Over at CornNation, I lamented this weekend's horrible football schedule. Turns out ESPN's Chris Fowler shares that opinion. Fowler went on to propose some more neutral site matchups, like last week's Mizzou-Illinois (in St. Louis) or Alabama-Clemson (in Atlanta). #4 on that list? Nebraska-Iowa at Arrowhead in Kansas City.
I have mixed feelings on this, but overall, I think I'd pass on this suggestion. Nebraska-Iowa is a matchup that should happen more often, but frankly, moving home games from Lincoln is not a good idea in general. While Arrowhead is a great facility, it's now smaller than Memorial Stadium. Fewer fans means less revenue to the school, and moving a game from Lincoln means less revenue for the state.
Nothing against Arrowhead; it's a great facility and the Oklahoma State game ten years ago was a great event. If Nebraska could somehow figure out a way to convince opponents to move to Arrowhead, that would be a great move. Home games? Not so much. (I can already hear the outcries of "elitist b*stards", but bear me out.) I just don't see the point of moving a game away from fans of both schools unless it adds something special to the mix. Colorado/Colorado State works in Denver because Mile High holds 50% more fans than Folsom. Missouri/Kansas and Iowa State/Kansas State works at Arrowhead because Arrowhead is bigger than all four stadiums. Everybody wins in those situations.
How did this weekend's game with San Jose State happen? Seems that Spartans head coach Dick Tomey wanted to dump Tennessee and get an easier game on their schedule. Yep...Tomey would rather play Nebraska than Tennessee for four reasons: better weather (less humid), kinder fans (Memorial Stadium is not a particularly intimidating place to play), he's familiar with Lincoln, and Bill Callahan was dismantling the program. Ouch.
Administrivia strikes the Husker basketball program again. Doc Sadler got a verbal commitment from Jorge Diaz, a 7 footer from Puerto Rico. Diaz was cleared by the NCAA, but couldn't get admitted into Nebraska. Turns out the computer crashed while he was trying to pass an online English proficency test. Now the administration is pointing their fingers back towards the athletic department, saying that the athletic department declined to offer Diaz a second chance to take the test. All this after the Roburt Sallie fiasco that resulted in Sallie signing with Memphis instead of Nebraska. Oy! Not again.
Want another feel-good walk-on story? Read about Matt O'Hanlon, who will probably start again against San Jose State. Now, you can look at walk-on's from either a glass half-full or glass half-empty perspective. On one hand, when you've got a secondary depleted by injuries, every bit of help is a good thing. I'd rather not have to yank a redshirt off of Anthony Blue because we're out of bodies. On the other hand, you'd like to have more depth available ... but that's a recruiting mess created by the previous regime. (Which is the point of the walk-on program... it's another safety net for the program.)
I hope there aren't more games played in neutral sites. I think college football games should, in nearly every case, be played on campus. College stadiums, generally, are more aesthetically pleasing than the cookie-cutter, antiseptic stadiums found in the major metro areas.
ReplyDeleteI live in Denver and am delighted that the CU-CSU game is returning to the campuses next year. I hope Kansas-Missouri returns to their stadiums after this year, and that Texas-Oklahoma eventually leaves Dallas.
I know I'm on the wrong side of the discussion from how the sport seems to be trending, but I don't like it when the college game tries to be too much like the NFL. College football, in my opinion, is infinately superior to pro ball.
Bob