Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
 Page 1  

Future neutral site policy

Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 2:13 PM

Future neutral site policy 


The P12 has issued a strict policy on neutral site games in order to protect its TV holding power. 

Which is great, but...

I hope the game between CSU & CU which is held in Denver at the Bronco's place can negotiate to continue. It should be possible since it's really just a local thing. The location tends to keep attendance good & creates a good feel for both programs. I hope they continue it just as a P12 network holding. That can only happen if that network or some other the P12 approves of makes it worthwhile for both programs.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 3:24 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 


Hrmm, quite interesting. I wonder why? Oregon State can go play a body bag game @Penn State or @LSU but can't play the same body bag game at a neutral site?

Is there some flexibility in what is a neutral site versus a home game? I.e. could the Bronco's stadium be considered a home game for CU one year and a home game for CSU the next? More importantly I think, can WSU consider the Seahawk's stadium as a home game and not a neutral site since for an OOC game it is in WSU's territory.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 3:28 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 


My suspicion is that it will also preclude teams from giving up bodybag games. I COULD be wrong but if I'm not then it's opening one hell of a loophole (i.e. the UCLA-Texas game could just go to Austin, which would seem to defeat the whole point).
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2012 5:49 PM

Re: Future neutral site policy 


As long as the conference gets home field media rights, it will be allowed.  WSU's games at Seattle were always understood to be Pac-12 home games.  I actually like this a little.  It means the Pac-12 won't put up with malarky "neutral site" labels that are really home games for the other team.  Cal played a "neutral site" at Kansas City against KSU - and I like to flavor my biscuits with dill butter, kumquat marmelade and goose gravy.

I think part of it is that the Pac-12 label should be stronger, so even the smaller programs shouldn't have to make as many scheduling concessions for the sake of revenues as they used to.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2012 7:13 PM

Re: Future neutral site policy 



TheMilkMansSon wrote:

The P12 has issued a strict policy on neutral site games in order to protect its TV holding power. 

Which is great, but...

I hope the game between CSU & CU which is held in Denver at the Bronco's place can negotiate to continue. It should be possible since it's really just a local thing. The location tends to keep attendance good & creates a good feel for both programs. I hope they continue it just as a P12 network holding. That can only happen if that network or some other the P12 approves of makes it worthwhile for both programs.

The easiest solution would be to contractually arrange the CU-CSU game as a "home-and-away" for broadcast rights purposes.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/6/2012 7:45 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 



MrPacTen wrote: My suspicion is that it will also preclude teams from giving up bodybag games. I COULD be wrong but if I'm not then it's opening one hell of a loophole (i.e. the UCLA-Texas game could just go to Austin, which would seem to defeat the whole point).
I think the precluding bodybag games effect is more of a side benefit than the main point. 

The main point is to keep the maximum number of games w/i the P12 rights contract.  Neutral site games that pay the team a set amount rather than the conference would just create an arbitrage opportunity where Team X takes a bunch of neutral site games and gets the money from them plus the conference money while decreasing the number of games in the conference rights package.  Better to lay down a crystal clear rule that benefits all the conference and leaves no room for any oen member to game the system.

The fact that it might preclude bodybag bag games is a nice bonus.  And really, with the new contracts in place there is NEVER any excuse for any P12 team to play the bodybag.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 8:03 PM

Re: Future neutral site policy 



PiratesRoost wrote:
TheMilkMansSon wrote:

The P12 has issued a strict policy on neutral site games in order to protect its TV holding power. 

Which is great, but...

I hope the game between CSU & CU which is held in Denver at the Bronco's place can negotiate to continue. It should be possible since it's really just a local thing. The location tends to keep attendance good & creates a good feel for both programs. I hope they continue it just as a P12 network holding. That can only happen if that network or some other the P12 approves of makes it worthwhile for both programs.

The easiest solution would be to contractually arrange the CU-CSU game as a "home-and-away" for broadcast rights purposes.
If anything CU is more of the home team so this should be easy. These games seem to alternate between Boulder and Denver; if I remember right it's VERY rare to be in Ft Collins.
PiratesRoost wrote:
MrPacTen wrote: My suspicion is that it will also preclude teams from giving up bodybag games. I COULD be wrong but if I'm not then it's opening one hell of a loophole (i.e. the UCLA-Texas game could just go to Austin, which would seem to defeat the whole point).
I think the precluding bodybag games effect is more of a side benefit than the main point. 

The main point is to keep the maximum number of games w/i the P12 rights contract.  Neutral site games that pay the team a set amount rather than the conference would just create an arbitrage opportunity where Team X takes a bunch of neutral site games and gets the money from them plus the conference money while decreasing the number of games in the conference rights package.  Better to lay down a crystal clear rule that benefits all the conference and leaves no room for any oen member to game the system.

The fact that it might preclude bodybag bag games is a nice bonus.  And really, with the new contracts in place there is NEVER any excuse for any P12 team to play the bodybag.
I think the point is probably to preserve TV rights, but I struggle to see it not precluding bodybag games.  MAYBE the league would allow, say, Oregon St to play at Ohio St while keeping the TV rights, but I doubt that scenario plays out.  I have to think the larger schools would be very unhappy if there was an exploitable loophole like that.

Agree 100% about the arbitrage issue, had even written about it before.  The only legit options for the league are to either let everyone keep TV rights for OOC games or heavily regulate what you can and cannot do OOC.  Any other path creates the free rider problem, and financially encourages selling yourself in bodybag games (which is BAD for the league since it adds losses and makes the league look bad).
 
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 9:08 PM

Re: Future neutral site policy 



PiratesRoost wrote:
TheMilkMansSon wrote:

The P12 has issued a strict policy on neutral site games in order to protect its TV holding power. 

Which is great, but...

I hope the game between CSU & CU which is held in Denver at the Bronco's place can negotiate to continue. It should be possible since it's really just a local thing. The location tends to keep attendance good & creates a good feel for both programs. I hope they continue it just as a P12 network holding. That can only happen if that network or some other the P12 approves of makes it worthwhile for both programs.

The easiest solution would be to contractually arrange the CU-CSU game as a "home-and-away" for broadcast rights purposes.
Good point. They can keep playing it at Denver & just say one year is home & the next away.

I wonder if they still split the gate that way?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/6/2012 11:58 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 


I definitely think part of it was so that the Big Ten would be able to negotiate guarantee games against the Pac-12 like Michigan - Utah, Penn State - Oregon State, and Ohio State - Colorado in recent years.

Obviously, it's unlikely that would've happened, anyway, but this ensures it. I'll be interested to see when Big Ten and Pac-12 schools start scheduling the football games, and how the games are scheduled in other sports.

When your team is winning be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing

Bo Schembechler
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/7/2012 9:40 PM

Re: Future neutral site policy 



MrPacTen wrote:
...I think the point is probably to preserve TV rights, but I struggle to see it not precluding bodybag games. 

...Agree 100% about the arbitrage issue, had even written about it before. 
As I said, I think the rule definitely does preclude bodybag games.  My contention was that it is a secondary goal, gravy on top of the mash potatoes, if you will.  The neutral site rule definitely does dis-incentivize bodybag games where the P12 team is the bodybag.  No doubt about it.

I seem to recall you writing about arbitrage opportunities and OOC scheduling at any rate.  Since I know the limitations of my own creativity, I am sure I was merely just channeling a previous thought of yours.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 2/8/2012 3:00 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 


My concern is that the rule as stated ONLY says "you can't do a one-off at a neutral site without keeping TV rights". AS FAR AS I KNOW (since I haven't seen the rule much less been present for the negotiations), it does NOT state "you can't do a one-off at someone else's home stadium without keeping TV rights". I'd also guess that it doesn't state "you can't do a one-off at someone else's home stadium WHILE keeping TV rights".

The first potential exception strikes me as a blatant undermining of the rule as publicly stated, so I would presume that they weren't dumb enough to miss it (instead, I'd assume they just released a simplification of the rule, which makes sense to me; no need to overwhelm the public with details). If that really flies, then the rule is basically meaningless and public posturing as opposed to anything with teeth, since instead of playing Texas in Dallas, UCLA can just play them in Austin (which seems worse, not better).

The second strikes me as something the league might tolerate, even though it's not great for SOS and league perception purposes, since at least the league gets to keep the TV rights. i.e. the next time Oregon St or Wazzu bodybags it at, say, Alabama, Bama gets the home gate, but OS/WSU gets a check and the Pac-12 gets the TV rights. Arguably a violation of the spirit of the agreement, but I'd GUESS tolerable from the league since at least they get TV rights. Could certainly be wrong though.
 
Reply | Quote

Posted: 2/8/2012 5:36 PM

RE: Future neutral site policy 


Yes.  I did just assume the rule covered your first exception scenario.  Like you, I just assumed it  since the rule wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Hadn't even thought about the second exception idea of playing a bodybag and getting the rights.  Don't know how it could happen--giving up tv rights seems to defeat the purpose of paying a bodybag.  You're right though, if it did, I doubt the conference would care overmuch.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
 Page 1