schedule than a home and home. And to be honest it got a lot of matchups we wouldn't have seen if those matchups required a home and home over the last 10 years

- Alabama/Clemson
- Alabama/Virginia Tech
- LSU/North Carolina
- UGA/Boise St
- LSU/Oregon
- Alabama/Michigan
- Alabama/Wisconsin
- Michigan/Florida
- Alabama/Florida St
- LSU/Miami
- Auburn/Washington
- Auburn/Oregon


So, I don't like the neutral site games, but they were easier to schedule because of
- flexibility
- money
- guarantee of eyeballs and primetime
- short term matchup abilities

As opposed to H/H which have to be scheduled years and years in advance and have to be lined up with other home games to make sure you have enough gate $$$ for the year.