Fullback41 said:
Right, so you plan on playing in boise, ft worth, or salt lake city soon because their stadium holds more. Yeah I didn't think so. BCS teams don't play there out of fear, not numbers. It is easy for BCS teams to stay home play a weak team and collect their BCS money rather than risk looking bad against a good non AQ team.
Only way to prove me wrong is to play a good non--aq team on the road. Never happen.
No, BCS teams play at home because they get more money. Why should we play in Laramie? Economically it makes NO sense.
If I told you that you could have $4.75 million per game at War, but you'd only make $300K traveling to another school, of course you'd want to play as many home games as possible. We live in a world of tough economies, and the larger the athletic budget the more home games you have to have.
Nebraska needs a minimum of seven home games to meet budget every year. That's just a cold fact. I'd presume that most every other AQ school needs the same. That means that if they're going to travel, it really can't be to a small school with a small stadium. It just doesn't make economic sense.
This has nothing to do with respect for other schools. We respect you guys just fine. It has everything to do with basic economics.
For me at home watching this game on TV, it doesn't matter if your stadium seats 10,000 or 100,000. But to the athletic department of the school you're playing, it means a LOT in terms of their budget. It's a huge hit, and you can't get around that.
Ugly as it is, money drives this sport. That's why we're seeing all this realignment talk, that's why we're seeing non-AQ schools demanding a fair chance at the BCS games – money, money, money.