Ball State to host a Big Ten team next year too

[BGSU33]

Add Ball State to the growing lists of MAC schools to host a Big Ten team in their on campus facility in football. Next year, Ball State will host Indiana. The recent list of MAC teams to host Big Ten schools in football is now: Toledo, Miami and Ohio, while CMU is doing it this year and Ball State next season. I might be fogetting someone in there as well. I sure wish BG could land a Big Ten opponent in the Doyt. And before anyone dismisses the idea because we are good, see Toledo and Miami, they've done it while being very good. I know in Ball State's case some could say it's "just" Indiana.....but so what - IU, Northwestern, Illinois.....I'll take any of them.

http://www.thestarpress.com/articles/6/ ... 6-006.html

[Falcon52]

I personally would rather see the big crowd at Cleveland Browns stadium playing Wisconsin then at the Doyt. Hopefully we will make more money and it counts as a home game for us. Also, if you attended any of our big games over the past 3 years, you have hands on experience in understanding that we can not accomadate a big game properly. The stands and seating are so unorganized. I spent 20 minutes in a tunnel at the MAC Championship game just trying to get to my seat. Our facilities are cool, don't get me wrong, I love the Doyt. There are a lot of expensive changes that would need to be made in order to properly fit 30,000 + for a big eleven team.

[UK Peregrine]

That's a great game for Ball State. I like the idea of IU and Ball State trying to build a little more of a rivalry. Competitively they are not really that far apart and its a game BSU could win. Now the Purdue and Michigan games are another story. BSU is also playing a 1AA, which is something Krebs is on record saying he does not want to do.

Also, technically we have Wisconsin at home, which I know is not quite the same as Doyt. But using the Doyt for lower tier Big11 teams (Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois, and Minnesota) and perhaps Cleveland for the occasional top tier home series (Michigan, OSU) could be a very real possibility. I wouldn't look for any additional Big 11 home game next season however with the Boise and Wisconsin games already on the slate. Perhaps we can look for 2007 and beyond.

[rocketfootball]

I really see no reason why BG can't get some Big Ten teams to play in BG. I am still dumbfounded on how you guys got stuck with a 1 game deal at Purdue a couple of years ago. Toledo had a 2 for 1 deal with Purdue back in the 90's and we just signed a new 2 for 1 deal with them that brings Purdue to Toledo in 2007 as the first game of the series. No reason why BG can't do the same thing.


I believe Toledo's first home game against a Big Ten schools was Indiana back in 1996 (we hosted Purdue in '97). We also got Minnesota in 2001. I would think that BG could get any of these three teams to sign a 2 for 1 deal.


NIU fans were just talking about the same thing though, how Ball State is hosting Indiana and NIU never gets a Big Ten team at NIU. They do have a problem that I feel is keeping them from getting this accomplished........they have too many 1 game "payday" games. This year NIU plays Michigan and Northwestern in 1 game deals. Next year they play Ohio State in a 1 game deal. Each time you schedule a 1 game deal you make it that much harder to schedule a 2 for 1 deal with someone because you have to figure out some OOC home games on your schedules. The 1 game deals are fine because you get a nice payday, but you just can't schedule them that often and expect to be able to get some 2 for 1 deals as well. What happens is that you have to look to other mid-majors and sign 1 for 1 deals or go to a I-AA school and schedule a home game only deal so that you still have home games every season.

[factman]

It is pretty simple why BG has not had a 2-1 deal with Purdue like Toledo.
We have a VERY smart athletic director, and our athletic department has balanced it's budget for the past few years. From everything I have been told by "insiders" at Toledo, the athletic department is in very dire straights, possibley due to some of those bad decisions concerning how games were scheduled , guarantees, etc. It will happen at BG when it is fiscally correct and not before.

[orangeandbrown]

Excellent post, Factman. Sometimes, prudence is no fun, but the athletic department has to live within its means like all of us do.

[rocketfootball]

It is pretty simple why BG has not had a 2-1 deal with Purdue like Toledo.
We have a VERY smart athletic director, and our athletic department has balanced it's budget for the past few years. From everything I have been told by "insiders" at Toledo, the athletic department is in very dire straights, possibley due to some of those bad decisions concerning how games were scheduled , guarantees, etc. It will happen at BG when it is fiscally correct and not before.

I have to disagree with your opinion on this. Toledo does have some financial issues, but it is not just the athletic department, it is everywhere at the school. The President at UT told our AD he had to cut another $200K out of the athletic budget this year.....he told him at the last minute and in order to meet that, a new sound system had to be put on hold until next year.

Toledo's athletic budget should never be compared to another school because our President has a stupid way of handling the money. All revenue that comes in from athletic merchandise sold and athletic royalties goes straight to the University, not the athletic department. The athletic department only gets a very small portion of that revenue when it is then dispersed out throughout the different departments at the University. While I understand that the whole University should benefit on the revenue, the athletic department should see a lot more of that money instead of a very small portion of it.

You mention the money part of Toledo getting Purdue to come in. Well, Toledo will play at Purdue twice though, and the deal is essentially that we pay them about what they are paying us for one game there. So in a 2 for 1 we actually get money out of the deal, plus we get to sell over 30K in tickets which will probably be at $29 a piece and of course there is all the concessions and so forth.


One deal I can speak on was the 2 for 1 with Minnesota. Toledo got about 2x what Minnesota got in the deal in terms of payouts. First Toledo had the payout to Minnesota in 2001 for the Gophers coming to Toledo. Of course we had just under 35K at the game which helped a lot in paying that payout. Then Minnesota paid Toledo in 2002 for the Rockets coming to Minnesota and it was the same amount Minnesota received to come to Toledo in 2001. Then Toledo got the same amount again when they played at Minnesota in 2004. In theory, the payouts are the same as it would be if Toledo played a 1 game deal in Minnesota. So you can see where your idea of Toledo losing money by paying Minnesota or Purdue to come to Toledo is flawed.


So you might have had "insiders" tell you that the athletic department at Toledo is in sad shape, and I can agree to an extent (of course many I-A schools are in the same boat though) but it has nothing to do with how UT schedules football games. It has more to do with the President of the University seeming to not care about athletics and constantly screwing over athletics at UT.

[UK Peregrine]

One deal I can speak on was the 2 for 1 with Minnesota. Toledo got about 2x what Minnesota got in the deal in terms of payouts. First Toledo had the payout to Minnesota in 2001 for the Gophers coming to Toledo. Of course we had just under 35K at the game which helped a lot in paying that payout. Then Minnesota paid Toledo in 2002 for the Rockets coming to Minnesota and it was the same amount Minnesota received to come to Toledo in 2001. Then Toledo got the same amount again when they played at Minnesota in 2004. In theory, the payouts are the same as it would be if Toledo played a 1 game deal in Minnesota. So you can see where your idea of Toledo losing money by paying Minnesota or Purdue to come to Toledo is flawed.

Let me see if I'm understanding what you just wrote. You'er saying by doing this 2 for 1 setup with Minnesota, UT is getting "in theory" a one game payoff. The problem I see in the way you presented or least in how I'm interpreting this argument is that this "in theory" one game payoff is essentially spread out over the course of three seasons, when you could have played three different teams at one game payoff amounts each time in an attempt to remedy the budget problems at UT. Is that correct?

[rocketfootball]

One deal I can speak on was the 2 for 1 with Minnesota. Toledo got about 2x what Minnesota got in the deal in terms of payouts. First Toledo had the payout to Minnesota in 2001 for the Gophers coming to Toledo. Of course we had just under 35K at the game which helped a lot in paying that payout. Then Minnesota paid Toledo in 2002 for the Rockets coming to Minnesota and it was the same amount Minnesota received to come to Toledo in 2001. Then Toledo got the same amount again when they played at Minnesota in 2004. In theory, the payouts are the same as it would be if Toledo played a 1 game deal in Minnesota. So you can see where your idea of Toledo losing money by paying Minnesota or Purdue to come to Toledo is flawed.

Let me see if I'm understanding what you just wrote. You'er saying by doing this 2 for 1 setup with Minnesota, UT is getting "in theory" a one game payoff. The problem I see in the way you presented or least in how I'm interpreting this argument is that this "in theory" one game payoff is essentially spread out over the course of three seasons, when you could have played three different teams at one game payoff amounts each time in an attempt to remedy the budget problems at UT. Is that correct?

Don't try to twist things. You are not going to play all OOC games on the road in every season......probably not all 3 in any season unless you like playing 4 home games. If you just look at that one deal then look at what a 1 game road deal does. You still need to find home games, right?

In a 2 for 1, you have one of the games at home and you make good money. Toledo charged $29 per ticket for Minnesota in 2001 and we had 34,950 in attendance. Now sure there are some general admission and students that factor in, but you also have to factor in concessions at the game and parking and so forth.

Now if I take a 2 for 1 for Toledo and let's say the Minnesota one. Toledo hosted then in 2001 and had 34,950 in attendance which means we made more money than we would have against just any team. In 2002 Toledo made their first trip to Minnesota and then Toledo finished the series in 2004 at Minnesota getting a payout. Bowling Green played at Temple in 2000, hosted Temple in 2001, and played at Purdue in 2003.

So Toledo played 3 games, with 1 at home, against 1 opponent and got a home game that brought in a good crowd. Bowling Green played 3 games, with 1 at home, against 2 opponents and got a home game against a mediocre team which hurt the size of the crowd. BG had just over 11K for Temple.

In each case we are talking about 3 games and complete deals. UT was a 3 game deal with one school. BG was a 2 game deal with one school and a 1 game deal with another school. Instead of having that 2 game deal with Temple, why couldn't BG have a 2 for 1 deal with Purdue instead of just one on the road?


Maybe the difference is that BG is afraid their attendance won't be high enough to offset the payout the have to give to a school like Purdue to come in to the Doyt. And I don't mean that as a slam, because I know your attendance is better now than it was 5 years ago. But outside of that I don't see what BG could possible cite as a reason to not do a 2 for 1 deal.

[rocketfootball]

The problem I see in the way you presented or least in how I'm interpreting this argument is that this "in theory" one game payoff is essentially spread out over the course of three seasons, when you could have played three different teams at one game payoff amounts each time in an attempt to remedy the budget problems at UT. Is that correct?

To answer this specifically, yes it is spread out over 3 years. Just like BG played 3 games (Temple, Temple, Purdue) in 3 seperate years and essentially got a 1 game payout because the 2 Temple games cancelled each other out in terms of payout.

If Toledo would have played 3 different payout games, we still would have needed to schedule a home game in 2001 unless we wanted to play 4 home games which now is not allowed by the NCAA. So we really could only play 1 payout game and find a mid-major to play a 2 game series that cancels each other out. Why not play a 2 for 1 against a BCS school instead?

[Schadenfreude]

It is pretty simple why BG has not had a 2-1 deal with Purdue like Toledo.
We have a VERY smart athletic director, and our athletic department has balanced it's budget for the past few years. ... It will happen at BG when it is fiscally correct and not before.

I think it's worth pointing out that we have hosted Pittsburgh and Missouri as part of two-for-one deals, and neither was a smash hit at the Doyt. The 2000 Pittsburgh game drew a terrible crowd... under 15,000 for a home opener in beatiful sunny weather... and the 2002 Missouri game drew 22,000 and change.

There were extenuating circumstances. Pitt was nowhere near a nationally-ranked team at that point, and the game was played at the tail end of the longest string of losing seasons in Bowling Green history. In 2002, we were still shaking off the fan apathy created by that long string of losing seasons, and we had torrential rain that day.

I would think just about any Big Ten team would sell out the Doyt at this point, but would that still be true three seasons from now?

(Will the Falcons still be racking up winning records three seasons from now? Probably... but there are no guarantees).

Also, we can't lose sight of the fact that:

1. When we host Wisconsin, it will be the most impressive Big Ten program any MAC team has ever hosted (the only possible exception is Iowa, which played at Miami a couple years back).
2. This is a HOME and HOME deal, not a two-for-one.

I'd love to host a Big Ten team at the Doyt. But this Wisconsin deal is pretty cool. I'm thrilled with it. I assume Krebs is doing what he can to bring in other recognizeable opponents in the future.

[UK Peregrine]

To answer this specifically, yes it is spread out over 3 years. Just like BG played 3 games (Temple, Temple, Purdue) in 3 seperate years and essentially got a 1 game payout because the 2 Temple games cancelled each other out in terms of payout.

If Toledo would have played 3 different payout games, we still would have needed to schedule a home game in 2001 unless we wanted to play 4 home games which now is not allowed by the NCAA. So we really could only play 1 payout game and find a mid-major to play a 2 game series that cancels each other out. Why not play a 2 for 1 against a BCS school instead?

I wasn't trying to twist your writings. I was just trying to understand, and I think I do now. If you plug in a home and home series (Temple) plus an away payout (Purdue) to match the Minnesota series then sure I see your point. UT likely did make more off the Minnesota series this way. But my point is that instead of scheduling a two for one in the past three seasons, BG has scheduled Oklahoma (2004), Ohio State/Purdue (2003) and Kansas (2002) for one and done payouts. Sure it makes scheduling a little moe difficult and as a result BG had to play some D1-AA teams but it is a faster way to get your financial house in order. Now to be fair, I don't want to schedule one and dones forever and it appears that BG has taken the approach of now scheduling one for one series (Wisconsin, Boise and FIU) which is even more desirable than two for ones in my opinion. Anyways, I wasn't trying to demean your post, just trying to demonstrate the two approaches when it come to scheduling.

[rocketfootball]

To answer this specifically, yes it is spread out over 3 years. Just like BG played 3 games (Temple, Temple, Purdue) in 3 seperate years and essentially got a 1 game payout because the 2 Temple games cancelled each other out in terms of payout.

If Toledo would have played 3 different payout games, we still would have needed to schedule a home game in 2001 unless we wanted to play 4 home games which now is not allowed by the NCAA. So we really could only play 1 payout game and find a mid-major to play a 2 game series that cancels each other out. Why not play a 2 for 1 against a BCS school instead?

I wasn't trying to twist your writings. I was just trying to understand, and I think I do now. If you plug in a home and home series (Temple) plus an away payout (Purdue) to match the Minnesota series then sure I see your point. UT likely did make more off the Minnesota series this way. But my point is that instead of scheduling a two for one in the past three seasons, BG has scheduled Oklahoma (2004), Ohio State/Purdue (2003) and Kansas (2002) for one and done payouts. Sure it makes scheduling a little moe difficult and as a result BG had to play some D1-AA teams but it is a faster way to get your financial house in order. Now to be fair, I don't want to schedule one and dones forever and it appears that BG has taken the approach of now scheduling one for one series (Wisconsin, Boise and FIU) which is even more desirable than two for ones in my opinion. Anyways, I wasn't trying to demean your post, just trying to demonstrate the two approaches when it come to scheduling.

One and done deals are fine, but I personally would prefer to see them only one every few years or so. And the reason is because like yousaid you end up scheduling a I-AA school at home to get your home game.

Now the NCAA is going to require 5 I-A home games per year. Can't schedule all these I-AA schools anymore. Yes, we are going to 12 game schedules so it would be possible to have one a year still, but someone also said here that your AD doesn't want to schedule I-AA schools anymore. He will find out in a hurry that he won't be able to schedule so many one and done games if he isn't scheduling I-AA schools anymore.

For Toledo's sake, it makes more sense to schedule a 2 for 1 with Purdue than to schedule 2 one and done games and 1 I-AA at home. The reason is because that one game against Purdue will likely get near 35K in attendance and we are lucky if the I-AA gets 25K in attendance. Add on to the fact that the Purdue game will also have tickets sold for $5 a piece more than the I-AA game and you can see the financial gain for Toledo. And paying Purdue to come to Toledo isn't really that much more than you would pay for a I-AA to come to Toledo. And seeing that schools like Ohio State don't want to offer Toledo a lot for a one and done, we get almost as much out of a game at Purdue then we do for a game at Ohio State.

Maybe it is different at BG and that is why you guys are having a hard time agreeing with my thought process on this.

You guys will see that mid-major schools are going to find it harder and harder to schedule one and done deals all the time.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

Our AD has said he is not interested in scheduling one and done payoff games anymore. I suspect we'll see more "home" games in Cleveland than we will see one and done games in the future.

[buckysportsnut]

I like the fact that we are going to play you guys at the Browns stadium. It would be nearly impossible for us to play at your stadium though. For example, seating capacity at Camp Randall is pushing 81,000 now that the renovations are done. The student section alone at CR is pushing 15,000 seats and there were students who weren't able to get tickets this year. Every single seat to every game in Madison (with the exception of the visiting school's allotment) this year was sold by the end of June.

We travel really well as a fan base. I wouldn't be suprised to see 20-25,000 Badger fans in Cleveland next year.

Just a guess of the top of my head but I would think you would need a stadium with a capacity of 45-50,000 to host one of the better followed big schools. Just a guess though.