What the hell is our fascination with the Sun Belt?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

kchusker_chris, on 24 February 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

 

 

knapplc, on 24 February 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

 

+1 to ZRod.

 

The problem with people who dislike our scheduling is their threads almost always lack context. Every single D1 team schedules games like this. Nebraska is never going to stop scheduling Sun Belt teams or any other "weak" teams. Why should they? It's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

i say this without knowing anything about the financials behind scheduling teams like this (and this is clearly a hypothetical)...but my guess is these games cost us millions each season. Not only are we having to pay a team like this to come to Lincoln, but we are losing TV revenue when the game isn't on ABC/ESPN, stadium revenue, etc. Lets say, between everything this game...from a financial revenue standpoint yields $1 million less revenue than a game against a top 50ish team, and $1.5-2 million less than a top 25ish team. I don't think those numbers would be much of a stretch. Now lets say we go the route of the top 50ish team, and schedule Kansas or Cincinnati. We take the extra $1 million...divide it in half, add it to our current OC/DC salaries and pay $850,000 to each rock-star coordinator, two of the best in college football. I'm talking like Mattison/Malzahn type of guys...but to gain that we have to play a slightly tougher schedule against an opponent we might lose to 10% of the time versus 1% of the time. Would that be worth it?

 

To me that extra million gets us more wins in conference play than it gets us by playing a cupcake.

 

 

I don't know. Not a whole lot of fans share that kind of insight. If we scheduled a toughie and then lost...would those fans who constantly rag on Bo have the hindsight to look at it and say, well we could've scheduled an easier opponent, but hey at least we didn't lose any money?

 

Now I'm not sure that scheduling softies hurts our TV revenue because those games are going to be picked up on the BTN (or a share of them will anyways). But I think there is some trade off between the money and real time run through

[zoogs]

I don't think it's about cupcakes vs tough major conference teams. It's just, that's a lot of teams from one conference! Weird, huh.

 

Not entirely, I'm sure each team has their own conference they like to grab non-cons from. Ohio State usually schedules a lot of MAC schools. tSEC usually schedules a lot of Sun Belt teams as well. Nothing really odd about it.

 

yeah, I guess you are right. So for us, there's a fascination with the Sun Belt. Maybe not odd, just interesting.

 

I wouldn't actually mind some variety, playing some MAC schools, playing other places...but you know, the Sun Belt is not a bad region at all to get some exposure. So it can be a pretty smart choice.

[knapplc]

+1 to ZRod.

 

The problem with people who dislike our scheduling is their threads almost always lack context. Every single D1 team schedules games like this. Nebraska is never going to stop scheduling Sun Belt teams or any other "weak" teams. Why should they? It's like taking a knife to a gunfight.

i say this without knowing anything about the financials behind scheduling teams like this (and this is clearly a hypothetical)...but my guess is these games cost us millions each season. Not only are we having to pay a team like this to come to Lincoln, but we are losing TV revenue when the game isn't on ABC/ESPN, stadium revenue, etc. Lets say, between everything this game...from a financial revenue standpoint yields $1 million less revenue than a game against a top 50ish team, and $1.5-2 million less than a top 25ish team. I don't think those numbers would be much of a stretch. Now lets say we go the route of the top 50ish team, and schedule Kansas or Cincinnati. We take the extra $1 million...divide it in half, add it to our current OC/DC salaries and pay $850,000 to each rock-star coordinator, two of the best in college football. I'm talking like Mattison/Malzahn type of guys...but to gain that we have to play a slightly tougher schedule against an opponent we might lose to 10% of the time versus 1% of the time. Would that be worth it?

 

To me that extra million gets us more wins in conference play than it gets us by playing a cupcake.

 

Nebraska makes money on these games. If they didn't, they wouldn't schedule them. Again, if every team that scheduled games like this lost money, nobody would do it. But everyone does it, all the time. That alone should tell you that the above explanation is incorrect.

 

We didn't even do this when we were world-beaters back in the 90s, when nearly every game, unless it was a top-five opponent, was a guaranteed win.

 

In 93 we played North Texas, Texas Tech, UCLA and Northern Colorado.

In 94 we played West Virginia, Texas Tech, UCLA and Pacific

In 95 we played Michigan State, Arizona State, Pacific and Washington State

In 96 we played Michigan State, Arizona State and Colorado State

In 97 we played Akron, Central Florida and Washington

In 98 we played Louisiana Tech, Alabama-Birmingham, Cal and Washington

In 99 we played Iowa, Cal and Southern Mississippi

 

Through the heart of our best run ever, we played a patsy or two, a mediocre team and a decent team. We played four ranked teams in that span, Washington twice, West Virginia and Arizona State in 1996.

[Caven]

90,000 * $56 = 5 MILLION dollars. That is just ticket sales. Add in parking and concession stand sales and there is a LOT of money you will need to account for if you don't play your 1 and done home game cupcakes each year. A good team is going to require a return trip to their stadium so to get even 3 good teams on your non-con schedule means a loss of millions.

[Caven]

I don't think it's about cupcakes vs tough major conference teams. It's just, that's a lot of teams from one conference! Weird, huh.

 

Not entirely, I'm sure each team has their own conference they like to grab non-cons from. Ohio State usually schedules a lot of MAC schools. tSEC usually schedules a lot of Sun Belt teams as well. Nothing really odd about it.

 

yeah, I guess you are right. So for us, there's a fascination with the Sun Belt. Maybe not odd, just interesting.

 

I wouldn't actually mind some variety, playing some MAC schools, playing other places...but you know, the Sun Belt is not a bad region at all to get some exposure. So it can be a pretty smart choice.

 

Now that you are in the Big 10, expect to start seeing MAC teams on your schedule more often as the Big 10 has a scheduling agreement with them that I presume you will be phased into as the scheduling allows. Also - don't forget the new B10/P12 agreement that will have a P12 team on our schedules every year starting in 2017. I am not sure what that will mean to the future of the MAC agreement - but assuming the MAC agreement stays in place that means you will end up with a MAC team at home 3/4 years and alternating home and away with a P12 team which still leaves room for another major team most years on the oppositve home/away that the P12 team is.

[Saunders]

The problem with just saying "oh, we should schedule a middle tier or so team" is that you're talking in a vacuum. You have to actually get another team that has room, and is interrested in coming to play. Most of those type of teams are going to be borderline bowl eligible, which means that they'd probably rather play a patsie as well, rather than a probable loss.

 

The fact is, this is what we have now due to the BCS. The SEC schedule's FCS and sunbelt teams galore, and it isn't hurting them at all.

[Blaze1up]

We win

[PaulCrewe]

Do some fans actually understand how hard it is to schedule these days???? Every team in the world wants 7 home games a year. Hell, NU had to go TO Wyoming to finalize that deal. On top of the return trip, schools are wanting more and more money to go on the road. See the breakdown of the talks of the Boise State match up.

 

Non con schedules also can end up looking like crap when teams fall of the top of the mountain and start crapping out or roll into trouble of the NCAA variety.after a deal to get them to come here was struck.

 

And then there is the philosophy that has been hit on pretty good here and that is not beating yourself up in the non con

[funhusker]

EDIT: I'm not putting NU on the same level as Alabama in terms of recent W-L, but rather the pride of the fan base and the expectations that we have.

 

If any SEC team ever is willing and excited to play Nebraska in the non-conference portion of the schedule, it means Nebraska has lost all respect and has become a "big name" to beat up on.

 

This is a two way street. Alabama doesn't want to schedule a potential loss anymore than Nebraska does. Most high level BCS teams go the route of 3 cupcakes and 1 "name brand". The non-conference schedule for great programs isn't meant to "build respect" but to "keep respect". They do this by winning and letting the country know that they beat a familiar name.

 

For example: Alabama had to be salivating when they scheduled Michigan in the non-conference. Huge name, poor team. Now Michigan is gaining some momentum and it is a game everyone is looking forward to. 365 days ago this was a joke game, but now it is "Michigan is playing the BigBoyz". I bet you that Alabama wishes they would have scheduled Louisiana Tech instead...

[Sub-Husker]

I'd like to think we schedule these teams for some southern recruiting exposure. It's got to be better than Idaho State in regards to recruiting.

 

Who the heck scheduled Maine?

[Saunders]

I'd like to think we schedule these teams for some southern recruiting exposure. It's got to be better than Idaho State in regards to recruiting.

 

Who the heck scheduled Maine?

Pud