Just a general statement addressed to no one in particular...

Some make extensive use of hyperbole and insult, and some trumpet their own excellence in prognostication, and some both of those, in the effort to persuade.

Some choose to avoid any of that, but instead, focus on analysis of experience/history and other empirical information or what otherwise is termed "substance."

My own inclination is to prefer the latter, both in terms of what I write, and in terms of what opinions I consider to be actually supported and worth consideration.

But I also say... that's just me and how I see it. Everyone is entitled to decide for themselves how to discern what conclusions and rationale they should value and trust.

Now, to address some of that substance someone offered...

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:18 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Okay.

So, what's your plan?

Virtually no TV money comes out of doing this thing, and there's virtually no ticket revenue.

What I've advocated has a slight advantage (note the dripping sarcasm) over what we're doing now... that is, it has actually worked.

Can't just wish that point away and say "oh that was then" and fail to see, no, there were actual nuts and bolts elements here that made it work.

(At least, that is, if we're having a genuine conversation... I'm fully aware that it's sometimes, with some people, that's not the case. As I get older, I try to spend more time with the genuine conversations, and the converse is also true.)

If you have another proposal, I for one am all ears/eyes.

......As to not bidding the title game - since we're too far flung (and don't have the support) for a neutral site game (which would be best from a competitive standpoint if possible) it's got to go to the home field of one of the divisional winners.

Yes, no neutral site game... as just noted with how the MAC does it.

But that doesn't mean that it has to go to the home field of the divisional winners.

In fact, importantly, both are just as bad as the other given what we've seen... given what evidence we have.

So, again, what's your plan?

Events that can't get out of the red for lack of income are events that eventually aren't events anymore. They go to die.

So, to say...

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  I am unconcerned with attendance. What's each conference team getting out of that ticket revenue anyway?

...is oblivious to the economic realities of this harsh world. We're not even talking about profits here, we're talking just breaking even. We just experienced what is likely the most inexpensive CG you could ever hope to have, with two schools just down the road from each other. More typically, you're looking at a situation of several hundred, if not more than a thousand miles of travel/food/accommodation involved, in addition to a host of ancillary expenses.

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  I mean one more dollar is one more dollar - if it worked. But in practice while the conference may come out ahead for a year or two of the schools trying something like this, I think the schools that bid risk being torched (and would put a quick stop to this even if you could convince them to try it to begin with).

Well, yes, it did work. Whether it would work again is, just being intellectually honest, an open question. But at least we have some history that it worked... as opposed to what we have now, which by anyone's measure doesn't.

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  Maybe it worked for playoffs back in the day. But you'd sell about 10 tickets to a UAB MTSU game in Ruston or Denton or Charlotte. We're all having a hard time getting fans to come to our own home games, we're not going to be able to sell tickets to a division rival vs a conference-mate that we've played once every 7 years that nobody local cares about.

This part leaves me scratching my head... you did read what I've outlined, right? Maybe not. Please let me try again.

We're talking about bidding that occurs before the season, so that the CG site has already been determined, allowing for ticket sales to occur not just over the course of a week or two, but over several months, and such that ticket sales can be embedded into season ticket sales structure for the school winning the bidding.

If not this that *has worked*, then you have to come up with something that, at least, theoretically *might work*... since, what we have *doesn't work*, and losing money year after year is only exceeded in idiocy by the notion to be content to keep losing money year after year.

There could be other ideas. Let's hear them.

(12-04-2018 02:51 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Just a general statement addressed to no one in particular...

If you were any more transparent you'd be invisible.

Your plan sucks, I won't pretend it doesn't suck to spare your feelings.

As an aside, when you say you won't take the "bait", don't take it, lest your word be as viewed as suspect as your "empirical evidence" from two and a half decades ago with circumstances that can't be remotely recreated.

Quote:...We're talking about bidding that occurs before the season, so that the CG site has already been determined, allowing for ticket sales to occur not just over the course of a week or two, but over several months, and such that ticket sales can be embedded into season ticket sales structure for the school winning the bidding.

If not this that *has worked*, then you have to come up with something that, at least, theoretically *might work*... since, what we have *doesn't work*, and losing money year after year is only exceeded in idiocy by the notion to be content to keep losing money year after year.

There could be other ideas. Let's hear them.

(12-04-2018 04:35 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

Oh come the **** on, there was nothing remotely "in general" about your post.

If it makes you feel good to pretend it was, be my guest, your grip on reality has been tenuous at best this entire time.

(12-04-2018 02:51 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Just a general statement addressed to no one in particular...

Some make extensive use of hyperbole and insult, and some trumpet their own excellence in prognostication, and some both of those, in the effort to persuade.

Some choose to avoid any of that, but instead, focus on analysis of experience/history and other empirical information or what otherwise is termed "substance."

My own inclination is to prefer the latter, both in terms of what I write, and in terms of what opinions I consider to be actually supported and worth consideration.

But I also say... that's just me and how I see it. Everyone is entitled to decide for themselves how to discern what conclusions and rationale they should value and trust.

Now, to address some of that substance someone offered...

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 11:18 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Okay.

So, what's your plan?

Virtually no TV money comes out of doing this thing, and there's virtually no ticket revenue.

What I've advocated has a slight advantage (note the dripping sarcasm) over what we're doing now... that is, it has actually worked.

Can't just wish that point away and say "oh that was then" and fail to see, no, there were actual nuts and bolts elements here that made it work.

(At least, that is, if we're having a genuine conversation... I'm fully aware that it's sometimes, with some people, that's not the case. As I get older, I try to spend more time with the genuine conversations, and the converse is also true.)

If you have another proposal, I for one am all ears/eyes.

......As to not bidding the title game - since we're too far flung (and don't have the support) for a neutral site game (which would be best from a competitive standpoint if possible) it's got to go to the home field of one of the divisional winners.

Yes, no neutral site game... as just noted with how the MAC does it.

But that doesn't mean that it has to go to the home field of the divisional winners.

In fact, importantly, both are just as bad as the other given what we've seen... given what evidence we have.

So, again, what's your plan?

Events that can't get out of the red for lack of income are events that eventually aren't events anymore. They go to die.

So, to say...

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  I am unconcerned with attendance. What's each conference team getting out of that ticket revenue anyway?

...is oblivious to the economic realities of this harsh world. We're not even talking about profits here, we're talking just breaking even. We just experienced what is likely the most inexpensive CG you could ever hope to have, with two schools just down the road from each other. More typically, you're looking at a situation of several hundred, if not more than a thousand miles of travel/food/accommodation involved, in addition to a host of ancillary expenses.

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  I mean one more dollar is one more dollar - if it worked. But in practice while the conference may come out ahead for a year or two of the schools trying something like this, I think the schools that bid risk being torched (and would put a quick stop to this even if you could convince them to try it to begin with).

Well, yes, it did work. Whether it would work again is, just being intellectually honest, an open question. But at least we have some history that it worked... as opposed to what we have now, which by anyone's measure doesn't.

(12-04-2018 12:19 PM)inutech Wrote:  Maybe it worked for playoffs back in the day. But you'd sell about 10 tickets to a UAB MTSU game in Ruston or Denton or Charlotte. We're all having a hard time getting fans to come to our own home games, we're not going to be able to sell tickets to a division rival vs a conference-mate that we've played once every 7 years that nobody local cares about.

This part leaves me scratching my head... you did read what I've outlined, right? Maybe not. Please let me try again.

We're talking about bidding that occurs before the season, so that the CG site has already been determined, allowing for ticket sales to occur not just over the course of a week or two, but over several months, and such that ticket sales can be embedded into season ticket sales structure for the school winning the bidding.

If not this that *has worked*, then you have to come up with something that, at least, theoretically *might work*... since, what we have *doesn't work*, and losing money year after year is only exceeded in idiocy by the notion to be content to keep losing money year after year.

There could be other ideas. Let's hear them.

I'm not convinced it's all that broken. I mean, official attendance has trended up for two years now.

If it's not breaking even and the conference really has to try something different that's for the leadership to decide.

But I'm really skeptical of your plan. Because while I get that the conference is guaranteed the money on the front end, I think the push-back/disinterest from the schools (or really from their fans) gets this shot down.

Most of our schools have a hard time selling a lot of season tickets to our own games. If you raise the price in exchange for a game nobody is interested in (or I suppose is rolling the dice on hoping your team gets in) season ticket sales would likely go down, not up. Or you get burned once or twice, and then the schools stop bidding (or the bids become so low that it's worse than whatever the conference made from a divisional champ hosting).

What does the conference need to break even? None of us knows.

(12-04-2018 05:50 PM)inutech Wrote:  I'm not convinced it's all that broken. I mean, official attendance has trended up for two years now.

If it's not breaking even and the conference really has to try something different that's for the leadership to decide...

What does the conference need to break even? None of us knows.

"Not all that broken?"

Really?

Okay, for the sake of discussion and schucks, can you grant the benefit of a doubt... and it's just us fans here, of course, and no one thinks it's *not* for leadership to decide (ever)...

The commish has come to you and said, "come up with something, and have it on my desk by 8 am tomorrow."

What's your plan?

(12-04-2018 05:58 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  "Not all that broken?"

Really?

Okay, for the sake of discussion and schucks, can you grant the benefit of a doubt... and it's just us fans here, of course, and no one thinks it's *not* for leadership to decide (ever)...

The commish has come to you and said, "come up with something, and have it on my desk by 8 am tomorrow."

What's your plan?

Home field of one of the divisional champs. Use the tie-breakers above.

That's my plan - status quo.

I’m pretty sure I remember this correctly, but when Marshall entered the MAC, it was negotiated that the MACC would be at Marshall Stadium (Hadn’t been named Joan C. Edwards yet). If any of the 97, 98, 99, or 00 games had been at say, Akron, very few would have been there.

(12-04-2018 06:02 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 05:58 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  "Not all that broken?"

Really?

Okay, for the sake of discussion and schucks, can you grant the benefit of a doubt... and it's just us fans here, of course, and no one thinks it's *not* for leadership to decide (ever)...

The commish has come to you and said, "come up with something, and have it on my desk by 8 am tomorrow."

What's your plan?

Home field of one of the divisional champs. Use the tie-breakers above.

That's my plan - status quo.

Whatever, bud. You could just say, "I refuse to respond because I refuse to imagine a scenario where the CG event is in the red and needs fixed." That I could respect. With that one, sounds like you're just pouting and closed-minded.

(12-04-2018 08:45 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  I’m pretty sure I remember this correctly, but when Marshall entered the MAC, it was negotiated that the MACC would be at Marshall Stadium (Hadn’t been named Joan C. Edwards yet). If any of the 97, 98, 99, or 00 games had been at say, Akron, very few would have been there.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain it was at least announced by the MAC office each year as-if an actual bidding process had occurred, and Marshall had won the bidding.

To your point, I won't agree or disagree. But there's a reason for that. It's because it's hard to imagine a set of conditions where Akron would have won the bid... which is the starting point for the scenario posited.

If those conditions existed where Akron won the bid... ie, duplicated the conditions in some important ways as what was seen for Marshall/Huntington's bid... it's a whole different picture than what any of us think of when we think of Akron.

That's a pivotal thing. And so the dependent variable/outcome is just not even something we can pretend to predict, because the independent variables/conditions that would have allowed the situation to exist are nearly impossible to envision in Akron.

(12-04-2018 06:02 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 05:58 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  "Not all that broken?"

Really?

Okay, for the sake of discussion and schucks, can you grant the benefit of a doubt... and it's just us fans here, of course, and no one thinks it's *not* for leadership to decide (ever)...

The commish has come to you and said, "come up with something, and have it on my desk by 8 am tomorrow."

What's your plan?

Home field of one of the divisional champs. Use the tie-breakers above.

That's my plan - status quo.

You wouldn't prefer being laughed out of the room for suggesting the game could be successful being played hundreds of miles from either divisional champ?

(12-04-2018 04:37 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

Quote:...We're talking about bidding that occurs before the season, so that the CG site has already been determined, allowing for ticket sales to occur not just over the course of a week or two, but over several months, and such that ticket sales can be embedded into season ticket sales structure for the school winning the bidding.

If not this that *has worked*, then you have to come up with something that, at least, theoretically *might work*... since, what we have *doesn't work*, and losing money year after year is only exceeded in idiocy by the notion to be content to keep losing money year after year.

There could be other ideas. Let's hear them.

Here's what I think I know, now that this post has had a good part of the day and night to be seen... this board needs some serious influx of engineers... both in terms of realists about problems and in terms of creativity in solving problems. Fwiw.

(12-05-2018 12:07 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 06:02 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-04-2018 05:58 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  "Not all that broken?"

Really?

Okay, for the sake of discussion and schucks, can you grant the benefit of a doubt... and it's just us fans here, of course, and no one thinks it's *not* for leadership to decide (ever)...

The commish has come to you and said, "come up with something, and have it on my desk by 8 am tomorrow."

What's your plan?

Home field of one of the divisional champs. Use the tie-breakers above.

That's my plan - status quo.

Whatever, bud. You could just say, "I refuse to respond because I refuse to imagine a scenario where the CG event is in the red and needs fixed." That I could respect. With that one, sounds like you're just pouting and closed-minded.

I'm close-minded unless I agree with you? What kind of discussion is that?

You're making different assumptions and coming to different conclusions. I can imagine a scenario where the championship game is in the red and needs to be fixed, I just don't think your plan would fix it.

And no, I don't know what would fix it because I think what we're doing now is really our best approach. If it truly has to change because it's too much of a loss for the conference (or schools involved) then the only things I can think of are:

1.True neutral site. Pitch it Frisco or Charlotte or New Orleans or Hot Springs or Little Rock or Mobile or Jacksonville. Or have them bid. I think we don't make the magical number (whatever that is) this way either. But sure, maybe.

2. What you suggest. I think the schools would (and should) shoot this down (or just not bid seriously, which would amount to the same thing). If I was a Marshall fan and I had to subsidize a game between MTSU and UAB that I had no interest in just to get a season ticket - I'm not crazy about that and the AD is going to hear from me (even if my forefathers in the days of yore used to enjoy doing something similar for the MAC and/or I-AA playoffs). But maybe I'm wrong. And I do think this should be a last resort because I really don't like the idea of any school hosting the game and getting a competitive advantage strictly for financial reasons. If it can be avoided.

3. Scrap it. Just use the tie-breakers. Drop divisions. Pick a champ out of a hat. This would be less than ideal from a competitive stand-point, but hey, it's a business and we're making business decisions, right?

4. Drag it out by subsidizing from NCAA basketball payouts or whatever as long as necessary before the next big sweeping conference changes happen and we're all in new bigger or smaller conferences that work better. Or until Google starts paying CUSA millions to stream the game or whatever.

My preferences from the above list (if there really is a problem to begin with - the problem I'm imagining here) 4, 1, 2, 3.

It's fine to brainstorm this stuff. That's what message boards are for - I hate attendance talk, but when people want to talk about it this is the place to complain. Everyone was burnt out on realignment talk, but where better to discuss it than a message board? Etc. But part of that discussion is going to include disagreement.

And without numbers, it's all just speculation. Yes, even your example from yesteryear. You don't know that it would still work today. And we don't know what the magic number is that the conference needs to break even. MTSU charged $24 and $18 for their tickets - maybe 15K people are enough. If it is, then we're good. Maybe we just need to raise the prices on the tickets. Or lower them.

My undergraduate degree is in Chemical Engineering FWIW.

Working on something of some significance, but saw that you may have written something compelling, and intend to come back to it sometime today.

But I did get stuck on that first line... "I'm close-minded unless I agree with you?"... and wanted to just say, "huh???"

I didn't ask you to agree with me. Nonsense.

I asked you to answer a hypothetical and grant the benefit of a doubt that it's broken, and merely pretend for a moment that you've been asked to come up with the plan to fix it... and offer that plan.

The closed-minded part is that you effectively responded, "Okay, I don't like the question, I love and am dug-in to my status quo position, so I'm not going to accept the premise."

Ever the optimist that I am, hopefully, when I get some time later to read this, there's some meat here to chew on.

My patience was rewarded. There's meat there.

You said, "You don't know that it would still work today."

Which pardon the observation sounds a lot like, "If not this that *has worked*, then you have to come up with something that, at least, theoretically *might work*... since, what we have *doesn't work*, and losing money year after year is only exceeded in idiocy by the notion to be content to keep losing money year after year."

But now, indulge me... I'm thinking about a way to build on your idea.

On this neutral site idea... what if we began conducting the CUSA Championship Game in the same city (not the same venue) as the SEC Championship on the Friday night before their game?... essentially, promote it as a value-added event, and perhaps even sell deep discounted tickets at the gate with fans' SEC championship game tickets used as a kind of coupon?

Start with using Georgia State's stadium which holds about 25K... the old Turner Field. If the thing catches on as we'd hope, there's always the option to graduate to using Georgia Tech's stadium which is about double that size.

Maybe?

Not as interested in this one, but I'll toss it out there as well.

You could collaborate with the Sun Belt, and host a dual championship in a city that works for both. I'm not a big fan of anything, though, that puts SBC on the same plane as our conference. We enjoy a perceived slight advantage competitively, and it would probably work against us in that way.

I like the previous option better.

The MAC CG was not rebid each year. Marshall won a 4-year deal to host 97-00 immediately upon entering the league.

Coupled with winning the I-AA national title game host bid between 1992-1996, we had 9 straight seasons of championship games at Marshall Stadium. Marshall played in 8 of them. Only a fluke loss at Boise in the 1994 semifinal kept it from being 9-of-9.

The I-AA playoff games were bid on a week-by-week basis through 1994. Marshall played one road playoff game and 15 preliminary round home games in that time.

The front end money was built in and the tickets were embedded in the season ticket package. The individual game bids for playoffs were a bit more back room/not publicized.

(12-09-2018 02:36 PM)ThunderingHerdFan Wrote:  The MAC CG was not rebid each year. Marshall won a 4-year deal to host 97-00 immediately upon entering the league.

Coupled with winning the I-AA national title game host bid between 1992-1996, we had 9 straight seasons of championship games at Marshall Stadium. Marshall played in 8 of them. Only a fluke loss at Boise in the 1994 semifinal kept it from being 9-of-9.

The I-AA playoff games were bid on a week-by-week basis through 1994. Marshall played one road playoff game and 15 preliminary round home games in that time.

The front end money was built in and the tickets were embedded in the season ticket package. The individual game bids for playoffs were a bit more back room/not publicized.

All of that was before most everyone had a PC, and a large screen TV as clear, maybe even more so than sitting at a game. Today everyone can get any game they want with one click of a remote or mouse and most of those games with a view from the 50 yard line with 4 other views of the play....it doesn't cost you $100 for you and your son just for this one game.

Totally different time and would not work for any team in CUSA today....not unless a team was winning the conference almost every year. But even then season ticket holders would question the cost.

What was the cost of those 9 games added to the season ticket package?

(12-09-2018 02:36 PM)ThunderingHerdFan Wrote:  The MAC CG was not rebid each year. Marshall won a 4-year deal to host 97-00 immediately upon entering the league.

Coupled with winning the I-AA national title game host bid between 1992-1996, we had 9 straight seasons of championship games at Marshall Stadium. Marshall played in 8 of them. Only a fluke loss at Boise in the 1994 semifinal kept it from being 9-of-9.

The I-AA playoff games were bid on a week-by-week basis through 1994. Marshall played one road playoff game and 15 preliminary round home games in that time.

The front end money was built in and the tickets were embedded in the season ticket package. The individual game bids for playoffs were a bit more back room/not publicized.

Depends on the time frame you’re talking about. We played at McNeese State in 1995 and we went to Boone in 1987, so we at least had 2 road games in the time frame from 87 to 96.

If you weren’t including from 1995-2000, then yes, it was one. If you want to include the National Championship games, then it was 4 (Pocatello and Statesboro).