Another top non-conf home game for DePaul

[Marquette84]

Weekend (Fr, Sa, Su)

Its a mistake to consider Friday night equal to Saturday or Sunday.

If for no other reason, no HS BB player (or his parents) will be able to make a Friday night NCAA game.

Put it this way--if NCAA games would draw on Friday night like they do for Saturday, we'd see a hell of a lot more Friday night games. 

But lets compare the a Friday night has for MU--rather than averaging it with Saturday.

Comparaing similar teams:  Northwestern State drew 13019 on a Friday, Delaware State drew 13056 on a Tuesday.  North Dakota State drew 15348 on a Saturday.

Hmmm.  Do you want to reconsider putting a generic "weekend" tag on a Friday game? 

Its a mighty weak argument to suggest that hordes of fans descended on Allstate on a Friday who wouldn't have made it on a Tuesday--and inconsistent with MU's behavior this season.

Bottom line, the fame and history of Wake Forest had ZERO impact on drawing more fans to Depaul's game this week.  A nobody like EIU drew more fans.

[MarquetteFan94]

According to the attendance figures released by DePaul, they sold 277 more tickets for the Eastern Illinois game than for Wake Forest!!!

How can that possibly be?

this one is immediately obvious to me.. the same reason you discredit the kansas game attendence explains the EIU game attendence.. the fans of EIU came to the game as well - just like MU fans will significantly alter the attendence count when we play @ DePaul.  This isn't really a fair comparison.. to make your argument you need to compare games against teams both traveling from a significant distance away.

distance from DePaul's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 18.2 miles (or 23 minutes).
distance from Eastern Illinois' campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 199.5 miles (or 3 hours 17 minutes).
distance from Wake Forest's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 771 miles (or 11 hours 48 minutes).

in fact.. if I look up the kansas game attendence I see it is 16,922.  Do you really believe that the difference of roughly 8000 people is purely because of the number of KU alum living in chicago?!  You have a VERY hard sell there.

not saying that you can't prove your point.. you'll just have to do so by comparing apples to applies - which I have yet to see.

I guarantee you that EIU (outside of family and friends of the team) had no more than 7 fans at the Allstate Arena against DePaul.  They're averaging 874 for home games.  KU easily can draw 8000 fans out of the Chicago area to come to the game...there are tons of KU alums in the area not to mention the Chicago players on their roster.  I'm also sure that DePaul had more than their normal 3 dozen students show up for that game.

[WashDCWarrior]

[Comparaing similar teams:  Northwestern State drew 13019 on a Friday, Delaware State drew 13056 on a Tuesday.  North Dakota State drew 15348 on a Saturday.

Hmmm.  Do you want to reconsider putting a generic "weekend" tag on a Friday game? 

I would like to see a sample size great than one.  I still think more people would attend a Friday game where they don't need to get up for work/school the next morning.

[mu_hilltopper]

Words, words, words.  I had a busy couple of days and my eyes kind of glazed over from all the debate here .. there are some things that are just plain obvious.  If you disagree, you're probably working PR somewhere.

1. This year's home OOC schedule is one of the worst in recent history.  As previously analyzed, the over/under for, what I call "low interest" games is about 6 per year.  This year. it's 10, breaking the record, 9. 

2. Low interest games have little to do with what the RPI of the team is.  Example: last year's game vs. Winthrop.  Wintrhop (who ended up beating us) ended up being the 11th hardest team we played last year (ranked by their 73 RPI) .. but I can't imagine any non-STH would be excited to see that game.

3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue.  Super teams like Arizona and Wake might, but the "gettable" teams like Creighton, Xavier, Valpo, Charlotte, SLU, MN, Dayton, Butler, Nebraska, etc. probably only generate a few hundred extra ticket sales, as evidenced above.  Nevertheless, people want MU to play those games, making them high-interest.

4. I assume that by looking at a very low interest game's attendance, like Hillsdale (12400)  indicates STHs represent about 12k .. our average (for the year) is about 14k, so overall, the STHs represent ~86% of those who are buying tickets.

5. 86% of your customers is a very high chunk.  I only mention this, to indicate that they represent a crucial part of income.

6. As the amount of low-interest games go from 1 to 2 to 5 to 10 or higher, your customers will perceive a reduction in value for their purchase. 

7.  BE games have certainly provided a boost in perceived value.  Next year, even moreso (9 games).  On the downside, ticket prices have doubled in 5 years, and are no longer a small purchase, especially with the mandatory donations/seat.

8.  It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections.   I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is?  Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?

9.  Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.  This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.    And we understand that scheduling is tough.  In seasons' past, the OOC home games were of a higher caliber, and as this thread was started, DePaul is able to pull it off, somehow.

10.  The $64k question is, if the OOC home schedule is consistently bad, will STHs stop buying seats?  Most will continue to buy, but eventually, if the perceived value continues to drop, small chunks won't buy them anymore, as it will be more economical to purchase single game tickets to high-interest games. -- When the ST package was a paltry $300/year/seat, no big deal.  Now that it's twice that, economic-man will eventually appear and act.

11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate.  You can sit home and read about the team's performance versus Savannah State for free, if you even care to. Whoop di doo.  It's the folks who have a large financial interest, plus a tremendous time investment who have skin in this game.

As everyone knows, I'm a huge fan.  But I think the above is a pretty honest assessment.  I'm a STH, and promote the team daily.  If I could change anything about the program, it'd be the OOC home schedule, to add just a little more meat on the bones.  Who wouldn't?

[Marquette84]

Example: last year's game vs. Winthrop.  Wintrhop (who ended up beating us) ended up being the 11th hardest team we played last year (ranked by their 73 RPI) .. but I can't imagine any non-STH would be excited to see that game.

And this comment sums up the entire debate.

All this time I took MU fans at their word when they said they want to see competitive teams. 

Well, no more. 

Basketball ignorance apparently reigns supreme among the MU faithful.  It doesn't matter a whit whether the team is actually good--only the name matters.

Better to bring in a dreadful Pepperdine team ("say, I've heard of Pepperdine") than a rising Detroit team with an exciting guard in Brandon Cotton.  Lets see lousy Mississippi ("becuase they have both a state AND a river!") instead of a the more competitive and challenging opponent like Delaware State.  Better to maintain a straight face asking for Coppin State as opposed to appreciating a pretty good ND State team that we already know knocked off a D1 power in the state.

Frankly, I always gave MU fans credit for having a bit more basketball IQ than the average person, but basically you admit here that MU fans don't care to see better teams.  They want lousy teams with big names.  Legitimately good opponents are shunned soley because our ignorant fans don't perceive a big enough "name."

Lets dismiss some of the other myths.

If you disagree, you're probably working PR somewhere.

Or someone who actually understands a bit more about basketball. 

Nice try at the ad hominiem attack.  The real PR pro is the one who is trying to suggest that Minnesota would be generating interest this year.

1. This year's home OOC schedule is one of the worst in recent history. As previously analyzed, the over/under for, what I call "low interest" games is about 6 per year.  This year. it's 10, breaking the record, 9. 

First, EVERY year's non-conference schedule is called the worst one ever. 

Before we played them last year, people like you were whining to no end about Wintrhop.  Those of us with some brains knew that they were a good team returning everyone from a team that took Kansas deep in their NCAA tournament game.

3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue.

 

An oxy-moronic statement at its best.  Higher interest games may not generate more interest.

 

8.  It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is?  Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?

And yet, like clockwork, the committee picks Pitt and UConn and Syracuse.  Boy that committee is stupid.  Last year they pass up DePaul and Providence to take UConn and Pitt.  Stupid. Stupid. STUPID selection committee!  Right?

9.  Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.

 

No--its worse.  They're asking for games against LOUSY TEAMS LIKE PEPPERDINE MISSISSIPPI AND MINNESOTA!!!

This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.   

Well, better in that you know the names.  In terms of the quality of the game, it would not be better.

But what do I know?  Season Ticket Holders apparently don't go to SEE GOOD BASKETBALL.  They want to drop names like Pepperdine, Minnesota, Coppin State and Missisissippi.

And we understand that scheduling is tough.  In seasons' past, the OOC home games were of a higher caliber, and as this thread was started, DePaul is able to pull it off, somehow.

And Chicos explained it for you, DePaul was a lousy team and located in Chicago when those games were scheduled.  We drop to a consistent under-500 team and move our games to the United Center, we'll get UNC, Duke, you name it.

By the way--do you want to put money on the liklihood that DePaul gets another home-and-home contract with a team the calibre of Kansas anytime soon?

11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate. 

Aha--the "brag" factor. 

As I pointed out, you don't really want to see good basketball.  You want to brag about how much you pay for your seats to Biff Nobody at the front desk, and make sure that he recognizes the teams you paid to see.  Your season tickets are your Bling, and you you can't "show off" a solid Wintrhop or Detroit or ND State or some other solid team.  But Pepperdine or Minnesota?  Well, Joe Moron in accounting will have HEARD of those teams so my investment to show off is worth something!!!


 

[rocky_warrior]

Those of us with some brains

84, you make some good points.  But eh, try to do so without putting yourself on such a pedestal, or calling everyone else stupid from now on. 

[mu_hilltopper]

** Nice try at the ad hominiem attack. 

That's rich.  Take a look at your post, which is riddled with ad hominem attacks.  I would summarize the theme of my post as consumerism, while yours is firmly planted in elitism and calling people names.
 
**All this time I took MU fans at their word when they said they want to see competitive teams.  Well, no more.  Basketball ignorance apparently reigns supreme among the MU faithful.  It doesn't matter a whit whether the team is actually good--only the name matters.Frankly, I always gave MU fans credit for having a bit more basketball IQ than the average person, but basically you admit here that MU fans don't care to see better teams.  They want lousy teams with big names.  Legitimately good opponents are shunned solely because our ignorant fans don't perceive a big enough "name."

Yup, you figured it out.  You've realized that there are a host of reasons fans go to games, (and you've accused them of being ignorant, way to go).  Those ignorant fans want to play DePaul every year, too, but our record against them over the past couple decades is about .800.  Why is that?  Poor quality team, why the desire to play em?  Must be ignorance, right?  And surely, any fan who would want to play UWM is ignorant as well.  Talk about your ad hominem attacks.

Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names?   -- But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop?  I said it didn't excite people, but that's different than getting rid of them.  Isn't it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule?  Perhaps not for you.  You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.

*** First, EVERY year's non-conference schedule is called the worst one ever. 

And that destroys what argument, exactly?  If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product.  But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.


Quote
3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue.

**  An oxy-moronic statement at its best.  Higher interest games may not generate more interest.

Odd that a stat you support is one you attack.  Higher interest games, like a Dayton or Xavier, will generate more interest, and the ticket holders will perceive it with more value, than Cupcake U.  However, as shown statistically, it doesn't generate non-STH ticket sales.  It just makes the STH, who have tickets, happier.  OH DEAR!  Those stupid, ignorant Season Ticket Holders.  This can be very easily observed by counting the no-shows at low-interest games vs. high interest games.  It's those darned season ticket holders, showing their interest with their feet, or in this case butts not in seats.
 

Quote
8.  It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is?  Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?

*** And yet, like clockwork, the committee picks Pitt and UConn and Syracuse.  Boy that committee is stupid.  Last year they pass up DePaul and Providence to take UConn and Pitt.  Stupid. Stupid. STUPID selection committee!  Right?

And that undercuts my argument how?  That had DePaul just played a couple more cupcakes, that they'd be in, and their record vs. the top 65 of 5-9 would have been ignored?  Seems your example proves my point.  Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes?  No, they got in because they played well against quality teams.  DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in.  For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.

Quote
9.  Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.

*** No--its worse.  They're asking for games against LOUSY TEAMS LIKE PEPPERDINE MISSISSIPPI AND MINNESOTA!!!

That's worse?  Trading a Morgan State game (low interest, low quality) with a Minnesota game (high interest, low quality) is WORSE than asking for 11 games against Duke?  Would you rather have customers who demand 11 high quality games, or customers who demand a modicum?    You'd rather have elitist fans with unreasonable expectations?

Quote
This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.   

*** But what do I know?  Season Ticket Holders apparently don't go to SEE GOOD BASKETBALL.  They want to drop names like Pepperdine, Minnesota, Coppin State and Mississippi.

Yes, as I said above, you figured something out, although not entirely.  There are a host of reasons a customer purchases something for sale.  Some of it is about quality, some of it utility, activity, social aspects, sexiness, and status, among many others.  Add it all up, and it you receive a certain value.  Keep quality high but reduce .. sexiness, and your product flops.  i.e. stick a 4 pound battery in the iPod to increase its quality, and no one buys it.  Make it cooler by making it super small with less battery life, who knows, your "ignorant" customers just might be happier and buy more.

Quote
11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate. 

*** Aha--the "brag" factor.  As I pointed out, you don't really want to see good basketball.  You want to brag about how much you pay for your seats to Biff Nobody at the front desk, and make sure that he recognizes the teams you paid to see.  Your season tickets are your Bling, and you you can't "show off" a solid Winthrop or Detroit or ND State or some other solid team.  But Pepperdine or Minnesota?  Well, Joe Moron in accounting will have HEARD of those teams so my investment to show off is worth something!!!

Oh, please.  There's no (monetary) bragging in having season tickets for MUBBall, as they aren't like NFL/NBA/MLB tickets that cost quadruple+ the amount. (Plus, let's face facts, those who would be impressed by MU STH status are few and far between.  Packer or UW ST Holders (esp FB), now that gets you some status around here.)   --  I mention the cost of season tickets merely because it's not a paltry sum, casually spent, and certainly not for bragging purposes.  It shows that the STH has a fair investment in the product, and thus, what the staff wants:  ownership.

And, if you squint and don't read all the words, you can say things like "..you don't really want to see good basketball".  Bullcookies.  What STHs want, is good value, which includes many MANY things, as apparently, you've just figured out. 

The summary of your argument is that consumers' desire for value, and how they measure value, is irrational and ignorant, and should be ignored and criticized.  Good luck with that.

[Marquette84]

That's rich.  Take a look at your post, which is riddled with ad hominem attacks.  I would summarize the theme of my post as consumerism, while yours is firmly planted in elitism and calling people names.

I apologize.  I inappropriately responded in kind.

Those ignorant fans want to play DePaul every year, too, but our record against them

DePaul is a conference opponent and long time rival.  .

We don't play Mississippi or Minnesota or Coppin State or Pepperdine every year, nor do we have any long standing rivalry with any of them.  Yet these teams were cited as preferred opponents.

Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names?   

Because a) I think MU fans should be more interested in MU than the opponent and b) smart enough to recognize that you can find good, talented, and exciting teams beyond the Pepperdines and Minnesotas of the world.

Tell me this--don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for North Dakota State?  Beat Wisconsin this year.  Us this year.  Doesn't that suggest to you that they might be a pretty decent (albeit) unknown team? 

Don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for Northwestern State?  Upset Iowa as a 14 seed to win an NCAA tournament game.  Beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missississippi State.  No respect from you?

Isn't a contender for the Horizon champions worth some respect?

But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop? 

When you said we only have one decent team, you make that implication about all others on the schedule.

Here's a list of the "Winthrop-like" teams on our schedule:  Delaware State has been pretty good the last several years.  Detroit is a contender for the Horizon league championship.  We knew how competitive North Dakota State can be against a Big 10 team.  Oakland has been decent and played us competitively recently.  Northwestern State beat Iowa in the NCAA last year, and also beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missisissippi State.

it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule? 

The problem is you are apparently unable to differentiate between cupcakes and decent quality lesser known teams.

You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.

We have six. 

And that destroys what argument, exactly?  If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product.  But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.

Its not growing discontent--its the same old complaint year after year after year. 

Funny that the teams complained peole complain about pre-season become examples of teams we should schedule in subsequent years.

Last season:  "Our schedule stinks.  Who wants to see Wintrhop."
This season:  "I'm not talking about getting rid of Wintrhop--we need more like them"

We have at least six "Winthrop-like" teams this year.

After someone like Detroit or Delaware State becomes the Cinderella in the 2007 tournament, you'll simply subtitute them for Wintrhop in next years rant.

Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes?  No, they got in because they played well against quality teams.  DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in.  For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.

Well, you brought up the comment about the committee not recognizing padding your schedule with "9 wins against the Jacksonville States of the world".  That suggests that the committee would make a mistake by giving a bid to a team with 9 wins against the Jacksonville States. 

So did they or did they not? 

This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.   

No.  We basically have six.

Detroit
Delaware State
Northwestern State
North Dakota State
Wisconsin
Oakland

You make my point over and over again.  We have six decent teams--you just won't give them appropriate credit, and want to replace them with inferior quality (but a bigger name).

Oh, please.  There's no (monetary) bragging in having season tickets for MUBBall,

As you tell us how much your tickets cost.

[mu_hilltopper]

** DePaul is a conference opponent and long time rival. We don't play Mississippi or Minnesota or Coppin State or Pepperdine every year, nor do we have any long standing rivalry with any of them.  Yet these teams were cited as preferred opponents.

Preferred opponents OVER Savannah State.  Preferred opponents OVER Morgan State.  Preferred opponents OVER Oakland.  What don't you understand there?  Why must you continue to miscomprehend the argument:  cull a few of the low-quality, low-interest games and replace them with high-interest games, regardless of quality. 


--Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names?   
*** Because a) I think MU fans should be more interested in MU than the opponent and b) smart enough to recognize that you can find good, talented, and exciting teams beyond the Pepperdines and Minnesotas of the world. Tell me this--don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for North Dakota State?  Beat Wisconsin this year.  Us this year.  Doesn't that suggest to you that they might be a pretty decent (albeit) unknown team?   Don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for Northwestern State?  Upset Iowa as a 14 seed to win an NCAA tournament game.  Beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missississippi State.  No respect from you?  Isn't a contender for the Horizon champions worth some respect?

"Should be more interested" and "are more interested" are chasms apart.  Of course I have respect for NDSU and Winthrop, et al, and not just because they beat us.  You continue to misunderstand the argument.  No one is asking to get rid of all quality low-interest games, yet you bring that up time and time again.  It's SOME of the non-quality, low-interest teams that we'd like to swap out with some high-interest ones.   I just don't know how many other ways I can explain that.   Swap UMBC for MN.  Swap Morgan State for Dayton.  NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody.  Is that clearer? 


--But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop? 
*** When you said we only have one decent team, you make that implication about all others on the schedule.

Read it again.  I have consistently described teams with the concepts of low/high interest and low/high quality.  Winthrop was low-interest, high-quality.

*** Here's a list of the "Winthrop-like" teams on our schedule:  Delaware State has been pretty good the last several years.  Detroit is a contender for the Horizon league championship.  We knew how competitive North Dakota State can be against a Big 10 team.  Oakland has been decent and played us competitively recently.  Northwestern State beat Iowa in the NCAA last year, and also beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Mississippi State.

Yadda yadda yadda.  I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams.  Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about?  Even if you, it won't prove anything.  Your average ticket holder isn't going to research why they should be excited about Morgan State.  If they're not, they're not.    Are you seriously surprised?   Please.

--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule? 
*** The problem is you are apparently unable to differentiate between cupcakes and decent quality lesser known teams.

How's that?  The 2 of those 3 examples were from the BOTTOM 5 teams in all of 334 NCAA teams!  (2006).  So Detroit was 176.  Wow.  I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.


--You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.

** We have six.  (snip) Detroit, Delaware State, Northwestern State, North Dakota State, Wisconsin, Oakland (snip) You make my point over and over again.  We have six decent teams--you just won't give them appropriate credit, and want to replace them with inferior quality (but a bigger name).

If you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest) I invite you to take a peek around the sold-out lower bowl for any of those games, which should have a butt in every seat, but for those games, it's easily 20-30% empty.  Apparently the season ticket holders don't share your definition of what a big name/high interest opponent is.  And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams.  That doesn't mean I want to see 11 of them.


--.. "worst schedule ever"..  If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product.  But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.

** Its not growing discontent--its the same old complaint year after year after year.  Funny that the teams complained peole complain about pre-season become examples of teams we should schedule in subsequent years. Last season:  "Our schedule stinks.  Who wants to see Wintrhop." This season:  "I'm not talking about getting rid of Wintrhop--we need more like them"

It is growing discontent if every year, they say "this schedule is the worst ever"  It implies that last year(s)' was not as bad as this year's. -- Anyhow, that would prove my point, if it were said, i.e. the schedule is getting so bad, people would pine for the days we at least played more teams like Winthrop which at least have something going for them.


--Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes?  No, they got in because they played well against quality teams.  DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in.  For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.

** Well, you brought up the comment about the committee not recognizing padding your schedule with "9 wins against the Jacksonville States of the world".  That suggests that the committee would make a mistake by giving a bid to a team with 9 wins against the Jacksonville States.   So did they or did they not? 

Try reading more carefully.  I never said the committee didn't recognize padding your schedule with cupcakes, I said the exact opposite.  The committee isn't stupid, and didn't make a mistake.   They figured out who was worthy of post-season, who had a good record versus quality teams, and who did not. 
-----

I'd really like to know how it's such a terrible thing to want to replace a UMBC game with a MN type game.

[herboturbo]

I'd really like to know how it's such a terrible thing to want to replace a UMBC game with a MN type game.


Because Minnesota will demand a home game in return, not to mention that they won't play us anymore since we started going into Minnesota and taking talent away - this should not even have to be mentioned when talking about a BCS school.  Also any team from the Valley and a slew of other big named middies out there will also demand a home and home.  Hell we had to give Valpo a 2 for 1 to come in and play the Blue and Gold one year (though I will say I seriously enjoyed watching the game at Valpo - great atmosphere for a game).


And since I asked who was complaining about the schedule and was a season ticket holder only one person responded, Hilltopper.   I'm a season ticket holder and I realize that they're are going to be crappy games on the schedule but I think Crean does a fairly good job of bringing in middies that are very competitive and usually strong in an area where we have a percieved weakness.  So it not only in most cases adds a 'W' to the record but we get some work in that will actually help us out.  Would I like to see a ton of big name schools come to town, sure, but only if they are legitimate big names - UCLA, Arizona, Kansas, LSU, Gonzaga, Florida, Indiana- but I also realize we cannot have a bunch of those games every year as well not to mention the fact that they have to actually want to play us. 

I do not, however, want to see an Ole Miss, or an Oregon St., or a Virginia Tech, or a Northwestern - someone who is usually not very good and would also demand a home and home series scheduled just because they have name recognition.  Now if those teams wanted to come in for buy games I'm all for it, but it would never happen. 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

And since I asked who was complaining about the schedule and was a season ticket holder only one person responded, Hilltopper.

I'm a season-ticket holder and I think the schedule is a joke -- and I agree with the previous poster who suggested it was getting worse every year. I've gone to exactly two games this year -- Detroit and Wisconsin. The others were a complete waste of time and money. I'm quite certain there are a few thousand season ticket holders who agree.

Incidentally, we also gave Oakland a game at their place.

[Nukem2]

Time to stop beating a dead horse.  60 posts on what is truly a moot issue is lidicrous.  Boy, I hate exam week!

[mu_hilltopper]

Couple quick things .. first, I understand your points about MN.  I should have added any number of high-interest teams to that suggestion.

Second .. not sure why Home/homes are to be avoided like the plague.  We've pulled off 1-2-3 in years' past.   I understand why we don't want away games, because of the need for revenue.  -- With the doubling of season ticket prices, increased attendance, increased conference money (and/or the post-season $ that comes with the BE), and now this big fat ESPN contract .. sure seems like we could better afford H&H's now than years ago, when we routinely did it.  ???

[herboturbo]

Not sure why we why only have three H & H's this year, some of it could probably be attributed to series with Oklahoma State and Gonzaga falling apart at the last second in the last couple of years.  Usually when there's a DII team on the schedule (Northern Michigan in 03-04 and Lewis last year) that means that a game or a series fell through very late in the process.  I'm not sure if something fell through this year for the Hillsdale game.   

Here are the number of H & H's and teams since the year before Crean showed up (keep in mind Dayton and Xavier were part of long term contracts signed after we left the GMW and MCC respectively):

1998-99: 5 (BC, Wisconsin, UIC, Baylor, Dayton) + preseason tournament

1999-00: 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Baylor, Dayton, Xavier)

2000-01: 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Dayton, Xavier, UNC - they bought out the return game) + preseason tournament

2001-02: 4 (Wisconsin, Dayton, Wake Forest, Fordham - we bought out return game) + preseason tournament

2002-03: 4 (Wisconsin, Dayton, Wake Forest, Notre Dame) + Coaches v. Cancer

2003-04: 4 (Wisconsin, Arizona, Valpo, Notre Dame) + Coaches v Cancer

2004-05: 4 (Wisconsin, Arizona, Oakland, Nebraska) + preseason tournament

2005-06: 4 (Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oakland, Valpo) + preseason tournament

2006-07: 3 (Wisconsin, Oakland, Valpo) + preseason tournament

[Marquette84]

I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams.  Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about? 

No, because we're not ACTUALLY talking about SSC and Morgan State.

I'm talking about the #2 through #6 games in terms of quality of opponent.  So please stop substituting Morgan State and Savannah State for the teams I named.

 

You have said several times you think we only have one worthy opponent. 

In reality we have six that represent a quality level that a knowledgeble basketball fan should know and appreciate.  You keep trying to shift this back to focus on Morgan State.

--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States

No, we're not.  We're talking about the games in the middle.

So, let's make this easy.  At the top of the schedule we have Wisconsin.  At the bottom we have Morgan State, UMBC and Savannah State.  We're not talking about ANY of these teams.

As for Detroit, I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody said we should schedule other Midwest Catholic/Jesuit schools.  Here we schedule one, and you gripe.

So Detroit was 176.  Wow.  I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.

So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?

NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody.  Is that clearer? 

So let me get this straight--we say we only have one team we shouldn't swap, and its NDSU? 

I would have guessed you were thinking Wisconsin, but whatever.


[quoteIf you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest) [/quote]

I don't consider them big named opponents. 

I consider them good quality opponents that smart basketball fans should be interested in.  Moreso than dreadful big-name teams like Mississippi and Pepperdine and Minnesota.

And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams. 

If you did, you wouldn't keep repeating that we only have one decent team on the schedule. 

[mu_hilltopper]

--I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams.  Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about? 

**No, because we're not ACTUALLY talking about SSC and Morgan State.

 I *AM* talking about the Morgan State, Savannah State, UMBC, and Hillsdales.  Are you actually reading my posts?


??I'm talking about the #2 through #6 games in terms of quality of opponent.  So please stop substituting Morgan State and Savannah State for the teams I named.

Not sure where you got that quote, but it wasn't from any of my posts.  (Maybe that's the problem, you're reading another forum somewhere!)

** You have said several times you think we only have one worthy opponent.  In reality we have six that represent a quality level that a knowledgeble basketball fan should know and appreciate.  You keep trying to shift this back to focus on Morgan State.

Again, "worthy" is not a word I've used, so stop putting words in my mouth.  Low and High interest are words I've used.  Over and over and over.  And, I keep talking about the bottom 5 teams, because that's what my argument is centered around, the bottom-dwellers.  YOU on the other hand, keep trying to twist my argument to say I purport we should eliminate the middle opponents.  That's not what I'm saying.  But you know that.

--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States
**No, we're not.  We're talking about the games in the middle.

You go ahead.  I'm talking about the bottom dwellers.

**So, let's make this easy.  At the top of the schedule we have Wisconsin.  At the bottom we have Morgan State, UMBC and Savannah State.  We're not talking about ANY of these teams.

Yes, we really are.  You'd like me to say teams like Winthrop are terrible and we shouldn't play them, but I didn't and won't say that.  I will say that Winthrop is low-interest.  No shock there.


--So Detroit was 176.  Wow.  I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.

**So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?

I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more)  would prefer to see Dayton.  I admit, it's hard to tell.  Personally, all things (finances, etc) being equal, I'd prefer to see Dayton.  Swap Detroit with Nebraska or MN, and it'd be a landslide, though.

--NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody.  Is that clearer? 
**So let me get this straight--we say we only have one team we shouldn't swap, and its NDSU? 

 No, I wasn't listing every swap.  Of course, you knew that.

--If you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest)
**I don't consider them big named opponents.  I consider them good quality opponents that smart basketball fans should be interested in.  Moreso than dreadful big-name teams like Mississippi and Pepperdine and Minnesota.

And that's fine, I will agree, "smart" basketball fans "should" be interested in them.  "Sadly" a large portion of the current STHs are not, and would prefer "dreadful" big-name teams.  It's really too bad you don't get to pick your customers, isn't it?  I mean, that would really help you out quite a bit.  You could get rid of all the "ignorant" fans and not sell them tickets, and you can watch MU play UMBC in some peace and quiet.  Perhaps that's your master plan?  Gosh, that would explain some things.

--And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams. 

***If you did, you wouldn't keep repeating that we only have one decent team on the schedule. 

I've not said that, and stop attributing to me, words I have not said.   I have, however, said we have one high-interest game on the home OOC schedule.   See how those words are, you know, completely different, with different meanings?

Seriously.  Wow.

[Big Papi]

**So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?

I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more)  would prefer to see Dayton.  I admit, it's hard to tell.  Personally, all things (finances, etc) being equal, I'd prefer to see Dayton.  Swap Detroit with Nebraska or MN, and it'd be a landslide, though.

Not a chance with Dayton.  There is some serious bad blood between the two.

[Big Papi]

I know everyone wants to divide up the schedule between non-conference and conference and home and away and pick it apart but you really need to look at the schedule as a whole.  The home non-conference portion might not be as good as in year pasts but the home conference games are a lot better than they have been in the past as well.  Only 1 or 2 conference clunkers compared to the CUSA years and before when you had 4 plus and very very few games among top 25 teams.  It was Louisville, Cincy and maybe Memphis and that was it.  Now you have a UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, resurgent Georgetown on top of Louisville and Cincy.  At the end of the year, we will have played double digit games against top 25 teams.  When have we done that before? 

Overall the schedule is just as good or better than the past.  I just don't see how it is not.

[Marquette84]

Your quote:
9.  Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.  This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.   

You divide the MU schedule into two:  Wisconsin and everyone else.

My question:  Do you really believe that?  Or do you agree with me that we have 5-6 decent basketball teams (even if only Wisconsin is the only one that is "well known"), and our usual 5 bunnies?

And i use the word "usual" purposefully.  We've ALWAYS played a handful of bunnies.  Every year.  Under AL.  Under Hank.  Under Majerus, Dukeit, O'Neill and Deane.  And yes, also under Crean. This year is no different.  This year is not worse than usual, and certainly not worst ever in that regards (Check out 1991-92 if you don't believe me).

So I'm not going to discuss Savannah State etc. becauase we've always played those type of games and it's unreasonable to think that we're going to stop any time soon. 

Which brings us back to the question on the table:   Setting aside the bunnies (which we've always played and always will), for the other non-conference games would you rather see a good basketball team that lacks name recognition, or a well-known team that puts a poor product on the court?

I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more)  would prefer to see Dayton.

 

You've dated yourself.  Prior to 1980, we played Dayton exactly 2 times in MU's  history.  Then, beginning about the time we starting going to the NIT instead of the NCAA, we played Dayton twice a year--nearly 30 times in the 1980's and 90's. 

Meanwhile, we've played Detroit nearly 90 total games.  Many were during the 60's and 70's.  Twice a year every year under Al.

I will agree, "smart" basketball fans "should" be interested in them.  "Sadly" a large portion of the current STHs are not, and would prefer "dreadful" big-name teams. 

Fine--that's been my main point all along. 

One last question:  How should I classify you?  If you had to pick a good opponent or a big name, which would you choose?

[herboturbo]

Dayton I believe still owes us a game at the BC, which will probably never be played while this regime is still in charge. 

Also we didn't actually schedule Detroit this year as they won thier way to play us in the CBE.  Detroit is another school we won't see on the schedule anytime soon.  If I recall correctly there's some heat from Crean's MSU days between him and the Detroit head coach.

[mu_hilltopper]

Your quote:
9.  Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.  This year, we basically have 1, UW.  So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.   

You divide the MU schedule into two:  Wisconsin and everyone else.

My question:  Do you really believe that?  Or do you agree with me that we have 5-6 decent basketball teams (even if only Wisconsin is the only one that is "well known"), and our usual 5 bunnies?

I agree and have agreed that we have some low-interest, decent-quality basketball opponents.  I checked that math, and while 5-6 teams are under 200 RPI (being generous) .. the RPIs are pretty phony right now, so looked at last years numbers for some consistency.  For example, right now, UMBC is at 194, which might make them appear (being generous) decent .. last year, they were at 296, which is probably closer to where they'll end up in this year.  So let's go with 3-5 low-interest yet decent-quality teams.

And i use the word "usual" purposefully.  We've ALWAYS played a handful of bunnies.  Every year.  Under AL.  Under Hank.  Under Majerus, Dukeit, O'Neill and Deane.  And yes, also under Crean. This year is no different.  This year is not worse than usual, and certainly not worst ever in that regards (Check out 1991-92 if you don't believe me).

The way you define it, it's no different.  I argue the definition is consumer based, which is interest based.  This year, there are 10 low-interest games, which is an all time high for OOC homers over the past decade or so.

So I'm not going to discuss Savannah State etc. becauase we've always played those type of games and it's unreasonable to think that we're going to stop any time soon. 

And I do believe we'll continue to play SState because we need to fill out our schedule.  What my argument is about is not playing AS MANY Savannah States.  Let's just start with one less.  Maybe two.  I'm not greedy.

Which brings us back to the question on the table:   Setting aside the bunnies (which we've always played and always will), for the other non-conference games would you rather see a good basketball team that lacks name recognition, or a well-known team that puts a poor product on the court?

That would, of course, depend.  If our schedule is filled with 10 low-interest games and you're giving me that choice for the 11th game, I'm picking the high-interest opponent.  Also, dismissing all of these high-interest teams as "poor products" is hasty.  The examples of MN and Miss. as "lousy" were top 120 teams last year, which would indicate some modicum of quality.  I'm not saying they're great, I'm saying they could give all 5-6 of your "decent" quality teams a good run.

One last question:  How should I classify you?  If you had to pick a good opponent or a big name, which would you choose?

Read the above paragraph.  It depends on the schedule. 

[mu_hilltopper]

I think everyone will find this one amusing.  This guy is a true Sophomore.

http://mb33.scout.com/fmarquettefrm8.showMessage?topicID=14822.topic

Maybe amusing isn't the right word.  Read the petition.  It will rock your world.  No, that's not the right words either.  It'll do something to you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I missed all the fun, what was the deal.  The link doesn't work so I can only imagine the thread was removed.  Was the poster banned too?   

[NYWarrior]

it was removed at about 9:45pm CST......Stalingrad has hard and fast rules about that kinda thing, i guess 

[mu_hilltopper]

Shoot, I can't find the petition .. I had my browser history turned off (don't want the missus stumbling on all my porn sites.)

Roughly, it was a post by a "Warrior2009" .. with a link to a petition that roughly read "After today's UW/Pitt game, I'm mad because only 2 of MU's OOC teams were top 25 .. we petition MU and Tom Crean to have a better schedule."  or something along those lines. 

Jeez, why set your sights on Top 25?  Might as well go for the gusto with Top 10.