MUScoop

can't wait for the national tv tilt vs. edgewood...
:D

they do have some nice ones tho.

Sun. Nov. 4  EDGEWOOD COLLEGE* 7 p.m.   
Wed. Nov. 7  UW-EAU CLAIRE* 7 p.m.   
Sun. Nov. 11 IUPUI-FORT WAYNE TBA 
Thu. Nov. 15 SAVANNAH STATE# TBA 
Fri. Nov. 16 FLORIDA A&M# TBA 
Sat. Nov. 17  COLORADO# TBA 
Sat. Nov. 24 GEORGIA TBA 
Tue. Nov. 27  at Duke
(ACC-Big Ten Challenge) 8 p.m. ESPN
DECEMBER
Mon. Dec. 3 WOFFORD TBA 
Sat. Dec. 8 MARQUETTE TBA 
Wed. Dec. 12 at UW-Milwaukee TBA 
Sat. Dec. 15 UW-GREEN BAY TBA 
Sat. Dec. 22 VALPARAISO TBA 
Sat. Dec. 29 at Texas 11 a.m. ESPN2
JANUARY
Wed. Jan. 2 at Michigan 6 p.m. BTN
Sat. Jan. 5 IOWA 11 a.m. BTN
Thu. Jan. 10 ILLINOIS 8 p.m. ESPN/ESPN2
Tue. Jan. 15 at Penn State 8 p.m. BTN
Sat. Jan. 19 NORTHWESTERN 8 p.m. BTN
Tue. Jan. 22 MICHIGAN 6 p.m. ESPN
Sat. Jan. 26 at Purdue 3 p.m. EPSN
Thu. Jan. 31 INDIANA 8 p.m. ESPN/ESPN2
FEBRUARY
Sun. Feb. 3 at Minnesota 1 p.m. BTN
Wed. Feb. 6 at Iowa 8 p.m. BTN
Sat. Feb. 9 PURDUE 8 p.m. BTN
Wed. Feb. 13 at Indiana 6 p.m. BTN
Sat. Feb. 16 MINNESOTA 1 p.m. BTN
Wed. Feb. 20 at Illinois 8 p.m. BTN
Sat./Sun. Feb. 23/24 at Ohio State TBA TBA
Thu. Feb. 28 MICHIGAN STATE 8 p.m. ESPN/ESPN2
MARCH
Tue./Wed. March 4/5 PENN STATE 6/8 p.m. TBA
Sati/Sun.. March 8/9 at Northwestern 4 p.m./11 a.m. BTN
Thu.-Sun March 13-16 Big Ten tournament (Indianapolis) TBA

I wonder if Badgers faithful are upset about laying out their hard-earned dollars to see Edgewood, Eau Claire, Savannah State, Florida A&M, Green Bay, Fort Wayne and Wofford. I guarantee our SOS at the end of the year will be better.

How can we rip on them...

They have:

Duke
Georgia
Colorado
Valpo
UWM
UWGB
MU
Texas

That's 8 or 12 pre conf games that are "interesting"

We'll have:

Maui 1
Maui 2
Maui 3
UWM
UW
One Other Good OOC

That's 6 and since we Maui only counts against us 1 time in the eyes of the NCAA we'll probably have 1 or 2 more bunnies.

Plus look at that home sked:

UGA, Colo, UWGB, MU, Valpo...that's 5 interesting home games...what will we have 2?

I don't know if UWGB and Valpo move up to the "interesting" list. Both are easy home wins for virtually all upper tier programs. Plus Colorado is marginal. That leaves MU and UGA as the best, most interesting non-conf home games.

I put interesting in quotes for a reason.

Personally I think what Todd K, Brian Wardle and Jon Harris have done up there after the Mike Heideman bomb is great work and I like to keep tabs on former members of the MU family / Coach Crean Coaching Tree.

Valpo has a legendary coach...Colo is a BCS school.

Besides, if UWGB, Valpo or Colo were on our sked they'd be the 2nd or 3rd best home games.

I agree that those games may be interesting from different angles. UWGB is also a sentimental favorite on mine since Todd's been there. Nonetheless, all 3 of those games (GB, Colo, V) are easy wins. The RPIs will be in the range of the teams MU plays in nonconf.

If they were playing Colorado in football, it might make for an interesting game. Not in hoops. I stand by my statement: our SOS at the end of the season will be better than theirs.

Last year's RPI:  UWGB 170, Colorado: 106, Valpo 164.

Last year's RPI for MU Home games above 170 RPI: 6 games

Mon Nov 13 Marquette 59, (193) Idaho St. 56 (OT) Home 1-0   
Tue Nov 14 Marquette 87, (191) Detroit 45 Home 2-0   
Sat Nov 18 Marquette 95, (234) Eastern Michigan 62 Home 3-0   
Sat Dec 16 Marquette 68, (214) MD Baltimore County 46 Home 9-2   
Fri Dec 22 Marquette 77, (303) Morgan St. 57 Home 11-2   
Sat Dec 30 Marquette 69, (289) Savannah St. 51 Home 12-2

Last year's RPI for MU Home games below 170 RPI: 6 games
Mon Nov 27 Marquette 65, (164) Valparaiso 62 Away 6-0   
Fri Dec 1 Marquette 83, (167) Northwestern St. 67 Home 7-0   
Sat Dec 2 (160) North Dakota St. 64, Marquette 60 Home 7-1   
Tue Dec 5 Marquette 65, (120) Delaware St. 48 Home 8-1   
Sat Dec 9 (4) Wisconsin 70, Marquette 66 Home 8-2   
Tue Dec 19 Marquette 80, (125) Oakland 62 Home 10-2   

I'd trade UWGB and Colorado for any of those 11 games (not the UW game, obviously) .. I'd trade a #170 Coloardo game for a #125 Oakland game .. anybody not?

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2007, 02:55:27 PM
Last year's RPI:  UWGB 170, Colorado: 106, Valpo 164.

Last year's RPI for MU Home games above 170 RPI: 6 games

Mon Nov 13 Marquette 59, (193) Idaho St. 56 (OT) Home 1-0   
Tue Nov 14 Marquette 87, (191) Detroit 45 Home 2-0   
Sat Nov 18 Marquette 95, (234) Eastern Michigan 62 Home 3-0   
Sat Dec 16 Marquette 68, (214) MD Baltimore County 46 Home 9-2   
Fri Dec 22 Marquette 77, (303) Morgan St. 57 Home 11-2   
Sat Dec 30 Marquette 69, (289) Savannah St. 51 Home 12-2

Last year's RPI for MU Home games below 170 RPI: 6 games
Mon Nov 27 Marquette 65, (164) Valparaiso 62 Away 6-0   
Fri Dec 1 Marquette 83, (167) Northwestern St. 67 Home 7-0   
Sat Dec 2 (160) North Dakota St. 64, Marquette 60 Home 7-1   
Tue Dec 5 Marquette 65, (120) Delaware St. 48 Home 8-1   
Sat Dec 9 (4) Wisconsin 70, Marquette 66 Home 8-2   
Tue Dec 19 Marquette 80, (125) Oakland 62 Home 10-2   

I'd trade UWGB and Colorado for any of those 11 games (not the UW game, obviously) .. I'd trade a #170 Coloardo game for a #125 Oakland game .. anybody not?

Hilltopper I think you illustrate perfectly the issue with schedule.  You are willingly trading an RPI 125 for an 170.....why?  All I can think of is that name, Colorado people know, Oakland people do not.  I would argue, based on RPI that Oakland would give MU a better game than Colorado not to mention that we would get a better RPI in the end by playing the team that has the better RPI itself.

We can't look at a schedule and say well I only recognize 3 schools out of 10 on there.

So to answer you, I would definitely not trade Oakland for Colorado.

For a team that should be in the upper 30 RPI every year, playing a team of 125 or 170, it really won't matter.  Both should be beaten easily.  (cough NDSU cough).

So why not take the team that could be considered "higher interest"?

Now .. if we're talking 100 RPI points different, then we're getting closer to saying no swap.

And sure, before you trade the 120 for a 170, you trade the 193, 191, 234, 214, 303, 289s for that 170.

The bottom line is .. the past few years, MU has not done well in the higher-interest category.  Our RPI will be fine at the end of the year anyhow, playing 18 BE teams.   If you can get a team that season ticket holders won't bitch about, why not? 

Bo caught a break----MSU once at home and OSU only once , but there!

I guess in the end I just look at the numbers and consider Oakland a better game than Colorado.  Colorado has the name, but their RPI is only as high as it is based on playing the teams in their conference like Texas, Texas A&M, and Kansas.

From a purely basketball stand point I would argue Oakland gives you a better game.

I understand your argument about the BE gives us the RPI so lets not worry about RPI and get names people know.  Thats fine, but then you are going to pay for them.  Exactly the same reason you want them, allows those schools to "charge" more for them to come to Milwaukee.  This in turn gets passed to us the season ticket holder.

In the end we are really arguing about maybe two games with similar RPIs but getting the team with the name instead of the one without.  I don't see how that makes any real kind of difference.  If we had Colorado instead of Oakland on a previous home slate, would that satisfy all the schedule haters?  Would that satisfy PRN?

Well, apparently we have somewhat of a sample to go off of, from another Big 12 "name" school:

Oakland @ Marquette  12/19/06  Attendance: 12,605
Nebraska @ Marquette 12/21/04 Attendance: 12,211

Like most schools, MU reports tickets sold.

I'm willing to bet a $7.00 Bradley Center beer that there were at least 1,000 more people at the Nebraska game.

Anybody care to offer a guess on a Vermin record (you've sold me on the change Mayor). I'll say 18-12, 9-9.

Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on August 16, 2007, 04:56:19 PM
Like most schools, MU reports tickets sold.

I'm willing to bet a $7.00 Bradley Center beer that there were at least 1,000 more people at the Nebraska game.

I'll get in on that bet.  +1,500 even.

And, I'll go further, that the number of actual season ticket holders in attendance was -3000 more, as they gave the Oakland ticket to someone else.  I'll also bet the number of children at the Oakland game was +2000.  What does that mean?  That the STHs don't see much value in those tickets and give them away.

As I've said before, this debate surrounds the season ticket holders, and few others.  Very few non-STHs will go to Oakland, a few more will go to Nebraska, but the vast majority of the chattering class will probably just read about this game the next morning.   To STHs, the perceived value of an Oakland game versus the perceived value of Nebraska game is a huge difference to most.

And yes, I admit the basketball purists will just want to play the best competition, regardless of perceived interest.  But, they represent a small portion of the ~8000 STH seats.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 16, 2007, 07:43:55 PM

Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on August 16, 2007, 04:56:19 PM
Like most schools, MU reports tickets sold.

I'm willing to bet a $7.00 Bradley Center beer that there were at least 1,000 more people at the Nebraska game.

I'll get in on that bet.  +1,500 even.

And, I'll go further, that the number of actual season ticket holders in attendance was -3000 more, as they gave the Oakland ticket to someone else.  I'll also bet the number of children at the Oakland game was +2000.  What does that mean?  That the STHs don't see much value in those tickets and give them away.

As I've said before, this debate surrounds the season ticket holders, and few others.  Very few non-STHs will go to Oakland, a few more will go to Nebraska, but the vast majority of the chattering class will probably just read about this game the next morning.   To STHs, the perceived value of an Oakland game versus the perceived value of Nebraska game is a huge difference to most.

And yes, I admit the basketball purists will just want to play the best competition, regardless of perceived interest.  But, they represent a small portion of the ~8000 STH seats.

The question is then are you willing to pay more for the season tickets??  The name costs more, and in the end the team might get a less competitive game.  I go to see Marquette play basketball, I don't care if we are playing Sisters of the Poor or Florida.  In the end, how much does Marquette owe us, I would argue the slate we get is pretty darn good especially with the BE schedule.

Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2007, 08:05:35 AMThe question is then are you willing to pay more for the season tickets??  The name costs more, and in the end the team might get a less competitive game.

I wonder if there's anybody out there with access to information relating to what a "buy game" with Oakland costs as compared to Colorado.  Anyone?  Chico?

I would doubt Oakland was a buy game, we gave them a 2 for 1 deal.

One...Giving Oakland a 2 for 1 is a big part of the problem.

Two...How much am I willing to pay?  Well seeing as my tickets have nearly doubled in 5 years, I guess I'm willing to pay anything.

Look the oringinal point of this thread was just to say, we shouldn't rip UW apart b/c our sked was about the same or worse.  I appreciate the AD's budget issues, I love the Big East - I just wish some people would be able to admit that season ticket holders take a big hit in December...nearly every game is akin to watching NFL preseason.  And the reason is MU does it is not so much b/c they absolutely have to, it's b/c they can.  They know sheep like me will keep coming back.

"I just wish some people would be able to admit that season ticket holders take a big hit in December."

Ok Damonkey..., now despite the fact that you will never ever hear me bitch about the schedule, despite being a season ticket holder from 180 miles away.

Here you go I will appease you.  Yes Mu's preconference schedule is not the strongest.
Now we could go into all the reasons, like MU giving up millions in NCAA tournament units and a buyout when leaving C_USA.  MU stepping up big time in program expenditures, ie charter flights , national recruitng, Holiday tournament every year, foreign trips.  We could also discuss the fact that in additon to the millions it left on the table to leave C_USA, they have also sacrificed 2 addition "paydays" by giving up buy games to go to the Holiday tournaments and the additonal BE game.   

Therefore, at the end of the day While you as a fan expect to play in these "big time " tournaments, recruit on a national level, play in the BE, compete on the court in in the recruitng battles with our BE brethren, provide facilities and amenities(charter flights etc) like other top 15 programs, you are unwilling to allow for a couple buy games in place of a couple home and homes.

So yes Damon I will sit here and admit that we poor Mu fans are taking a "big hit in December",  I guess some of us are able to see the big picture and realize that a small private school sometimes has to sacrafice something to attain others.  i persoanlly can get over kicking the hell out of St Mary's instead of kicking the hell out of arguably the worst BCS basketball program in the country ( Colorado) so that we do not have to travel there the next year and can bring in another big pay day that allows us to compete and spend on an elite level. 

Lastly, who cares what Wisconsin does...if those games are so damn appealing og to them.  No to mention there Big tean schedule will suck, and MU will have a much harder SOS by the end of the year.  Get used to it, it is what it is and realistically will not change anytime soon unless the whole dynamic changes. 
i tell you I really enjoy reding these boards but this whole schedule bitching every year is so old, juvenile, and dense.  You give something to get something...

We agree on two points, the schedule in December has a lot of no names and weaker teams.  Also UW does play a decent schedule by your standards because they put name teams on it.  I think the two schedules are comparable and would be willing to concede in non-conference they are probably better.

I think we disagree on two points.

1.  Despite the weak December schedule I don't agree that MU can make it a "better" schedule.  From previous posts and discussion it seems like the people who are against the schedule is not from a basketball competition standpoint but a name standpoint.  As I've said before you have to pay for the name, and I'm not convinced that MU has the financial ability to keep throwing money out for name teams.  UWM was demanding something like $60,000 or $70,000 per game for them to walk across the street and play us.....I know there is some politics there but I bet you getting someone like Colorado costs $50,000 and I'm willing to bet Oakland doesn't cost nearly that much and you get at least a comparable level of competition.

2.  If you keep coming back why shouldn't they do what they are doing?  Its a market drive economy, and I don't see anyone blowing us out of the water in terms of a standout home non-conference schedules.  We seem to be doing what most other high major programs do.

In the end, my view is MU's job is to field a highly competitive team and put together a schedule that will help them do that.  At the same time they need to charge me for season tickets at a rate that reflects the level of play I am seeing.  Right now I think the price the charge is reflective of the package I get.  I'd love for people to give up their season tickets, maybe I could get out of the upper bowl. :)

Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on August 16, 2007, 04:56:19 PM
Like most schools, MU reports tickets sold.

I'm willing to bet a $7.00 Bradley Center beer that there were at least 1,000 more people at the Nebraska game.

There were no more than 8,000 people at that Oakland game.

Quote from: mu03eng on August 17, 2007, 08:05:35 AM
The question is then are you willing to pay more for the season tickets??  The name costs more, and in the end the team might get a less competitive game.  I go to see Marquette play basketball, I don't care if we are playing Sisters of the Poor or Florida.  In the end, how much does Marquette owe us, I would argue the slate we get is pretty darn good especially with the BE schedule.

Sure.  Clearly, fans pay for increased value.  Ticket prices have doubled in ~5 years (it costs 2x to see DJ over what it cost to see DWade!)  -- When MU joined the BE, value went up, and attendance stopped its decline and went up all in the face of ticket prices increasing far beyond inflation.  Why?  Increased value.  BE games > CUSA games. -- and of course, winning > losing.

However, when the tickets double again (and they will) .. will the STHs continue to see enough value to pay?  That depends on perceived value. -- and guess what?  The average STH is just not flipping through the RPI list every year to figure what games are good, and which aren't.   Simple guess, but I'll say the # of MU internet dwellers is under 3,000.  That's only about a quarter of the people who attend games.  The vast majority are highly inclined to value games based on (drum roll) the name of the team we're playing. 

YOU may "go to see MU play basketball .. playing Sisters of the Poor" .. but clearly, many people will not.  Just pop your head in to a Morgan State game.  Lots of empties, (and lots of children) = lots of people who paid but don't value that game.

"How much does MU owe us?" -- They owe ticket buyers the exact same amount that any organization owes its customers:  A product that is valued.  No more, no less. 

And to echo DamonKeysContactLens .. he said it right.  "I just wish some people would be able to admit that season ticket holders take a big hit in December."  The season ticket holders fuel this program, plain and simple, and they are customers of a product just like any other.   

There is an alternative to buying season tickets.  As prices and cupcake count rises, it becomes more rational to scalp only the games you want to see, and skip the games you don't want to pay for.

But to conclude, I agree, and heck, even PRN agrees .. next season's schedule will be very decent, especially after last year's, which had the highest # of low-interest games in recent history.

(http://wiki.muscoop.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/men_s_basketball/attendance.gif?w=&h=&cache=cache)

Harrison and MU03Eng:
Great points. I think/hope we've closed the book on the this thread. And to think this debate really started with some believing that UW's home games against UWGB (average Horizon Leagure team), Colorado (170 RPI) and Valpo (a stretch to say "okay") would somehow be "interesting." If easy home wins are interesting, I'd agree.

agree with 4th and state the whole argument is misguided, stupid, and mostly ignorant.  I normally make it a point to not even read these strings.  You know what you guys that dont like the schedule should do?  After all your marketing analysis and agreement on how a consumer will not buy an inferior product.  Well you just should not buy it!!!  Show MU that you will not support there efforts to run an efficinet program that puts them in the fiscal postion to have charter flights, recruit national, operate the Al, go to canada, Go to Hawaii, etc.  Put your foot down and demand that they do not have the money to do that!! Demand they pay more for higher profile buy gmaes.  Demand they trade the buy games for more home and homes...demand it as a consumer by not buying the product.   Put your money where your mouth is and a s a consumer reject the product....that is what will get MU to change not your internet grumblings.

Also as a note to Mueng03... your comments on Colorado are wrong. A game like Colorado is not a "Buy" game  it is a home and home.  Meaning WI pays nothing to them and Colorado pays nothing to Wisc. to go to their place next year.  The "cost" is WI would give up a home date next year.  Mu is not in a financila position to do this more than 1 or 2 times a season.  for better or worse Mu has basically given up a home and home series to play in a Holiday tournament every year...a non brainer in my book as it benefits the team and the program infinitely more. 
Instead of home and homes MU needs to have buy games whereby it is a home game every year....yes they pay +/- $50K each year to bring a team in but the bottom line of two home buy games versus one free home game and a travel game the next year is not comparable.  Mu needs these to afford to run their program and the non revenue programs.

Mod Edit:  I'm getting tired of editing your foul language.  Next time, I'm just deleting your rants.

Foul language?....I cannot use the B-word, which is allowed on TV?  Additionally I used symbols in doing it.  So much for the impartial editor, me thinks it has alot to do with the fact that the comment applied to the same group that complains ad nauseum with absolutely no idea of the big picture and what MU needs revenue wise includes you.    ::)

Honestly, it's the combination of cussing and the fact that you are personally attacking people (yes, me included) on this forum.  I have no qualms in removing course language when you are unable to express your opinion without labeling the opposition as "juvenile" "dense" "ignorant" and "stupid." 

One would think your previous warnings and bannings would have taught you that lesson.  And if YOU don't like it, take your own advice, and don't buy our (free) product, and go somewhere else.    :'(

Quote from: Harrison on August 17, 2007, 09:14:48 AM

i persoanlly can get over kicking the hell out of St Mary's instead of kicking the hell out of arguably the worst BCS basketball program in the country ( Colorado) so that we do not have to travel there the next year and can bring in another big pay day that allows us to compete and spend on an elite level. 

I would personally love to see a home and home with Colorado in the next few years, I think all of us MU alums in Colorado could turn Coors Event Center into Bradley Center West.  I agree that Colorado's basketball program was horrible last year and will probably be horrible again this year.  However, bringing in Jeff Bzdelik as coach was a great move, and he should be able to turn things around in 2-3 years.  UW will crush them this year, but it would be a more interesting match-up for me than MU playing Oakland or St. Mary's.

Come on, people.  A home and home with Colorado is sparking this sort of debate?

Madison can afford to schedule like this, as their entire athletic department is not bankrolled by men's basketball. 

MU, as we all know fully well, unfortunately does not have that same luxury.  At this point, when looking at opponents from BCS conferences for home and home series, MU has to find definite made-for-TV matchups.  Most of the BCS home and homes in the Crean era that I can think of follow this pattern...Wake Forest, Arizona, Notre Dame, and I believe we even managed a televised game @ Dayton in 02-03.  The exception is the series with Nebraska that did absolutely nothing for us (minimal attendance/Christmas Break game in Milwaukee, and a non-televised affair in Lincoln).  Long story short, MU vs. BCS conference doormat is not going to land us on ESPN or even ESPN Plus, and therefore, it's not really worth our time.  The TV money really is that important.

MU had the right idea again going into this season with the schools it was in contact with...Maryland, Texas, Alabama, Gonzaga.  The terms just couldn't be agreed upon.  It happens.  It also didn't help that the SEC-Big East "Challenge" is more or less a complete joke this season.

Quote from: Cooby Snacks on August 17, 2007, 02:57:23 PM

Madison can afford to schedule like this, as their entire athletic department is not bankrolled by men's basketball. 

You got it exactly right, and that is why scheduling at MU is more challenging than most (maybe any) school in the nation.

There are only a handful of top-flight programs that depend so heavily on basketball for funding. Obviously I don't know every specific budget across the county, but common sense tells me that the vast majority of public schools don't have this problem given their budgets. Obviously some small schools have some challenges, but the top programs don't have the same issues as MU. Georgetown, SJU, DePaul, and SLU are probably all in similar situations (probably Gonzaga as well).

MU has to balance revenue, local fan interest, national interest, RPI, team needs, travel needs, school schedules, etc. etc.

Making a good schedule at MU isn't impossible... but I don't think MU will ever have the "perfect" schedule that some people want/expect. There are always going to be some "buy" games so MU can make some good $. Just the nature of what they have to do.

murocky01...you state...

"I would personally love to see a home and home with Colorado in the next few years, I think all of us MU alums in Colorado could turn Coors Event Center into Bradley Center West.  I agree that Colorado's basketball program was horrible last year and will probably be horrible again this year.  However, bringing in Jeff Bzdelik as coach was a great move, and he should be able to turn things around in 2-3 years.  UW will crush them this year, but it would be a more interesting match-up for me than MU playing Oakland or St. Mary's."

On the very basic level , sure Colorado would be more interesting than a St. MAry's or Oakland as you state.  And traveling to Colo. is great for the alums.  But "what does that have to do with the price of tea in China"?

the entire reason Mu does not play that many of these games is THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT!   We gave up one by having to play another road BE game and gave up another home game by playing in aholiday tourney every year.  MU has stated that financially they must play an absolute minimum of 16 home games every year, period, finito,in order to generate the resources to operate the entire athletic department budget. 

Now no matter how often it is said that we have to have buy games someone will turn around and say they "would much rather have a home and home with Colorado even thosugh they stink".  What are we missing here folks?  lets do the math maybe that will help.

year one buy game with st. mary's of the blind:

pay them $40k
rent the BC $20k
ticket revenue 15,000 x $25 avg. ticket = $375,000  nets the program $315,000

Now in year two you bring in St. joh'ns of the poor and again net $315K

Versus a home and home with colorado or dayton or whomever.

year one pay them nothing they come to milwaukee
rent the BC $20k
lets say 16,000 just to appease those that argue a bigger gate x $25 a ticket=  $400,000

net $380,000

Year 2 travel to colorado say a cost of $15,000
net -$15,000


therefore MU makes 630,000 over two years with two buy games aversus neting $365,000 over two years on a home and home with a bigger name.  HMMMM is it that hard when Basketball is our only revenue producing sport?  those extra $265,000 dollars help fund the rest of the Athletic dept. and Allow Mu to operate the Al, recruit nationally, allowed us to give up millions to leave C-usa, fly via charter like other top 15 programs, go to canada, go to alska, got to hawaii, etc.   
But we get fixated on  the fact that we play 1-2 fewer home and home series than other BCS teams with football play!!!???   All I can say is WOW!

Just to play devil's advocate here, with two Jesuit schools depending on men's basketball to drive in atheltic department income. Both schools recruit nationally and played games far away from home....

DePaul 2006-07 Non-Conference Sked

@ Bradley
@ Northwestern
Eastern Illinois
Maui Invitational
Kansas
Chicago State
@ UAB
Wake Forest
@ URI
UC Irvine
Cal
Northwestern St.

Gonzaga 2006-07 Non-Conference Sked

Eastern Washington
Rice
Baylor
Texas-SA
North Carolina (@ MSG)
Butler (@ MSG)
Idaho
Portland State
Texas
@ Washington State
Washington
@ Georgia
Duke (@ MSG)
Nevada (@ Seattle)
@ Virginia
@ Stanford
Memphis

That is a good analysis, Harrison, really.

We "make" (630k-365k) $265k on deciding to have two years of buy games vs a H&H.

Based on that, we should probably stop the home and home with Wisconsin, too. 

True, the figures would change slightly, ticket rev for the UW sell out at the BC would be (15k fans to 18k fans)  +3000 * $25/ticket = $75k.   So we'd only make ($265-75) $190k extra on two buy games vs. the UW H&H.

Those extra $190,000 dollars will pay for a charter flight or two.   Finally, we can stop playing those guys and getting our asses kicked. 

Maybe the reason MU decides to forgo this extra $190k, is because they want to give their customers a good product.  Amazingly, that concept could easily apply to any H&H of a decent quality, like Texas, Maryland (no reason to fixate on Colorado, clearly a lesser team, but the $$$ analysis is nearly the same.)

Quote from: MUDish on August 17, 2007, 04:09:21 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here, with two Jesuit schools depending on men's basketball to drive in atheltic department income. Both schools recruit nationally and played games far away from home....

DePaul 2006-07 Non-Conference Sked

@ Bradley
@ Northwestern
Eastern Illinois
Maui Invitational
Kansas
Chicago State
@ UAB
Wake Forest
@ URI
UC Irvine
Cal
Northwestern St.

Gonzaga 2006-07 Non-Conference Sked

Eastern Washington
Rice
Baylor
Texas-SA
North Carolina (@ MSG)
Butler (@ MSG)
Idaho
Portland State
Texas
@ Washington State
Washington
@ Georgia
Duke (@ MSG)
Nevada (@ Seattle)
@ Virginia
@ Stanford
Memphis

This is interesting.

On first look, I don't think MU's and DePaul's are that different... (7 home games and 4 away games) but I guess I would really have to look at a game by game schedule and compare. Maybe Depaul can have less "buy" games because they don't have to pay rent on the All-State? I really don't know.

Also, I think I made a mistake mentioning Gonzaga before. When I think about it, there situation is totally different than MU's given the conference that they play in. If they want to be a top program, they have to go out and play a bunch of people because their conference is so weak... I don't know how they make it balance budget wise... but in order to compete they have to take more of an "anytime, anywhere" approach.

hilltopper...I hear what you are saying and I dont ever think MU has said that they would not like to play more home and homes.  correct me if I am wrong but I have never heard that.  And along your point Wisco does have some advantages 1. sold out and 2. basically no cost to the team when they travel.  

However, what i have heard and I do know is that when the Athletic dept. sitts down like any business they look at costs and revenue, and it has long been established that we must have a absolute minimum of 16 home games.  Now we all know we lost one do to the BE.  And we lose one to the Holiday tournaments ...now maybe I am wrong but I would rather have aHoliday tourney than a Home and home.  I think it is much better for the team and the program to go play 3-4 games over 1.  it helps the win total, it helps the RPI, it helps with notoreity, and any team young into a season will benefit more by playing 4 times than 1.  So one choice may be to abandon the holiday tourneys.  I dont think that will hapened nor should it. IMO.  

Now this was all made more difficult by leaving C_USA and the Depual schedule and the Gonzaga schedules are not apples to aplles as neither of those schools left millions of dollars on the tabel to leave their confernce.  additonally Gonzaga s games we TV games...big difference.  Also Gozaga owns there arena, but the biggie is TV.  Maybe in 3 years if Mu has had a good run and earned some nice NCAA units and the BE continues to do well that income will be replaced and we can look at adding another one.  I think Mu has always used atop down approach saying we need 16 home games.. now maybe if revenue increases faster than cost in the future things may change.  But again I have never heard Mu said they did not want to play home and homeswhat they have said is they needed 16 home dates.

I don't remember what DePaul's deal was with leaving C-USA, but I think they got to keep their NCAA C-USA money by playing teams from C-USA for a certain number of years? I really don't know how they can schedule like they do. It seems like every year they have a great non-conference schedule every year.

With Gonzaga though, they only have a 6,000 seat arena. Given, it's on their campus and they own it, but MU is drawing a minimum of double that to 10k-12k more (depending the opponent), even with rent. While they also do play in the WCC, they are almost guaranteed an NCAA bid each year, so they don't necessarily have to go out and play the sked that they do. I think it's to their credit they play "anyone, anytime". Not saying that should be MU's philosophy (different strokes for different folks).

MU loves to sing the woe is me budget song, they've sung it so long everyone buys in.  I have too - but why can DePaul do it and we can't?

Depau loses alot more money than our program does, and they don't seem to have a problem with that.  MU decides that they want to make more money. 

I'm also finding this really halarious about Colorado sparking this conversation since its not a H & H, but a tournament.  It's as if someone was looking at Air Force in the same manner when we hosted that tourney a few years ago. 

This whole scheduling thing can be summed up into a few sentances.  Would people like to see better names in the non-con? Yes.  Are people willing to buy season tickets with the non-con they currently have? Yes.  So until the answer to no.2 becomes 'no' than this whole point is mute.  It then breaks down to people complaining about stuff because they like to complain or have nothing better to do.

Quote from: Schoolyard on August 17, 2007, 06:13:38 PM
MU loves to sing the woe is me budget song, they've sung it so long everyone buys in.  I have too - but why can DePaul do it and we can't?

DePaul is not paying their coach nearly as much as we are.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 18, 2007, 08:12:28 AM

Quote from: Schoolyard on August 17, 2007, 06:13:38 PM
MU loves to sing the woe is me budget song, they've sung it so long everyone buys in.  I have too - but why can DePaul do it and we can't?

DePaul is not paying their coach nearly as much as we are.

But, hasn't MU always played more home games to generate revenue? I don't think this is predicated off of the current coaches salary.

herbo is right and that is what i said as well.  you guys can complain all you want but until you give up your tickets nothing will chnage....and on tha note if any of you guys that are going to finally stop crying nad do something about it....well if you have lower arena center court seat s i would be wllng to buy them from you.

Also it is correct that Depaul kept the money from C-usa.  Notice their schedule they have to play uab this year as part ofthe agreement.   MU chose not to do that if they did they would have had to drop the tourneys or Wisconsin in favor of a home and home with tulane, so miss, tcu and the like oh that would have gone over well with the complainer crowd.

Quote from: MUDish on August 17, 2007, 05:36:14 PM

With Gonzaga though, they only have a 6,000 seat arena. Given, it's on their campus and they own it, but MU is drawing a minimum of double that to 10k-12k more (depending the opponent), even with rent. While they also do play in the WCC, they are almost guaranteed an NCAA bid each year, so they don't necessarily have to go out and play the sked that they do. I think it's to their credit they play "anyone, anytime". Not saying that should be MU's philosophy (different strokes for different folks).

I agree Gonzaga deserves credit for  playing a tough schedule, but if they want to be a top program, they don't have a choice. Their strength of schedule would be very low if they didn't go out and play a lot of tough games out of conference. They would still have a shot at winning their conference, but they would get a very low seed every year and wouldn't be a "top program".

To be honest, Gonzaga and MU's schedules are almost flip-flopped when you think about it. MU has to make sure it doesn't schedule too many tough games early on because the team will get plenty of tough games during conference play. Gonzaga has the exact opposite approach. They need to make sure they play their tough games early because later in the year they have some soup cans to knock over.

Reactions to some random points above ..

While it is true that as long as people buy tickets, this conversation is "mute" (moot) .. it is not complaining for the fun of it.  It's a valid discussion, especially  in comparison with other teams.  What's preposterous is the idea that complaints are somehow invalid.  This is an expensive product that clearly has its great points and its not so great points.

What this is, is a conversation about balance and priorities.  And it works just like any other company.  It takes money to increase customer satisfaction. 

If money were the only factor, there would be one clear path:  Have the maximum amount of home games each year.   No home and homes.  No pre-season tournaments.  No UW.  100% buy games, year in and year out, would maximize revenue.  As we've seen, with the BE schedule, even if we played the worst teams available, our SoS would end up fine.

But MU doesn't do that.  They forgo income to have a UW game.  They've played H&Hs with the last teams being Valpo, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Minnesota, again, forgoing income.

Why?  Why give up revenue for these teams?   The reason is: To make the schedule better.  Why do that?  A variety of reasons, NCAA resume being one, but certainly customer satisfaction is another -- And I think we forget about organizational satisfaction. --  I'm betting that not a single coach, administrator, let alone player (or prospective player) seriously likes MU playing Morgan State.  They do it because they have to have some games like this.

So it comes down to balance.  It is clearly not all about money. -- I'm really not even sure what you guys are arguing for.  MU has an (recent) average of 2 H&Hs on the schedule each year, and your position would favor dropping one or both.  MU clearly intends to continue having H&Hs.  While it fell through, talks with GU, MD, and TX did happen.  And there'll be another H&H on this year's schedule or it'll be the first season ever to not have one (besides UW.) 

MU also has something that tilts the market in their favor .. their product is somewhat unknown at the time of purchase.  Season ticket money is due weeks before the schedule comes out, so people are buying (and donating) to a product they only know about half the details.   

They've got a captive customer base, who absorb the bad to get to the good. -- Not many products out there can do this.  -- But this CAN get out of balance, as prices go up and (relative) value goes down.

And I'll repeat it again.  I believe our schedule will strike the right balance next year, with 9 BE homers, a UWM team that will be fun to crush, AND a mystery H&H that will get done, since it always does.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 18, 2007, 09:58:25 AM
Reactions to some random points above ..

While it is true that as long as people buy tickets, this conversation is "mute" (moot) .. it is not complaining for the fun of it.  It's a valid discussion, especially  in comparison with other teams.  What's preposterous is the idea that complaints are somehow invalid.  This is an expensive product that clearly has its great points and its not so great points.

That is what happens when you type on a message board after drinking all night - words come out wrong.

But my point wasn't that complaints are invalid, but that they're a waste of energy.  MU isn't going to change anything unless people complain with taking dollars out of the equation instead of adding words.

In another point I think our schedule in 2009 has huge potential if we don't wind up in a preseason tourney next season (we havn't been included in one yet).  That opens up a possible 2 H & H's starting on the road next year meaning return games in '09 plus our rumored inclusion into the orlando tourney that year and wisconsin game.  Good times.

Colorado is not a home and home. Colorado is part of a round robin tourney hosted in Madison that includes Savanna St. and Fla A&M.