It's been well discussed that MU has to schedule buy games to pump up revenue despite the negative RPI impact of the resulting poor SOS.
My question is are the teams that MU gets for these games so completely bottom of the barrel because those are the only teams that will accept buy games without a return game or are there better teams available for buy games if MU were willing to put a few more shekels into the pot? If that were true, it seems to me that an argument could be made that increased fan interest in better opponents could make season tickets more valuable while playing even a slightly better SOS could improve finances by improving both the likelihood of an NCAA invite and the seeding therein. I'm guessing that can only be answered by someone with experience with athletic administration.
The number of cupcakes this year is higher due to the desire to provide this young MU squad with more opportunities to develop without getting their psyches damaged with too many losses. Hopefully, the number of cupcakes is less next season.
Article from a few years ago in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/12/18/college-basketball-scheduling-rpi-strength-selection-committee-march-madness-ncaa-tournament/4114629/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/12/18/college-basketball-scheduling-rpi-strength-selection-committee-march-madness-ncaa-tournament/4114629/)
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 21, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
The number of cupcakes this year is higher due to the desire to provide this young MU squad with more opportunities to develop without getting their psyches damaged with too many losses. Hopefully, the number of cupcakes is less next season.
This is certainly true and confirmed by those that made the schedule, however the irony might lie in the fact that the very schedule designed to pad the record could now require us to beat even better teams in order to offset a piss poor SOS. I'm not the KenPom/RPI expert, but I'd throw out a guess that if we had played more teams in the RPI 200-250 range vs. >300, we might buy ourselves one or maybe two extra losses in the Big East portion of the schedule.
Quote from: Marquette_g on December 21, 2015, 01:27:34 PM
This is certainly true and confirmed by those that made the schedule, however the irony might lie in the fact that the very schedule designed to pad the record could now require us to beat even better teams in order to offset a piss poor SOS. I'm not the KenPom/RPI expert, but I'd throw out a guess that if we had played more teams in the RPI 200-250 range vs. >300, we might buy ourselves one or maybe two extra losses in the Big East portion of the schedule.
That's the unfortunate flip side of the story. But, I suspect its far too early to worry about SOS in terms of post-season play. Worry about that potential later.
You could schedule tougher buy games, but that would have very little or no effect on attendance. There would not likely be anymore fans in the arena tonight, if we were playing the 200 ranked team vs. a 300 plus ranked team. The only attendance effect would be if the team we were playing had a player from WI on it, which result in some of his family members and friends showing up.
Quote from: Crean to Ann Arbor on December 21, 2015, 01:07:19 PM
or are there better teams available for buy games if MU were willing to put a few more shekels into the pot?
Of course. This is just where they choose to be cheap. Nobody buys the excuse of the Gregorian calendar presenting limited available dates, to the point that only the SWAC teams no one else wants to play are available to us. And it's not like our team would be completely crippled and unable to improve due to the strength of competition if they had to play a middling Horizon or MAAC team. Projected to have the worst non-conference SOS of any high major team and 334th in the country.
Quote from: chapman on December 21, 2015, 01:57:47 PM
Of course. This is just where they choose to be cheap. Nobody buys the excuse of the Gregorian calendar presenting limited available dates, to the point that only the SWAC teams no one else wants to play are available to us. And it's not like our team would be completely crippled and unable to improve due to the strength of competition if they had to play a middling Horizon or MAAC team. Projected to have the worst non-conference SOS of any high major team and 334th in the country.
A middling Horizon league team isn't doing a buy game at Marquette. Maybe a 3-1, something like that. Right now we don't have any of those types of deals. No doubt this year was a conscious decision. Ground already covered. Personally I'd love a 3-1 with Loyola or Valpo. Perhaps again down the road.
Quote from: bilsu on December 21, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
You could schedule tougher buy games, but that would have very little or no effect on attendance. There would not likely be anymore fans in the arena tonight, if we were playing the 200 ranked team vs. a 300 plus ranked team. The only attendance effect would be if the team we were playing had a player from WI on it, which result in some of his family members and friends showing up.
The fact that Broeker (or anyone else, for that matter) has not come out and laid all of the cards on the table tell me that it is partially influenced by economics or other "non-basketball" factors. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the difference between a buy game with a 300+ RPI team and a buy game with a 250-300 RPI team is around a few thousand maybe upwards of $10,000, at most.
Everyone wants home-and-homes until you get into the low to mid 100s, and the next level down (150-250s) wants 2-for or 3-for-1's. Then there's the TV rights... producers want content, and you're not going to make your business partners happy when you're playing a few games every year on the road (home team typically has the broadcast rights).
It's not easy, but I still think there's more to the story than what's been discussed, i.e. maybe a lot of these middle-tier teams who otherwise are happy to play a buy game simply don't want to travel to Milwaukee in winter (not everyone flies charter). Maybe Broeker's on a couple blacklists. Maybe there's simply not as many "buy" opponents out there as one would think.
Hadn't considered the TV issue. Perhaps FS1 has something to do with it this year. Perhaps MU had things 'splained to it this year by the 'bosses'.
As attendance falls I wonder what the breaking point profitability wise would be scheduling home and homes with Notre Dame and Louisville would be? Those teams would bring in more fans and thus more money. You would be giving up a home game for a much more desirable game. You would also get more people across the country watching MU on TV playing at Louisville or Notre Dame. I think it would even make more sense to add 4 home and homes. Pick up two more old Big East rivals.
Adding Louisville, Notre Dame, UConn and Syracuse (two home & two away) would result in dropping four bunnies and two home games from the schedule. I would hope this would reverse the attendance decline.
Quote from: bilsu on December 21, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
You could schedule tougher buy games, but that would have very little or no effect on attendance. There would not likely be anymore fans in the arena tonight, if we were playing the 200 ranked team vs. a 300 plus ranked team. The only attendance effect would be if the team we were playing had a player from WI on it, which result in some of his family members and friends showing up.
I totally agree with this.
If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"
Come on.
I think if MU had the opportunity to schedule a home-and-home with ND, Louisville, UConn or Syracuse they would jump at it. I'm guessing the reason we're not scheduling those games lies more with the other side, not MU.
Quote from: MU82 on December 21, 2015, 03:20:12 PM
I totally agree with this.
If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"
Come on.
In and of itself, no, this would make no difference. However, if playing S.F. Austin improved the SOS and increased the likelihood of a tournament bid, there would exist the possibility that attendance near the end of the season could be impacted. I recognize this extrapolation is a reach, but playing the worst schedule I can recall in my 20 years as a fan does suck. Staggering the 3-1 with three different opponents such that you only have one unfortunate road game a year would at least feel like there was some consideration given to the season ticket holders viewing experience.
Quote from: Benny B on December 21, 2015, 02:22:56 PM
But let's not lose sight of the fact that the difference between a buy game with a 300+ RPI team and a buy game with a 250-300 RPI team is around a few thousand maybe upwards of $10,000, at most.
From what I recall seeing in the past, I thought the difference could be more significant. These 300+ teams like Grambling or Chicago State probably cost in the ballpark of $100,000, while better teams (200-250ish) might demand around $200,000. I don't have any inside info though.
Quote from: Marquette_g on December 21, 2015, 03:32:56 PM
Staggering the 3-1 with three different opponents such that you only have one unfortunate road game a year would at least feel like there was some consideration given to the season ticket holders viewing experience.
But a 3-1 still costs you a home game that could have been used on a better home-and-home. As a hypothetical, would you rather have a 3-1 with Loyola, or a home-and-home with ND and 2 scrub buy games? Because that would theoretically be the trade-off.
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/ul/2015/12/20/scheduling-ul-basketball-home-games-no-easy-chore/77667278/
According to this article, the cost to get Louisiana Lafayette (RPI 250) is ~$92,000
Quote from: Litehouse on December 21, 2015, 03:40:26 PM
But a 3-1 still costs you a home game that could have been used on a better home-and-home. As a hypothetical, would you rather have a 3-1 with Loyola, or a home-and-home with ND and 2 scrub buy games? Because that would theoretically be the trade-off.
Either would be preferable to the dumpster fire we have been subjected to this season. Although I would be curious how each of those would impact RPI. Is it better to play 1 Top 50 and 2 >300 or 3 175-250? I don't know the answer.
I also think there is the sense that by doing the 3-1, your chances of beating those teams year in and out, is better than the home and home, which helps to accomplish one of the secondary (or primary as its been sold this year) of helping to secure wins.
One factor I thought of recently was if MU was trying to schedule some of these cupcake games on nights before prominent MU alum in the NBA were in town to play the Bucks. We saw it recently with Doc and the Clippers. Jae showed up at a game when the Celtics were in town. Stetson on 1/27 is before the Heat come into town on 1/29, with the Heat's previous game on 1/26 so DWade might have some time for an appearance. MU might have had some dates in mind to help leverage the NBA connections, and these were the only teams available to play.
Quote from: chapman on December 21, 2015, 01:57:47 PM
Of course. This is just where they choose to be cheap. Nobody buys the excuse of the Gregorian calendar presenting limited available dates, to the point that only the SWAC teams no one else wants to play are available to us. And it's not like our team would be completely crippled and unable to improve due to the strength of competition if they had to play a middling Horizon or MAAC team. Projected to have the worst non-conference SOS of any high major team and 334th in the country.
If Marquette truly put this schedule together for financial reasons, and these were the cheapest options available and that's why they went this way, Marquette athletics might be in worse shape financially than we think.
Quote from: Marquette_g on December 21, 2015, 03:43:44 PM
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/ul/2015/12/20/scheduling-ul-basketball-home-games-no-easy-chore/77667278/
According to this article, the cost to get Louisiana Lafayette (RPI 250) is ~$92,000
That's an interesting article. That was $92,000 to play at UCLA though, and UCLA might get better deals than us because they're UCLA. I'd be curious to know if that amount included travel expenses. If they got paid $92,000 plus an all expense paid trip to LA, then its tough to say we could get the same deal.
It sounds like they got about $92k to also play @ Miami, FL and @Alabama.
The flip side of all of this is that we have also been commenting in a separate thread at how Georgetown lost to Monmouth, St. John's lost to Incarnate Word, etc. JTIII's comments in the article is that they try to schedule buy games against teams that will compete for their conference (and consequently have a higher RPI).
The problem with playing higher RPI teams for your cupcakes, though, is that they might occasionally actually win the game. As bad of an effect as all these cupcakes have on our RPI, it'd be even worse if we were losing to them.
So, with that in mind, I can understand--to a certain extent--the need to make sure that a young team is facing a schedule that will allow them to get some wins and not worry about getting knocked off at home like G'Town and SJU just did to inferior opponents.
Now, it does seem like they overreached in that area this year, and some factors may have been out of control (the timing of the Belmont and Iowa games), so I hope that in the future they will be more mindful of the need to upgrade some of these buy games, especially later in the non-conference season.
Going to my first MU game tonight since the 2013 season opener when they unfurled the BIG EAST champs banner.
I'm going because MU now doesn't suck and has a team worth seeing. Last year was not that team. The quality of the opponent is only a minor factor for me.
For the sake of discussion, let's look at this from a business perspective.
Assume the following (bolded parts are known facts):
1) Average ticket price at BC is $30 in the lower bowl & $15 upstairs.
2) 18 home games/yr
3) 7,783 seats in lower bowl, 10,917 upstairs
4) 98% of lower bowl tickets are purchased for the season (either season tickets or individual games), 55% upstairs -- this is consistent with MU's average attendance last year (13,657/game).
5) Ticket revenues: approx. $318,885/gm on average (.98*7783*30+.55*10917*15)
6) FS1 contract of $500M over 12 years amounts to $41.67M/yr on average based on an average of 15 home games per team (i.e. producible content) + BE Tourney is 159 games (round to 160), i.e. the individual value of a home game with TV rights is ~$260,000 on average.
7) Bradley Center lease is $27,000/gm.
8) Revenue from suite sales and merchandise/concessions is negligible.
9) Marginal expenses (i.e. out-of-pocket to MU) for each game estimated to be roughly $10,000.
10) Average fee to buy opponents is $90,000.
In short, ticket revenue + TV revenue averages about $580,000 per home game to MU.
Sure, the numbers will fluctuate, but the bottom line is that a "buy" game is worth approx. $443,000 to MU. In other words, foregoing a buy opponent for a home-and-home is going to be worth $221,500 (average per year over two years), a 2-for-1 is worth $295,000, and a 3-for-1 is worth $332,000. This is strictly revenue... it does not take into account the expenses of travel for the "for-1" games.
Even allowing for some error/fluctuation in the numbers, even a 3-for-1 hits MU's bottom line by about $100,000/yr. Even if the game was a guaranteed sell-out (i.e. the remaining 45% in the upper bowl & 2% in the lower bowl or $78k), that's still a $22,000 hit that MU has to take.
Sure, this is a grossly oversimplified and highly estimated hypothetical, but you can see that it's not as easy as saying "hey, let's just play a tougher schedule and cut out a couple home games. At the end of the day, you're playing tougher competition, and a couple losses to teams with an upper 100s RPI at home may have a more detrimental impact on your RPI than playing a bunch of RPI 300s against whom a W can nearly be taken for granted (from a business standpoint, not a basketball perspective... never take a W for granted on the court).
Quote from: jsglow on December 21, 2015, 02:20:43 PM
Personally I'd love a 3-1 with Loyola or Valpo. Perhaps again down the road.
As someone who was at the "1" game at Valpo back in 2006, that is a trip I never want to repeat.
Quote from: MU82 on December 21, 2015, 03:20:12 PM
I totally agree with this.
If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"
Come on.
If the folks knew anything at all about college basketball, then yes, absolutely. SFA has been a tourney team each of the past two years. They're a good team.
To any knowledgeable fanbase, a team like SFA should definitely move the dial more than Presbyterian. Similar to what you usually expect from a Belmont or Weber State.
I'm not saying our fanbase does know the difference, but they sure as hell should.
Remember that the RPI is dumb, which complicates things a bit. The key is to avoid teams that you believe are going to be complete sh1t shows -- and MU did not do so this year. Several opponents many of us could have said, "BAD idea" a year ago about...
Nonetheless,.. food for thought. Take a real world example from last year.. that brings home the point: the other team's RPI is ***NOT*** what matters.
In 2014-15, your RPI would have benefited more by playing #305 RPI (as of Selection Sunday) Samford than it would have by playing #238 Fordham.
Sure, #238 seems like it may be a lot better for your RPI than #305... but a year ago, it wasn't.
DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS. They matter.
Quote from: Benny B on December 21, 2015, 04:54:04 PM
For the sake of discussion, let's look at this from a business perspective.
Assume the following (bolded parts are known facts):
1) Average ticket price at BC is $30 in the lower bowl & $15 upstairs.
2) 18 home games/yr
3) 7,783 seats in lower bowl, 10,917 upstairs
4) 98% of lower bowl tickets are purchased for the season (either season tickets or individual games), 55% upstairs -- this is consistent with MU's average attendance last year (13,657/game).
5) Ticket revenues: approx. $318,885/gm on average (.98*7783*30+.55*10917*15)
6) FS1 contract of $500M over 12 years amounts to $41.67M/yr on average based on an average of 15 home games per team (i.e. producible content) + BE Tourney is 159 games (round to 160), i.e. the individual value of a home game with TV rights is ~$260,000 on average.
7) Bradley Center lease is $27,000/gm.
8) Revenue from suite sales and merchandise/concessions is negligible.
9) Marginal expenses (i.e. out-of-pocket to MU) for each game estimated to be roughly $10,000.
10) Average fee to buy opponents is $90,000.
In short, ticket revenue + TV revenue averages about $580,000 per home game to MU.
Sure, the numbers will fluctuate, but the bottom line is that a "buy" game is worth approx. $443,000 to MU. In other words, foregoing a buy opponent for a home-and-home is going to be worth $221,500 (average per year over two years), a 2-for-1 is worth $295,000, and a 3-for-1 is worth $332,000. This is strictly revenue... it does not take into account the expenses of travel for the "for-1" games.
Even allowing for some error/fluctuation in the numbers, even a 3-for-1 hits MU's bottom line by about $100,000/yr. Even if the game was a guaranteed sell-out (i.e. the remaining 45% in the upper bowl & 2% in the lower bowl or $78k), that's still a $22,000 hit that MU has to take.
Sure, this is a grossly oversimplified and highly estimated hypothetical, but you can see that it's not as easy as saying "hey, let's just play a tougher schedule and cut out a couple home games. At the end of the day, you're playing tougher competition, and a couple losses to teams with an upper 100s RPI at home may have a more detrimental impact on your RPI than playing a bunch of RPI 300s against whom a W can nearly be taken for granted (from a business standpoint, not a basketball perspective... never take a W for granted on the court).
You lose a lot of money, if the schedule is so weak that you do not get an NCAA bid. Also playing a weak schedule does not help recruiting.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 21, 2015, 05:35:07 PM
If the folks knew anything at all about college basketball, then yes, absolutely. SFA has been a tourney team each of the past two years. They're a good team.
To any knowledgeable fanbase, a team like SFA should definitely move the dial more than Presbyterian. Similar to what you usually expect from a Belmont or Weber State.
I'm not saying our fanbase does know the difference, but they sure as hell should.
I was using SFA as an example -- and I think you knew that, brew. I just as easily could have chosen Kennesaw St (224), Morgan St (230) or Troy (246).
Most Marquette fans -- intelligent or otherwise -- are coming to these December games to see Marquette play. They aren't going, "Oh goodie, I get to see Morgan State."
And just because they aren't saying that, it doesn't mean they are stupid.
Personally, I would like to see us renew our rivalry with Notre Dame and play them every season. Maybe have a game against a Big Ten team every year. And maybe one 3-for-1 against a decent team every year. Put those together with some non-con tournament, the Wisconsin game and the Big East/Whichever Challenge their running that year, fill it out with some cupcakes, and you've got a nice non-con that helps the RPI and prepares you for the Big East season.
Having said all that, I totally understand why we "dumbed it down" for this season. We were shyte last year and we're young this year. Let's build the confidence, learn how to play together and go kick arse in the BE!
What are the financial implications of making the tournament?
Quote from: bilsu on December 21, 2015, 09:50:13 PM
You lose a lot of money, if the schedule is so weak that you do not get an NCAA bid.
How so? What is a lot of money?
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on December 22, 2015, 06:52:40 AM
What are the financial implications of making the tournament?
Granted, there are 'soft benefits' that a tourney trip can get you - fan interest and support, increased interest from perspective students, etc... but the direct financial implications can be LOSING MONEY.
Let's say MU and Georgetown are both on the bubble.. MU gets in because of a better (based on some metric, potentially a flawed one) schedule... MU gets no additional tourney revenue because of this.
Furthermore, MU may lose a bunch on travel expenses if they take a party larger than the NCAA pays for.
In general at a larger conference level, tourney 'units' are paid out by the NCAA to member *conferences* and the conference splits up the money evenly among their schools.
So, MU edging out Georgetown (assuming the same performance once in the tournament would have occurred by either team) would result in the same $ going to the conference and ultimately going to each team within the conference.
Remember that in the past MU didn't necessarily load up on buy games. We've had H/H with NC St., ASU, Vandy and LSU and 3 (or 4) for 1 deals with UWM and Green Bay. We also did that Vegas road trip a couple years back. This year's schedule was constructed because we have the youngest team in college basketball. I can't remember a year where the season ticket package was fully 20 games when including the exhibition. I'm anticipating a return to more normalcy next season.
And a quick comment on Benny's math. Do recall that season ticket holders aren't charged based on the number of games. Doesn't matter if the home slate is 18 or 20 games in a particular year, the cost is the same. So to include incremental revenue of an added buy game seems erroneous to me. If I recall from a few years back, we had a season that was 17 home dates and that got the phones lighting up at the Athletic Dept.
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 22, 2015, 07:31:41 AM
How so? What is a lot of money?
Granted, there are 'soft benefits' that a tourney trip can get you - fan interest and support, increased interest from perspective students, etc... but the direct financial implications can be LOSING MONEY.
Let's say MU and Georgetown are both on the bubble.. MU gets in because of a better (based on some metric, potentially a flawed one) schedule... MU gets no additional tourney revenue because of this.
Furthermore, MU may lose a bunch on travel expenses if they take a party larger than the NCAA pays for.
In general at a larger conference level, tourney 'units' are paid out by the NCAA to member *conferences* and the conference splits up the money evenly among their schools.
So, MU edging out Georgetown (assuming the same performance once in the tournament would have occurred by either team) would result in the same $ going to the conference and ultimately going to each team within the conference.
The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.
I'm not getting the plaque for season-ticket holder of the year anytime soon, but I've had mine since 2000, and this is stretch of schedule is the worst that I can recall.
I went to most of the games because they were weeknights where I had nothing else to do, but none of them were events I would have cancelled any other engagement for.
Quote from: Marquette_g on December 22, 2015, 08:22:07 AM
The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.
I'm not getting the plaque for season-ticket holder of the year anytime soon, but I've had mine since 2000, and this is stretch of schedule is the worst that I can recall.
I went to most of the games because they were weeknights where I had nothing else to do, but none of them were events I would have cancelled any other engagement for.
Why not? You can nominate yourself (http://www.gomarquette.com/tickets/m-baskbl-sth-of-game.html) whenever you like ;)
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 22, 2015, 08:29:28 AM
Why not? You can nominate yourself (http://www.gomarquette.com/tickets/m-baskbl-sth-of-game.html) whenever you like ;)
I had no idea that is how they are chosen, well one of my buddies should appreciate the 200 words I just wrote about him. Maybe they'll award him during the 299th ranked (KenPom) Stetson game.
I like Benny's analysis, but it's on a per game basis. The cost of season tickets has been relatively consistent over the years. There have been slight increases, but they charge you the same for the entire season, while the number of home games each year has varied.
10/11 - 19 games
11/12 - 16 games
12/13 - 16 games
13/14 - 16 games
14/15 - 17 + 1 at the Al
15/16 - 20 games
Does MU really make more money playing these extra 300+ home games? or does it actually end up costing them more because they're making the same amount from season-tickets regardless of number of games.
Quote from: MU82 on December 21, 2015, 03:20:12 PM
I totally agree with this.
If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"
Come on.
I think you look at this the wrong way. Why can't the discussion be "Aw crap, I'm not going to bother going to the BC, pay to park, etc, to see the f'ing 349th team in Division 1. I'll catch a bit on 540 or FS1."
SFAustin is at least a name that shows someone is trying. To me, the long run of other fodder capped by Presbyterian is almost a "screw you, you'll watch any garbage we put out there" to the fan base. Probably an overreaction from me, and that's fair, which brings me back to an earlier point that it is not the cupcake or two or even three that is fueling this, it is the steady stream of such low rated cupcakes that is the problem. After seeing five or six of them in a row at home, I just don't need or even want another right now, no matter how hard you try to jam it down my throat.
Quote from: MU82 on December 21, 2015, 10:25:05 PM
I was using SFA as an example -- and I think you knew that, brew. I just as easily could have chosen Kennesaw St (224), Morgan St (230) or Troy (246).
I honestly thought you were using them as an example in the other direction, that teams like Belmont, SFA, Bucknell, Winthrop, and Weber State are just as significant to fan interest as teams like Chicago State, Grambling, and Presbyterian because fans don't know the difference between levels of cupcakes.
I'm sure we message board folk aren't the "typical fan" but when the scheduling tweets start coming out, I do get excited or disappointed based on the names that come across. I was hoping for Belmont and IUPUI in the Legends Classic, and have been excited in recent years when teams like Southern or Savannah State were announced.
Now admittedly, that excitement wasn't because I get to see Southern, but because I get to see a decent low-major opponent that should contend for a tourney berth and should have a positive impact on our tourney chances, while also seeing a better, more competitive game than we get out of the types of cupcakes we see this year.
I agree that I'd like to see Notre Dame, maybe a Minnesota or Northwestern type program, and some of those 3-for-1 deals; personally, I think we should run four of those at a time because it would solve three of the home cupcakes while also giving us a true road game each year for four years (paging Detroit, Valpo, Drake, and Fordham). MU won't do that, but I like the idea.
Right now, I'm just hoping these games do help build confidence and lead to Big East wins, because it'll be what we do the next 12 weeks that determines how our season ends, and I'd like to see it end with a tourney berth.
Quote from: Litehouse on December 22, 2015, 09:02:17 AM
I like Benny's analysis, but it's on a per game basis. The cost of season tickets has been relatively consistent over the years. There have been slight increases, but they charge you the same for the entire season, while the number of home games each year has varied.
10/11 - 19 games
11/12 - 16 games
12/13 - 16 games
13/14 - 16 games
14/15 - 17 + 1 at the Al
15/16 - 20 games
Does MU really make more money playing these extra 300+ home games? or does it actually end up costing them more because they're making the same amount from season-tickets regardless of number of games.
I was about to type this same thing.
Alumni/Students- Alumni usually renew before the schedule is released so don't they pay for season tickets rather than per game? Students tickets were a flat rate. I guarantee both sides would rather have 16 home games with 3 1-and-1's each year over an extra couple games against chicago state-like teams.
Fox Sports- Yeah, they need content but I would think having a top-100 out of market game would be worth sacrificing an extra home game like Stetson that they aren't even broadcasting
Actual Attendance- You lose 8K worth of fans at a chicago st game but I'm sure the 1-and-1 would draw an extra 2-3K over an average cupcake. I also think people would buy more stuff at an actual game instead of practice game like last night. I wasn't so into the game where I got excited enough to buy a couple beers last night. No excitement in the gym and the game was over at halftime.
Other Costs: Kind of a push for not paying the extra 130k for the opponent and gym versus flying cross-country.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on December 22, 2015, 09:27:14 AM
I also think people would buy more stuff at an actual game instead of practice game like last night. I wasn't so into the game where I got excited enough to buy a couple beers last night. No excitement in the gym and the game was over at halftime.
I don't think MU gets anything from concessions. All that money goes to the Bucks as part of the lease agreement.
Quote from: Litehouse on December 22, 2015, 09:36:54 AM
I don't think MU gets anything from concessions. All that money goes to the Bucks as part of the lease agreement.
I think you are right (though the 2006 agreement said it was split between the Bucks and BC). Too bad they don't have more incentives to have actual fans in the seats.
Either way, my point is even stronger since they definitely wouldn't lose money since they don't get concession revenue either way if there was 1 game or 2 :)
I'd like to see a definitive strategy including some key points:
a) Home and home multi-year commitments with one or two "rivals". ND is obvious. Louisville would be great... or develop a new one like Minnesota or Illinois that might also help regional recruiting
b) 3 and 1's with mid-level teams or 2-1 with better teams in areas where Wojo develops a strong recruiting base. Too early to do this now, but let's say he develops a Philly pipeline... plenty of good options there, and great that you can promise a recruit one game in his home town during his time at MU. One or two of these is the limit. It can vary based on recruiting targets and where team members are from.
c) This is out of the box. Work the NCAA for permission to do an annual in-state pre-season tournament every year. Invite the top 2-3 small schools (UWSP, Platteville) plus UWM, Bucky, GB & MU. 3 games in 4 days, incorporating the home/home UW/MU game, one game against a D3 and one game against GB/UWM in alternate years. Use it to build Wisconsin basketball. Small school games start at 18:00, big school games immediately after. I'd go to every game!
The Sprecher Showdown in place of the Pepsi Classic.
Quote from: WarriorFan on December 22, 2015, 09:53:13 AM
I'd like to see a definitive strategy including some key points:
a) Home and home multi-year commitments with one or two "rivals". ND is obvious. Louisville would be great... or develop a new one like Minnesota or Illinois that might also help regional recruiting
b) 3 and 1's with mid-level teams or 2-1 with better teams in areas where Wojo develops a strong recruiting base. Too early to do this now, but let's say he develops a Philly pipeline... plenty of good options there, and great that you can promise a recruit one game in his home town during his time at MU. One or two of these is the limit. It can vary based on recruiting targets and where team members are from.
c) This is out of the box. Work the NCAA for permission to do an annual in-state pre-season tournament every year. Invite the top 2-3 small schools (UWSP, Platteville) plus UWM, Bucky, GB & MU. 3 games in 4 days, incorporating the home/home UW/MU game, one game against a D3 and one game against GB/UWM in alternate years. Use it to build Wisconsin basketball. Small school games start at 18:00, big school games immediately after. I'd go to every game!
Agree with (a). Mostly agree with (b) but understand if it can't be done for budgetary reasons if we do (a).
Completely disagree with (c). The only in-state team I care about playing is UW, and would rather do it on home courts.
Quote from: Marquette_g on December 22, 2015, 08:22:07 AM
The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.
Keep in mind the topic at hand here... we're discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of playing a bunch of cupcakes during OOC with the implication that it affects RPI/SOS and, therefore, MU's ability to get into the tournament.
I'll sum up the anti-cupcake argument in one line:
"If we miss the tournament this year, it's because we got too fat on cupcakes."
Believe me... if it's the cupcakes that are jeopardizing MU's chances of making the tourney, there's probably little "success" to be found in the post-season any way.
Quote from: Benny B on December 22, 2015, 02:45:42 PMBelieve me... if it's the cupcakes that are jeopardizing MU's chances of making the tourney, there's probably little "success" to be found in the post-season any way.
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I guess it depends on your definition of success. I think this year, just making the tournament would be success. But what if you get there and win 2-3 games. Get the right matchup and just about any team can make a run to the Sweet 16 or even Elite 8.
We pay money for a non-return game (cupcake). What happens in a home and home? Do we pay something to Notre Dame when they come here and then get paid something by Notre Dame when we go there?
Scheduling teams like Minnesota and Illinois should result in an increase in attendance for a few reasons:
1. Big Ten teams would presumably be more attractive to the non-season ticket holders, because Wisconsin is also Big Ten country.
2. Large schools, which presumably will have more alumni in Milwaukee area, who might want to see their Alma mater.
3. Schools are close enough that some of their fans will travel to game.
I do not think the quality of the opponent matters as much as who the opponent is. For example we are more likely to sell out a game against Louisville this year than a game against Xavier. The same thing would hold true with Sryacuse, UConn, Notre Dame vs. Xavier.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 22, 2015, 03:41:08 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I guess it depends on your definition of success. I think this year, just making the tournament would be success. But what if you get there and win 2-3 games. Get the right matchup and just about any team can make a run to the Sweet 16 or even Elite 8.
Reaching the post-season can certainly be a success, but reaching the post-season isn't "post-season success."
That would be like calling yourself a college graduate on your first day of college.