MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 13, 2006, 08:09:23 AM
-
They've got Wake Forest coming in tonight on the heels of Kansas with a game at UAB mixed in. Cal is coming in later this month. How are they able to get these great non-conference opponents when we keep hearing that football is required for "home and homes?"
I guess with UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. coming in, I shouldn't complain.
-
i'm assuming you mean our lack of football revenue is the reason we can;t get quality home and homes. but we were still able to land the wake forest and arizona series a couple years back. regardless, it seems crean insists on having only 2 away games to fill in our OOC schedule. one every other year is always taken by bucky. why we always seem to fill the other one with a valpo or oakland is beyond me, but these colleges do seem to be homecoming type games for some of our players. i've also heard that we've had some home and homes fall through (specifically illinois) because we couldn;t agree where the series would start i.e. crean wanted the first game in milwaukee, and vice versa. i'm not defending our lack of quality OOC opponents (remember that duke and TT where not offcially on our schedule, and we almost didn;t play either thanks to idaho st.), both at home and on the road, and i most certainly would like to see us play a few more marquee matchups before conference, as i too have noticed that depaul has put together a much better OOC schedule than ours.
-
1. Since when was UAB a "great" team? I thought they were one of those "southern" CUSA schools that we didn't care about.
2. Question: When Bill Self promises recruits like Sherron Collins or Julian Wright a game in their home towns, what makes you think that Milwaukee would be an equally great location?
3. Remind me again how that tough non-conference schedule prepared DePaul for Big East play.
-
Its just a different philosophy......Crean embraces the Boeheim approach to out of conference games. Still, TC should get credit for pushing MU into these productive and challenging early season invitationals every year.
-
Valpo was signed before the 2003-2004 season, long before Dominic comitted, so I don't think that it was considered a homecoming for anybody.
-
Playing tougher competition will always help a team get ready for conference play. Plus, how about the ability to generate a little fan interest? Sagarin Ratings today: Morgan State, 290--Savannah State, 288--UMBC, 211--Oakland, 145. Don't like Sagarin? Pomeroy RPI today:
Morgan State, 286--Savannah State, 262--UMBC, 197--Oakland, 125.
UAB? Sagarin, 72, Pom. RPI 25. I'll be at every game, but can't figure out why we can't bring in better competition.
Can't the Jesuit's get together and figure out how to have an all Jesuit Round Robin during Christmas week? I realize Georgetown can't play MU, but think about the possibilities......
-
Speaking of invitationals, DePaul also played in the Hawaii tournament this year.
UAB is not a top notch "name" program, but it's a UCLA compared to the crap we've brought into the BC this year (other than Wisco).
The answer to this is that Marquette knows it's season ticket holder base is fairly secure -- and has been for years and years -- and they don't think twice about taking advantage of that loyalty.
-
riiiiiggght... if that's the only thing MU is concerned about then why bother going to the big east? ::)
-
Playing tougher competition will always help a team get ready for conference play.
Gery Woelfel said the same thing last year......and indicated that MU's pre-season slate did 'nothing, repeat nothing' to help MU prepare for the Big East. We all know what happened.
The Big East slate will take care of the RPI. Playing Duke, Texas Tech and Wisconsin helps the out of conference enough.
If anything, the lineup of snoozers is good for MU....TC is gonna have to rebuild the team's confidence and do a fair amount of tinkering to get it ready for the Big East gauntlet. Smart scheduling for a young team IMHO
-
I think we have played tough competition in Duke, UW-Madison and Texas Tech all in the top 40 RPI. Also we have or will play another 6 games with teams currently in top 150 RPI(pomeroy). I believe our schedule has us ready for conference play. You have to consider that while some of these schools may not have the best RPIs, just about every single one of the schools on our non-conference schedule was picked with a purpose by TC when it comes to conference play and tournament time. I.e style of play that mimics other teams on our schedule. Now having said that, yes I would have liked to have replaced one of the home bunnies with an additional big time school. Maybe next year.
What Depaul has done this year and last has probably hurt them more than helped them when it comes to tournament selection. No matter how you slice it, winning does matter. A 3-5 record with only 1 quality win over Kansas is a lot worse than a 8-2 record with 3 quality wins (Quality of win being against RPI top 100 teams).
-
You have to consider that while some of these schools may not have the best RPIs, just about every single one of the schools on our non-conference schedule was picked with a purpose by TC when it comes to conference play and tournament time. I.e style of play that mimics other teams on our schedule.
You can't be serious! These teams were "picked" by TC because they are warm bodies with a desire to add money to their athletic department budgets. And they are supposed to represent easy wins for MU. That's it.
-
If anything, the lineup of snoozers is good for MU....TC is gonna have to rebuild the team's confidence and do a fair amount of tinkering to get it ready for the Big East gauntlet. Smart scheduling for a young team IMHO
Good point. We have to remember that we are still a very young team that lacks a lot of experience. I would expect a little bit of an upgrade in opponents next year with a big time program filling in for UW-Madison at home. I believe the Maui Invitational will be just as tough as the CBE was this year.
Sounds like some on here would rather sacrifice quantity of games over quality thus having fewer home games. I don't know if that is a viable option financially. I see the DePaul argument but you can't really make that arguement without knowing about the financial situation of both universities. I.e. revenues and expenses on a year by year basis. If someone could provide hardcore financials from both universities and prove that MU would be better off scheduling the way DePaul schedules than it would be dumb not to do it DePaul's way.
-
You have to consider that while some of these schools may not have the best RPIs, just about every single one of the schools on our non-conference schedule was picked with a purpose by TC when it comes to conference play and tournament time. I.e style of play that mimics other teams on our schedule.
You can't be serious! These teams were "picked" by TC because they are warm bodies with a desire to add money to their athletic department budgets. And they are supposed to represent easy wins for MU. That's it.
There is definitely some truth about the money because it always is about the money but your wrong if you don't think TC spends as much time on scheduling specific opponents that will help his team throughout the year as he does on music selection, big playbooks, recruiting and scouting.
-
music selection
???
-
This is such a tired, circular debate that it's become ridiculous. Seriously, what would make some of you happy? Should we have: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, North Carolina and Duke scheduled to pay us a visit in Milwaukee next year and go into the BE with a 4-7 record?
EVERY "top tier" college basketball program schedules guarantee games...every single one of them. Look at the pre-conference home schedules below (they do not include invitationals, pre-season tourney's, etc.)...you may see some familiar names.
Does anyone remember when we'd have a home CONFERENCE schedule that included: East Carolina, Southern Miss, TCU, and Tulane?!?! It really wasn't too long ago.
Nobody forces you to buy season tickets, if you don't like our pre-conference home schedule why don't you buy a smaller package or broker tickets only to the games with "worthy opponents?"
Pre-Conference Home Schedules:
UNC: Sacred Heart, Winthrop, Gardner Webb, Ohio State, Kentucky, High Point, NC-Ashville, Florida Atlantic
Ranked Teams: 1
UCLA: BYU, Long Beach State, UC Riverside, Cal St. Fullerton, Texas A&M, Oakland, Sam Houston St, Michigan
Ranked Teams: 1
Kentucky: Miami (OH), Miss Valley St, Charleston, Chattanooga, Santa Clara, UMass, E. Kentucky, Houston
Ranked Teams: 0
L'ville: Nortwestern St, Sacramento St, Ohio, St. Joe's, Bellarmine, UMass, Savannah St, Miami (FL) San Francisco, NC-Ashville
Ranked Teams: 0
Arizona: N. Arizona, New Mexico St, Samford, UNLV, Houston
Ranked Teams: 0
Pitt: W. Michigan, Deleware St, Northeastern, UMass, Oakland, Florida St, Robert Morris, Duquense, Dayton, Florida A&M
Ranked Teams: 0
Kansas: N. Arizona, Oral Roberts, Towson, Tennessee St, Ball St, Dartmouth, USC, Toledo, Winston-Salem, Boston College, Detroit, Rhode Island
Ranked Teams: 0
-
Nice argument. Where did anybody suggest we bring in North Carolina, UCLA, Arizona and Duke? Is that what anybody is saying? The level of defensiveness about this is bizarre. Take a look at our non-conf. home schedule:
Cardinal Stritch!!
Hillsdale!!!
Idaho St.
Detroit
East Michigan
North Dakota St.
Delaware St.
Wisconsin
Maryland-Baltimore County
Oakland
Morgan St.
Savannah St.
Then sit there and compare it to North Carolina's non-conf home schedule -- which includes Kentucky and Ohio St. -- or Kansas, which includes USC, Boston College and Ball St. to ours. I include Ball St. in this argument because they would represent -- by far -- the second best team on our non-conf home schedule. How anybody can defend our schedule is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense to claim it's legitimate -- or claim it is done to "prepare" us for the Big East.
Suggesting we would have a 4-7 record if we scheduled one or two even halfway decent games is absurd. I suppose actually defeating a team from the Atlantic 10 or Loyola or Butler at the Bradley Center would be out of the question. DePaul will likely have a worse non-conference record than us this year. I'm willing to bet that if we tie them in the Big East, they'll go to the tournament ahead of us because our home schedule is a joke.
-
Do you think Bucks season-ticket holders would like it if they played nobody but the Bobcats, Toronto, and Atlanta for the first 2 1/2 months of the season?
-
Can't the Jesuit's get together and figure out how to have an all Jesuit Round Robin during Christmas week? I realize Georgetown can't play MU, but think about the possibilities......
Its not just can't play, its can't be in the same tournament as someone from your conference. Given that nearly every Jesuits school in D-1 is in the same conference as another Jesuit school it becomes a logistical nightmare that doesn't make sense for most of the schools. Gonzaga could never be in it when USF and Santa Clara are in. Detroit and Loyola can't be together, SLU and St. Joe's and Xavier can't....the list goes on. Really that kind of tournament would only be an every year benefit for Creighton and maybe a few other schools because they are by themselves.
No school with a qualified AD is going to commit to a tournament on such a grand scale when there would be so many different variables in play, and they wouldn't see the benefits most years. No Jesuit University president is going to push the idea too hard for fear of upsetting the "lower level" Jesuit schools when the athletic department wants to rig who gets to play that year. Its a PR nightmare waiting to happen, and those guys are too smart to put themselves in that position.....so for the most part they just avoid the idea as a whole.
-
i completely understand the reasoning as to why teams schedule easy teams in OOC. I also understand why marquette specifically must have a lot of home buy games for revenue purposes. all i am saying is that as a fan, it's fun to see bigger name opponents. and as evidenced by the ncaa tourney selection committees the last few years, OOC SOS is an extremely important factor in selection and seeding. Again, it is important to remember that there was no guarantee that we were going to play Duke and Texas Tech. Fortunately that all worked out, but how bad would our schedule look if idaho state had pulled out the victory, or if duke or TT had gotten upset before KC? i agree that there is not much point in arguing because this is the way it's going to be. just not a lot of fun in non-conference play...
-
Can MU continue to plead poverty with the lucrative ESPN-BEAST TV contract about to start?
-
I would think if it made financial sense, if it helped the team improve, if it meant a bigger, happier fan base and it didn't hurt our chances of making tourny by going 15-15, TC would schedule Duke, Arizona, Kansas, North Carolina, UW-Madison, Illinois, Michigan St., Florida, Ohio St., Indiana, Gonzaga and Texas every year.
Now I know I am being an a** by making that comment but you can't compare every one elses's schedule with our schedule. There are different factors and circumstances for every school that goes into creating a schedule. I would love to see another 1 or 2 high profile name teams play at home but I am not going to blast the schedule we have this year. By all indications it looks like we will play 6 to 7 schools with an RPI of 200 plus out of 31 games. Not great but not horrible, at least by my standards. I will at least wait until the end of the season before making my final judgements on our schedule but I will gladly take some of the stinkers for games against Duke, Texas Tech, UW-Madison, Syracuse, Pitt twice, Louisville twice, ND, UConn, Villanova, Georgetown, etc., etc.
-
Nice argument. Where did anybody suggest we bring in North Carolina, UCLA, Arizona and Duke? Is that what anybody is saying? The level of defensiveness about this is bizarre. Take a look at our non-conf. home schedule:
Cardinal Stritch!!
Hillsdale!!!
Idaho St.
Detroit
East Michigan
North Dakota St.
Delaware St.
Wisconsin
Maryland-Baltimore County
Oakland
Morgan St.
Savannah St.
Then sit there and compare it to North Carolina's non-conf home schedule -- which includes Kentucky and Ohio St. -- or Kansas, which includes USC, Boston College and Ball St. to ours. I include Ball St. in this argument because they would represent -- by far -- the second best team on our non-conf home schedule. How anybody can defend our schedule is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense to claim it's legitimate -- or claim it is done to "prepare" us for the Big East.
Suggesting we would have a 4-7 record if we scheduled one or two even halfway decent games is absurd. I suppose actually defeating a team from the Atlantic 10 or Loyola or Butler at the Bradley Center would be out of the question. DePaul will likely have a worse non-conference record than us this year. I'm willing to bet that if we tie them in the Big East, they'll go to the tournament ahead of us because our home schedule is a joke.
Comparing MU's home scheduling to the Bucks, now that's absurd....some slight differences there....I don't think Terry Stotts has to get on the horn with Phil Jackson to get the Lakers to come to town or worry about final exam schedules. Clearly, I wasn't suggesting that we schedule UNC, UCLA, Arizona and Duke....just making a point that you can't make everyone happy...which is pretty obvious here. UNC now has an established home and home with Kentucky and Ohio State was a product of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge...not too tough for Roy Williams to get those accomplished.
Regarding your KU comparison....so, Ball St. would make you feel better than E. Michigan or Detroit or Morgan St....based on their RPI? I'd guess that someone who makes the effort to get to a game against Ball St. would also go to the Morgan St. game...or any other game for that matter. I'd rather have an intrastate rival, top 10 team on our schedule (Wisconsin) than BC or USC....what about all of the other names you chose to ignore: Northern AZ, Towson, Winston-Salem, etc...would you like to see any of those teams?
Basketball is our football....primary money maker....the more games the more money we make...I'm sure we all understand that concept. We're assuming that we can just bring in whomever we'd like to come play in Milwaukee....not going to happen. Would I rather see bigger names? Sure, who wouldn't. Do I understand MU's scheduling "philosophy" and the business aspect....yes. I also understand the value of an MU season ticket is backloaded into the conference schedule and can live with that. We're in the Big East, our home schedule is strong every season. What in God's name were you saying when we had East Carolina, Tulane and Southern Miss at home?!
You're right there is no need to "defend" our home OOC schedule....it didn't seem to adversely impact our preparation for BE play last year. I'm not sure we'd be better off in March if we played USC or Morgan State in December.
My suggestion of a 4-7 record going in to conference play was an extension of the same point on bringing in elite program opponents....not Butler or Loyola....you twisted the logic around and wouldn't classify those programs as elite.
So, if we tie DePaul in the BE they'd get into the NCAA because they played tougher home opponents? What if we beat more ranked opponents or, here's an idea, beat DePaul? There are plenty of factors that determine who gets invited to the dance, not just who you play at home before conference play begins. Texas Tech, Duke and Wisconsin are worthy OOC opponents in my book.
-
Anyway you look at it, outside of Wisconsin, this year's non-conference schedule is pretty bad. I have no idea about the scheduling process and the negotiations involved, but I think its safe to say that that everyone involved including TC would love to get some better opponents on our non-conference schedule. We seem to have a few more "who the hell is that" teams this year (UMBC) than in prior years. This year we were lucky in drawing TT and Duke in addition to Wisconsin. Imagine if we were bounced first round in the CBE. It won't take much to improve our schedule. Really just one more annual home and home series with another major conference such as the Big 10, or Pac 10 could do it. That would give us Wisconsin, a major conference team, and the invitational. Not too shabby.
-
I think that most people would be satisfied with our OOC schedule this year if we had one more marquee game (a la Wake Forrest or Arizona like years past). Rumor has is that we were in talks with U of I for that marquee game last year and this year (home and away) that fell through. I would guess that our complaints will be satisfied next season, but we can't know that until next seasons schedule comes out.
-
Agreed....one more quality home and home would be great....and realistic. We had that with Wake Forest then Arizona...obviously moving to the BE we "lost" the OOC home and home with Notre Dame also....sounds like we tried with Illinois recently and I thought I remember reading something about Gonzaga? Minnesota, Michigan or Iowa would be interesting ideas....although with the ACC/Big Ten Challenge it may be tough to accomplish. I have a feeling we may see something with Kansas State in the near future.
-
you guys are all also forgetting the next year begins the big east/sec challenge. whether or not we are part of the opening lineup remains to be seen:
http://thecardreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-eastsec-challenge-becomes-reality.html (http://thecardreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/big-eastsec-challenge-becomes-reality.html)
-
I was not aware of that. That would be a great addition to our schedule as long as we don't get stuck with Vandy! Any idea what the contract length is? 2 years +???
-
It looks like the BigEast-SEC Challenge will be another neutral court situation. Even with that, I think the complaint with the STHs is that they want another good game that they can go to at the BC. I'd still look to see another marquee OOC game at the BC. I agree that a game with KSU looks like it could be in the works.
-
They've got Wake Forest coming in tonight on the heels of Kansas with a game at UAB mixed in. Cal is coming in later this month. How are they able to get these great non-conference opponents when we keep hearing that football is required for "home and homes?"
I guess with UMBC, Oakland, Morgan St. and Savannah St. coming in, I shouldn't complain.
1) DePaul's athletic budget is smaller than ours
2) Marquette attempts to compete at high levels up and down the sports tier with all of our sports...DePaul does not. DePaul puts all their eggs into men's hoops, women's hoops and a bit into softball. Everything else be damned.
3) MU's non-tuition waiver system means every athlete on scholarship the athletic deparment must pay the university for that tuition. Not all schools do this. If DePaul doesn't do this (I don't know the answer), then they would save significant amounts of money on there 200+ athletes right there (MU's bill would be around $6Million to $7Million alone on tuition reibursement).
4) Would you rather play at the Bradley Center or the All-State Arena
5) Would you rather have the Al or their practice facility
etc
etc
-
Good of you to bring up the Al! That was also paid for by donations from supporters...I assuming season ticket holders made up a lot of those donations. Yet they are still asked to pay for tickets to games against these cruddy teams.
DoubleMU suggested at least one more "marquee" game, which I guess I could live with. I'm not even suggesting some huge name. Somebody somewhat recognizable would suffice...St. Joe's, Xavier, Arizona St., Iowa St., Miami (Oh)...somebody we've freaking heard of!
Of course I would rather play at the Bradley Center than the Allstate Arena, but I don't see how that affects our schedule.
-
Since we started this conversation by comparing our OOC home schedule with DePaul's the comparison between playing in the Allstate Arena vs. the Bradley Center is relevant....as is the AD budget.
By scheduling home and home games, whether with quality opponents or not, DePaul has to "buy" far fewer games. This year their OOC schedule includes home and homes with: Bradley, Northwestern, UAB, Wake and Cal. I'm assuming the UAB games were the result of the C-USA early departure deal.
So that leaves 5 home OOC home games for DePaul this year and I'm fairly certain they didn't have to pay too much (i.e. nothing) for Kansas to come to Chicago...which means that they "bought" 4 home games this year....compared to the 9 that MU "bought"...including the B&G Classic (not the CBE games). Say each home game costs MU $60,000 per opponent (complete guess) that's an extra $300k MU shelled out to get 5 additional OOC opponents on the home schedule....but with an average of 12,000+ per game in attendance...not a bad deal for MU. We need the home game revenue, not a bunch of home and homes.
The $31M for the Al did largely come from donations from MU supporters...why shouldn't it? Why not take advantage of the Final Four run? Pretty smart in my eyes. Ever notice that almost every building on campus is named after someone...Donations. I'm sure David Straz was a great guy but they didn't name the business school after him only because of his ability to manage a balance sheet.
-
Good of you to bring up the Al! That was also paid for by donations from supporters...I assuming season ticket holders made up a lot of those donations. Yet they are still asked to pay for tickets to games against these cruddy teams.
DoubleMU suggested at least one more "marquee" game, which I guess I could live with. I'm not even suggesting some huge name. Somebody somewhat recognizable would suffice...St. Joe's, Xavier, Arizona St., Iowa St., Miami (Oh)...somebody we've freaking heard of!
Of course I would rather play at the Bradley Center than the Allstate Arena, but I don't see how that affects our schedule.
Yes it was, but the continued operating costs of the building are not paid by those donations.
Incidentally, Marquette is in the Maui Classic next year just as DePaul was this year.
Playing at the Bradley Center effects our schedule because we pay the BC about $20,000 each game in rent. Last I checked DePaul was paying about $4500.
The biggest reason is wins and losses....MU is going to get 20 wins a year with it's schedule and play in post season tournaments. DePaul with their tougher schedule rarely goes to the NCAA and draws about half the fans we do despite their "fan friendly" schedule.
Which begs the question at the end of the day....do fans want to see a winner that goes to the post season that plays a competitive schedule? Or do fans want awesome opponents to come into their building only to watch their team lose so much that the building has only 6000 souls in it? I'm sure your answer would be that fans want to see both. If it were only that easy.
Let us also clearly understand that as pathetic as DePaul has been the last 5 years, teams like KU, Duke, etc will go to Chicago to play them because it's going to be a road win. Duke has consistently told Marquette NO GO in terms of playing in the Bradley Center. North Carolina backed out of their return to Milwaukee. Scheduling is a two way street, you have to have a willing participant. When you suck, lots of teams will come to your home gym. When you're good, those options dry up.
-
I was not aware of the huge disparity in rent...that's a huge advantage for DePaul. You're right about that.
Of course I want to play in the NCAA tournament (not just "the post season" as you put it), but I also enjoy attending Marquette games. But I refuse to drive an hour and half to "support the team" against Maryland Baltimore-County and the rest of what they are offering. Does that make me less of a fan? Hardly. I'm typical of the fans they're counting on (taking advantage of?) to pay their bills!
-
Hey Chico's, ask Kansas about that road win at DePaul they have this year. Also, ask Wake Forest about last year. I don't think they are chalking up a win at DePaul tonight.
Bottom line is that our non-conf schedule sucks.
-
I see two other things that could affecct scheduling. DePaul absolutely needs to schedule big teams to get anyone to even show up at their games. Our fans are much more loyal. We'll sell 12,000 tickets to a no-name team. DePaul sells that many for their biggest games. If I'm Duke or Kansas, where would you rather play a game? Big city Chicago or small city Milwaukee? If I'm them, I'm playing in Chicago almost every time.
-
music selection
???
Yes music selection. The band is no longer prominent as TC wanted to go with a more pro type atmosphere a la the Bucks. Also, I might have read it on this board or on scout but someone at the NDST game mentioned that TC was requesting a specific song to be played during a timeout to help pump up the crowd. Regardless, based on all the stories out there it should come as no surprise that TC is a very detailed oriented man in everything related to MU.
-
ahh.. here I was thinking you were talking about the band music.. that's what the director is for.. I could see Crean talking to him in general terms for strategy but not really getting into the specifics..
still.. I would doubt he spends THAT much time on it.. but I digress.. ;)
-
Hey Chico's, ask Kansas about that road win at DePaul they have this year. Also, ask Wake Forest about last year. I don't think they are chalking up a win at DePaul tonight.
Bottom line is that our non-conf schedule sucks.
Miltown...Kansas won't even play MU at MU because they look at it as a 50-50 proposition as a loss. They scheduled DePaul because it's Chicago, against a Big East team and they had a 85% chance of winning. In fact, they probably overlooked DePaul and thus lost.
That's the difference....we cannot get many good teams to come in a play us. I know of some very high level teams we have tried to get in to play us in the last 5 years and they all said "NO THANKS...Milwaukee is too tough a place to play".
That's reality. Crean has shared publicly who some of those teams are.
-
I'm still waiting for someone--anyone--to explain precisely how DePaul's tough schedule last season helped them prepare for the Big East.
Of course we all know that DePaul wasn't helped by their schedule--they played the toughest non-conference schedule in the Big East. And they failed to qualify for the tournament.
Now, I don't know what you supporters of the "prepare for the conference" meant by that. Perhaps you really thought that DePaul's sole objective was to move up from 16th place to a 3 way tie for 13th.
Once again we have the completely unsubstantiated claim that playing tougher teams helps prepare a team for the rigors of the conference season. Unless your point is that a tough schedule helped PREPARED DEPAUL TO LOSE!!!
It would be one thing if DePaul were the exception. But they're not--the rule is that generally, the toughest schedules were left out come selection day, and the easier schedules made the NCAA and finished in the upper half of the Big East standings. Sure, there were exceptions (USF, Villanova).
Among the tough schedules:
DePaul: Toughest schedule--tied for 13th and DNQ for BET.
Providence: 2nd toughest schedule--tied for 13th and DNQ for BET.
Cincy: 3rd toughest schedule--8th in conference and no NCAA
And the cupcakes?
Pitt: 2nd easiest schedule--tied for 4th in conference
UConn: 3rd easiest schedule--tied for first in conference
Georgetown: 4th easiest schedule--tied for 4th in conference
Pitt: 2nd Easiest schedule--tied for 4th.
8 teams had SOS ranked among the top 100 in the nation. Just 3 made the NCAA tournament--and Syracuse only made it only because they did well in the league tourney. A first or second rould loss would have left them behind.
5 teams had SOS ranked among the 100 worst. 3 made the NCAA.
The RULE in the Big East is that a tough non-conference schedule reduces your chance for an NCAA bid.
-
Interesting comparision:
DePaul/Wake Forest Attendance: 8521
DePaul/Eastern Illinois Attendance: 8798
Go back and re-read those numbers. I checked twice. At DePaul, EIU and WFU. As far as I can tell, they're absolutely correct.
According to the attendance figures released by DePaul, they sold 277 more tickets for the Eastern Illinois game than for Wake Forest!!!
How can that possibly be? Don't those fans realize they're being shafted by being FORCED to pay for EIU when they really want to see Wake Forest?
And making matters even more interesting, EIU came on the heels of back-to-back losses to Northwestern and Bradley. Wake Forest came after the upset win over Kansas.
That win over Kansas generated so much excitement and enthusiasm that 277 fewer rans ran out to buy tickets to see a "great" team like Wake Forest.
Yes, I'll admit that Kansas drew better. However, at this point I have to believe its more because of the large number of KU alums in the Chicago area coupled with two Chicago-area products on their roster, as opposed to DePaul fans buying tickets to see a "great" opponent as opposed to one like, say, EIU.
-
Excellent points Marquette84...on both counts.
At the end of the day people want to see winning programs and teams usually win not only on talent but on their belief they can win. Scheduling overly tough teams usually spells disaster. Scheduling too soft of teams has shown many times over not to have the opposite effect.
-
I was just wondering, of all the people complaining about the schedule on here how many are actually season ticket holders?
-
According to the attendance figures released by DePaul, they sold 277 more tickets for the Eastern Illinois game than for Wake Forest!!!
How can that possibly be?
this one is immediately obvious to me.. the same reason you discredit the kansas game attendence explains the EIU game attendence.. the fans of EIU came to the game as well - just like MU fans will significantly alter the attendence count when we play @ DePaul. This isn't really a fair comparison.. to make your argument you need to compare games against teams both traveling from a significant distance away.
distance from DePaul's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 18.2 miles (or 23 minutes).
distance from Eastern Illinois' campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 199.5 miles (or 3 hours 17 minutes).
distance from Wake Forest's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 771 miles (or 11 hours 48 minutes).
in fact.. if I look up the kansas game attendence I see it is 16,922. Do you really believe that the difference of roughly 8000 people is purely because of the number of KU alum living in chicago?! You have a VERY hard sell there.
not saying that you can't prove your point.. you'll just have to do so by comparing apples to applies - which I have yet to see. ;)
-
Do you really believe that the difference of roughly 8000 people is purely because of the number of KU alum living in chicago?! You have a VERY hard sell there.
I think its an easier sell than suggesting that there was a horde of EIU fans (2006 attenance average 1555) that drove up for the game.
When you can't fill more than 25% of your own house, its hard to believe that you travel well.
If over 6000 KU fans can find their way to Las Vegas (1310 miles), I think its fair to say that 8000 is not unreasonable for Chicago.
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/recap?gid=200611250210&prov=ap
But lets assume you're right--that DePaul fans really can differentiate between Kansas and Cupcakes, and showed up in mass to reward the school for scheduling a "great" opponent.
The point made earlier is that Wake Forest represented the type of "great" opponent that brings in the crowds. That statement appears to be wrong. Wake Forest, frankly, draws more like Chicago State and Eastern Illinois.
And we can check back a year to see that this is not just a one-year trend. Creighton, the type of team that some here seem to be drooling to schedule--drew 7902 at DePaul last season. Florida International drew 8146. And you don't have the "driving distance" argument on your side in this example.
-
DePaul/Wake Forest Attendance: 8521
DePaul/Eastern Illinois Attendance: 8798
A couple other factors played a part in these numbers. Primarily, WFU was played on a Wednesday, while EIU was on a Friday. Also WFU was televised (albeit on ESPNU) so some fans may have decided to watch the game at a bar. (or at home, not sure if Chicagoland gets ESPNU)
-
Primarily, WFU was played on a Wednesday, while EIU was on a Friday.
So the EIU game had the disadvantage of being scheduled a) when there are far more entertainment options available to the "casual fan" and b) virtually every HS basketball player is involved in a game of their own.
That makes the EIU margin even more amazing.
-
DATE OPPONENT ATTEND
------------ -------------------- ------
11/10/06 Fr HILLSDALE COLL. 12464
11/13/06 Mo IDAHO STATE 12334
11/14/06 Tu DETROIT 12339
11/18/06 Sa EASTERN MICHIGAN 12978
12/01/06 Fr NORTHWESTERN STATE 13019
12/02/06 Sa NORTH DAKOTA STATE 15348
12/05/06 Tu DELAWARE STATE 13056
12/09/06 Sa 11/12 WISCONSIN 19020
Weekend (Fr, Sa, Su) games averaged 14566 (13452 w/o UW) and weekday games averaged 12576. I know there's more to do in Chicago than Milwaukee, but if someone could find attendance stats for DePaul, I'm guessing they'd have a similar ratio. More people attend weekend games.
-
DATE OPPONENT W/L SCORE ATTEND
Sa 11-19-05 BRADLEY L 60-75 8797
Sa 11-26-05 NORTHWESTERN W 59-49 9039
We 11-30-05 CREIGHTON W 72-57 7902
Sa 12-3-05 BUCKNELL L 52-57 7746
Tu 12-6-05 UAB W 70-66 7747
Sa 12-31-05 FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL W 72-60 8146
Sa 1-7-06 NOTRE DAME W 73-67 15675
Su 1-15-06 RUTGERS LOT 68-78 8122
Tu 1-17-06 MARQUETTE L 79-82 12322
Tu 1-31-06 GEORGETOWN L 44-64 9258
Tu 2-7-06 PROVIDENCE L 60-61 7883
Sa 2-11-06 VILLANOVA L 51-61 14906
Sa 2-25-06 SETON HALL W 67-64 9846
Th 3-2-06 SYRACUSE W 108-69 11171
Ok, I found it. Last year DePaul averaged 10285 on weekends (Fr, Sa, Su) and 9381 on weekdays.
-
Weekend (Fr, Sa, Su) games averaged 14566 (13452 w/o UW) and weekday games averaged 12576.
What you're forgetting here is that MU states 'paid' attendance..., not actual attendance. The large season ticket holder base creates a false 'crowd'. I was at all those games and guarantee you that there were not 8,000 people in the crowd at some of them.
-
Weekend (Fr, Sa, Su) games averaged 14566 (13452 w/o UW) and weekday games averaged 12576.
What you're forgetting here is that MU states 'paid' attendance..., not actual attendance. The large season ticket holder base creates a false 'crowd'. I was at all those games and guarantee you that there were not 8,000 people in the crowd at some of them.
Don't have stats on it, but I would be willing to bet the actual attendance is closer to paid attendance on weekends vs. weekdays.
-
Weekend (Fr, Sa, Su)
Its a mistake to consider Friday night equal to Saturday or Sunday.
If for no other reason, no HS BB player (or his parents) will be able to make a Friday night NCAA game.
Put it this way--if NCAA games would draw on Friday night like they do for Saturday, we'd see a hell of a lot more Friday night games.
But lets compare the a Friday night has for MU--rather than averaging it with Saturday.
Comparaing similar teams: Northwestern State drew 13019 on a Friday, Delaware State drew 13056 on a Tuesday. North Dakota State drew 15348 on a Saturday.
Hmmm. Do you want to reconsider putting a generic "weekend" tag on a Friday game?
Its a mighty weak argument to suggest that hordes of fans descended on Allstate on a Friday who wouldn't have made it on a Tuesday--and inconsistent with MU's behavior this season.
Bottom line, the fame and history of Wake Forest had ZERO impact on drawing more fans to Depaul's game this week. A nobody like EIU drew more fans.
-
According to the attendance figures released by DePaul, they sold 277 more tickets for the Eastern Illinois game than for Wake Forest!!!
How can that possibly be?
this one is immediately obvious to me.. the same reason you discredit the kansas game attendence explains the EIU game attendence.. the fans of EIU came to the game as well - just like MU fans will significantly alter the attendence count when we play @ DePaul. This isn't really a fair comparison.. to make your argument you need to compare games against teams both traveling from a significant distance away.
distance from DePaul's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 18.2 miles (or 23 minutes).
distance from Eastern Illinois' campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 199.5 miles (or 3 hours 17 minutes).
distance from Wake Forest's campus to Allstate Arena is approximately 771 miles (or 11 hours 48 minutes).
in fact.. if I look up the kansas game attendence I see it is 16,922. Do you really believe that the difference of roughly 8000 people is purely because of the number of KU alum living in chicago?! You have a VERY hard sell there.
not saying that you can't prove your point.. you'll just have to do so by comparing apples to applies - which I have yet to see. ;)
I guarantee you that EIU (outside of family and friends of the team) had no more than 7 fans at the Allstate Arena against DePaul. They're averaging 874 for home games. KU easily can draw 8000 fans out of the Chicago area to come to the game...there are tons of KU alums in the area not to mention the Chicago players on their roster. I'm also sure that DePaul had more than their normal 3 dozen students show up for that game.
-
[Comparaing similar teams: Northwestern State drew 13019 on a Friday, Delaware State drew 13056 on a Tuesday. North Dakota State drew 15348 on a Saturday.
Hmmm. Do you want to reconsider putting a generic "weekend" tag on a Friday game?
I would like to see a sample size great than one. I still think more people would attend a Friday game where they don't need to get up for work/school the next morning.
-
Words, words, words. I had a busy couple of days and my eyes kind of glazed over from all the debate here .. there are some things that are just plain obvious. If you disagree, you're probably working PR somewhere.
1. This year's home OOC schedule is one of the worst in recent history. As previously analyzed, the over/under for, what I call "low interest" games is about 6 per year. This year. it's 10, breaking the record, 9.
2. Low interest games have little to do with what the RPI of the team is. Example: last year's game vs. Winthrop. Wintrhop (who ended up beating us) ended up being the 11th hardest team we played last year (ranked by their 73 RPI) .. but I can't imagine any non-STH would be excited to see that game.
3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue. Super teams like Arizona and Wake might, but the "gettable" teams like Creighton, Xavier, Valpo, Charlotte, SLU, MN, Dayton, Butler, Nebraska, etc. probably only generate a few hundred extra ticket sales, as evidenced above. Nevertheless, people want MU to play those games, making them high-interest.
4. I assume that by looking at a very low interest game's attendance, like Hillsdale (12400) indicates STHs represent about 12k .. our average (for the year) is about 14k, so overall, the STHs represent ~86% of those who are buying tickets.
5. 86% of your customers is a very high chunk. I only mention this, to indicate that they represent a crucial part of income.
6. As the amount of low-interest games go from 1 to 2 to 5 to 10 or higher, your customers will perceive a reduction in value for their purchase.
7. BE games have certainly provided a boost in perceived value. Next year, even moreso (9 games). On the downside, ticket prices have doubled in 5 years, and are no longer a small purchase, especially with the mandatory donations/seat.
8. It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections. I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is? Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?
9. Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke. This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better. And we understand that scheduling is tough. In seasons' past, the OOC home games were of a higher caliber, and as this thread was started, DePaul is able to pull it off, somehow.
10. The $64k question is, if the OOC home schedule is consistently bad, will STHs stop buying seats? Most will continue to buy, but eventually, if the perceived value continues to drop, small chunks won't buy them anymore, as it will be more economical to purchase single game tickets to high-interest games. -- When the ST package was a paltry $300/year/seat, no big deal. Now that it's twice that, economic-man will eventually appear and act.
11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate. You can sit home and read about the team's performance versus Savannah State for free, if you even care to. Whoop di doo. It's the folks who have a large financial interest, plus a tremendous time investment who have skin in this game.
As everyone knows, I'm a huge fan. But I think the above is a pretty honest assessment. I'm a STH, and promote the team daily. If I could change anything about the program, it'd be the OOC home schedule, to add just a little more meat on the bones. Who wouldn't?
-
Example: last year's game vs. Winthrop. Wintrhop (who ended up beating us) ended up being the 11th hardest team we played last year (ranked by their 73 RPI) .. but I can't imagine any non-STH would be excited to see that game.
And this comment sums up the entire debate.
All this time I took MU fans at their word when they said they want to see competitive teams.
Well, no more.
Basketball ignorance apparently reigns supreme among the MU faithful. It doesn't matter a whit whether the team is actually good--only the name matters.
Better to bring in a dreadful Pepperdine team ("say, I've heard of Pepperdine") than a rising Detroit team with an exciting guard in Brandon Cotton. Lets see lousy Mississippi ("becuase they have both a state AND a river!") instead of a the more competitive and challenging opponent like Delaware State. Better to maintain a straight face asking for Coppin State as opposed to appreciating a pretty good ND State team that we already know knocked off a D1 power in the state.
Frankly, I always gave MU fans credit for having a bit more basketball IQ than the average person, but basically you admit here that MU fans don't care to see better teams. They want lousy teams with big names. Legitimately good opponents are shunned soley because our ignorant fans don't perceive a big enough "name."
Lets dismiss some of the other myths.
If you disagree, you're probably working PR somewhere.
Or someone who actually understands a bit more about basketball.
Nice try at the ad hominiem attack. The real PR pro is the one who is trying to suggest that Minnesota would be generating interest this year.
1. This year's home OOC schedule is one of the worst in recent history. As previously analyzed, the over/under for, what I call "low interest" games is about 6 per year. This year. it's 10, breaking the record, 9.
First, EVERY year's non-conference schedule is called the worst one ever.
Before we played them last year, people like you were whining to no end about Wintrhop. Those of us with some brains knew that they were a good team returning everyone from a team that took Kansas deep in their NCAA tournament game.
3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue.
An oxy-moronic statement at its best. Higher interest games may not generate more interest.
8. It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is? Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?
And yet, like clockwork, the committee picks Pitt and UConn and Syracuse. Boy that committee is stupid. Last year they pass up DePaul and Providence to take UConn and Pitt. Stupid. Stupid. STUPID selection committee! Right?
9. Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.
No--its worse. They're asking for games against LOUSY TEAMS LIKE PEPPERDINE MISSISSIPPI AND MINNESOTA!!!
This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.
Well, better in that you know the names. In terms of the quality of the game, it would not be better.
But what do I know? Season Ticket Holders apparently don't go to SEE GOOD BASKETBALL. They want to drop names like Pepperdine, Minnesota, Coppin State and Missisissippi.
And we understand that scheduling is tough. In seasons' past, the OOC home games were of a higher caliber, and as this thread was started, DePaul is able to pull it off, somehow.
And Chicos explained it for you, DePaul was a lousy team and located in Chicago when those games were scheduled. We drop to a consistent under-500 team and move our games to the United Center, we'll get UNC, Duke, you name it.
By the way--do you want to put money on the liklihood that DePaul gets another home-and-home contract with a team the calibre of Kansas anytime soon?
11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate.
Aha--the "brag" factor.
As I pointed out, you don't really want to see good basketball. You want to brag about how much you pay for your seats to Biff Nobody at the front desk, and make sure that he recognizes the teams you paid to see. Your season tickets are your Bling, and you you can't "show off" a solid Wintrhop or Detroit or ND State or some other solid team. But Pepperdine or Minnesota? Well, Joe Moron in accounting will have HEARD of those teams so my investment to show off is worth something!!!
-
Those of us with some brains
84, you make some good points. But eh, try to do so without putting yourself on such a pedestal, or calling everyone else stupid from now on. :-\
-
** Nice try at the ad hominiem attack.
That's rich. Take a look at your post, which is riddled with ad hominem attacks. I would summarize the theme of my post as consumerism, while yours is firmly planted in elitism and calling people names.
**All this time I took MU fans at their word when they said they want to see competitive teams. Well, no more. Basketball ignorance apparently reigns supreme among the MU faithful. It doesn't matter a whit whether the team is actually good--only the name matters.Frankly, I always gave MU fans credit for having a bit more basketball IQ than the average person, but basically you admit here that MU fans don't care to see better teams. They want lousy teams with big names. Legitimately good opponents are shunned solely because our ignorant fans don't perceive a big enough "name."
Yup, you figured it out. You've realized that there are a host of reasons fans go to games, (and you've accused them of being ignorant, way to go). Those ignorant fans want to play DePaul every year, too, but our record against them over the past couple decades is about .800. Why is that? Poor quality team, why the desire to play em? Must be ignorance, right? And surely, any fan who would want to play UWM is ignorant as well. Talk about your ad hominem attacks.
Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names? -- But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop? I said it didn't excite people, but that's different than getting rid of them. Isn't it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule? Perhaps not for you. You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.
*** First, EVERY year's non-conference schedule is called the worst one ever.
And that destroys what argument, exactly? If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product. But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.
Quote
3. High(er) interest games may or may not generate more attendance/revenue.
** An oxy-moronic statement at its best. Higher interest games may not generate more interest.
Odd that a stat you support is one you attack. Higher interest games, like a Dayton or Xavier, will generate more interest, and the ticket holders will perceive it with more value, than Cupcake U. However, as shown statistically, it doesn't generate non-STH ticket sales. It just makes the STH, who have tickets, happier. OH DEAR! Those stupid, ignorant Season Ticket Holders. This can be very easily observed by counting the no-shows at low-interest games vs. high interest games. It's those darned season ticket holders, showing their interest with their feet, or in this case butts not in seats.
Quote
8. It's hard to believe that wins against RPI 200+ teams actually count for squat during March selections I mean, how stupid do we think the committee is? Like they can't figure out that 9 of your wins are versus the Jacksonville States of the world?
*** And yet, like clockwork, the committee picks Pitt and UConn and Syracuse. Boy that committee is stupid. Last year they pass up DePaul and Providence to take UConn and Pitt. Stupid. Stupid. STUPID selection committee! Right?
And that undercuts my argument how? That had DePaul just played a couple more cupcakes, that they'd be in, and their record vs. the top 65 of 5-9 would have been ignored? Seems your example proves my point. Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes? No, they got in because they played well against quality teams. DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in. For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.
Quote
9. Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke.
*** No--its worse. They're asking for games against LOUSY TEAMS LIKE PEPPERDINE MISSISSIPPI AND MINNESOTA!!!
That's worse? Trading a Morgan State game (low interest, low quality) with a Minnesota game (high interest, low quality) is WORSE than asking for 11 games against Duke? Would you rather have customers who demand 11 high quality games, or customers who demand a modicum? You'd rather have elitist fans with unreasonable expectations?
Quote
This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.
*** But what do I know? Season Ticket Holders apparently don't go to SEE GOOD BASKETBALL. They want to drop names like Pepperdine, Minnesota, Coppin State and Mississippi.
Yes, as I said above, you figured something out, although not entirely. There are a host of reasons a customer purchases something for sale. Some of it is about quality, some of it utility, activity, social aspects, sexiness, and status, among many others. Add it all up, and it you receive a certain value. Keep quality high but reduce .. sexiness, and your product flops. i.e. stick a 4 pound battery in the iPod to increase its quality, and no one buys it. Make it cooler by making it super small with less battery life, who knows, your "ignorant" customers just might be happier and buy more.
Quote
11. Also, as pointed out before, those who are NOT season ticket holders, who aren't dropping $1500 a year, really have little voice in this debate.
*** Aha--the "brag" factor. As I pointed out, you don't really want to see good basketball. You want to brag about how much you pay for your seats to Biff Nobody at the front desk, and make sure that he recognizes the teams you paid to see. Your season tickets are your Bling, and you you can't "show off" a solid Winthrop or Detroit or ND State or some other solid team. But Pepperdine or Minnesota? Well, Joe Moron in accounting will have HEARD of those teams so my investment to show off is worth something!!!
Oh, please. There's no (monetary) bragging in having season tickets for MUBBall, as they aren't like NFL/NBA/MLB tickets that cost quadruple+ the amount. (Plus, let's face facts, those who would be impressed by MU STH status are few and far between. Packer or UW ST Holders (esp FB), now that gets you some status around here.) -- I mention the cost of season tickets merely because it's not a paltry sum, casually spent, and certainly not for bragging purposes. It shows that the STH has a fair investment in the product, and thus, what the staff wants: ownership.
And, if you squint and don't read all the words, you can say things like "..you don't really want to see good basketball". Bullcookies. What STHs want, is good value, which includes many MANY things, as apparently, you've just figured out.
The summary of your argument is that consumers' desire for value, and how they measure value, is irrational and ignorant, and should be ignored and criticized. Good luck with that.
-
That's rich. Take a look at your post, which is riddled with ad hominem attacks. I would summarize the theme of my post as consumerism, while yours is firmly planted in elitism and calling people names.
I apologize. I inappropriately responded in kind.
Those ignorant fans want to play DePaul every year, too, but our record against them
DePaul is a conference opponent and long time rival. .
We don't play Mississippi or Minnesota or Coppin State or Pepperdine every year, nor do we have any long standing rivalry with any of them. Yet these teams were cited as preferred opponents.
Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names?
Because a) I think MU fans should be more interested in MU than the opponent and b) smart enough to recognize that you can find good, talented, and exciting teams beyond the Pepperdines and Minnesotas of the world.
Tell me this--don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for North Dakota State? Beat Wisconsin this year. Us this year. Doesn't that suggest to you that they might be a pretty decent (albeit) unknown team?
Don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for Northwestern State? Upset Iowa as a 14 seed to win an NCAA tournament game. Beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missississippi State. No respect from you?
Isn't a contender for the Horizon champions worth some respect?
But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop?
When you said we only have one decent team, you make that implication about all others on the schedule.
Here's a list of the "Winthrop-like" teams on our schedule: Delaware State has been pretty good the last several years. Detroit is a contender for the Horizon league championship. We knew how competitive North Dakota State can be against a Big 10 team. Oakland has been decent and played us competitively recently. Northwestern State beat Iowa in the NCAA last year, and also beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missisissippi State.
it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule?
The problem is you are apparently unable to differentiate between cupcakes and decent quality lesser known teams.
You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.
We have six.
And that destroys what argument, exactly? If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product. But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.
Its not growing discontent--its the same old complaint year after year after year.
Funny that the teams complained peole complain about pre-season become examples of teams we should schedule in subsequent years.
Last season: "Our schedule stinks. Who wants to see Wintrhop."
This season: "I'm not talking about getting rid of Wintrhop--we need more like them"
We have at least six "Winthrop-like" teams this year.
After someone like Detroit or Delaware State becomes the Cinderella in the 2007 tournament, you'll simply subtitute them for Wintrhop in next years rant.
Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes? No, they got in because they played well against quality teams. DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in. For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.
Well, you brought up the comment about the committee not recognizing padding your schedule with "9 wins against the Jacksonville States of the world". That suggests that the committee would make a mistake by giving a bid to a team with 9 wins against the Jacksonville States.
So did they or did they not?
This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.
No. We basically have six.
Detroit
Delaware State
Northwestern State
North Dakota State
Wisconsin
Oakland
You make my point over and over again. We have six decent teams--you just won't give them appropriate credit, and want to replace them with inferior quality (but a bigger name).
Oh, please. There's no (monetary) bragging in having season tickets for MUBBall,
As you tell us how much your tickets cost.
-
** DePaul is a conference opponent and long time rival. We don't play Mississippi or Minnesota or Coppin State or Pepperdine every year, nor do we have any long standing rivalry with any of them. Yet these teams were cited as preferred opponents.
Preferred opponents OVER Savannah State. Preferred opponents OVER Morgan State. Preferred opponents OVER Oakland. What don't you understand there? Why must you continue to miscomprehend the argument: cull a few of the low-quality, low-interest games and replace them with high-interest games, regardless of quality.
--Tell me, are you actually surprised that fans would "want lousy teams with big names" versus lousy teams with non-existent names?
*** Because a) I think MU fans should be more interested in MU than the opponent and b) smart enough to recognize that you can find good, talented, and exciting teams beyond the Pepperdines and Minnesotas of the world. Tell me this--don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for North Dakota State? Beat Wisconsin this year. Us this year. Doesn't that suggest to you that they might be a pretty decent (albeit) unknown team? Don't you have the tiniest bit of respect for Northwestern State? Upset Iowa as a 14 seed to win an NCAA tournament game. Beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Missississippi State. No respect from you? Isn't a contender for the Horizon champions worth some respect?
"Should be more interested" and "are more interested" are chasms apart. Of course I have respect for NDSU and Winthrop, et al, and not just because they beat us. You continue to misunderstand the argument. No one is asking to get rid of all quality low-interest games, yet you bring that up time and time again. It's SOME of the non-quality, low-interest teams that we'd like to swap out with some high-interest ones. I just don't know how many other ways I can explain that. Swap UMBC for MN. Swap Morgan State for Dayton. NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody. Is that clearer?
--But furthermore, where exactly did I say MU fans wanted to get rid of the no-name, decent quality teams like Winthrop?
*** When you said we only have one decent team, you make that implication about all others on the schedule.
Read it again. I have consistently described teams with the concepts of low/high interest and low/high quality. Winthrop was low-interest, high-quality.
*** Here's a list of the "Winthrop-like" teams on our schedule: Delaware State has been pretty good the last several years. Detroit is a contender for the Horizon league championship. We knew how competitive North Dakota State can be against a Big 10 team. Oakland has been decent and played us competitively recently. Northwestern State beat Iowa in the NCAA last year, and also beat Oregon State, Oklahoma State and Mississippi State.
Yadda yadda yadda. I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams. Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about? Even if you, it won't prove anything. Your average ticket holder isn't going to research why they should be excited about Morgan State. If they're not, they're not. Are you seriously surprised? Please.
--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States, the Detroits of our schedule?
*** The problem is you are apparently unable to differentiate between cupcakes and decent quality lesser known teams.
How's that? The 2 of those 3 examples were from the BOTTOM 5 teams in all of 334 NCAA teams! (2006). So Detroit was 176. Wow. I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.
--You probably skipped the part where I said the discontent weren't asking for 11 games vs. big named opponents, just looking to improve, like getting two.
** We have six. (snip) Detroit, Delaware State, Northwestern State, North Dakota State, Wisconsin, Oakland (snip) You make my point over and over again. We have six decent teams--you just won't give them appropriate credit, and want to replace them with inferior quality (but a bigger name).
If you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest) I invite you to take a peek around the sold-out lower bowl for any of those games, which should have a butt in every seat, but for those games, it's easily 20-30% empty. Apparently the season ticket holders don't share your definition of what a big name/high interest opponent is. And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams. That doesn't mean I want to see 11 of them.
--.. "worst schedule ever".. If true, it would seem to indicate a y/y growing discontent from the customers buying the product. But in this case, it happens to be statistically true.
** Its not growing discontent--its the same old complaint year after year after year. Funny that the teams complained peole complain about pre-season become examples of teams we should schedule in subsequent years. Last season: "Our schedule stinks. Who wants to see Wintrhop." This season: "I'm not talking about getting rid of Wintrhop--we need more like them"
It is growing discontent if every year, they say "this schedule is the worst ever" It implies that last year(s)' was not as bad as this year's. -- Anyhow, that would prove my point, if it were said, i.e. the schedule is getting so bad, people would pine for the days we at least played more teams like Winthrop which at least have something going for them.
--Did UConn get in because they beat cupcakes? No, they got in because they played well against quality teams. DePaul did not play well vs. quality, and they didn't get in. For a guy who calls others ignorant, I'm not sure how you don't get that.
** Well, you brought up the comment about the committee not recognizing padding your schedule with "9 wins against the Jacksonville States of the world". That suggests that the committee would make a mistake by giving a bid to a team with 9 wins against the Jacksonville States. So did they or did they not?
Try reading more carefully. I never said the committee didn't recognize padding your schedule with cupcakes, I said the exact opposite. The committee isn't stupid, and didn't make a mistake. They figured out who was worthy of post-season, who had a good record versus quality teams, and who did not.
-----
I'd really like to know how it's such a terrible thing to want to replace a UMBC game with a MN type game.
-
I'd really like to know how it's such a terrible thing to want to replace a UMBC game with a MN type game.
Because Minnesota will demand a home game in return, not to mention that they won't play us anymore since we started going into Minnesota and taking talent away - this should not even have to be mentioned when talking about a BCS school. Also any team from the Valley and a slew of other big named middies out there will also demand a home and home. Hell we had to give Valpo a 2 for 1 to come in and play the Blue and Gold one year (though I will say I seriously enjoyed watching the game at Valpo - great atmosphere for a game).
And since I asked who was complaining about the schedule and was a season ticket holder only one person responded, Hilltopper. I'm a season ticket holder and I realize that they're are going to be crappy games on the schedule but I think Crean does a fairly good job of bringing in middies that are very competitive and usually strong in an area where we have a percieved weakness. So it not only in most cases adds a 'W' to the record but we get some work in that will actually help us out. Would I like to see a ton of big name schools come to town, sure, but only if they are legitimate big names - UCLA, Arizona, Kansas, LSU, Gonzaga, Florida, Indiana- but I also realize we cannot have a bunch of those games every year as well not to mention the fact that they have to actually want to play us.
I do not, however, want to see an Ole Miss, or an Oregon St., or a Virginia Tech, or a Northwestern - someone who is usually not very good and would also demand a home and home series scheduled just because they have name recognition. Now if those teams wanted to come in for buy games I'm all for it, but it would never happen.
-
And since I asked who was complaining about the schedule and was a season ticket holder only one person responded, Hilltopper.
I'm a season-ticket holder and I think the schedule is a joke -- and I agree with the previous poster who suggested it was getting worse every year. I've gone to exactly two games this year -- Detroit and Wisconsin. The others were a complete waste of time and money. I'm quite certain there are a few thousand season ticket holders who agree.
Incidentally, we also gave Oakland a game at their place.
-
Time to stop beating a dead horse. 60 posts on what is truly a moot issue is lidicrous. Boy, I hate exam week!
-
Couple quick things .. first, I understand your points about MN. I should have added any number of high-interest teams to that suggestion.
Second .. not sure why Home/homes are to be avoided like the plague. We've pulled off 1-2-3 in years' past. I understand why we don't want away games, because of the need for revenue. -- With the doubling of season ticket prices, increased attendance, increased conference money (and/or the post-season $ that comes with the BE), and now this big fat ESPN contract .. sure seems like we could better afford H&H's now than years ago, when we routinely did it. ???
-
Not sure why we why only have three H & H's this year, some of it could probably be attributed to series with Oklahoma State and Gonzaga falling apart at the last second in the last couple of years. Usually when there's a DII team on the schedule (Northern Michigan in 03-04 and Lewis last year) that means that a game or a series fell through very late in the process. I'm not sure if something fell through this year for the Hillsdale game.
Here are the number of H & H's and teams since the year before Crean showed up (keep in mind Dayton and Xavier were part of long term contracts signed after we left the GMW and MCC respectively):
1998-99: 5 (BC, Wisconsin, UIC, Baylor, Dayton) + preseason tournament
1999-00: 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Baylor, Dayton, Xavier)
2000-01: 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Dayton, Xavier, UNC - they bought out the return game) + preseason tournament
2001-02: 4 (Wisconsin, Dayton, Wake Forest, Fordham - we bought out return game) + preseason tournament
2002-03: 4 (Wisconsin, Dayton, Wake Forest, Notre Dame) + Coaches v. Cancer
2003-04: 4 (Wisconsin, Arizona, Valpo, Notre Dame) + Coaches v Cancer
2004-05: 4 (Wisconsin, Arizona, Oakland, Nebraska) + preseason tournament
2005-06: 4 (Wisconsin, Nebraska, Oakland, Valpo) + preseason tournament
2006-07: 3 (Wisconsin, Oakland, Valpo) + preseason tournament
-
I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams. Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about?
No, because we're not ACTUALLY talking about SSC and Morgan State.
I'm talking about the #2 through #6 games in terms of quality of opponent. So please stop substituting Morgan State and Savannah State for the teams I named.
You have said several times you think we only have one worthy opponent.
In reality we have six that represent a quality level that a knowledgeble basketball fan should know and appreciate. You keep trying to shift this back to focus on Morgan State.
--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States
No, we're not. We're talking about the games in the middle.
So, let's make this easy. At the top of the schedule we have Wisconsin. At the bottom we have Morgan State, UMBC and Savannah State. We're not talking about ANY of these teams.
As for Detroit, I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody said we should schedule other Midwest Catholic/Jesuit schools. Here we schedule one, and you gripe.
So Detroit was 176. Wow. I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.
So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?
NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody. Is that clearer?
So let me get this straight--we say we only have one team we shouldn't swap, and its NDSU?
I would have guessed you were thinking Wisconsin, but whatever.
[quoteIf you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest) [/quote]
I don't consider them big named opponents.
I consider them good quality opponents that smart basketball fans should be interested in. Moreso than dreadful big-name teams like Mississippi and Pepperdine and Minnesota.
And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams.
If you did, you wouldn't keep repeating that we only have one decent team on the schedule.
-
--I'm glad you dug out all the accolades for those teams. Can you do the same for Morgan State and Savannah State, which are the kinds of teams I'm ACTUALLY talking about?
**No, because we're not ACTUALLY talking about SSC and Morgan State.
I *AM* talking about the Morgan State, Savannah State, UMBC, and Hillsdales. Are you actually reading my posts?
??I'm talking about the #2 through #6 games in terms of quality of opponent. So please stop substituting Morgan State and Savannah State for the teams I named.
Not sure where you got that quote, but it wasn't from any of my posts. (Maybe that's the problem, you're reading another forum somewhere!)
** You have said several times you think we only have one worthy opponent. In reality we have six that represent a quality level that a knowledgeble basketball fan should know and appreciate. You keep trying to shift this back to focus on Morgan State.
Again, "worthy" is not a word I've used, so stop putting words in my mouth. Low and High interest are words I've used. Over and over and over. And, I keep talking about the bottom 5 teams, because that's what my argument is centered around, the bottom-dwellers. YOU on the other hand, keep trying to twist my argument to say I purport we should eliminate the middle opponents. That's not what I'm saying. But you know that.
--..it obvious we're talking about the horrible teams, the Morgan States, the Savannah States
**No, we're not. We're talking about the games in the middle.
You go ahead. I'm talking about the bottom dwellers.
**So, let's make this easy. At the top of the schedule we have Wisconsin. At the bottom we have Morgan State, UMBC and Savannah State. We're not talking about ANY of these teams.
Yes, we really are. You'd like me to say teams like Winthrop are terrible and we shouldn't play them, but I didn't and won't say that. I will say that Winthrop is low-interest. No shock there.
--So Detroit was 176. Wow. I guess I really don't know what a cupcake is.
**So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?
I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more) would prefer to see Dayton. I admit, it's hard to tell. Personally, all things (finances, etc) being equal, I'd prefer to see Dayton. Swap Detroit with Nebraska or MN, and it'd be a landslide, though.
--NOT swap Winthrop or NDSU for anybody. Is that clearer?
**So let me get this straight--we say we only have one team we shouldn't swap, and its NDSU?
No, I wasn't listing every swap. Of course, you knew that.
--If you consider 5 of those as "big named opponents" (aka high-interest)
**I don't consider them big named opponents. I consider them good quality opponents that smart basketball fans should be interested in. Moreso than dreadful big-name teams like Mississippi and Pepperdine and Minnesota.
And that's fine, I will agree, "smart" basketball fans "should" be interested in them. "Sadly" a large portion of the current STHs are not, and would prefer "dreadful" big-name teams. It's really too bad you don't get to pick your customers, isn't it? I mean, that would really help you out quite a bit. You could get rid of all the "ignorant" fans and not sell them tickets, and you can watch MU play UMBC in some peace and quiet. Perhaps that's your master plan? Gosh, that would explain some things.
--And again, I don't know how else I can tell you, I do give credit to high (decent) quality, low-interest teams.
***If you did, you wouldn't keep repeating that we only have one decent team on the schedule.
I've not said that, and stop attributing to me, words I have not said. I have, however, said we have one high-interest game on the home OOC schedule. See how those words are, you know, completely different, with different meanings?
Seriously. Wow.
-
**So we should replace them with #183 Dayton?
I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more) would prefer to see Dayton. I admit, it's hard to tell. Personally, all things (finances, etc) being equal, I'd prefer to see Dayton. Swap Detroit with Nebraska or MN, and it'd be a landslide, though.
Not a chance with Dayton. There is some serious bad blood between the two.
-
I know everyone wants to divide up the schedule between non-conference and conference and home and away and pick it apart but you really need to look at the schedule as a whole. The home non-conference portion might not be as good as in year pasts but the home conference games are a lot better than they have been in the past as well. Only 1 or 2 conference clunkers compared to the CUSA years and before when you had 4 plus and very very few games among top 25 teams. It was Louisville, Cincy and maybe Memphis and that was it. Now you have a UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, resurgent Georgetown on top of Louisville and Cincy. At the end of the year, we will have played double digit games against top 25 teams. When have we done that before?
Overall the schedule is just as good or better than the past. I just don't see how it is not.
-
Your quote:
9. Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke. This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.
You divide the MU schedule into two: Wisconsin and everyone else.
My question: Do you really believe that? Or do you agree with me that we have 5-6 decent basketball teams (even if only Wisconsin is the only one that is "well known"), and our usual 5 bunnies?
And i use the word "usual" purposefully. We've ALWAYS played a handful of bunnies. Every year. Under AL. Under Hank. Under Majerus, Dukeit, O'Neill and Deane. And yes, also under Crean. This year is no different. This year is not worse than usual, and certainly not worst ever in that regards (Check out 1991-92 if you don't believe me).
So I'm not going to discuss Savannah State etc. becauase we've always played those type of games and it's unreasonable to think that we're going to stop any time soon.
Which brings us back to the question on the table: Setting aside the bunnies (which we've always played and always will), for the other non-conference games would you rather see a good basketball team that lacks name recognition, or a well-known team that puts a poor product on the court?
I admit, that's a toss up, since MU does have history with both schools .. I think a slim majority(or more) would prefer to see Dayton.
You've dated yourself. Prior to 1980, we played Dayton exactly 2 times in MU's history. Then, beginning about the time we starting going to the NIT instead of the NCAA, we played Dayton twice a year--nearly 30 times in the 1980's and 90's.
Meanwhile, we've played Detroit nearly 90 total games. Many were during the 60's and 70's. Twice a year every year under Al.
I will agree, "smart" basketball fans "should" be interested in them. "Sadly" a large portion of the current STHs are not, and would prefer "dreadful" big-name teams.
Fine--that's been my main point all along.
One last question: How should I classify you? If you had to pick a good opponent or a big name, which would you choose?
-
Dayton I believe still owes us a game at the BC, which will probably never be played while this regime is still in charge.
Also we didn't actually schedule Detroit this year as they won thier way to play us in the CBE. Detroit is another school we won't see on the schedule anytime soon. If I recall correctly there's some heat from Crean's MSU days between him and the Detroit head coach.
-
Your quote:
9. Those who voice discontent are not asking for 11 OOC home games versus Duke. This year, we basically have 1, UW. So anything north of 1 would be, um, better.
You divide the MU schedule into two: Wisconsin and everyone else.
My question: Do you really believe that? Or do you agree with me that we have 5-6 decent basketball teams (even if only Wisconsin is the only one that is "well known"), and our usual 5 bunnies?
I agree and have agreed that we have some low-interest, decent-quality basketball opponents. I checked that math, and while 5-6 teams are under 200 RPI (being generous) .. the RPIs are pretty phony right now, so looked at last years numbers for some consistency. For example, right now, UMBC is at 194, which might make them appear (being generous) decent .. last year, they were at 296, which is probably closer to where they'll end up in this year. So let's go with 3-5 low-interest yet decent-quality teams.
And i use the word "usual" purposefully. We've ALWAYS played a handful of bunnies. Every year. Under AL. Under Hank. Under Majerus, Dukeit, O'Neill and Deane. And yes, also under Crean. This year is no different. This year is not worse than usual, and certainly not worst ever in that regards (Check out 1991-92 if you don't believe me).
The way you define it, it's no different. I argue the definition is consumer based, which is interest based. This year, there are 10 low-interest games, which is an all time high for OOC homers over the past decade or so.
So I'm not going to discuss Savannah State etc. becauase we've always played those type of games and it's unreasonable to think that we're going to stop any time soon.
And I do believe we'll continue to play SState because we need to fill out our schedule. What my argument is about is not playing AS MANY Savannah States. Let's just start with one less. Maybe two. I'm not greedy.
Which brings us back to the question on the table: Setting aside the bunnies (which we've always played and always will), for the other non-conference games would you rather see a good basketball team that lacks name recognition, or a well-known team that puts a poor product on the court?
That would, of course, depend. If our schedule is filled with 10 low-interest games and you're giving me that choice for the 11th game, I'm picking the high-interest opponent. Also, dismissing all of these high-interest teams as "poor products" is hasty. The examples of MN and Miss. as "lousy" were top 120 teams last year, which would indicate some modicum of quality. I'm not saying they're great, I'm saying they could give all 5-6 of your "decent" quality teams a good run.
One last question: How should I classify you? If you had to pick a good opponent or a big name, which would you choose?
Read the above paragraph. It depends on the schedule.
-
I think everyone will find this one amusing. This guy is a true Sophomore.
http://mb33.scout.com/fmarquettefrm8.showMessage?topicID=14822.topic
Maybe amusing isn't the right word. Read the petition. It will rock your world. No, that's not the right words either. It'll do something to you.
-
I missed all the fun, what was the deal. The link doesn't work so I can only imagine the thread was removed. Was the poster banned too? ;D
-
it was removed at about 9:45pm CST......Stalingrad has hard and fast rules about that kinda thing, i guess ;)
-
Shoot, I can't find the petition .. I had my browser history turned off (don't want the missus stumbling on all my porn sites.)
Roughly, it was a post by a "Warrior2009" .. with a link to a petition that roughly read "After today's UW/Pitt game, I'm mad because only 2 of MU's OOC teams were top 25 .. we petition MU and Tom Crean to have a better schedule." or something along those lines.
Jeez, why set your sights on Top 25? Might as well go for the gusto with Top 10.
-
Mr. Negative.....Whatever 'Board' you are on, Marquettehoops, Rivals - Marquette, you are negative.
-
Whew...good thing I saved my history on this one :) Here's the petition - I'm not endorsing it, just making it available for the humor factor 8)
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/marquettebball/
-
Whew...good thing I saved my history on this one :) Here's the petition - I'm not endorsing it, just making it available for the humor factor 8)
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/marquettebball/
Thanks. It's a free country so I guess if he feels the need.
I'm going to start one next that requests we only sign up cheer leaders with certain colored hair, measurements, etc. Maybe that will fly as well.
-
I'm going to start one next that requests we only sign up cheer leaders with certain colored hair, measurements, etc. Maybe that will fly as well.
oh! then make sure to put in there that they cannot be too skinny either.. don't want to get the spanish folk up in arms.. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/13/spain.models/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/13/spain.models/index.html))
-
MU joins the Big East and competes very well its first season. Still, the montra of "What a crappy schedule!" goes on. Can anyone come up with something new to talk about?
-
What's the record for longest thread on MU Scoop?
I'd like to declare this dead horse thoroughly beaten....do I have a second?
-
this one.. with 80.. oh wait.. now 81 replies
it's dead when the posters grow weary of posting on the topic..
but I think 84 and topper are just in their ring corners for the break before round 2 starts... perfect timing for me to go fetch beverages and snacks.
-
Boys, find a way to trade e-mail addresses and have it out between the two of you. Let it go.
-
Perhaps it will start up again later this week when DePaul welcomes California of the Pac 10 to the Allstate Arena a day after Morgan State of the MEAC invades Milwaukee.
Not that Cal is some basketball power, but driving from Chicago on a Friday evening to watch Morgan State is just not going to happen.
-
Perhaps it will start up again later this week when DePaul welcomes California of the Pac 10 to the Allstate Arena a day after Morgan State of the MEAC invades Milwaukee.
Not that Cal is some basketball power, but driving from Chicago on a Friday evening to watch Morgan State is just not going to happen.
Would you drive up from Chicago to see Cal? Because Cal is something you've heard of and Morgan State isn't? Just trying to figure out your "logic."
-
Not that Cal is some basketball power, but driving from Chicago on a Friday evening to watch Morgan State is just not going to happen.
And to think I thought you drove from Chicago to see Marquette.
I'm sure Dominic, Jerel, Wes, Lazar, Ooze and the rest of the team are heartened to know that you don't think they're worth watching unless they're playing someone like Cal.
-
I might drive up to see Cal, or I might not. I will definitely not drive up to see Morgan State, nor would I ever consider it. I'm sure, in your eyes, that makes me some how a "lesser" fan. I don't really care. The home non-conference schedule stinks. Period. And I think the thousands of empty seats at these games backs me up. I saw photos from Saturday's game. It looked like the Raynor Library in there.
-
You live in Chicago, would you pay for UIC tix or Loyola tix? Doubt it. They aren't your team. When I lived in Milw., I didn't have UWM tix (I wasn't exclusive enough to be among the lucky 2000 that do ;D). They weren't my team. If someone offered me UW football team vs. Michigan, I'd pass (unless I could sell them ;)). I just don't care about UW football. My point, who really cares who the opponent is, fans should go cheer for their team, not based on who they are playing. I believe that would be the definition of fairweather fan. And this is coming from someone that has liked the Cubs prior (no pun intended) since before 2003.
-
Actually, I would pay for Loyola tickets, but not UIC. I've always been a fan of Loyola...since the days of Alfrederick Hughes.
-
I hope you're at least giving your unused MU tix to an alum or fan that will enjoy going to the game.