You don’t see how in state tax revenue is created with ticket sales, merchandise, parking, food, tv contracts, etc?
Wouldn't that be a point in favor of not only the schools all being in separate conferences, but also never playing each other as well? The state of PA makes a lot more money on a day when Penn State is playing a home game against Akron and Pitt is playing a home game against UCF (just as an example) than they do when they are playing each other.
Let's compare all the items you mention and see. On ticket sales, two separate games certainly draw tens of thousands of more people, although at lower prices. Let be generous and say that's a small point in favor of playing each other. But then there's the rest of it. 130,000 - 140,000 people buy more merchandise than 70,000 or 108,000 do, so a point for not playing. Far more cars need to park when 130,000 - 140,000 people are attending events rather than 70,000 or 108,000, and both schools charge the same for parking no matter the opponent, so separate games bring in a lot more money there. Food, well, that's the same as parking. Two separate crowds that are far larger eat far more food than one crowd would. Again, advantage not playing. TV contracts is actually a wash, because neither team makes more or less money based on more or fewer home games or higher or lower quality of opponents.
Do you have any other things for us to consider? Because so far it seems pretty obvious that total revenue for two separate home games is clearly greater than the revenue for one game against each other would bring in.
