have a 29-12 edge in free-throw attempts at Green Bay. Trevon Hughes has attempted four more FTs than the entire GB team. Ridiculous. Dracula brings his refs with him wherever he goes in the regular season. That's why they get their derrieres kicked in the tourney every year.
Let's go GB! Screw the rodents
And they are in OT right now....wow.
??? How can you say its the refs when you look at the stat line? They're probably the bigger and more aggressive team and GB is typically a Jump shooting team.
UW down 4 with 42 seconds left..
down by 5 with 22.1
This game on TV? I checked the Big Ten network and .. it's the Lady Warriors versus Ill. Go figure.
no, channell 32 out of gb
ya
;D
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 09, 2009, 09:22:35 PM
This game on TV? I checked the Big Ten network and .. it's the Lady Warriors versus Ill. Go figure.
It's at UWGB so the Big Ten Network doesn't have the rights to the game. Not sure which channels typically pick up Horizon League games, but I think this one was only available on their website for some reason.
Are there some AP poll voters looking for an eraser about now?
hahaahahahahahahahahaha
now that i got that out, lets hit these schmucks while they're down. i'm sure they'll be primed for saturday and won't want to lose two in a row, so lets fire up marquette
So no TV here, but I want to know -- did the UWGB fans rush the court?
If the Badgers lose and the game wasn't on TV, did it ever really happen?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Better get ready Marquette. Bucky will be looking for some whoop ass this Saturday.
After that apparent "PROGRAM CHANGING WIN" vs (an overrated) Duke maybe they will get off that high horse they have been riding the last week. Not sure what implications this has for our game Saturday but it will be fun watching their reaction after losing to UWGB.
Pressure the guards and make it an 80 point game. The pace must be above a 60 point game. Cudos to GB. Beat the Badgers with the best player injured on the bench.
Need huge efforts on Hughes and Leuer defensively. Those two are the guys who can take over a game.
Quote from: LCDutchman on December 09, 2009, 09:32:03 PM
Pressure the guards and make it an 80 point game. The pace must be above a 60 point game. Cudos to GB. Beat the Badgers with the best player injured on the bench.
How to beat the Badgers...simple, don't play at the Kohl Center.
UW-GB is solid, so lets give credit where due. That being said, CONGRATS Phoenix! Big Win! Now that I've got that out of the way - MU MUST take advantage of this opportunity to beat them while they're down. UW just played a tough and long OT game, now has to travel in the crappy whether across the state, and then have roughly a day to get ready for us. This really seems to be falling into place for MU.
Ring Out Ahoya!
great win for UWGB.
congrats to coach TK
UWGB has some athleticism and is playing the best team defense since the Dick Bennett days. The Nix are a blue collar special with something to prove.
I watched the game on streaming video. GB was ahead for most of the contest. They were up by as much as eight points. The Nix shot 50 percent from three point range.
Seth Evans, a freshman, hit a shot at the end of regulation that would have won it for UWGB. The refers waved it off. A great OT. The Nix did not lose composure and played without Rahmon Fletcher who hurt a knee at the end of regulation.
A house record with just under 10,000 at the Resch Center. They saw a great, great game. Hughes and Leuer were nearly unstoppable. Hughes fouled out in OT and that helped the Nix.
Why dont we just worry about marquette and not wisconsin, we lost to a bad nc st team.
Exhibit A why you don't play these games. This was UWGB's Super Bowl and UW-Madison gains NOTHING from it. UW-Madison is better off playing out of state to someone where it isn't their Super Bowl. It just begs for these losses.
"A lot of our guys think they should be playing for [Wisconsin], and they want to prove them wrong," Kowalczyk said."
"I thought this was the next step for our program," Kowalczyk said.
Exactly, that's why you don't give them the opportunity to take that next step because it doesn't help you, it only helps them.
I'm sure Fran is saying it's great for college basketball. He's probably also saying something really stupid about them still being the little brother or cousin or other complete bullcrap he normally spews about now.
+1
I was thinking the exact same thing! Don't travel into a no-win situation!
Congrats to UW-Green Bay! This is what makes basketball in the State of Wisconsin exciting! :)
Hahahaha saw it on ESPN.com before coming here. If we win on Saturday, Madison is duking it out with UWM on 12/23 for 3rd best in WI.
Don't scare me like that!!! At first I thought it said BUYCKS goes down.
Other than making us all giggle, this does nothing for us. Bucky is going to be seriously pi$$ed on Saturday and we could get rolled even worse. And I agree with the posters as to why scheduling games like this does nothing for us. What did Bucky have to gain? Look what they lost. I understand the good-will-in-the-state-of-Wisconsin thought, but I don't agree with it. When we finally lose to UWm, what will their (few) fans talk about for the next 50 years?
How did they fly out of Madison with 18 inches of snow and all coming down? Probably would have been better to just partcipate in the snowball fight on Bascom Hill.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2009, 10:41:53 PM
Exhibit A why you don't play these games.
+1
Especially on the road.
Cry me a river. You play these games because they are more competitive and spirited than going up against another cupcake. If your program is worth a crap this loss won't mean anything and your TEAM will be better served by it when they play their conference games. If you win (which lets be honest, is what happens over 90% of the time), then it is a good win in a tough environment. Either way, its better preperation for tough games in Jan-March than playing Little Sisters of the Poor in front of an uninterested 9,000 fans in the BC.
Lets also not forget, a loss to UWM, UWGB, UW-Whoever, is not significant when it comes to selection time or recruiting. Any argument to the contrary is nonsense. What is more important is how you are playing in February and March and your conference record. These games help Marquette and Wisconsin prepare for the games that actually matter to the selection committee. On top of that, these games matter to basketball fans in the state of Wisconsin. Its entertaining and it helps the team improve not matter the outcome of the game. I will take a loss to UWM and UWGB every year if it helps Marquette become a better team in March.
Quote from: MU1984 on December 10, 2009, 07:56:16 AM
You play these games because they are more competitive and spirited than going up against another cupcake.
bingo.
mu 1984 and mu-hilltopper are right. Scared little pansies avoid these games, unless you are truly a pretender you have nothing to fear in these games. if Mu loses to UWGB or UWM and then goes on to lose a recruit to them or miss the NCAA tourney becuase of that single loss then well they dont have much of a program anyway.
IF Wisconsn goes on to miss the tourney this loss will have nothing to do with it and like the article says everyone of those kids on GB were offered a scholie by UW they would have taken it in a heartbeat.
At the end of the day it gives UW and MU a much better game to prepare for the confernece season than going out and blowing out some patsie by 40.
champions fear noone ...losers would not play anyone if they had their choice.
I agree with Chicos. You don't schedule this series with road games.
Yes, they'll be jacked up to play. But would you rather play a BCS team on the road (where a loss would be more acceptable) or a Horizon League school because it's "good for the state teams?"
It's not even close in my book.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 10, 2009, 07:58:34 AM
bingo.
Except that now you give up a real home and home game, you help in state programs (remember when we were the only program in the state, now we have Madison to deal with....and you want to help the other two?)
Why don't we ACT like a high major program.
The fact that Mr. Hayward agrees with you must be disconcerting. ;D
This is isn't about playing cupcakes, which Hayward doesn't get. I'm all for not playing cupcakes, but that doesn't mean you reward schools in state. There are plenty of other games to play, on the road if you wish, that accomplish the SAME THING, without helping to buildup programs in the same state. Valpo, NIU, Illinois State, Northern Iowa, etc, etc.
Some day we'll act like an elite high major program, I hope to live long enough to see it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:21:40 AM
Except that now you give up a real home and home game
I am calling BS on this one. We have six cupcake games to my count and we have UWM scheduled. With UWGB in a few years, we will have five cupcake games all else equal. We can still do an additional home and home with an out of state school in addition to the one that is expiring with NC State this year and still have four cupcakes.
There is some validity to helping out the out-of-state school argument, but a win over UW and MU is only a step in the right direction. UWM and UWGB still have to win Horizon championships and advance in the NCAA tourney on a consistent basis to even become a blip on MU's radar.
GREEN BAY, Wis. -- After bringing home perhaps his biggest win since taking over at Wisconsin-Green Bay, coach Tod Kowalczyk settled in for his postgame news conference with a wry smile.
"First thing's first," he said. "Does that mean we're better than Duke?"
IMMD.
Quote from: MU1984 on December 10, 2009, 09:29:20 AM
I am calling BS on this one. We have six cupcake games to my count and we have UWM scheduled. With UWGB in a few years, we will have five cupcake games all else equal. We can still do an additional home and home with an out of state school in addition to the one that is expiring with NC State this year and still have four cupcakes.
There is some validity to helping out the out-of-state school argument, but a win over UW and MU is only a step in the right direction. UWM and UWGB still have to win Horizon championships and advance in the NCAA tourney on a consistent basis to even become a blip on MU's radar.
The ONLY way we can do it is by having one fewer home game than we normally have. It's a simple math exercise, just do the math. MU needs 18 home games....add them up. Not hard to do. If MU doesn't need 18 home games anymore, then you are correct that we can do it. Otherwise we have to give up a quality home and home because we're locked in with Wisconsin as well. And coming soon, when the tournament expands, no you will not need to just win the Horizon League because more and more of those schools are going to get in when it goes to 96 teams. Just another reason NOT to help little brother.
There is no long term thinking out of this administration, it's short term, "feel good" and let's hope "everyone likes us" fluffy nonsense. We say we want to be a top tier high major program, then we should act like it. When UCLA starts playing road games at Cal State Northridge, Loyola Marymount, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, Long Beach State I'll be convinced, but they don't for a reason. They don't need to nor should they.
Then there is the precedent angle. Now MU has boxed themselves in, foolishly, to the point that if MU does lose a few of these games and wants to drop the series, the howling will be louder than ever. There is NO WIN here. PERIOD. All MU does is give every opportunity to give someone a punchers chance and then when we finally fall, we're locked into this stupid thing for the next 25 years. Again, ZERO long term thinking.
Sorry, I don't buy the concept that we are "helping" UWM/GB in any material way. They will NEVER EVER be on par with UW/MU. While Pearl did more with less at UWM and had them on the rise, look at them today .. on the outskirts of mid-major city.
The only day MU will be competing against UWM/GB for a recruit is the day MU will have hired Mike Deane as their head coach, or if MU gets bounced down to CUSA again.
UWM and UWGB should hover under 200 in the RPI. For that reason alone, we should play them instead of the 200s-360s we usually play.
chicos compares it to playing a home and home with a "real team" Thats not a fair comparison...an area in which chiocs specializes.
it is actually avery good deal for MU..in the sense that it is not a 1:1 ratio. Mu gets now 6 home games for 2 accorss the street. No travel involved not as good a deal with UWGB but still a deal favorable to MU. take a buzz up there and get 2 home gmaes where a home and home would only net us 1.
If we start lsoing recruits to UWM and UWGB, or start no longer being perceived as the basketball powerhouse in the state, or sstart losing to them we have much bigger problems than simply scheduling these two teams and possibly losing to them.
Chicos as always makes amountain out of a mole hill...chicken little at his finest. Some people might use the word coward..i wont. Lets see Crean would not play them buzz will ...i got it playing them is bad.
With fans like chicos who needs enemies.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 10, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Sorry, I don't buy the concept that we are "helping" UWM/GB in any material way. They will NEVER EVER be on par with UW/MU. While Pearl did more with less at UWM and had them on the rise, look at them today .. on the outskirts of mid-major city.
The only day MU will be competing against UWM/GB for a recruit is the day MU will have hired Mike Deane as their head coach, or if MU gets bounced down to CUSA again.
UWM and UWGB should hover under 200 in the RPI. For that reason alone, we should play them instead of the 200s-360s we usually play.
It's not necessarily about the recruits, it's about visibility, it's about market share, it's about attendance, it's about prestige, it's about being "controlled" (in terms of scheduling) by sources that are not internal. In essence, we are giving up some sovereignty on this. I know a lot of you don't get it right now, and that's because we haven't lost yet.
But here's the deal, if we lose one or two of these games and MU goes through another dry spell....let's face it, in the last 30 years we were more down than up, then MU loses more and more control over their schedule, etc. They're locked into playing these guys because getting rid of the series would raise the ire of the media, the locals, etc.
So this isn't about recruits, but much broader picture which is why you don't want to help little brother. We are painting ourselves into a corner that we don't need to do. It's foolish. No one is saying that UWM is going to be better than MU, all we're saying is we only complicate matters by helping them out in terms of press coverage, market share in the city, etc, etc. If we were a business, the CEO would be fired for this.
Chicos - Where your argument falls flat on my end is that we have a deal with two teams, two games a year. In my eyes, I see this as a swap for the UMES and Centenary's of the world not a swap for NC State or Arizona a few years back. You make it seem like we will now not do a home/home with a Pac-10, ACC, SEC, etc team where I don't see how that can't happen amd how this is handcuffing our scheduling going forward.
Also, I am pretty sure these deals do not get done without Buzz's approval and his encouragment so knocking the admin is probably not the right target. No matter who the AD is, when it comes to basketball scheduling, the buck will always stop with the HC.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 10, 2009, 09:37:23 AM
Sorry, I don't buy the concept that we are "helping" UWM/GB in any material way. They will NEVER EVER be on par with UW/MU. While Pearl did more with less at UWM and had them on the rise, look at them today .. on the outskirts of mid-major city.
The only day MU will be competing against UWM/GB for a recruit is the day MU will have hired Mike Deane as their head coach, or if MU gets bounced down to CUSA again.
UWM and UWGB should hover under 200 in the RPI. For that reason alone, we should play them instead of the 200s-360s we usually play.
Agree. We've seen that despite the predictions otherwise that a UWM game not on a weeknight in the middle of a blizzard draws much better attendance than bringing in Southwest Wyoming Tech. Nothing wrong with having a bus ride to the Resch to let the fans there see us play. Whether we play across the street or up in Green Bay there's very little homecourt advantage as half the crowd will still be MU fans, and a road win against a 200 RPI team does more than a home win against a 350 RPI team. Last I checked the "howling" doesn't add any more than the one loss to the record. Why be afraid of playing these teams? Is it really less shameful to run and hide or to drop one against them in a year where they field a good team and we're having a down year? We might have to take a page from the Badger spin and realize that the sun still comes up the next day if you lose a game.
Quote from: MU1984 on December 10, 2009, 09:53:29 AM
Chicos - Where your argument falls flat on my end is that we have a deal with two teams, two games a year. In my eyes, I see this as a swap for the UMES and Centenary's of the world not a swap for NC State or Arizona a few years back.
And this is where I stop reading. UMES and Centenary WILL NOT ASK FOR A RETURN GAME! Just about any mid-major deal that gives a road game away is bad business for MU. Same with Valpo, Oakland, etc.
The reason you give road games to mid-majors is to tap into recruiting areas. I think recruiting the South had quite a bit to do with Georgetown travelling to Tulane and Savannah State. We already have a presence in WI.
I'd much rather see a 2 for 1 with Santa Clara and a school in Texas.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 09, 2009, 09:35:15 PM
Need huge efforts on Hughes and Leuer defensively. Those two are the guys who can take over a game.
Hughes and Leuer both had near career games last night. They certainly can take over a game -- and still lose.
Good thing for their opponents is the rest of the team is filled with over-hyped recruits who have rarely been influential during big games and five 6'10'' white guys with crew-cuts who never take the towel off their left shoulder.
Of course, MU will still lose.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 10:19:00 AM
And this is where I stop reading. UMES and Centenary WILL NOT ASK FOR A RETURN GAME! Any mid-major deal that gives a road game away is bad business for MU. Same with Valpo, Oakland, etc.
The reason you give road games to mid-majors is to tap into recruiting areas. I think recruiting the South had quite a bit to do with Georgetown travelling to Tulane and Savannah State. We already have a presence in WI.
I'd much rather see a 2 for 1 with Santa Clara and a school in Texas.
Got it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:35:14 AM
The ONLY way we can do it is by having one fewer home game than we normally have. It's a simple math exercise, just do the math. MU needs 18 home games....add them up. Not hard to do. .
I haven't taken sides on this issue yet. I am most interested in the economics behind this. It sounds like a wash for MU to do 2 for 1s with UWM and UWGB. Let's assume that we sign 2-1s with 3 cupcakes within a bus drive away (e.g. 3rd being Loyola Chicago) so every year we play 1 game less at the Bradley Center. That would mean we have 17 home games. Let's assume the net revenue (including BC rental) for a home game is $250,000 before buy costs. (about $170,000 after if we assume it costs $80,000 to host a buy game now). I don't know where those numbers come from but I saw it posted earlier and let's just say it's that. That would mean if we get about $510,000 for the 3 buy games or $500,000 for 2 two for ones. However, let's assume that more tickets are sold and more fans attend the games at the BC because of the interest in the games. That should easily make up the difference. I am not sure how TV revenues work in this case and whether or not that would influence the economics very much.
This only leaves non-economic factors. I am pretty sure UWM or UWGB will never be anything more than a mid-major. There is very little reputational upside in playing any cupcake, especially if they beat you. However, we still play a bunch of them at home each year. Playing on their court every third year doesn't frighten me.
So I don't see what the fuss is about. Economically it is neutral and reputationally I kind of miss the point of the critics. Will it make for more interesting basketball? I'd rather see us play Northern Prarie State A&M and win by 70
We complain about bringing in cupcakes and complain about playing decent programs in state with a road game. I prefer to play better opponents and a tough road game before the conference begins.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 10:19:00 AM
I'd much rather see a 2 for 1 with Santa Clara and a school in Texas.
8-10k more butts in the seats over the two games because of the UW in front of the opponent's name, very little travel time/cost, playing the road game in front of 50% MU fans vs. possibly, maybe, slightly increasing the odds that a recruit will see or come to the game and get enough interest because of that to eventually commit?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 09:44:32 AM
It's not necessarily about the recruits, it's about visibility, it's about market share, it's about attendance, it's about prestige, it's about being "controlled" (in terms of scheduling) by sources that are not internal. In essence, we are giving up some sovereignty on this. I know a lot of you don't get it right now, and that's because we haven't lost yet.
..
So this isn't about recruits, but much broader picture which is why you don't want to help little brother. We are painting ourselves into a corner that we don't need to do. It's foolish. No one is saying that UWM is going to be better than MU, all we're saying is we only complicate matters by helping them out in terms of press coverage, market share in the city, etc, etc. If we were a business, the CEO would be fired for this.
Disagree. Playing UWGB is not going to add to their visibility, nor add to their "market share." It's just a game. Even if we lose. Besides getting 18 seconds on ESPN this morning, UWGB is still UWGB after beating Bucky.
Helping your little brother is not a good analogy. Little brothers grow up. UWGB will not be doing that. They are who they are.
Clearly, Cottingham and Buzz do not agree with your thought process.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 10:19:00 AM
The reason you give road games to mid-majors is to tap into recruiting areas.
Seriously? You jest. You really think a high-level recruit is going to give a rat's ass about a high-major school stomping up on their local mid-major college? Or even notice? While I agree it can't hurt .. it's far from a deal-breaker for a high school kid.
If only it was that easy.
Quote from: radome on December 10, 2009, 10:34:01 AM
We complain about bringing in cupcakes and complain about playing decent programs in state with a road game. I prefer to play better opponents and a tough road game before the conference begins.
I'd agree. What was so bad about UW's loss to UW-GB last night? They'll take some crap (I've given a great deal out already this morning), but I don't see recruits now opting for UW-GB over UW or anything close to that. They're fun games, and I have to wonder how we stole three top notch players out of UW with a very poor recent record against UW if these games are such a big deal.
Topper- The recruit doesn't give two sh*ts about who we're playing. But it allows the staff to visit, watch them play, and get them to a game without wasting a visit. But taking a ranked team (which we will be) into larger, more talented markets has to help more than playing in GB. All about visibility. Like I said with Georgetown, I don't think they played at Savannah State out of the kindness of their hearts.
chapman- Did you see how few UWM fans were there? How little play this got in the media? There is no juice with this series. You'll see a spike in interest when we play GB the first time, but beyond that, nada. Paid attendance for UWM was about a grand more than So. Dakota, and has been trending down since the first year. And instead of starting a home and home with someone, we'll be going across the street. I have a hard time believing travel costs are that debilitating.
Quote from: MUEng92 on December 09, 2009, 09:30:17 PM
Are there some AP poll voters looking for an eraser about now?
Well, they may need an eraser, but it won't be to pencil us in. We need quality wins, I do not know why everyone is excited to see UW lose. Our Michigan win has lost its lustre as they have fallen apart. So far we have one decent win, against X.
Quote from: 79Warrior on December 10, 2009, 11:24:34 AM
So far we have one decent win, against X.
And they have not exactly been setting the world on fire either. I watched them get crushed the other night by K State.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2009, 10:41:53 PM
Exhibit A why you don't play these games. This was UWGB's Super Bowl and UW-Madison gains NOTHING from it. UW-Madison is better off playing out of state to someone where it isn't their Super Bowl. It just begs for these losses.
"A lot of our guys think they should be playing for [Wisconsin], and they want to prove them wrong," Kowalczyk said."
"I thought this was the next step for our program," Kowalczyk said.
Exactly, that's why you don't give them the opportunity to take that next step because it doesn't help you, it only helps them.
I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.
But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.
Quote from: warrior07 on December 10, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.
But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.
I agree with one sentence here.
I guess we need to chalk this topic up with things like politics, religion, and Marquette's nickname. People seems to already have their mind made up, and nobody is going to change it.
FWIW, I think the games are fine. There's 3 situations I see:
1) If Marquette loses, and our reputation suffers from it, then I can only assume we'll be in the bottom half of the Big East as well. In that case, it's not UW-insert school's fault, it's somethings Marquette needs to work to correct.
2) If we win or lose, and end up at the top half of the big east, then nobody cares.
3) If we win, and end up in the bottom half of of the BE, then it's up to Marquette to improve our team.
98% of Marquette's reputation comes from BE play, and NCAA tourney play. Nobody outside of WI gives a rats ass about how we do against UW-insert school. By Tourney time, pre-conference is forgotten. Take care of business in the BE and the Tourney, and all will be fine.
Quote from: warrior07 on December 10, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.
But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.
warrior07...i am guessing by your tagname that you are a recent Mu student. Therefore a little history may be in order. First of all apart from the last 15 year Wisconsin has absolutely sucked in Basketball. they went about 50 years in between NCAA appearances. Yes they have been solid recently but before this streak they were a joke's punchline, the only school to suck worse than UW and not by much from about 1950-1995 was Northwestern.
Wisconsin has also capitalized on IOWA, Minnesota being rather weak many of their best players over that time have been from there. Wisconsin is similar to Indiana in football no homegrown talent and therefore very subject to absolutely sucking. Interesting fact the State of Indiana produced 13 Division 1 football recruits this year. The state of wisconsin produces about 1 or 2 true D1 bball players a year that are BCS quality and actually Mu has been getting them lately.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 09, 2009, 10:41:53 PM
Exhibit A why you don't play these games. This was UWGB's Super Bowl and UW-Madison gains NOTHING from it. UW-Madison is better off playing out of state to someone where it isn't their Super Bowl. It just begs for these losses.
"A lot of our guys think they should be playing for [Wisconsin], and they want to prove them wrong," Kowalczyk said."
"I thought this was the next step for our program," Kowalczyk said.
Exactly, that's why you don't give them the opportunity to take that next step because it doesn't help you, it only helps them.
I'm sure Fran is saying it's great for college basketball. He's probably also saying something really stupid about them still being the little brother or cousin or other complete bullcrap he normally spews about now.
You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record. It's their superbowl? Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl. Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun. We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years. Yes they may pull off an upset. But so what? That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home? You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?
Quote from: RawdogDX on December 10, 2009, 01:32:21 PM
You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record. It's their superbowl? Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl. Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun. We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years. Yes they may pull off an upset. But so what? That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home? You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?
chicos makes me think of bill clinton, but on second thought scared little girl may be more accurate.
As as Exhbit A...quarterbacks
Jay Cutler
Rex Grossman
Rick Mirer
Jeff George.....
OK bad examples ;D
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 10, 2009, 08:48:38 AM
mu 1984 and mu-hilltopper are right. Scared little pansies avoid these games, unless you are truly a pretender you have nothing to fear in these games. if Mu loses to UWGB or UWM and then goes on to lose a recruit to them or miss the NCAA tourney becuase of that single loss then well they dont have much of a program anyway.
IF Wisconsn goes on to miss the tourney this loss will have nothing to do with it and like the article says everyone of those kids on GB were offered a scholie by UW they would have taken it in a heartbeat.
At the end of the day it gives UW and MU a much better game to prepare for the confernece season than going out and blowing out some patsie by 40.
champions fear noone ...losers would not play anyone if they had their choice.
Chicos is absolutely right. Road games at BS Wisconsin schools is a joke. I am ok with UW, the other schools we should not spend 10 cents on gas.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on December 10, 2009, 01:40:09 PM
As as Exhbit A...quarterbacks
Jay Cutler
Rex Grossman
Rick Mirer
Jeff George.....
OK bad examples ;D
Huh?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 10, 2009, 10:34:50 AM
Disagree. Playing UWGB is not going to add to their visibility, nor add to their "market share." It's just a game. Even if we lose. Besides getting 18 seconds on ESPN this morning, UWGB is still UWGB after beating Bucky.
Helping your little brother is not a good analogy. Little brothers grow up. UWGB will not be doing that. They are who they are.
Clearly, Cottingham and Buzz do not agree with your thought process.
Clearly.....and clearly Dan Guerrero and many other ADs do concur with my thought process. The market share comment was more about UWM than UWGB.....right now UWM has almost none, so why in hell help them out. It's ridiculous. Instead of giving them no opportunity make any headway, we caved and gave them 1 chance in every 5 years (they aren't going to beat us at home), now we're going to 1 in every 3 years.....hell, if they win one or two they'll be demanding a home and home. All it's going to take is one or two wins, which now that we've decided we'll play there more and more often, and then MU will not be able to get out of the contract. The press will scream that MU is bailing because we lost.
You can see this one a mile away which is why high profile high major programs DO NOT DO THIS....speaks volumes about how we think the department right now.
If we want to play UWGB and UWM, you make them 100% at home. PERIOD! And the last thing on earth you do is go from a 4 for 1 to a 2 for 1. What an absolute joke.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 10:19:00 AM
And this is where I stop reading. UMES and Centenary WILL NOT ASK FOR A RETURN GAME! Just about any mid-major deal that gives a road game away is bad business for MU. Same with Valpo, Oakland, etc.
Exactly....I don't know why this is so damn hard for some people to process in their brains. I really don't, but for some reason it is.
Quote from: MU1984 on December 10, 2009, 09:53:29 AM
Chicos - Where your argument falls flat on my end is that we have a deal with two teams, two games a year. In my eyes, I see this as a swap for the UMES and Centenary's of the world not a swap for NC State or Arizona a few years back. You make it seem like we will now not do a home/home with a Pac-10, ACC, SEC, etc team where I don't see how that can't happen amd how this is handcuffing our scheduling going forward.
Also, I am pretty sure these deals do not get done without Buzz's approval and his encouragment so knocking the admin is probably not the right target. No matter who the AD is, when it comes to basketball scheduling, the buck will always stop with the HC.
Oh, I have no doubt they didn't get done without Buzz's approval....this is also why you have an AD who is supposed to see the bigger picture, the long term consequences, and most importantly to look out for OUR PROGRAM not someone else's. And you still don't get it when you compare UMES and Centennary....NO RETURN GAMES for those teams. You fail to understand how this works when you continue to bring those true BUY games into your argument. You're making a water melon to pencil comparison.
PS Can someone translate stupid for me? I tried reading Hayward's post and I don't have a translator that can properly put those letters and characters into words, sentences, and paragraphs. Thanks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 03:39:34 PM
And you still don't get it when you compare UMES and Centennary....NO RETURN GAMES for those teams.
No, I got it now. Stupid to bring up that comparison on my part.
The one thing I still don't understand (and that's because I don't know) why does this prevent other home and home with schools from the larger conferences in addition to UWM & UWGB agreements?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 03:34:12 PM
All it's going to take is one or two wins, which now that we've decided we'll play there more and more often, and then MU will not be able to get out of the contract. The press will scream that MU is bailing because we lost.
Chicos, the same screaming would happen if the games were 100% at home and we lost, and then eventually dropped the series.
Other than the fact that
you think it portrays MU in a negative light (which I strongly disagree with), I haven't read a single good argument not to play the series.
Did the Big East just send MU a letter telling us that they were disappointed that we were stooping so low as to go play a game at Green Bay? No. You're getting all worked up over nothing. It's basketball, it's fun. Your personal biases are getting in the way.
Or are you lobbying to be the next MU AD?
Quote from: RawdogDX on December 10, 2009, 01:32:21 PM
You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record. It's their superbowl? Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl. Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun. We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years. Yes they may pull off an upset. But so what? That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home? You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?
Last I checked, this is a business and you need to protect your business, which includes your backyard. You need to protect your brand. Is UCLA a little girl in college basketball because they don't play road games against other L.A. schools? Please. Is Georgetown a little girl because they don't play at American University? Please. Is DePaul now a complete shadow of what they were and relegated to playing at UIC and such? Yes. Powerful, big time schools do NOT go play at small schools with very few exceptions. And they most certainly don't do it every third year. When Duke starts playing at UNC Asheville every third year, let me know. When UNC starts playing at UNC Wilmington every third year, let me know. When UCONN plays at Connecticut State every 3rd year, let me know.
MU should be doing things based on the business of MU basketball, not based on whether there's a nice guy at another school and you want to throw him a solid.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 10, 2009, 04:00:38 PM
Chicos, the same screaming would happen if the games were 100% at home and we lost, and then eventually dropped the series.
Other than the fact that you think it portrays MU in a negative light (which I strongly disagree with), I haven't read a single good argument not to play the series.
Exactly Rocky, that's why I said we should not play it to begin with. But, let's also be realistic, the chances of us losing at home to one of these guys is very slim. The chances on the road, greater (see last night with UW-Madison). Why even play into their hands? Why even open up that door? It's stupid.
No, my personal biases are not in the way. How are my personal biases extended to all of the other schools I've mentioned that DON'T DO IT? Am I the AD at UCLA? Is he channeling my biases? No, he's just smart about who he schedules. Same for any other high major program in the country. There is no upside, and if there is no upside for your team, family, program, business, you don't do it.
Seriously Rocky....WHAT IS THE UPSIDE? Can someone explain that to me?
I've heard it's good for the state. Sports are fun. Travel costs are less (really....less than a drive to NIU...what are we saving, $350?). What is the upside?
In turn, what's the potential DOWNSIDE?
The ROI on this is crap which is why so many other high majors don't do it.
Quote from: MU1984 on December 10, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
The one thing I still don't understand (and that's because I don't know) why does this prevent other home and home with schools from the larger conferences in addition to UWM & UWGB agreements?
Because we have one away game per year, basically. The exempt tourneys count as one game, so that is more attractive. The long-standing thought is MU needs 18 home games to bring in enough revenue to continue to fund the other sports at the same level. UW takes that slot every other year. By giving GB and UWM a home game, you're taking up that slot for two more years.
So here's what we're left with (if my knowledge of these contracts is accurate)-
2010-11- at UWM
2011-12- at UW
2012-13- at GB
2013-14- at UW
2014-15- at UWM
So for the next 5 years, the odds of getting a home and home are basically gone, unless something dramatically changed with the finances of the AD.
That's why I have a problem with this setup.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 04:09:02 PM
Because we have one away game per year, basically. The exempt tourneys count as one game, so that is more attractive. The long-standing thought is MU needs 18 home games to bring in enough revenue to continue to fund the other sports at the same level. UW takes that slot every other year. By giving GB and UWM a home game, you're taking up that slot for two more years.
So here's what we're left with (if my knowledge of these contracts is accurate)-
2010-11- at UWM
2011-12- at UW
2012-13- at GB
2013-14- at UW
2014-15- at UWM
So for the next 5 years, the odds of getting a home and home are basically gone, unless something dramatically changed with the finances of the AD.
That's why I have a problem with this setup.
Okay, and the reasoning for this is that they with play either UW/GB, UW/UWM, or GB/UWM at home all those years which will bring in additional ticket sales than an average non-conf home game. Judging by the NC State attendence this year, its not a horrible financial agreement because of the nature of the 2 for 1.
Thoughts?
For the first year they play GB it will increase. UW will always sell out regardless. And I've been to UWM/GB games at the Arena, very few GB fans travel for their biggest rival. They might the first year, but after that, who knows?
UWM's program is falling fast, and it's showed by the attendance figures the last 3 years. Sure, the first year was 17,000+ but it dropped badly. There were *maybe* 150 UWM fans there.
In fact, here are the numbers from our weeknight non-conference games:
UMES- 13511
USD- 13731
UWM- 14244
Unless UWM becomes good again, and the folks jump on the bandwagon, the attendance will be no better than a buy game (usually around 13,000). Is it worth giving up an away game for an extra 750 tickets? I say no.
The fact is, the only people who cared about this were in Shorewood and Madison. There is no more appreciable media buzz for the UWM game (after the first year). Don't see how UWGB would be any different, to be honest.
Those numbers must be tickets sold because there werent 14k at the UWM game.
I agree with your point that it isn't great to give up an away game for that small of an increase. However, didn't they score four home games versus one that would be used for an ACC/SEC/etc school? Also, a home/home versus an NC State isn't better than getting 2 for 1, in my opinion. If they can get someone in the top 1/4 of a major conference then it is worth it, but that opportunity is obviously not available.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 04:23:44 PM
For the first year they play GB it will increase. UW will always sell out regardless. And I've been to UWM/GB games at the Arena, very few GB fans travel for their biggest rival. They might the first year, but after that, who knows?
UWM's program is falling fast, and it's showed by the attendance figures the last 3 years. Sure, the first year was 17,000+ but it dropped badly. There were *maybe* 150 UWM fans there.
In fact, here are the numbers from our weeknight non-conference games:
UMES- 13511
USD- 13731
UWM- 14244
Unless UWM becomes good again, and the folks jump on the bandwagon, the attendance will be no better than a buy game (usually around 13,000). Is it worth giving up an away game for an extra 750 tickets? I say no.
Thanks for the numbers. However, my understanding is that a 2 for 1 is a 3 game deal. So you get two home games and one away game. Using your math that is 1500 more tickets sold and you don't need to pay a cupcake for playing which can run $80,000 per game which for the two home games part of the series means $160,000 more in the pocket of the university. I just think the economics are more balanced than you present.
Just throwing it out there... is it possible that with Marquette's commitments to exemption tournaments for the immediate future (they're in one every season through 2012-13, right?) maybe created a change in philosophy for what they wanted in terms of a road game, whether it be economics or beyond?
I'd love to follow the old-school John Chaney Temple method of just signing up home-and-homes against quality non-conference opponents and do a Bataan death march that preps for the rigors of Big East play, but I know that's not feasible beyond 1-2 opponents given the men's basketball status as overwhelmingly primary moneymaker for the athletic department.
That said, if these tournaments are going to consistently provide three opponents against arguably the top third or quarter of the 31 D-1 conferences (case in point, this season's were A-10, Big Ten and ACC), is it possible the coaching staff and/or the athletic department consider the risk/reward of getting that 1.4 weight
of the road win for the RPI vs. an intrastate opponent greater than a straight-up home-and-home? And that keeps in mind, the Wisconsin game is at home in those seasons.
Just a thought.
Quote from: downtown85 on December 10, 2009, 05:30:42 PM
Thanks for the numbers. However, my understanding is that a 2 for 1 is a 3 game deal. So you get two home games and one away game. Using your math that is 1500 more tickets sold and you don't need to pay a cupcake for playing which can run $80,000 per game which for the two home games part of the series means $160,000 more in the pocket of the university. I just think the economics are more balanced than you present.
That could very well be the case. But I thought I remembered UWM getting something like $60,000 for a game, which is outrageous if it is the case.
Can anyone cite an example of a big name program falling off because of playing a lower tier in-state school? Basically I don't think that recruits, coaches or the media thinks any differently of UW in the grand scheme of things because of this one loss the GB. Do you?
Programs fall off for a variety of reasons, but not due to one or two losses to teams like UWM or GB. It has to do with coaching, recruiting, investment by the university, etc.
What if the worst case scenario unfolds here: say we lose 2 of 3 to GB. Will we lose recruits to GB? No. Will the local media drop MU coverage in favor of GB? No. Will the BEast kick us out? No.
You say that the downside outweighs the upside, but I don't see it. Even in a worse case scenario I don't really see these non-conference games having much effect in the big picture. Our success will be determined by our recruiting, coaching, big east, and tournament results; not minor essentially meaningless games against GB.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 10, 2009, 04:00:38 PM
I haven't read a single good argument not to play the series.
I'll give it a go
1) By having 2 for 1's with UWM, UWGB, and UW-Madison, by nature this forces MU to not be able to play any other home and home series with non conference opponents from major conferences IF we stick to 17 or 18 home games (this has fluctuated in the past from 17 to 18 games the last 6 years with one exception when we hosted the beginning of the season tournament). This is because we play 9 Big East home games, and the remaining 8 or 9 we need from a revenue perspective to fund the program.
Basically we have substituted out our home and home, to a large extent, with these games at UWGB and at UWM. Depending on how we stagger it, we can still have a home and home every once in awhile, but not each year UNLESS they are going to play with the number of home games we need in the future. That is possible, but that is a significant departure from years prior. If that's where we are going, I'd love to hear the financial argument on that.
2) UWM is a non-player in the Milwaukee market right now. When UWM was good a few years ago, they were getting significant press, exposure, etc. That impacts MU. MU has to fight the Bucks and Packers for coverage as is, adding ANOTHER entity to fight with when media resources are stretched is not something I'm excited about. Milwaukee is too small a town, no need to help out another entity grab the public's attention. All it takes is one or two wins in the series to accomplish this.
3) You lock yourselves into a worse and worse deal moving forward. As someone that negotiates deals for a living, this makes no sense to me what they have done. We go from a 4 for 1 to a 2 for 1. Next time around, they'll want a 2 for 1 again, and if we don't give it to them they start whining in the press again. If they actually beat us once or twice in their gym, then it gets really problematic because they demand 1 for 1 and play another PR card. "We're now your equals, this is great for the city, blah blah blah...we should play every year and alternate, why is MU not taking the next step". Each year we have lost more and more control over OUR schedule by doing this and I don't think they've contemplated the what-if scenarios from a PR perspective.
We have walked into what amounts almost to a progressive scheduling tax essentially. The more we give up, the more we will have to CONTINUE to give up. We were in a position of strength and we have negotiated as if we held none of the cards. How many naked pictures are out there? ;)
Here are the upside arguments I hear, and they are all of the fluffy, stroke me kind
1)
It's good for the state (where is it good for MU?)
2)
It's good for the city (where is it good for MU?)
3)
It will save on travel costs (we're talking peanuts here...the cost of traveling to Green Bay is no different that the cost of traveling to DeKalb, IL or Chicago (UIC) or slightly less than Valpo, IN)
4)
It's better than playing cupcakes. I agree, but the cupcakes aren't asking us to play at Presbyterian, N. Florida, Grambling, etc. So if we want to replace the cupcakes with UWGB and UWM...fine....play them
at MARQUETTE ONLY
5)
It's not really a road game, it's an extra home game for us. This one takes the cake. Unless MU is getting the gate receipts and 90% of the best seats, this is hardly an extra road game. Yeah, it's easier to travel to UWM but it will hardly be a home game for us. Ask UW-Madison how much of a home game they had last night. Better yet, how much of a home game did Marquette have a few years ago when we played in Green Bay against Southern Mississippi?
Now the downsides
Why put yourself in a position to lose in your backyard? If you're going to lose, lose to someone that isn't in your backyard, won't affect your media coverage, won't help out the other guy's ticket sales, won't give bragging rights to the guy down the street.
Why substitute these games against directional hyphenated schools for programs from major conferences. Nebraska, Wake, Arizona, etc have all done home and home with us the last number of years.
Why reward a school that has treated you like crap in the papers, media, etc, in begging for games. Is that the new way to act, scream loud enough and whine enough and you shall be rewarded with a bigger and better deal? Hey Viterbo....start your bitching now, we might write you a check for $1 million and play you there 10 straight games
Very little talk about the financials involved, and I can't believe that's not a part of this.
Two home and one away (with slightly better attendance) instead of having to pay for a team to come in....someone with knowledge in this area care chime in on what makes better financial sense for MU?
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 05:51:52 PM
That could very well be the case. But I thought I remembered UWM getting something like $60,000 for a game, which is outrageous if it is the case.
They got $58K, then $60K last year, and this year $62K
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on December 10, 2009, 06:09:00 PM
Can anyone cite an example of a big name program falling off because of playing a lower tier in-state school? Basically I don't think that recruits, coaches or the media thinks any differently of UW in the grand scheme of things because of this one loss the GB. Do you?
I can site plenty of big name programs that don't even allow it to be considered because it could happen.
I can also name plenty of former big name programs that now play their cross town opponents and are basically stuck playing them forever. Depaul & St. John's to name just a few.
Do you honestly think if Marquette lost to UWM the local media wouldn't think differently of MU....you are kidding yourself.
Quote from: avid1010 on December 10, 2009, 07:07:30 PM
Very little talk about the financials involved, and I can't believe that's not a part of this.
Two home and one away (with slightly better attendance) instead of having to pay for a team to come in....someone with knowledge in this area care chime in on what makes better financial sense for MU?
Don't forget to factor in that loss of revenue when you go on the road and the loss in revenue for not bringing in a non-cupcake for the home & home.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 07:19:44 PM
I can site plenty of big name programs that don't even allow it to be considered because it could happen.
Do you honestly think if Marquette lost to UWM the local media wouldn't think differently of MU....you are kidding yourself.
So looked up a few schedules of our fellow Beast teams over the past few years. Doesn't seem many of them flinch at playing in state lower tier schools. Let's see:
Pitt - Duquense
Syracuse - Colgate
UConn -Quinnipiac
Nova - St. Joes / LaSalle
Notre Dame - IPFW
Louisville - Western Kentucky
These seem to be pretty reputable programs, they don't back down from in state competition. Are we that fragile?
And about the local media, I was referring to long term. Do you think many local media members now consider UW-GB a better basketball program than UW? No obviously. Do they consider UW much differently? No. Be real
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on December 10, 2009, 09:24:16 PM
So looked up a few schedules of our fellow Beast teams over the past few years. Doesn't seem many of them flinch at playing in state lower tier schools. Let's see:
Pitt - Duquense
Syracuse - Colgate
UConn -Quinnipiac
Nova - St. Joes / LaSalle
Notre Dame - IPFW
Louisville - Western Kentucky
These seem to be pretty reputable programs, they don't back down from in state competition. Are we that fragile?
And about the local media, I was referring to long term. Do you think many local media members now consider UW-GB a better basketball program than UW? No obviously. Do they consider UW much differently? No. Be real
As I stated earlier, if they are both reputable programs, go for it. But why help build one up?
Louisville - Western Kentucky has been played for decades...
WKU actually has the series lead on Louisville. They are both solid programs.
Nova - St. Joes is part of the Big Five in Philadelphia, both reputable programs, been going on for decades, all programs involved actually help each other out because they are all quality programs. None of them "control" Philly or dominate Philly. Poor comparison.
UCONN does not play Quinnipiac at Quinnipiac....all games at home (when they even bother to play them which is not all the time. They do it right, games at UCONN, not AT Quinnipiac)
Syracuse v Colgate...yup....AT SYRACUSE. They aren't stupid enough like we are to do a 2 for 1 deal and play at Colgate. The last 8 games, all at Syracuse.
Do I think the Green Bay media think that about UW? No. It's UW, they're always going to get the fair shake.
Do I think if MU lost to UWM would the media in that town go into full blown erection mode? Not a doubt in my mind.
Notre Dame vs IPFW....they've played 3 times in 10 years.
Pitt vs Duquense....as I said yesterday, there are exceptions and this is one of them. DePaul plays UIC. St. John's plays Fordham. There are exceptions.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 07:17:27 PM
They got $58K, then $60K last year, and this year $62K
Thanks, Chicos. I'm sure UWGB will be asking for similar numbers. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: MUfan12 on December 10, 2009, 10:19:09 PM
Thanks, Chicos. I'm sure UWGB will be asking for similar numbers. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Not so sure....I would hope MU did this where we don't pay them a damn thing. The 4 for 1 was setup as 3 "buy" games and then a home and home with UWM. I would assume we had the ability to make this 2 for 1 deal where no money is changing hands. At least I would expect we negotiated that, but nothing would surprise me
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 10, 2009, 10:15:15 PM
Do I think if MU lost to UWM would the media in that town go into full blown erection mode?
Chico - what the hell are you talking about here? Isn't Mike Hunt the columnist for the JS? This is a horrific image, to say the very least.
Chicos I may be drunk but I can still tell youra n idiot. You are arguing St. Joseph's is at the level of 'Nova? IUPFW has played ND 3 times in 10 years: how many are we comitting to? Western Kentucky is on the same level as Louisville? You are ridiculous.
The fact that I replied on this thread negates how little I care about the Wisconsin Badgers.The reality is only people in Wisconsin care about this "rivalry".
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on December 10, 2009, 11:23:11 PM
Chicos I may be drunk but I can still tell youra n idiot. You are arguing St. Joseph's is at the level of 'Nova? IUPFW has played ND 3 times in 10 years: how many are we comitting to? Western Kentucky is on the same level as Louisville? You are ridiculous.
I don't care that much about the schedule debate but let's be fair... WKU has more wins all time than Marquette. Western Kentucky has a very good tradition. Last time I checked WKU was in the Top 20 ALL-TIME for NCAA wins.
So W. Kentucky has more prestige than MU in the court of public opinion?
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on December 10, 2009, 11:23:11 PM
Chicos I may be drunk but I can still tell youra n idiot. You are arguing St. Joseph's is at the level of 'Nova? IUPFW has played ND 3 times in 10 years: how many are we comitting to? Western Kentucky is on the same level as Louisville? You are ridiculous.
You must be drunk because you're joining the conversation late. Early on I said if both programs are solid programs and worthy of playing each other than that's different than the situation we are in. I used the example of Xavier and Cincinnati....two solid programs.
Western Kentucky HAS THE SERIES LEAD OVER LOUISVILLE. They are both outstanding programs. Of course Louisville is better currently, but not by that much. UWM is not at the same level as MU nor are they even remotely close to any level at all, so why help them go up a few notches. And Louisville WANTS to play this series because it chaps their ass that they trail WKU in the all-time season series.
St. Josephs....you might want to do a little research on St. Joe's over the last 50 years....another strong program in a solid conference that has a rich Big 5 tradition. They routinely go to the post season. Not even close to a comparison of UWM or UWGB.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on December 11, 2009, 01:45:40 AM
So W. Kentucky has more prestige than MU in the court of public opinion?
Certainly there mascot has more prestige. Big red rules.
What is Bruce Pearl thinking? Playing at Middle Tennessee? Or is that a prestigious program as well?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/preview?gid=200912110359
Quote from: downtown85 on December 11, 2009, 10:13:09 AM
What is Bruce Pearl thinking? Playing at Middle Tennessee? Or is that a prestigious program as well?
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/preview?gid=200912110359
You may want to do a bit more homework....the game is a NEUTRAL COURT game, not AT Middle Tennessee. It's at the Nashville Arena where there will be 3/4 Tennessee fans just like when Tennessee played MU in Nashville. This is not an away game. I'm sure you also realize this is part of the Sun Belt Classic much like UCLA plays this weekend in Anaheim as part of the Wooden Classic...bascially a home game away from home. So your example is completely wrong, but there are exceptions that I've already mentioned.
"That could change as the schedule gets tougher for the ninth-ranked Vols (6-1). So Pearl wants his players to be more in charge, starting Friday when they face Middle Tennessee State (3-4)
on a neutral court at Nashville Arena in the
Sun Belt Classic"
http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Tennessee
And Bruce Pearl is certainly a guy that MU should start emulating.
It is 1 game during the season. Who cares? I would rather see us play UWM, UWGB, or Aveda Style institute for that matter than some other no name cupcake that we run off the court.
I almost hate to say it, but maybe we can afford one less home game a year because Buzz makes less than Crean did.
A much better investment, too, I should say