A little clarification
Written by: Todd Rosiak
Seems there's been some confusion surrounding MU's opponents in the Chicago Invitational in November.
Here's the way things stand now:
MU will play Chicago State and Texas Southern at the Bradley Center on dates yet to be determined. Win or lose, the Golden Eagles then advance to the Sears Center in Hoffman Estates, Ill.
There, they will play Northern Iowa at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 28, and Dayton at a time yet to be determined on Nov. 29.
(http://blogs.jsonline.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=250744)
http://blogs.jsonline.com/muhoops/archive/2008/06/06/a-little-clarification.aspx
Texas Southern #320 in the RPI
Chicago State #213
I don't think people are going to get their wish for a stronger home slate, nor did I expect it. That's two schools over 320 for sure on the schedule
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2008, 01:07:36 PM
Texas Southern #320 in the RPI
Chicago State #213
I don't think people are going to get their wish for a stronger home slate, nor did I expect it. That's two schools over 320 for sure on the schedule
Chicos... what's up with all the negativity these days? I miss the sunny, happy, optimistic guy we all came to love!
I think Chicos was playing the sunny, happy opposite against PRN's darkness. Now that the dark PRN clouds have blown through, our world has been thrown off balance.
But these aren't "buy" games, right? Are we playing these teams because they're part of this tournament, or did we choose them?
They are part of the tournament. Not sure of the finacial implications; but, the'll still serve the same purpose as buy games.
Quote from: LastWarrior on June 06, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Chicos... what's up with all the negativity these days? I miss the sunny, happy, optimistic guy we all came to love!
Chicos is suffering from Creanis envy. He just can't get over his mancrush he had on Tan Tommy. ;D
Quote from: LastWarrior on June 06, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Chicos... what's up with all the negativity these days? I miss the sunny, happy, optimistic guy we all came to love!
As a glass half-empty kind of guy, I kind of like it.
Well he can whine all he wants, but as we saw in last years Big East RPI MU will be fine. Now that MU is in the big east it makes absolutely no sense to play more tough non-conference foes. Tennessee and UW are enough. And Northern Iowa and Dayton on a neutral floor is decent. Really, if MU goes 9-7 or better they assure themselves a bid.
My personal season ticket holder threshold is just *one* high quality home OOC game in addition to the UW H&H. The other 8-9 games can be all versus Presbyterian Colleges and Savannah States.
Been 4 seasons since that's happened (Arizona - 2004).
And before you start listing the 12 reasons that won't happen and will never happen, well .. we seem to try every year. Last year it was Gonzaga, Texas and (? can't remember 3rd team) who we spoke to, but didn't contract with, for one reason or another.
One of these years, it's gotta work out.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 06, 2008, 03:22:45 PM
My personal season ticket holder threshold is just *one* high quality home OOC game in addition to the UW H&H. The other 8-9 games can be all versus Presbyterian Colleges and Savannah States.
+18,000
You mean UW-Milwaukee doesn't count? :D
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 06, 2008, 03:22:45 PM
My personal season ticket holder threshold is just *one* high quality home OOC game in addition to the UW H&H. The other 8-9 games can be all versus Presbyterian Colleges and Savannah States.
Been 4 seasons since that's happened (Arizona - 2004).
And before you start listing the 12 reasons that won't happen and will never happen, well .. we seem to try every year. Last year it was Gonzaga, Texas and (? can't remember 3rd team) who we spoke to, but didn't contract with, for one reason or another.
One of these years, it's gotta work out.
Wasn't the 3rd team Alabama?
Quote from: LastWarrior on June 06, 2008, 01:20:17 PM
Chicos... what's up with all the negativity these days? I miss the sunny, happy, optimistic guy we all came to love!
Not negative at all....just being accurate. There were some here that believed Crean's schedule was a result of Crean. Fact is, long before Crean with Deane, KO, and Dukiet, we've played the same type of schedule. I know some folks thought with Buzz that would change, I just don't think it will. I could be 100% wrong but I'm also not blaming Buzz. It is what it is when it comes to making the schedule for Marquette athletics.
Sorry if it comes across negative, it was truly meant to just get people back down to earth that thought UNC, UCLA, Duke and Texas were suddenly going to be on the home slate. It just isn't going to happen unless the administration (not athletics....the university administration) changes the way the budget is.
And Downtown, I'll have a big Buzz hard-on if Buzz can duplicate what Crean did. My worry has always been that MU sometimes thinks they're bigger then they are, so when you have someone consistently being successful do everything you can to ensure it continues. Let's hope they have done that. But as it relates to the schedule, it is what it is....only the head coaching names change. Everyone bitched about it when I worked with Deane. The same happened with Crean (I even told Crean in 2000 when we had a "state of the program" meeting that one of the top three things people will bitch about is the schedule), it happened with KO....it never ends. No different then out here with UCLA fans, etc.
Chicos, what are the numbers behind a home game and road game?
If we give up one home game vs, Sav. State and go to Maryland what is lost?
How much is netted on the Sav State game and how much does the Maryland Game cost us?
When did the scheduling for the upcoming season begin?
Did Crean's departure disrupt possibly better scheduling?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2008, 04:00:00 PM
And Downtown, I'll have a big Buzz hard-on if Buzz can duplicate what Crean did. My worry has always been that MU sometimes thinks they're bigger then they are, so when you have someone consistently being successful do everything you can to ensure it continues. Let's hope they have done that. But as it relates to the schedule, it is what it is....only the head coaching names change. Everyone bitched about it when I worked with Deane. The same happened with Crean (I even told Crean in 2000 when we had a "state of the program" meeting that one of the top three things people will bitch about is the schedule), it happened with KO....it never ends. No different then out here with UCLA fans, etc.
I am just giving you a hard time. I basically agree with what you wrote here. My expectations for Buzz (or any coach who would have been hired after Crean) is to take what has been built (some would say re-built) over the last 3 coaching regimes and take the program to next level. Yes, I probably fall in the camp that thinks MU is bigger and more important than it is in the basketball universe. But hey, I'm a fan. On the other hand, I know that you build basketball programs primarily through recruiting. If Buzz is as good at recruiting as advertised, then we should do fine. If not, well, we'll all be posting here about the good ole days when Crean was here.
BTW, I've never been so critical of the scheduling since I know there are reasons for it which are mainly economic and less so RPI management.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on June 06, 2008, 04:27:24 PM
Chicos, what are the numbers behind a home game and road game?
If we give up one home game vs, Sav. State and go to Maryland what is lost?
How much is netted on the Sav State game and how much does the Maryland Game cost us?
I don't know what it is today, it's been too long. But typically a buy game is anywhere from $30K to $50K but can go higher depending on the negotiations. Factor in the almost guaranteed revenue from suite sales and ticket sales....you'll get about 12,000 for those buy games multiplied by the revenue per. Your outgoing is the cost of the guarantee. If someone like Maryland (your example) would return, MU probably gets 16,000 or 17,000 bodies for that game but could also lose the game. That incremental 4000 to 5000 people multiplied by the revenue per is likely not enough net revenue for them to sweat another loss potentially. In other words, 3 non-conference losses per year is not palitable is my guess.
There's a distinct reason why the schedule is what the schedule is regardless of whether the coach is named Dukiet, O'Neill, Deane, Crean or Williams...nothing has changed...correct?
Now, that doesn't mean it won't change down the road...it just might. But for the last 20 some years, MU has played 16 home regular season games every year (or more... against two extra dogs like they will this year and as they did in the CBC a few years ago) with the exception of I believe twice (maybe 3 times). Those two years they played 15 games.
It comes down to scheduling for wins which equals tournament appearances which equals money for the program. As a result, they're going to continue to schedule winnable games at home and take 2 chances a year on the other non-conference games and do the rest in conference. It's a formula that has worked for them and I don't see it changing regardless of what the fans think. Again, I could be 100% wrong going forward on this but I don't think so. Hope I am wrong, but anticipate you will see similar schedules for years to come. In fact, if any year you were going to try and schedule one extra tough game, this was the year to do it with the experience of the team coming back. They might just do it on the road and get the return trip back next year...we'll see.
Quote from: downtown85 on June 06, 2008, 05:33:55 PM
I am just giving you a hard time.
I know you were ;D
Chico's is right on the admin having to change the budget. The school needs these dog games to pay the bills. Every home game, regardless of the opponent, generates too much money. Fortunately for TC he was able to pad an overall record because of this. Chico's is also correct on the school thinking they are bigger than actually are. Ironically too many fans think we are smaller than we are and accept poor decision making. The fans actually go behind accepting they blindly support decisions.
Horrible home games will continue as long MU averages 16,000+ fans. It is the admins arrogance and acceptance by fans that allow this to happen. I would rather see ticket prices go up 20% and start a home and home two year series with a real program. KO tried with Michigan and Kansas and the plan quickly died. I loved that KO was blind or better yet arrogant enough not to care.
Since they count tickets sold as attendance, attendance will not fall if you boycott a game.
You guys are right lets switch our alliegence to a team that never plays anyone who is outside the top 200 rpi. THere! now that we decided to do that there are SO many to choose from. After all we are the only team in the country from a major conference that plays the bottom 40% of schools
This discussion sounds dumber every year.
for those of you who are new to the board expect to see group A and group B have go like this:
A: 'Can you believe i have to pay to watch mu thrash crap team x! they shouldn't be on the schedule."
B: 'actually crap team x is decent, they are picked to compete in some crappy conference.'
A: 'I don't care we should have played baylor that game.'
B: playing them allowed for our back up ____ to get some pt and he needs the experience
A: Obviously you aren't a true fan who buys season tickets or you just don't understand the value of money.
B: Every team has season ticket holders and evey team plays some crap games
A: Well look at this! We play crap teams xyz and if you avg their rpi it comes to 270! But after three hours of reseasrch i found a team that if you avg out their crap teams the rpi comes to 236! Why can't we be more like them
B: we have a slightly below avg strength of sched going into conference play in the toughest conference there is. nearly every game from now on is going to be a good game, it's not the toughest schedule but i don't understand the uproar.
A: What you DOn't understand is that I had to pay money! I WANT BAYLOR! make them come here twice.
Quote from: bilsu on June 06, 2008, 06:31:48 PM
Since they count tickets sold as attendance, attendance will not fall if you boycott a game.
Correct. Though they actually announce tickets sold / distributed. So freebies to like youth groups and such are technically not sold (or heavily discounted) but count in attendance announcements.
It's a chicken or egg situation, however. If people start dropping tickets then more then likely the administration would add even another home game to increase revenue rather than put a bigger team on there. Home games = revenue. To have as many home games as they need (16 minimum) means playing dog teams because they don't want a return. If attendance drops significantly, they'd need to make up the revenue and one extra good game with only 5000 or 6000 more people won't cut it so it would actually exascerbate the problem.
The irony is that if MU could pencil in 18000 a game in revenue for all games, they could go to less home games, 14 or 15....but the Milwaukee community will not support MU for those dog games to that level like they will in a one trick pony town like Madison, Bloomington, East Lansing, etc.
Rawdog----Actually the home schedule gets dumber every year. Keep defending poor school policy.
Boycotting would multiply the problem. If fans stopped buying the crap games the need for additional garbage to be added would increase. Again, I would support higher ticket prices and less games that make you pissed when you see the schedule.
I don't mind the schedule because it is the nature of a school MU's size and the situation they are in. MU has only been in the fund raising game for athletic scholarships for a decade or so full time. Very few are endowed, etc.
I understand gymbar, dkc, etc who want a better schedule. Just don't see it in the cards. The university subsidizes athletics already so I don't think they have an appetite to increase that. Then again, maybe that will change.
Quote from: THEGYMBAR on June 06, 2008, 07:20:02 PM
Rawdog----Actually the home schedule gets dumber every year. Keep defending poor school policy.
I would say you reached a new low in not responding to anything with anysort of evidence for your view but that would be a lie since it's really your standard mo. What is the point of defending them to you? You won't even read the post with any sort of discernment. It's not a conversation when talking to you that's why you have 3 times as many people ignoring you as anyone else.
But I'll do it anyway: We do what every other school does. By the end of the year we end up playing more tough games then most major con schools (even ones with top 5 ooc scheds).
If the schedule improved you'd keep crying until it got so hard that some people would start saying 'Are we playing too many tough teams early? our record is getting a pounding." and they'd be right.
Can't wait for you baseless response.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 06, 2008, 05:35:10 PM
I don't know what it is today, it's been too long. But typically a buy game is anywhere from $30K to $50K but can go higher depending on the negotiations. Factor in the almost guaranteed revenue from suite sales and ticket sales....you'll get about 12,000 for those buy games multiplied by the revenue per.
Thanks but what do you get per seat? Do you get any % of concessions or novelty? What are the costs of chartering to Maryland, hotels, per diem etc.
I know the BC deal is pretty Bucks favored, I also noticed that during the TC regime every other bugdet facet changed except this. Could it be b/c TC liked easy wins?
What are the real costs? Do we get $10 / tik, 5% of beer etc?
We spent $41,000 on a hyperbaric chamber, we flew our coaches on privates jets criss crossing the country to recruit, we let in Jucos and Prop 48s, we built the Al and quadrupled our coaches (HC) compensation...ironice how the only thing that didn't change was the revenue model.
Well .. the revenue model changed dramatically with the BE, and the ginormous ESPN TV contract $$.
It just went for items other than schedule improvement(s).
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on June 06, 2008, 10:07:48 PM
Thanks but what do you get per seat? Do you get any % of concessions or novelty? What are the costs of chartering to Maryland, hotels, per diem etc.
I know the BC deal is pretty Bucks favored, I also noticed that during the TC regime every other bugdet facet changed except this. Could it be b/c TC liked easy wins?
What are the real costs? Do we get $10 / tik, 5% of beer etc?
We spent $41,000 on a hyperbaric chamber, we flew our coaches on privates jets criss crossing the country to recruit, we let in Jucos and Prop 48s, we built the Al and quadrupled our coaches (HC) compensation...ironice how the only thing that didn't change was the revenue model.
Unless things have changed, we get $0.00 of any food/drink concessions. $0.00 in parking. They get a cut of sponsorship/advertising revenue. As far as clothing sales, no idea how that works as it was handled by Warrior Shoppe which was not affiliated in any way with athletics back then (though there might be some funds flowing that way now).
The thing is, you're going to need to pay that type of salary to get someone to coach in Milwaukee and you need those types of perks (jet, etc) to keep them there. That's just the cost of doing business now...it's like paying your CEO at a major company along with all the perks that come with it. Doesn't mean downstream the product gets much better.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 06, 2008, 10:25:46 PM
Well .. the revenue model changed dramatically with the BE, and the ginormous ESPN TV contract $$.
It just went for items other than schedule improvement(s).
I don't know--adding Georgetown, Pittsburgh, UConn, Syracuse, Providence etc. to me seems like a pretty good schedule improvement over TCU, Southern Mississippi, East Carolina, etc.
actually, GYMBAR, it doesn't get worse every year. We've traditionally played cupcakes during the OOC home schedule but at least now we have a terrific in-conference schedule.
I do not mind some cupcakes as long as the bench warmers get to play.
Crean would drive me nuts. He keep his starters in way to long. He send the walkons to the scorers table with about two minutes to go and they finally get in with 30 seconds. Crean was to paranoid about losing a game that was already won. Players like Christopherson, Blackledge and Hazel should have gotten some valuable playing time in some of those games.
Quote from: bilsu on June 07, 2008, 09:57:24 AM
I do not mind some cupcakes as long as the bench warmers get to play.
Crean would drive me nuts. He keep his starters in way to long. He send the walkons to the scorers table with about two minutes to go and they finally get in with 30 seconds. Crean was to paranoid about losing a game that was already won. Players like Christopherson, Blackledge and Hazel should have gotten some valuable playing time in some of those games.
Is that you, Rob Jeter? ;)
Chicos...How much do we net on a BUY game? How much do we spend on a road game?
Buzz is setting himself schedulewise so as to amass a good won/loss record to mask a 50-50 BE won/loss record-----so that when another job opens to his liking-----he will be in position to show at least an illusion of success.
Yeah, Murff, I'm sure that's what Buzz is doing, positioning himself for another job before he's even coached a game here. First off, 9-9 in the BE is the equivilant of 12-4 in most conferences. We will still wind up with an SOS of around 20. We could still wind up a home schedule that includes UW, UWM, UConn, Gtown, ND, Syracuse, Louisville and Pitt.
Yea, but if Buzz can go 12 & 1 in the preconference----then go 9-9 in BE play----split in the conference tourney(1 & 1)----and goes 0-1 in the NCAA and ends up 22 wins 11 losses-----sounds like a pretty good season doesn't it? But no one considers the 11-12 creampuff wins where he couldn't lose if he wanted to.
Quote from: Murffieus on June 07, 2008, 01:19:29 PM
Yea, but if Buzz can go 12 & 1 in the preconference----then go 9-9 in BE play----split in the conference tourney(1 & 1)----and goes 0-1 in the NCAA and ends up 22 wins 11 losses-----sounds like a pretty good season doesn't it? But no one considers the 11-12 creampuff wins where he couldn't lose if he wanted to.
The reverse is playing a fairly tough non-conference schedule like Wisconsin-Madison and then breezing through their complete joke of a conference with all those creampuffs I suppose. And then going into the NCAAs and losing (getting drilled) by Davidson ( a team that lost to Western Michigan, Bobby Lutz's Charlotte team, a bad NC State team, etc).
As tough as the Big East is, I'd play creampuffs too. If we were in the soft Big Ten, then I would play a tougher non-conference schedule.
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on June 07, 2008, 10:42:49 AM
Chicos...How much do we net on a BUY game? How much do we spend on a road game?
Don't know what the numbers are today.....take 12,000 X the average ticket price (blended rate) should give you your revenue. Then subtract out probably $50K, though the range of buy games is all over the place. Add in your Bradley Center rental cost. Then factor in the hard part....the win. Wins are almost guaranteed and enough of them get you to the NCAA tournament which equals a lot more money
Road game expenses are travel, hotel, etc. That can be minimal (DePaul or Valpo) vs higher cost (South Florida). But also factor in the more likelihood of a loss which if you get too many, means no tournament and a huge revenue hit on the department.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 07, 2008, 09:30:30 AM
I don't know--adding Georgetown, Pittsburgh, UConn, Syracuse, Providence etc. to me seems like a pretty good schedule improvement over TCU, Southern Mississippi, East Carolina, etc.
But those opponent swaps didn't occur because of new MU revenue, which is what we were talking about. New revenue.
Yes, yes, the new money went to "be competitive" in the Big East. I'd just like *one* extra high(er) quality, high interest game. Just one. (Besides UW)
Murff, we have always played that kind of schedule. What good is playing the top six teams in the country (none of whom would likely play us in a home-and-home) when you're playing night after night in one of the toughest conferences in the country? Match our schedule with any team in the BE and we're right there. Our SOS at the end of the season will be right around 20. That's a LOT tougher schedule than any of Al's teams played and tougher than any of the schedules you faced while you were at MU.
Quote from: Murffieus on June 07, 2008, 01:19:29 PM
Yea, but if Buzz can go 12 & 1 in the preconference----then go 9-9 in BE play----split in the conference tourney(1 & 1)----and goes 0-1 in the NCAA and ends up 22 wins 11 losses-----sounds like a pretty good season doesn't it? But no one considers the 11-12 creampuff wins where he couldn't lose if he wanted to.
Sounds like an NCAA season to me.
But let's give serious consideration to your alternative: We play a schedule like Syracuse last season. Now, we're probably pretty close in talent to Syracuse. I dare say that Boeheim is a better coach. What happened to the ORange last season? #21 non-conference schedule. 9-9 in Big East play. Goes 0-1 in conference tourney. DOESN"T EVEN MAKE the NCAA.
No one considers the #21 rank of your non-conference schedule. They just see that you only have 19 wins (including 3 non-conference losses to strong but not top 25 teams), and when there are 8 teams ahead of you in conference that have 20+, you wind up in the NIT. Meanwhile Villanova makes the tournament despite an identical conference record and a non-conference RPI was #159 (to give you some idea of the type of schedule VU played, the MU schedule you call loaded with creampuffs ranked #134).
Or let's say we play a schedule like DePaul in 2007. We go 9-7 in conference--good enough to be tied for 7th. Yet because of an overly tough non-conference schedule, we wind up 17-13 overall and don't even get a sniff of NCAA consideration.
Murff, as hard as this is for you to grasp, a pretty good season is one where a team makes the NCAA tournament. And also, apparently very hard for you to believe--winning games is more important than your strength of schedule. Syracuse had a strong schedule and was left out. Washington STate played a weak schedule and not only made the tourney, got a high seed. Nobody cares about non-conference SOS. A good one doesn't help you. A weak one doesn't hurt you. it's the wins and losses that matter.
If a weak non-conference schedule gets you the wins, then it's a sign that the team knows what is important--wins.
Nobody cares if you played cream-puffs in non-conference to get there. Hell, you've had plenty of nice things to say about the Bennetts--have you looked at WSU's non-conference schedule lately? I've never once seen you criticize Tony Bennett because of his cream-puff non-conference schedule.
First of all if i have to select a coach and my only options are Boeheim and Crean----I'll pick Crean-----especially if the game is played in Nov, Dec, or Jan.
Who says we go 17-13 with a tough non conference schedule----just because DePaul did doesn't mean we would had we played their non conf schedule. Al would play one or two creampuffs early on-----and then a few mid majors dotted his schedule like Miami (OH) or Bowling Green but the rest was with essentially traditionally solid programs.
Quote from: Murffieus on June 07, 2008, 07:13:35 PM
First of all if i have to select a coach and my only options are Boeheim and Crean----I'll pick Crean-----especially if the game is played in Nov, Dec, or Jan.
We're not talking about who's a better coach, we're talking about what makes a better schedule to make the NCAA tournament.
And the bottom line is that MU has made 3 NCAA tournaments in a row, Syracuse has missed 2 of the last 3--and without a miracle run in the conference tournament would have missed 3 of 3. And their problem is they don't build a non-confernce schedule that they can run the table on.
Quote from: Murffieus on June 07, 2008, 07:13:35 PM
Who says we go 17-13 with a tough non conference schedule----just because DePaul did doesn't mean we would had we played their non conf schedule.
You missed the point. The point is that DePaul would have made the NCAA tournament THAT YEAR on the strength of their conference play if they didn't schedule a death march non-conference schedule. They gained ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with that tougher schedule. If they had scheduled a dozen creampuffs and ran the table, they would have made the tournament.
Tony Bennett gets it. Over two seasons he has loaded his non-conference schedule with creampuffs. Eight each year to go with three mid-majors, with only one debatably tough game (Gonzaga). What does he wind up with? High seeds in the NCAA tournament two years running--that's what.
For all the griping about how MU's coaches are padding their record, why do you give Bennett a pass?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 07, 2008, 01:30:06 PM
Don't know what the numbers are today.....take 12,000 X the average ticket price (blended rate) should give you your revenue. Then subtract out probably $50K, though the range of buy games is all over the place. Add in your Bradley Center rental cost. Then factor in the hard part....the win. Wins are almost guaranteed and enough of them get you to the NCAA tournament which equals a lot more money
Road game expenses are travel, hotel, etc. That can be minimal (DePaul or Valpo) vs higher cost (South Florida). But also factor in the more likelihood of a loss which if you get too many, means no tournament and a huge revenue hit on the department.
Chicos, for F sake...what is the rent? How much do we get per ticket? I love how people throw out there this rev model, but no ne has real numbers. What dp we pay the BC? How much per ticket do we get?
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 07, 2008, 10:41:44 PM
Tony Bennett gets it. Over two seasons he has loaded his non-conference schedule with creampuffs. Eight each year to go with three mid-majors, with only one debatably tough game (Gonzaga). What does he wind up with? High seeds in the NCAA tournament two years running--that's what.
It has to be easier to get opponents to consider playing in to Milwaukee than Pullman. What programs want to fly to Spokane and then take the 2 hour bus trip to Pullman?
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on June 08, 2008, 02:12:08 AM
Chicos, for F sake...what is the rent? How much do we get per ticket? I love how people throw out there this rev model, but no ne has real numbers. What dp we pay the BC? How much per ticket do we get?
I said I don't know anymore...it's been a decade. >:(
Rent used to be about $19K per game, I have no idea what it is now.
How much do we get per ticket...I have no idea today what it is, but it's likely a similar percentage as years past. It's not hard to figure out, but I'm not going to take the time to do it. I would suggest using the seat pricing matrix to come up with the blended costs for a simple calculation.
(http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/marq/graphics/auto/bcseatingchart.jpg)
At the end of the day, the finance folks have run this 100's of times and you're not likely to see the schedule change. Wins (i.e. 20+ wins) are more lucrative then having an extra home game against a top team because it only yields an extra 5000 to 6000 people (mostly upper deck cheat seats) which cannot compete with the huge sums of money the school gets in exposure and NCAA tournament credits for making the tournament.
Chicos, has MU ever thought about tier pricing their schedule, like most MLB teams do now?
I think most would agree that the demand is there to add a game against a quality non-conference opponent. With that said, I think most would pay more money to see UCLA than Savannah St.
Obviously tier pricing gets ticket holders semi-riled up, but I'd have no problem paying more money to see Wisco, ND, or a solid out of conference opponent.
Also, if I do some math (given this is raw and I have no idea what the actual numbers look like), but if 12,000 come out for a cupcake, and let's say the average ticket price is $25, you're getting $300,000 at the gate that night. If some great out of conference team comes in, and MU tiers the pricing up to an average of $30 and gets 18,000, their getting $540,000 at the gate.
Budgeted out over two years, that tier pricing almost makes up the difference in the year MU goes on the road and returns the non conference game. Done properly, if this is also a year MU is a borderline NCAA team, and gets victories against said great out of conference team, an NCAA tournament berth would make it even more worth every penny.
I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.
Quote from: MUDish on June 08, 2008, 09:52:11 AM
Chicos, has MU ever thought about tier pricing their schedule, like most MLB teams do now?
I think most would agree that the demand is there to add a game against a quality non-conference opponent. With that said, I think most would pay more money to see UCLA than Savannah St.
Not when I was there, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've thought about it now. Actually, they do that to a limited amount when they force Wisconsin fans to buy tickets to other games through packaging. In essence, that's a "tax" or a markup on those tickets as a premium game by forcing other games on them.
Quote from: bilsu on June 08, 2008, 11:29:23 AM
I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.
You're not calculating in the potential loss and that's the key. MU needs that NCAA tournament revenue which means basically 20+ wins a year, which means no more then 2 losses in non-conference play.
Also bear in mind that the money for the national tv game is coming through the conference and split equally among all the teams (unless things have changed).
The problem with your artificial 250 RPI ceiling is that basically anyone below 200 is going to try and demand a return game, which MU can't do. That leaves very few schools in that 200 to 250 or so range that won't kill your RPI but also won't demand a return game....and about 100+ other schools are trying to put those very teams on their schedule for the same reason MU would want to. Makes it very difficult which is why MU will almost always play some schools in the 280's or worse...because they come cheap and don't demand a return game.
TV and money ruins all sports.
Quote from: bilsu on June 08, 2008, 11:29:23 AM
I think a more recognizable non-conference schedule will sell more season tickets. I also think a home and home with Kentucky would be a national TV game. I would have to believe the more tickets sold for the home game and the money received for a National TV game would more than offset the money recieved by having two home games with Savanah St. I do believe a team needs some easy games to try new things and get some non-starters more playing time. I think I would be happy if the goal was not to schedule anyone with an expected RPI over 250. i see no reason to play someone with an rpi of 300.
As Chico's has mentioned, I'm sure these numbers have been run time and time again by people not only at MU, but at many, many universities. And, by and large, they've all come to the conclusion that they must have a certain number of buy games against lower-level competition. No disrespect to anyone, but none of you are re-inventing the wheel or offering revolutionary concepts here. I'm sure most, if not all, of what's being suggested here has been considered and determined to be less-than-ideal.
If it were somehow advantageous - financially, competitively, etc. - to load up on a non-conference schedule with home-and-homes against top-40 caliber programs, somebody would be doing it. But nobody's doing that. Some programs perhaps can afford a couple more home-and-homes than others, most major programs do the exact same thing Marquette does. And I imagine it's because they've all figured out it's to their advantage to do it that way.
As for the suggestion of top 250/below 300 ... would MU playing Texas State (RPI 249) be all that better for you than Rice (RPI 302)? Would Binghamton (247) and Lipscomb (226) be more attractive than Loyola-Marymount (308) and Princeton (331)?
I think "factoring in the potential loss" should be evaluated on a season-by-season basis. The Bradley Center has been great for the Warriors, somewhat because we've put a good team on the court, and partly because the BC is a tough place to play.
This last year, and this upcoming year, we were/are a predicted top 15 team, and should handle Tier 2 competition. Our predicted win% versus an over 50+ RPI team at the BC would be extremely high. (And yes, matchups would need to be considered.) (and sure, any given Sunday rule applies, NDSU sometimes eats your lunch, but every game is a risk.)
2009-10, not so much. We'll need every cupcake win. Hell, you could make a case that we'll need some decent non-BE wins even more then, because with a middling team, we'll be lucky to go .500 in BE play. Need something on the resume.
Are we still talking about this?
People who are mad, can you please explain what makes you think you know more than the person putting together schedules for teams all across the country? How do you have the gall to think that you know more about TV deals, consession sales, Bradly center rent, appeal sales, chances of losses effecting our tourney standing, ticket sales for a cupcake game vs for a top 40 team, the effect those cupcakes have on young player development and all the other variables that go into the decision that we can't even name because we are just that plain ignorant than the people who do this for a living with HARD data infront of them. Not the guestemets that you use.
IF WHAT YOU WANTED WORKED THEN IT WOLD BE DONE BY SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE.
This reminds me of the time my roommate tried to describe to me how his perpetual motion machine would work using magnets.
WHat is our Strength of schedule going to be at the end of the year? 200? 100? No, because over the course of the year we will play plenty of tough schools.
oh and Hilltopper:
deals with major schools would be more than one year deals so we couldn't do it on a year to year basis. Furthermore if we do those calculations and they come out to say 'play them' then wouldn't the other team be doing the same calculations and coming up with 'don't play them'?
There's one more factor, and that's that home losses count more against the RPI. This is leading teams to schedule their most competitive games where they only count as 1 loss, not 1.6.
My suspicion is that not only MU, but most schools are trying hard to limit the number of competitive games they *host* and increase the number they play *away* or on neutral court. For example, Beating Duke or Kansas counts as .6 win (for RPI purposes) at home, but would still be a very difficult game to win. And losing at home counts as 1.4 losses.
So schools are working to beef up their non-conference SOS with neutral site games, where the sting of a loss is limited from an RPI perspective.
Tennessee had the #3 toughest schedule per the RPI SOS, but their fans saw this home slate:
Temple
Arkansas-Monticello
Prairie View A&M
Middle Tennessee State
North Carolina A&T
Louisiana Layfayette
NC Ashville
Ohio State
How did they wind up with the #3 non-conference schedule? A lot of tough road & neutral court games:
WVU: Neutral Court
Texas: Neutral Court
WKU: Neutral Court
Xavier: Away
Gonzaga: Neutral Court
Memphis: Away
Most of the possible losses were away from home, and the home slate is protected with only one game that could be called competitive.
Texas does the same thing. They have the #27 ranked non-conference SOS
Home games:
Texas San Antonio
UC Davis
Arkansas Monticello
Texas Southern
North Texas
Texas State
Oral Roberts
Wisconsin
Texas Christian
St. Mary's
Neutral/Road:
New Mexico State
Tennessee
Michigan State
UCLA
One difficult home game in Wisconsin. Maybe a 2nd with St. Mary's, but nobody predicted they'd be good when the game was scheduled.
How about North Carolina: Home games:
Iona
South Carolina State
Nicholls State
UC Santa Barbara
Nevada
Valpo
Kent State
NC Ashville
Road/Neutral:
Davidson
ODU
BYU
Ohio State
Kentucy
Penn
Rutgers
Once again, you'd be hard pressed to pick a home game to lose.
Kansas:
Home:
Louisana Monroe
Missouri-Kancsas City
Washburn
Northern Arizona
Arizona
Florida Atlantic
Eastern Washington
DePaul
Miami-OH
Yale
Loyola Maryland
Neutral/Road
USC
Ohio
Georgia Tech
Boston College
Wisconsin:
IPFW
Savanna State
Florida A&M
Colorado
Georgia
Wofford
Marquette
UWGB
Valpo
Away:
Duke
Texas
Michigan State:
Home:
Chicago State
Louisiana - Monroe
Oakland
NC State
Jacksonville
IPFW
Sa. Jose State
UWGB
And I'm bending over backwards to consider NC State a true competitive game.
Road/Neutral:
Missouri
UCLA
Bradley
BYU
Texas
I think you can start to see the pattern. Just one competitive home game, combined with a number of easy wins. Several additional competitive road/neutral games.
MU's schedule simply matches the pattern set by the teams we want to emulate.
Quote from: RawdogDX on June 08, 2008, 01:44:14 PM
oh and Hilltopper:
deals with major schools would be more than one year deals so we couldn't do it on a year to year basis. Furthermore if we do those calculations and they come out to say 'play them' then wouldn't the other team be doing the same calculations and coming up with 'don't play them'?
Besides the UW series, it's hard to think back to the "major schools" that MU has had experience with, contracting for OOC games. Arizona and Notre Dame (before BE) series come to mind. Nebraska, Valpo, Dayton, Xavier being the mid-major types we've contracted with. All of those were two year deals.
So you have a point .. but it's mitigated by the idea that you should have a good feel for your team's strength one year in the future. Certainly not a perfect vision, but close enough.
The other teams doing the same calculation? Sure, that's their prerogative, but .. every team has their own equation, revenue pie, and needs.
And additionally to the nay-sayers .. as I said earlier, MU DOES have conversations with semi/major teams, as evidenced last year. If "it'll never happen/never make sense" is true, they wouldn't bother.
Fans continue to hope the cosmic tumblers will align one year, where it makes financial and post-season sense to take the risk. Buzz could make a lot of friends quickly with a slight upgrade of the OOC schedule with higher interest teams.
not sure Nebraska would like being classified a mid-major.. they are a member of the Big 12 (along with Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, etc.) which is a BCS conference in football and almost assuredly still a major conference in basketball (albeit lesser so than football).
That said, I'll agree that they tend to play like a mid-major when it comes to basketball.
Murff, you know how many Top 20 teams I saw come into Milwaukee in my four years there (1968-72)? Maybe two. Minnesota came in highly ranked and Jacksonville came in the year AFTER they were great. We played the other Midwest independents (Loyola, DePaul, Detroit) and UW twice each. We had a series with ND and occasionally a decent team in the Milwaukee Classic (which the students were home for). Al played Northern Michigan, UWM, Air Force, Nevada-Reno, Bowling Green, etc. Please. There is no comparison between what we play now and what we did then.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 07, 2008, 10:41:44 PM
We're not talking about who's a better coach, we're talking about what makes a better schedule to make the NCAA tournament.
And the bottom line is that MU has made 3 NCAA tournaments in a row, Syracuse has missed 2 of the last 3--and without a miracle run in the conference tournament would have missed 3 of 3. And their problem is they don't build a non-confernce schedule that they can run the table on.
Cuse has won an NCAA Championship too, playing a tougher non conference schedule.
Boeheim's error the past 3 years is that he didn't have the talent to be more competitive with a tougher non conference
schedule. Buzz has a veteran team which should be able to handle a tougher non conference schedule.
One of the reasons crean's teams faded down the stretch is because he didn't challenge them enough in the non conference schedule (not enough road games too)-----with the result that they didn't improve past January!
eco---You make me feel better by pointing out the schedule in the 60's and 70's. My first MU game was in '72 and you are 100% correct on the # of top teams to play the Arena. All of our big games were "true" rivals and most were not nationally ranked. Biggest home game in mind back in that era was the midnight game against the Russians. I think that was preseason '76-'77. But you have to admit that Al made every game an event and now we need more to get excited about.
Quote from: Murffieus on June 08, 2008, 04:28:53 PM
Cuse has won an NCAA Championship too, playing a tougher non conference schedule.
Boeheim's error the past 3 years is that he didn't have the talent to be more competitive with a tougher non conference
schedule. Buzz has a veteran team which should be able to handle a tougher non conference schedule.
One of the reasons crean's teams faded down the stretch is because he didn't challenge them enough in the non conference schedule (not enough road games too)-----with the result that they didn't improve past January!
Cuse non-conference schedule when they won it in 2003 was 157th ranked
Thu Nov 14 (26) Memphis 70, Syracuse 63 Neutral (New York, NY) 0-1
Sun Nov 24 Syracuse 81, (96) Valparaiso 66 Home 1-1
Tue Dec 3 Syracuse 98, (250) Colgate 68 Home 2-1
Fri Dec 6 Syracuse 85, (292) Cornell 62 Home 3-1
Tue Dec 10 Syracuse 92, (287) NC Greensboro 65 Home 4-1
Sat Dec 14 Syracuse 94, (212) Binghamton 58 Home 5-1
Sat Dec 21 Syracuse 92, (76) Georgia Tech 65 Home 6-1
Sat Dec 28 Syracuse 109, (294) Albany (NY) 79 Home 7-1
Mon Dec 30 Syracuse 87, (247) Canisius 69 Home 8-1
Mon Jan 13 Syracuse 76, (17) Missouri 69 Home 11-1
Sun Feb 23 Syracuse 76, (31) Michigan St. 75 Away 19-4
This past year, it was 21 in the RPI non conference. They actually played a tougher non-conference schedule this year then when they won it. Doesn't jive with your theory...easier schedule they won it all, tougher schedule and they didn't even make it to the NCAAs.
In 2007, Syracuse had a 122nd schedule, also easier then in 2003. They failed to make the NCAAs then, too.
In 2006, Syracuse had a 55th best non conference schedule...they were bounced in the first round of the NCAAs.
Tougher schedules non-conference do not mean more success in the NCAA tournament. It might, but it certainly might not as well with the Cuse examples.
Thanks for pointing out another obvious Murff gaffe, chicos. Cuse hardly ever leaves the state of New York in non-conference play, and their OOC schedule is filled with creampuffs. That killed them recently when they didn't make the Dance.
Quote from: ecompt on June 09, 2008, 09:20:30 AM
Thanks for pointing out another obvious Murff gaffe, chicos. Cuse hardly ever leaves the state of New York in non-conference play, and their OOC schedule is filled with creampuffs. That killed them recently when they didn't make the Dance.
I don't think the creampuffs are a problem--it's when you start losing to your non-conference slate that is a problem.
2008 Syracuse lost to three non-tournament teams--URI, UMass and Ohio State.
2007 Syracuse lost to three non-tournament teams--Wichita State, Oklahoma State, Drexel.
Those losses give the committee a convenient way to frame you vis-a-vis the NCAA field as a whole.
Its specious to argue that a tournament team should be able to beat teams like URI, UMass and Ohio State--that's a $750,000 bet on your own machismo. Yeah, you should be able to beat those teams. And in a perfect world, everyone is exposing themselves to that same level of challenge.
I would argue that the committe isn't going to dismiss a 9 or 10 win team in the Big East on SOS alone--they need a good reason. Losing games to non-tournament teams in non-conference is exactly the reason the committee needs.
I would argue that had Syracuse played 3 additional creampuffs each year and won them all, they would have easily made the NCAA tournament. They would be judged as being adequately tested in the Big East, and based on a .500 record that included wins over Georgetown, MU, Villanova each year, they would have definitely received an invite.
If Syracuse played in CUSA or the WCC, then yes, they need a handful of challenging opponents. But not in the Big East.
So the question is why risk your NCAA bid playing teams that you SHOULD win but are also clearly strong enough to beat you?