ESPN's Brian Bennett is reporting that when the B1G's ADs meet next week they are going to discuss going to a 9- or 10-game conference schedule starting in 2014.  Delany pushed for this a few years ago, and with expansion it's back on the table.  And if that happens, there's also this:

>>"I would like to see more neutral sites in those scenarios," [OSU AD Gene] Smith told ESPN.com. "We've got a great stadium in Chicago, one in Detroit, one in Indianapolis, and now we have the East Coast. So I can see more neutral sites for conference games." <<  link

Personally, I prefer on-campus games, especially within the conference, unless there's some compelling reason to move off-site.  Good examples would be the annual Oklahoma-Texas game in Dallas and Florida-Georgia in Jacksonville.  There really hasn't been anything like that in the B1G; the only recent example is the UI-NU game at Wrigley a couple of seasons back.  The series between UI and Missouri in St. Louis could have become an annual event if Missouri had been invited to the B1G.

There have been some one-off conference neutral-site games over the years.  Some time back NU agreed to play a "home" game against OSU in Cleveland, and in 2010 Indiana moved a home game vs. PSU to the DC area.  The result was an additional $1 million for NU and $2 million for IU (over and above what they would have gotten at home) from those games.  For OSU and PSU, it meant one fewer true road game--and something more like a home game for them.

So, it's not surprising that the article cites Smith as the source of this idea, nor that ADs from NU and RU are receptive:

>>"Neutral sites are great; those are just great opportunities," Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips told ESPN.com. "They have to be in the right places and have the right matchups, but the fans have responded in a positive way to some of those neutral-site games. We need to listen to them and we need to pay attention to those things. We may not do everything that the fans want, but that’s what's made our game so great and more popular than it’s ever been."...

"We are definitely open to that conversation, because it does a couple of things," Rutgers athletic director Tim Pernetti told ESPN.com. "From a business perspective, it gives us an opportunity to generate a much more significant amount of revenue on a one-game basis. For our opponent, especially the ones with big alumni bases in this region, it gives them the opportunity to have access to more seats.

"But it's not something we're going to get in the habit of doing. I think when the schedule allows the opportunity to do it, maybe once every three-to-five years, we'd consider doing that. But I think the most important thing is to deliver the best games and the best atmospheres on our campus."<<

A couple of things to watch starting next week, I guess.

Is an interesting idea, especially if they go to 9 conference games. Gets rid of the problem of some schools having 5 home games and other teams having 4.

SULLYBEAR wrote: Is an interesting idea, especially if they go to 9 conference games. Gets rid of the problem of some schools having 5 home games and other teams having 4.

Well, I don't think they're suggesting this as an every-year thing.  In fact, Pernetti specifically says that it could happen every four or five years.

Great idea.

Let's play our divisional home games against Ohio State, Rutgers, and Maryland in Cleveland, New York City, and Washington DC, respectively.

We should make Purdue travel to Indianapolis to make it fair though.

I hope they go to a 10 game schedule.  If two teams want a neutral site let them but don't mandate it.

Not sure how they make money on those games.  Just costs the universities money to pay the host and it also costs all the local business in college towns the money.  Not like they are going to make more money on tickets or TV except for maybe a Northwestern or Purdue, etc with small stadiums or stadiums they cannot fill.  No pro stadiums hold as much as Camp Randall

10 game conference schedule would be absolutely awesome and still keep the conference feel then by seeing teams more often

Aren't these "Made for TV Events" really depressing when you're looking at a quiet, 3/4 empty dome on TV?

SULLYBEAR wrote: Is an interesting idea, especially if they go to 9 conference games. Gets rid of the problem of some schools having 5 home games and other teams having 4.

If we go to 2 divisions of 8 teams each, that would be a clean way to do it.  

Every team has 3 division games at home, 3 on the road, and 1 at a neutral site.  Then every team also has a home game and a road game with a team in the other division.

TerraceChair wrote: Aren't these "Made for TV Events" really depressing when you're looking at a quiet, 3/4 empty dome on TV?

You mean like the 78,000 who showed up for the PSU-IU game at Landover, MD?  In Bloomington that game draws about 43,000.  Or the UW-NIU game that our AD insisted be played in Chicago, where 41,000 showed up (vs. 24,000 capacity at Huskie Stadium)?

Anyway, they're not talking about made for tv games.  They're talking about holding, say, a PSU @ RU game in whatever the new Meadowlands stadium is called, mostly because it's bigger than RU's stadium and it can be a bit attention-grabbing for the NYC media.  I assume you are talking about that game at Jerry Jones World in Dallas, where we're scheduled to play Alabama in a couple of years.  I doubt that will be a 3/4 empty dome.

Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.) I honestly don't think the majority of our fan base would be excited to play yearly games at either site. It could be worse though; where will Nebraska play neutral games?

9 conf. games with 12 nc games is okay.  One less nc game might eliminate playing the FCS every year, esp. if they are bidding on neutral sites.

If they eventually go to 10 conf games, then look for a 13 game season.  I cant see them only having 2 nc games.

I would not be too happy if i were a season ticket holder with a couple conference games going to a neutral location!    If they want to put in for a non conf game or two fine but NOT from conference play.

OlBadger wrote:

SULLYBEAR wrote: Is an interesting idea, especially if they go to 9 conference games. Gets rid of the problem of some schools having 5 home games and other teams having 4.

Well, I don't think they're suggesting this as an every-year thing.  In fact, Pernetti specifically says that it could happen every four or five years.

Then what is the point of announcing it? There have been neutral site games before and there will be some in he future? Why is this a big story then?

They even mentioned neutral site games when it was announced that Rutgers was joining the B1G.

The idea of 10 games is interesting. I would hope then that college football would go to a 13 game schedule.

SULLYBEAR wrote:

Then what is the point of announcing it? There have been neutral site games before and there will be some in he future? Why is this a big story then?

They even mentioned neutral site games when it was announced that Rutgers was joining the B1G.

The idea of 10 games is interesting. I would hope then that college football would go to a 13 game schedule.

If you read the article you will see that nobody "announced" anything.  It was a suggestion from Gene Smith, the OSU AD.  Please note the "?" in the thread title, suggesting that this is an idea that's being discussed.

OlBadger wrote:

SULLYBEAR wrote:

Then what is the point of announcing it? There have been neutral site games before and there will be some in he future? Why is this a big story then?

They even mentioned neutral site games when it was announced that Rutgers was joining the B1G.

The idea of 10 games is interesting. I would hope then that college football would go to a 13 game schedule.

If you read the article you will see that nobody "announced" anything.  It was a suggestion from Gene Smith, the OSU AD.  Please note the "?" in the thread title, suggesting that this is an idea that's being discussed.

Typical Ohio St bluster.

Neutral site conference games open up a real can of worms if everyone doesn't get them on a regular basis.

For instance, obviously OSU will push to play at "neutral sites" in Cleveland and Cincinnati... where they will have 90% of the fan base for a game that maybe should have been a road game. That's not fair to a team that has to play 5 true road games. Now, if OSU wants to give up a home game to play in Cinci or Cleveland, then fine.

I guess my point is that we all know who will have more fans at virtually any "neutral site"... the team with more fans loses a home game. For games like Mich/MSU, you just rotate who loses the home game.

EricTheeRed wrote:

I guess my point is that we all know who will have more fans at virtually any "neutral site"...

Yeah, that's why I don't think this is ever going to be a regular feature of conference schedules. RU's AD has said he could see playing an occasional conference game in the Meadowlands or at Yankee Stadium (they've done both), but only on occasion; they want B1G fans coming to New Brunswick/Piscataway.  Overflow crowds would set the stage for them to expand the stadium, too.

SULLYBEAR wrote:

Typical Ohio St bluster.

Want a laugh?  Here's what Smith had to say 'way back in April of last year on this subject:

"Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com last month that he's extremely reluctant to give up a home game for a neutral-site contest."  link  

redline59 wrote:

If they eventually go to 10 conf games, then look for a 13 game season.  I cant see them only having 2 nc games.

I don't know about that - the way conference expansion is going, there may be only two NC teams left to play every year!

BadgerMilk wrote: Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.) I honestly don't think the majority of our fan base would be excited to play yearly games at either site. It could be worse though; where will Nebraska play neutral games?

1.  I'm not sure the above is true.  UW has a huge alumni base in the NYC area and also in DC.  NYC would be terrific for a game against Rutgers and DC would be great for Maryland.  Both games would likely also get lots of print and that would be good for all involved:  both schools and the conference.  That and money are the driving force here.

2.  If the conference is to be so large, I'm in favor of a 10 game conference schedule.  That way, we at least know who is in the conference. 

3.  Nebraska could play a neutral game in St. Louis or even in Denver.  They'd also be a natural at Lambeau and I think they would accept that as "neutral" just for the historic opportunities.

Alabama-Wisconsin remains the rumor with a life of its own but has not been confirmed.  Scheduling rumors is one of BA's favorite pastimes.  Great PR and little else.

A 10-game conference slate is ideal in my mind, was ideal before the planned additions of Rutgers and Maryland.  

As long as neutral site conference games are not mandated, I'm fine with that when they make sense and when they are profitable to the schools involved - not just conference media revenue or strategic plays.

OlBadger wrote:

TerraceChair wrote: Aren't these "Made for TV Events" really depressing when you're looking at a quiet, 3/4 empty dome on TV?

You mean like the 78,000 who showed up for the PSU-IU game at Landover, MD?  In Bloomington that game draws about 43,000.  Or the UW-NIU game that our AD insisted be played in Chicago, where 41,000 showed up (vs. 24,000 capacity at Huskie Stadium)?

Anyway, they're not talking about made for tv games.  They're talking about holding, say, a PSU @ RU game in whatever the new Meadowlands stadium is called, mostly because it's bigger than RU's stadium and it can be a bit attention-grabbing for the NYC media.  I assume you are talking about that game at Jerry Jones World in Dallas, where we're scheduled to play Alabama in a couple of years.  I doubt that will be a 3/4 empty dome.

victorybucky wrote:

BadgerMilk wrote: Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.) I honestly don't think the majority of our fan base would be excited to play yearly games at either site. It could be worse though; where will Nebraska play neutral games?

1.  I'm not sure the above is true.  UW has a huge alumni base in the NYC area and also in DC.  NYC would be terrific for a game against Rutgers and DC would be great for Maryland.  Both games would likely also get lots of print and that would be good for all involved:  both schools and the conference.  That and money are the driving force here.

2.  If the conference is to be so large, I'm in favor of a 10 game conference schedule.  That way, we at least know who is in the conference. 

3.  Nebraska could play a neutral game in St. Louis or even in Denver.  They'd also be a natural at Lambeau and I think they would accept that as "neutral" just for the historic opportunities.

I'm all for playing in Rutgers in NYC and Maryland in DC. However, those can count as home games for those teams. They aren't neutral sites and they aren't easy (or cheap) for most UW fans to get to.

This does bring up an interesting idea though: each team could play one of their home games per season in the nearest pro stadium. It would be a fun experience for the players and fans without the hassle of deciding what is neutral and what isn't.

Nebraska: Arrowhead Stadium, Edward Jones Dome
Iowa: Soldier Field
Minnesota: Metrodome/New Vikings Stadium
Wisconsin: Lambeau Field
Northwestern: Soldier Field
Illinois: Soldier Field
Indiana: Lucas Oil Stadium
Purdue: Lucas Oil Stadium
Michigan: Ford Field
MSU: Soldier Field
OSU: Paul Brown Stadium, Cleveland Browns Stadium
PSU: Heinz Field, Lincoln Financial Field
Maryland: FedEx Field
Rutgers: MetLife Stadium

10 conference games , no neutral sites. College games belong in college stadiums!

BadgerMilk wrote:

Minnesota: Metrodome/New Vikings Stadium

Minnesota just spent a couple hundred million dollars building TCF Bank Stadium for the express purpose of the Gophers never having to even look at the Metrodome again.  I think you'd have to kill somebody in the Athletic Department before anybody would agree to play in that dump (though it's not long for this world anyway with construction starting soon on the new stadium.).  

As for the new Vikings stadium, some people are still pretty raw about the whole idea of putting out for two football stadiums.  Having the Gophs play in the new place is just going to pick at that scab, which is something nobody at the U wants as they angle for more funds for other facilities upgrades, lest people start asking more questions about the need to spend public money on sports.

I like the idea of a 10-game conference schedule, because I think it would improve the competition and home schedule ( as a season ticket holder)
But would it make it more difficult for the middle level teams to qualify for a bowl game?  And with going from 12 to 14 teams will the conference try to get another bowl slot?

PEBadger wrote:
Minnesota just spent a couple hundred million dollars building TCF Bank Stadium for the express purpose of the Gophers never having to even look at the Metrodome again.  I think you'd have to kill somebody in the Athletic Department before anybody would agree to play in that dump (though it's not long for this world anyway with construction starting soon on the new stadium.).  

As for the new Vikings stadium, some people are still pretty raw about the whole idea of putting out for two football stadiums.  Having the Gophs play in the new place is just going to pick at that scab, which is something nobody at the U wants as they angle for more funds for other facilities upgrades, lest people start asking more questions about the need to spend public money on sports.

The benefit of a system like this would be in recruiting and exposure. Telling an athlete that he will get to play one home game and one away game per year in a pro stadium would be a big draw, especially if the kid was a fan of the local pro team (Most Wisconsin kids dream of playing in Lambeau.) Overall, the system would help keep B1G talent in the conference as well as attract new talent from all over the country. The fact that no other conference has the geography to pull something like this off is also a nice perk.

BadgerMilk wrote:

PEBadger wrote:
Minnesota just spent a couple hundred million dollars building TCF Bank Stadium for the express purpose of the Gophers never having to even look at the Metrodome again.  I think you'd have to kill somebody in the Athletic Department before anybody would agree to play in that dump (though it's not long for this world anyway with construction starting soon on the new stadium.).  

As for the new Vikings stadium, some people are still pretty raw about the whole idea of putting out for two football stadiums.  Having the Gophs play in the new place is just going to pick at that scab, which is something nobody at the U wants as they angle for more funds for other facilities upgrades, lest people start asking more questions about the need to spend public money on sports.

The benefit of a system like this would be in recruiting and exposure. Telling an athlete that he will get to play one home game and one away game per year in a pro stadium would be a big draw, especially if the kid was a fan of the local pro team (Most Wisconsin kids dream of playing in Lambeau.) Overall, the system would help keep B1G talent in the conference as well as attract new talent from all over the country. The fact that no other conference has the geography to pull something like this off is also a nice perk.

Fun idea?  Sure.

But you'd have to actually get an OK to play in the pro stadiums, and that's not going to happen.  One reason would be wear and tear on the fields, at least the outdoor grass ones.  Look at all the proposed games at Soldier Field above.  That turf is already crap as it is, especially as the season wears on.

DocWrestling wrote:   No pro stadiums hold as much as Camp Randall

Camp Randall holds 80,231

Jerry World in Dallas holds 100,000
FedEx Field in DC holds 83,000
MetLife Stadium holds 82,000
Lambeau Field in GB will hold 80,000 when the latest seating expansion opens this fall.(an expansion that was done without one cent of taxpayer money which proves victorybucky's assertion the Packers would never do another expansion because they wouldn't get taxpayer money for it wrong).

Your statement is false.

Even if a pro stadium isn't as large, chances are its more luxurious and can make more money per fan. Plus, they won't have to deal with 10-15 thousand students who get in cheap.

BadgerMilk wrote: Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.)

You are naive to think Lambeau would never be used. A college game at Lambeau would be a marketing bonanza and ESPN would cream itself to get the rights to broadcast it, not to mention having College Gameday be there live.

Imagine Wisconsin's B1G opener against, Michigan, in primetime at Lambeau Field with ESPN Gameday in the parking lot. The scene would be electric.

kowitzc wrote:

BadgerMilk wrote: Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.)

You are naive to think Lambeau would never be used. A college game at Lambeau would be a marketing bonanza and ESPN would cream itself to get the rights to broadcast it, not to mention having College Gameday be there live.

Imagine Wisconsin's B1G opener against, Michigan, in primetime at Lambeau Field with ESPN Gameday in the parking lot. The scene would be electric.

The question I have is what opposing team's fans are going to travel there? To be neutral there has to be a want by the other team's followers to go. GB's remoteness, lack of accommodations, places to go, and things to do just aren't going to get many of the opposing teams faithful to drive there for a weekend. GB has one thing going for it and that is it's Mecca to Packer fans. That's it.

kowitzc wrote:

BadgerMilk wrote: Neutral field conference games only make sense when the stadium is convenient for both fan bases. For UW, that means their "neutral" games would have to be held at either Soldier Field or the Humpty Dump (Lambeau will never be considered neutral.)

You are naive to think Lambeau would never be used. A college game at Lambeau would be a marketing bonanza and ESPN would cream itself to get the rights to broadcast it, not to mention having College Gameday be there live.

Imagine Wisconsin's B1G opener against, Michigan, in primetime at Lambeau Field with ESPN Gameday in the parking lot. The scene would be electric.

Obviously a game at Lambeau would be cool. The problem is that a game at Lambeau is a virtual home game for UW. There's nothing neutral about it. No other school is going to potentially give up a home game to play in Green Bay.