MU's a #4 seed this week, playing VCU in Tampa.
Here's Lunardi's comments:
Marquette
Do I detect a pattern here? The Big East teams who don't play non-league road games can't win there when the conference rolls around.
Why seeded here?
Marquette is lucky to be seeded this well after two stinkers on the road.
May change because:
Time to come home and feel artificially good again.
Good Wins
RPI 1-25: @Wisconsin
RPI 26-50: Providence
Bad Losses
RPI 101-200: none
RPI 201+: none
How many Big East teams have the an OOC road win the quality of Wisconsin?
0
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on January 21, 2008, 12:57:41 PM
How many Big East teams have the an OOC road win the quality of Wisconsin?
0
But how many BE teams had a quality road victory like that one but get blown out by about 20 points handedly?
0
He must have a grudge against us or an "agenda" to criticize our schedule.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 21, 2008, 01:08:12 PM
He must have a grudge against us or an "agenda" to criticize our schedule.
I'm sure he has better things to do than hold a grudge against MU....but answer the question I asked then....name ONE Big East team with a higher quaility road (not neutral) win than Wisconsin?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 21, 2008, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on January 21, 2008, 12:57:41 PM
How many Big East teams have the an OOC road win the quality of Wisconsin?
0
But how many BE teams had a quality road victory like that one but get blown out by about 20 points handedly?
0
What's the point of that question? I'm addressing what Lunardi said? Pittsburgh had a nice NEUTRAL court win against Duke then proceeded to lose at Dayton by 25. Georgetown lost at Memphis by 14. Neither of them have a quality road win the level of Wisconsin.
I agree with Joe on this one. Our non-conference schedule blows. As a season ticket holder it's no fun to make the trip to watch the directional schools.
I understand the reality and economics of it all. I would rather see the team tested early and often. I like Gonzaga's philosophy of anyone, any time, anywhere. I realize their conference sucks, but still they make an effort.
What are the economics and reality of it?
Quote from: muhoops1 on January 21, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
I like Gonzaga's philosophy of anyone, any time, anywhere. I realize their conference sucks, but still they make an effort.
Gonzaga and Memphis are in the same boat. (ie- they run away with their conference every year.)
First of all Lunardi is wrong, we did play on the road, against currently #11 and a team he has as a #3 seed, and won! Next Gonzaga does not take on "anyone, anytime, anywhere". They started with Montana, Idaho, and UC riverside. They do play some hard teams but almost always at neutral sites. Finally they have to because they are in such a bad league not the BIG EAST!!
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 21, 2008, 01:02:32 PM
Quote from: MarquetteFan94 on January 21, 2008, 12:57:41 PM
How many Big East teams have the an OOC road win the quality of Wisconsin?
0
But how many BE teams had a quality road victory like that one but get blown out by about 20 points handedly?
0
It's been awhile since phill 001: Logic.
But i'm pretty sure this is just what happened:
1) How many A's exist where A = other BE teams with an ooc win as good as wisconsin.
Answer = 0
And you replied:
2) Well how many A's exist that also have a B (blow out loss)
Answer = 0
I'm pretty sure that if 1 returns a 0 then question 2 will always return a 0 regardless of what you use as a B.
Quote from: denverMU on January 21, 2008, 02:33:12 PM
First of all Lunardi is wrong, we did play on the road, against currently #11 and a team he has as a #3 seed, and won! Next Gonzaga does not take on "anyone, anytime, anywhere". They started with Montana, Idaho, and UC riverside. They do play some hard teams but almost always at neutral sites. Finally they have to because they are in such a bad league not the BIG EAST!!
"Good news everyone"... we may be 0-3 on the road in Big East play, but we were 1-0 in pre-conference road games (maybe it was 2-0 because Yahoo Sports is classifing the Chaminade game as a road game).
bottom line is our non-conf schedule was a joke. the EA Sports T'Zagaourny was good and Duke was a good game and there's nothing to bad mouth about the Wisconsin win there, but the farthest true road game we played was 68miles away in the state.
Georgetown went to 'Bama and Memphis (loss) and Pitt went to Washington and Dayton (big loss).
'02-'03 MU went on the road to ND and Dayton (lost both), that year was bookended with road trips to Wisc & Wake Forrest and Wisc & Arizona
they don't need to book a top 5 team, but some home & home with a team from a competitive conference... Pac-5 (Oregon or USC), ACC (Florida St or Maryland), Big Ten (Purdue, Indiana, OSU), BIg 12 (Iowa St, K-St), SEC (Georgia, Arkansas, Vandy), or a good mid-major like Dayton, Xavier, Butler.
There's schools out there like Xavier, Dayton, Boston College, 'Zaga, which would be huge draws because of their tradition, ability, and they have the bonus of being a catholic school.
Marquette only does a disservice to the team, school, and fanbase by not scheduling two good/competitive true away games a season to prepare the team better.
Quote from: muPARTY on January 21, 2008, 05:22:52 PM
but the farthest true road game we played was 68miles away in the state.
So the short distance traveled makes our win at UW less impressive than, say, a potential win at Dayton? Not sure I follow.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on January 21, 2008, 01:02:32 PM
But how many BE teams had a quality road victory like that one but get blown out by about 20 points handedly?
0
Pitt is one I can think....Louisville I believe is another...G'Town didn't lost by 20, but by 14.
How about some middle ground, TC? Instead of Savannah State and their ilk, why not schedule some mid-tier mid-major competition?
Nobody wants to play Butler, Winthrop, or Gonzaga, and with good reason. And I understand North Dakota State beat us on our home court last year, the same year we had such a tough time with Valpo on the road.
But it seems to me like playing some of the less-dangerous mid majors (e.g. Ohio U, Pepperdine, maybe even Creighton) would increase our strength of schedule and heighten fan interest in those December doldrum games. I could see quite a few positives coming out of such a matchup with Creighton, for example.
Gyros...do a search, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum the last 5 years. Creighton isn't going to play MU without a return trip to Omaha. Same for the others you mentioned. We're stuck with home and away with Wisconsin every year and have one coming up with UWM.
Chicos - I understand the principle behind the soft (with the exception of UW and Maui, of course) nonconference schedule. 18 games against Big East competition is absolutely brutal.
But how are we "stuck" with such a schedule, especially if it didn't fully prepare us as Lunardi insinuates? Even if it does prime the team for the rigors of Big East competition, it doesn't satisfy the fan base, boosters included.
Maybe a trip to Omaha (or Athens, Malibu, or anywhere for that matter) wouldn't be such a bad thing, especially now that Creighton has tapered off a bit from their Korver-led early decade greatness. What's the worst that could happen? Road Ls to mid-majors are excusable.
We're not "stuck." The athletic department could schedule those kind of games, but chooses not to for whatever reason. We've heard budget restrictions are the reason, yet we've played at Oakland and at Valpo in recent years. Also, at Wake Forest and at Arizona.
Last year there was nothing. This year, nothing.
Chicos will tell you that when he was there MU was forced to play a certain amount of "buy" games. That's fine. That was also 10 or so years ago and the budget of the department has CLEARLY changed as evidenced by some rather public spending.
Chicos, I know your heart is in the right place, but you cannot deny our non-conference home schedule the past two years has been an embarrassment and something could be done about it.
An embarrassment...no. Typical of a major conference team...we've shown examples time and time and time and time again.
If you guys want the athletic department to schedule those games, then you have to complain to someone OUTSIDE the athletic department. They are given their budget by the administration...it's that simple.
Go to the Father Wild, Greg Klihban's of the world. The department is already subsidized by the university because basketball can't cover the $21 million expense of the other 13 sports...all money losers.
I can't make it more simple then that. If you want better teams, then you have to go on the road more. If you go on the road more, it means less revenue to the program...less revenue to the department.
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
An embarrassment...no. Typical of a major conference team...we've shown examples time and time and time and time again.
If you guys want the athletic department to schedule those games, then you have to complain to someone OUTSIDE the athletic department. They are given their budget by the administration...it's that simple.
Go to the Father Wild, Greg Klihban's of the world. The department is already subsidized by the university because basketball can't cover the $21 million expense of the other 13 sports...all money losers.
I can't make it more simple then that. If you want better teams, then you have to go on the road more. If you go on the road more, it means less revenue to the program...less revenue to the department.
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
Chicos Lets face it our schedule was horrendous and you live 2000 miles away so you have no idea how horrible it was to have your first big home come in JANUARY!!!!!!
This topic is so tired. This year we have played three major conference teams prior to Big East play. Granted these games were still on the road and at a neutral site, but they were quality major conference opponets and we played well, winning 2 out of 3.
Would I love to have a better pre-conference schedule with another quality home/home every year? Of course. I know season ticket holders and everyone agrees on that, but at the same time, I don't think it really matters. We have a 19 game Big East schedule every year. That is enough quality opponents for me. I don't buy into the belief that a better non-conference schedule will make us more prepared for the Big East. Bottom line is, if we play well in the Big East, and finish in the top 5 or 6 (this year they are predicting up to 8 BE teams) we will be in the NCAA's even if we play Marquette High and Tosa East in the non-conference schedule.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
That is absolute BULL! I believe somebody had a listing not too long about that had Marquette's spending on it's men's basketball program among the 10 largest in the country. On what? Limos? Breathing chambers? Overpaid assistants brought in to fill yearly vacancies? And they're still crying poor? How about reining in some of the extravagant spending and giving the fans who pay for this a decent home game once every two years?
Why is there a failure to understand that?
Quote from: IAmMarquette on January 21, 2008, 06:26:27 PM
Quote from: muPARTY on January 21, 2008, 05:22:52 PM
but the farthest true road game we played was 68miles away in the state.
So the short distance traveled makes our win at UW less impressive than, say, a potential win at Dayton? Not sure I follow.
less impressive, no. but our only road win (and road game) happened almost 70miles due west. the way it looked on TV Marquette had a very nice showing of support in the stands. they always do in these games (as does Wisconsin when they play here). i would like to see them play a true road game (not a neutral site tourny) that will better prepare them for going into places like UConn, Pitt, G'town, WV in both: on the court play and atmosphere... somewhere where 90% (or more) of the stands isn't cheering MU.
I've been to UD Arena. one of the best college basketball experiences i've had. it's not an easy place to play, and when UD is good, it's even tougher. Pitt found that out this yr. Marquette (w/ D. Wade and Rob Jackson) found that out too last time we played there.
so don't tell me that this schedule is a good one. I'm not discounting the win @ UW. it was great. but MARQUETTE is 1-0 this yr in road games. MU played one road game last yr, @ Valpo, and won on a last second 3. there not playing road games is going to be the undoing of this team. 3 blowouts in their first 3 road games in conference. forego one home game next yr, and go on the road. go to a BCS conference school and play a mid-pack team @ their arena, then the next yr have them come here.
anyone who this this schedule helped them prepare for the big East is delusional
We have changed absolutely everything with regards to MU basketball in the past 9 years except for this antiquated 16 home games revenue model.
I love how that is the only thing sacred (including George Thompson's number).
If Tom wanted to challenge his team in the non conf he could, the MU ath dept and MU Admin would find a way. Heck, one donor could do it. Our current staff likes the current set-up, so we're stuck with it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 21, 2008, 11:31:34 PM
Gyros...do a search, the topic has been discussed ad nauseum the last 5 years. Creighton isn't going to play MU without a return trip to Omaha. Same for the others you mentioned. We're stuck with home and away with Wisconsin every year and have one coming up with UWM.
That's what we need here. MU to go on the road to a hostile arena and play a decent team to prepare from and get better.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
....
I can't make it more simple then that. If you want better teams, then you have to go on the road more. If you go on the road more, it means less revenue to the program...less revenue to the department.
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
no-one is saying blow up the schedule completely. 2 decent road games a yr. it's been: Wisc/Wake Forrest, Dayton/ND, Wisc/Arizona, Wisc/Nebraska.
i think a team that's better prepared going into conference and then the Tournament and goes further than the 1st rd will bring in more revenue than 2 fluff games a yr. plus you'll get 2 sellouts (or near sellouts) when they have to come here, instead of those 12,000-13,000 they get for Savannah St or University of Maryland Baltimore County. bigger games also get carried on channels other than Time Warner Sports, which adds to the revenue.
Marquette Needs to play teams
either
Mid to Low level Major Teams
Ex: Maryland, Colorado, Washington, Texas Tech, Penn State, Northwestern, Auburn
or Mid to Upper level Mid Majors
Ex: Southern Illinois, Creighton, Norhern Iowa, St. Marys
Quote from: NateDoggMarq on January 22, 2008, 10:27:31 AM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
An embarrassment...no. Typical of a major conference team...we've shown examples time and time and time and time again.
If you guys want the athletic department to schedule those games, then you have to complain to someone OUTSIDE the athletic department. They are given their budget by the administration...it's that simple.
Go to the Father Wild, Greg Klihban's of the world. The department is already subsidized by the university because basketball can't cover the $21 million expense of the other 13 sports...all money losers.
I can't make it more simple then that. If you want better teams, then you have to go on the road more. If you go on the road more, it means less revenue to the program...less revenue to the department.
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
Chicos Lets face it our schedule was horrendous and you live 2000 miles away so you have no idea how horrible it was to have your first big home come in JANUARY!!!!!!
Natedogg...and I've copied posts after posts here from UCLA fans or Syracuse fans or FILL IN THE BLANK all saying the same thing...and those schools have football revenues.
I lived the economics for 5 years daily as part of my job there, and those economics have only gotten WORSE because of the costs of being in the Big East.
Again, I cannot make it more simple for you guys. HOME GAMES = REVENUE. ROAD GAMES = NO REVENUE. WE MUST HAVE 18 HOME GAMES under the current budget. If you want better home games, then you have to change that budget dynamic. Oh, and the other key thing, we must make the NCAA tournament approximately 3 out of every 5 years to earn those television credits...all part of the budget. So not only is 18 games critical, but also getting enough wins to make the tournament is critical. In other words, over schedule at your peril. Is it good to keep customers happy for 1 or 2 extra good games or better in the long run to make the NCAAs?
So here are your choices
- Sacrifice the excellence in other sports (women's hoops, track, etc) by stripping down their budgets
- Increase the subsidy from the university in raw dollars or lower the amount that men's hoops has to cover...either way it's an increase in the subsidy
- Leave the Big East conference
Since as long as I can remember, the university isn't going to do those things. As long as customers are buying tickets, why should they? At the end of the day all the bitching in the world on a fan forum is just that...nothing. Money talks.
Cutting expenses would help but not a whole lot.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on January 22, 2008, 11:38:42 AM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 09:50:18 AM
I don't know why the failure to understand this is so problematic. It's a very simple matter of money and the need for the number of home games that are played.
That is absolute BULL! I believe somebody had a listing not too long about that had Marquette's spending on it's men's basketball program among the 10 largest in the country. On what? Limos? Breathing chambers? Overpaid assistants brought in to fill yearly vacancies? And they're still crying poor? How about reining in some of the extravagant spending and giving the fans who pay for this a decent home game once every two years?
Why is there a failure to understand that?
MU does spend a ton of money on basketball...BUDGETED money. Could they cut back on some...sure...but at the end of the day they are supporting 13 other money losing entities. The scholarships are not waived like they are at some schools, the budget PAYS for those scholarships.
I've seen the books, I've lived the books...I'm guessing you haven't.
That being said, yeah we absolutely could cut costs but as it's currently structured, 18 home games are needed and frequent trips to the NCAA tournament. I can't make it any clearer.
If that WASN'T the case, then why did Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill, Rick Majerus, Hank Raymonds, Al McGuire and Tom Crean all follow the same rule with scheduling at MU? Simple...because it's a fact of life, only it's harder now then ever before because we aren't in a Midwestern conference, tuition costs are through the roof, etc.
Don't buy tickets...don't go to the games. That's your recourse.
Maybe MU could do this too and then we could add a road game like UW....
(I realize that Marquette doesn't have parking spots to sell)
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/268595 (http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/268595)
Fans must give $2,500 annually to Badger Fund for best parking spots
Adam Hoge
Special to The Capital Times — 1/22/2008 1:18 pm
When the University of Wisconsin initiated mandatory donations for men's basketball preferred parking in 2001, only new buyers were subject to the charges. Those fans who already held spots were grandfathered in, with no additional fees.
Seven years later, that free pass is over.
The athletic department is raising its annual giving levels for the right to purchase parking at UW lots near the Kohl Center, according to a letter sent to season ticket holders last month, and applying it uniformly.
Starting next season, all applicants for men's basketball parking will have to contribute the same amount required for equivalent football parking near Camp Randall. For fans who want the spots closest to the Kohl Center, at Lot 91 just east of the facility, classified as Zone A, that means a minimum donation of $2,500 per year to the Badger Fund -- the fund-raising arm of the UW athletic department -- just to be eligible to buy a space.
In addition to the annual gifting, a person parking in Zone A will also pay $15 per game for the actual parking pass.
UW associate athletic director Vince Sweeney stressed that any payment a fan already makes for preferred seating at football and basketball, donations to booster clubs or outright gifts to the Badger Fund counts toward that amount.
"You try and build an annual fund program that's fair for everyone involved, and there was a consensus that it was time to bring (the football and basketball annual giving levels) in line with each other," Sweeney said.
The letter elaborated on that point, stating, "It is important preferred parking policies are consistent and equitable for donors and season ticket holders across multiple sports."
Sweeney said the change was made because of the rising demand for parking, which is in short supply. The Kohl Center seats 17,190 for basketball, and UW controls just 3,350 parking spots. Of that amount, 350 will not require an annual donation.
The lots in the Zone A category are 91, Shaughnessy, U-Haul and Depot. The Zone B donation level -- which includes lots 29, 44, 46E, 46W, Alexander and Group Health Co-op -- will now be $1,000 per year, while Zone C -- with lots at the Madison Medical Center -- is $50.
Fans applying for spots must be season ticket holders. Meeting the required donation level only ensures eligibility for parking. Requests are subject to availability, so if there is high demand it is possible that not everyone who asks for a particular tier will receive it; instead, they would be accommodated in the next available tier, Sweeney said.
Some fans are upset with the increased donation levels, as evidenced by recent letters and phone calls to the city's daily newspapers. One man, who wished to remain anonymous, said that he currently parks in Zone A and could afford the increase but would not pay out of principle.
"You are already paying above and beyond the ticket price, but now they are pirating the parking for (Zone) A and they want $2,500 just for the right to buy the ticket," he said on his way into last week's game against Illinois at the Kohl Center. "Where does it end? Are they going to do that with my season tickets, too? They are kind of forcing you to contribute and I think the bump was too high."
Sweeney defended the decision, noting that there have been "few if any changes in parking" at the Kohl Center in its 10-year existence. He said that while some fans will be hit hard by the move, a larger number will either not be affected or not strongly affected, based on their current giving levels.
"It was time to at least bring it in line (with the football annual giving levels) and the majority of people in those lots are already where they need to be," Sweeney said. "There are a number of people who are frustrated. Those sentiments are why we put it off for as long as we did."
Sweeney stressed that because Badger Fund points can be accrued in many ways, fans interested in purchasing parking should review their standing with the athletic department. He reiterated that the $2,500 donation level includes all gifts to the Badger Fund, rather than a separate charge.
According to the letter, annual contributions must be submitted to the Badger Fund by April 30 to meet next season's donation level.
tctsports@madison.com
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
That being said, yeah we absolutely could cut costs but as it's currently structured, 18 home games are needed and frequent trips to the NCAA tournament. I can't make it any clearer.
If that WASN'T the case, then why did Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill, Rick Majerus, Hank Raymonds, Al McGuire and Tom Crean all follow the same rule with scheduling at MU? Simple...because it's a fact of life, only it's harder now then ever before because we aren't in a Midwestern conference, tuition costs are through the roof, etc.
Don't buy tickets...don't go to the games. That's your recourse.
you're wrong in the fact that home/aways were scheduled between MU and Wake Forrest, Dayton, Arizona, Valpo, Notre Dame, and Nebraska. all since 2001. it can work.
i think all MU fans are asking for is an additional series were the team can prepare better. without seeing figures, i would say it can work. subtract a buy team and get a small series against a team that can challenge the Golden Eagles and help get them ready for Big East and the Tourn't.
and i think part of it is, they feel they have a top-caliber team and can afford to trade a more competitive team/game for a team/game that will simply bring some money in. they are showing that the trade off is a bad one.
finally, if the team is better prepared going into the tournament and succeed, then they will generate more money for their success than they would have via a crap team in Dec that doesn't test them.
Will you guys all just relax. Marquette didn't lose the last 2 games because we had an "soft" non-conference schedule. We lost because we played terrible defense and shot poorly on offense!!! We played the same kind of non-conference schedule last year and beat UCONN, PITT, and LOUISVILLE on the road. We win games when we hustle, play good defense, and shoot the ball well period!! Playing one or two slightly tougher teams early is not going to change that. GO WARRIORS!!!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
I've seen the books, I've lived the books...I'm guessing you haven't.
I'm guessing you haven't seen the books in many years. I'm also guessing the budget has changed significantly since Raymonds, Majerus, Dukiet, O'Neill and Deane were here. Actually, I don't have to guess on that one. I KNOW the budget is significantly different. You know that, too.
Quote from: muPARTY on January 22, 2008, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
That being said, yeah we absolutely could cut costs but as it's currently structured, 18 home games are needed and frequent trips to the NCAA tournament. I can't make it any clearer.
If that WASN'T the case, then why did Mike Deane, Kevin O'Neill, Rick Majerus, Hank Raymonds, Al McGuire and Tom Crean all follow the same rule with scheduling at MU? Simple...because it's a fact of life, only it's harder now then ever before because we aren't in a Midwestern conference, tuition costs are through the roof, etc.
Don't buy tickets...don't go to the games. That's your recourse.
you're wrong in the fact that home/aways were scheduled between MU and Wake Forrest, Dayton, Arizona, Valpo, Notre Dame, and Nebraska. all since 2001. it can work.
i think all MU fans are asking for is an additional series were the team can prepare better. without seeing figures, i would say it can work. subtract a buy team and get a small series against a team that can challenge the Golden Eagles and help get them ready for Big East and the Tourn't.
and i think part of it is, they feel they have a top-caliber team and can afford to trade a more competitive team/game for a team/game that will simply bring some money in. they are showing that the trade off is a bad one.
finally, if the team is better prepared going into the tournament and succeed, then they will generate more money for their success than they would have via a crap team in Dec that doesn't test them.
Sigh. Yes they were scheduled, doesn't change the ECONOMIC CALCULATION does it? In each of those years we played 2 road games tops....that's what this is all about, maintaining 18 home games.
This is also why we try to get into as many of these tournaments as we can...notice we weren't in many of these before Crean (the Maui, GAS, etc). For the price of "one game" in terms of the NCAA, we get three games away from home against good competition.
Nevertheless, go back and look at the road non-conference games in those years you talk about.
2000-01 Two road games
2001-02 Two road games
2002-03 Two road games
2003-04 Two road games
Noticing a pattern
2004-05 One road game
2005-06 Two road games
Very few exceptions. In 1999-2000 we did have 3 road games.
Go back to Mike Deane's 5 year era, 4 years we played 2 road games, 1 year we played 3 road games.
Last time I checked, MU has tried to secure many of those types of games recently with Texas, Gonzaga, etc...didn't work out. But the point absolutely remains, we have a vast limitation in the way things are CURRENTLY structured (and historically structured) in terms of how many road games we play out of conference.