SiuCubFan8 said:

Because it is new, is every team doing a week 0 game? This is all going to evolve as time moves on.
Maybe schools don't mind not having the hassle of everything that will go into a week 0 scrimmage???

Click to expand...

SEHSSTORM1 said:

I understand but why would anyone agree to lose an at home scrimmage (concessions, gate, etc) and not get it in return the next year. Unless some programs just don’t do that.

Click to expand...

SiuCubFan8 said:

Again, who says these are two year week 0 agreements?

Click to expand...

4Afan said:

While I'm very interested in seeing how these scrimmages go I think you guys are over thinking it. I don't see these scrimmages having a game night atmosphere or resembling a game at all. As someone else mentioned they will most likely resemble college spring games where offenses and defenses run a set amount of plays and coaches may even discuss what they want to run. I don't think anyone is thinking about the gate, assuming they even charge, or the concessions, assuming they offer them. It's a scrimmage, nothing more.

Click to expand...

rocketnation said:

Thanks. I started following Rochester about the time they came into the CS8 from the Cornbelt. At the time, it was by no means a unanimous view that the switch was a good decision. Initially, the Rockets were the smallest school in the conference, playing mostly 5A-6A teams. QND may have an adjustment period but playing up can be an asset in the playoffs. Doesn't QND also have a chance to reschedule different teams for non-conference next year? Quincy and R-B is a tough Week 1-Week 2 start.

Click to expand...

SEHSSTORM1 said:

Would you do an away week zero with your team and have no guarantee of hosting the following year?

Click to expand...

colin2229 said:

I don't think we need to over think this. Just an opportunity for a test drive before week 1 game. I love it.

I don't think the coaches care about hosting, gate fees and concessions for this. Honesty, if I were the host school, I wouldn't charge a gate fee. Probably wouldn't have concessions either.

I haven't heard of the mechanics of the scrimmages but I'd bet they are going to look similar to a D1 spring intersquad scrimmage. No clock and several different situational periods.

Click to expand...

4Afan said:

Yes, it's a scrimmage so who cares if you have home field advantage? It has no implications on the regular season.

Click to expand...

SEHSSTORM1 said:

Would you do an away week zero with your team and have no guarantee of hosting the following year?

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Yes, I understand the enrollment spurring thing. But, those 180 players all come with COSTS -- academic costs, which apply to all students, and athletic costs, which apply to athletes only.

I'm a little leery of colleges that boast of huge percentages of the student body involved in athletics. Take Quincy University here in Illinois, for example. Almost 50% of their student body plays at least one sport. Is that healthy? As a sports fan, I'd say yes as a knee jerk response. The more I think of it objectively, however, what does that do in a school of about 1000 students? What kind of social dynamic is there between athletes and non-athletes? Is it really a sustainable model financially?

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Healthy from a program standpoint, for sure, but I have to wonder about the economics of this.

What must their coaching staff be like in terms of numbers?

Does it make economic sense considering...

• Only a HANDFUL of kids who enroll in Wartburg or any private liberal arts college pay the sticker price.
• Coaches, trainers, and other football related athletic department staff and infrastructure all must be paid.
• The cost of equipment, travel, etc. for a squad that size.
• No TV revenue sharing.
• Wartburg isn't a large school with athletic revenue and expense budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

No thanks

Hey Google what time is sundown today in Rochester, IL?

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

There's a 98.65% chance it'll be white... er right at 8:12pm today.

Click to expand...

SiuCubFan8 said:

Who says they are not just one year handshake agreements?
Interesting point since in past all schools got something from the inter-team scrimmage assuming they had concessions open.
Again, that assumes they are 2 years agreements.
It is all fluid and maybe we see changes as the summer/week 0 evolve.

Click to expand...

ramblinman said:

Yes, I understand the enrollment spurring thing. But, those 180 players all come with COSTS -- academic costs, which apply to all students, and athletic costs, which apply to athletes only.

I'm a little leery of colleges that boast of huge percentages of the student body involved in athletics. Take Quincy University here in Illinois, for example. Almost 50% of their student body plays at least one sport. Is that healthy? As a sports fan, I'd say yes as a knee jerk response. The more I think of it objectively, however, what does that do in a school of about 1000 students? What kind of social dynamic is there between athletes and non-athletes? Is it really a sustainable model financially?

Click to expand...

RoaminCatholic said:

Good stuff, per the usual, RocketNation.

My ultimate wish is that QND could become relevant again, in terms of product on the field, and get that QND/Rochester rivalry renewed at some point. It's a must, it's just a question of whether we'd be handing out charity or showing up to get the 2nd W in the series... as of now, it'd be charity, but the future is bright baby!

Click to expand...