bucky goes down

[radome]

We complain about bringing in cupcakes and complain about playing decent programs in state with a road game.  I prefer to play better opponents and a tough road game before the conference begins.

[chapman]

I'd much rather see a 2 for 1 with Santa Clara and a school in Texas.

8-10k more butts in the seats over the two games because of the UW in front of the opponent's name, very little travel time/cost, playing the road game in front of 50% MU fans vs. possibly, maybe, slightly increasing the odds that a recruit will see or come to the game and get enough interest because of that to eventually commit?    

[mu_hilltopper]

It's not necessarily about the recruits, it's about visibility, it's about market share, it's about attendance, it's about prestige, it's about being "controlled" (in terms of scheduling) by sources that are not internal.  In essence, we are giving up some sovereignty on this.  I know a lot of you don't get it right now, and that's because we haven't lost yet.
..
So this isn't about recruits, but much broader picture which is why you don't want to help little brother.  We are painting ourselves into a corner that we don't need to do.  It's foolish.  No one is saying that UWM is going to be better than MU, all we're saying is we only complicate matters by helping them out in terms of press coverage, market share in the city, etc, etc.  If we were a business, the CEO would be fired for this.

Disagree.  Playing UWGB is not going to add to their visibility, nor add to their "market share."  It's just a game.  Even if we lose.  Besides getting 18 seconds on ESPN this morning, UWGB is still UWGB after beating Bucky.  

Helping your little brother is not a good analogy.  Little brothers grow up.  UWGB will not be doing that.  They are who they are.

Clearly, Cottingham and Buzz do not agree with your thought process.

The reason you give road games to mid-majors is to tap into recruiting areas.

Seriously?  You jest.   You really think a high-level recruit is going to give a rat's ass about a high-major school stomping up on their local mid-major college?  Or even notice?   While I agree it can't hurt .. it's far from a deal-breaker for a high school kid.

If only it was that easy.  

[avid1010]

We complain about bringing in cupcakes and complain about playing decent programs in state with a road game.  I prefer to play better opponents and a tough road game before the conference begins.

I'd agree.  What was so bad about UW's loss to UW-GB last night?  They'll take some crap (I've given a great deal out already this morning), but I don't see recruits now opting for UW-GB over UW or anything close to that.  They're fun games, and I have to wonder how we stole three top notch players out of UW with a very poor recent record against UW if these games are such a big deal. 

[MUfan12]

Topper- The recruit doesn't give two sh*ts about who we're playing. But it allows the staff to visit, watch them play, and get them to a game without wasting a visit. But taking a ranked team (which we will be) into larger, more talented markets has to help more than playing in GB. All about visibility. Like I said with Georgetown, I don't think they played at Savannah State out of the kindness of their hearts.

chapman- Did you see how few UWM fans were there? How little play this got in the media? There is no juice with this series. You'll see a spike in interest when we play GB the first time, but beyond that, nada. Paid attendance for UWM was about a grand more than So. Dakota, and has been trending down since the first year. And instead of starting a home and home with someone, we'll be going across the street. I have a hard time believing travel costs are that debilitating.

[79Warrior]

Are there some AP poll voters looking for an eraser about now?

Well, they may need an eraser, but it won't be to pencil us in. We need quality wins, I do not know why everyone is excited to see UW lose. Our Michigan win has lost its lustre as they have fallen apart. So far we have one decent win, against X.

[MU B2002]

So far we have one decent win, against X.

And they have not exactly been setting the world on fire either.  I watched them get crushed the other night by K State.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Exhibit A why you don't play these games.  This was UWGB's Super Bowl and UW-Madison gains NOTHING from it.  UW-Madison is better off playing out of state to someone where it isn't their Super Bowl.  It just begs for these losses.

"A lot of our guys think they should be playing for [Wisconsin], and they want to prove them wrong," Kowalczyk said."

"I thought this was the next step for our program," Kowalczyk said.

Exactly, that's why you don't give them the opportunity to take that next step because it doesn't help you, it only helps them.

I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.

But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.

[Hards Alumni]

I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.

But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.

I agree with one sentence here.

[rocky_warrior]

I guess we need to chalk this topic up with things like politics, religion, and Marquette's nickname.  People seems to already have their mind made up, and nobody is going to change it.

FWIW, I think the games are fine.  There's 3 situations I see:

1) If Marquette loses, and our reputation suffers from it, then I can only assume we'll be in the bottom half of the Big East as well.  In that case, it's not UW-insert school's fault, it's somethings Marquette needs to work to correct.

2) If we win or lose, and end up at the top half of the big east, then nobody cares.

3) If we win, and end up in the bottom half of of the BE, then it's up to Marquette to improve our team.

98% of Marquette's reputation comes from BE play, and NCAA tourney play.  Nobody outside of WI  gives a rats ass about how we do against UW-insert school.  By Tourney time, pre-conference is forgotten.  Take care of business in the BE and the Tourney, and all will be fine.  

[MR.HAYWARD]

I agree with everything here, but I think the potential "cost" is MUCH higher for a private school like Marquette, compared with UW. Marquette can drop out of basketball existence for decades, which is has in the past. But for UW, the fact that it is THE public university means that it has a marketing bonanza throughout the state (public high schools, state basketball tournament in Madison, 5x the alums). UW might have a bad year, but because we've moved to an era where public (taxpayer funded) resources are seemingly available and necessary for a school to become a sports success means that it will NEVER be down completely to UWGB's or UWM's level.

But Marquette can be. Just look at 03-04 and 04-05. Private schools just don't have the resources to permanently compete with the likes of public schools. Thank God for Marquette's reputation, because it's one of the things sustaining whatever success we've had. I don't think we should do anything to help boost the presense or prestige of potential competitors, even if that potential is envisioned for 15-20 years down the road.

warrior07...i am guessing by your tagname that you are a recent Mu student.  Therefore a little history may be in order.  First of all apart from the last 15 year Wisconsin has absolutely sucked  in Basketball.  they went about 50 years in between NCAA appearances.  Yes they have been solid recently but before this streak they were a joke's punchline, the only school to suck worse than UW and not by much from about 1950-1995 was Northwestern.

 Wisconsin has also capitalized on IOWA, Minnesota being rather weak many of their best players over that time have been from there.  Wisconsin is similar to Indiana in football no homegrown talent and therefore very subject to absolutely sucking.  Interesting fact the State of Indiana produced 13 Division 1 football recruits this year.    The state of wisconsin produces about 1 or 2 true D1 bball players a year that are BCS quality and actually Mu has been getting them lately.

[RawdogDX]

Exhibit A why you don't play these games.  This was UWGB's Super Bowl and UW-Madison gains NOTHING from it.  UW-Madison is better off playing out of state to someone where it isn't their Super Bowl.  It just begs for these losses.

"A lot of our guys think they should be playing for [Wisconsin], and they want to prove them wrong," Kowalczyk said."

"I thought this was the next step for our program," Kowalczyk said.

Exactly, that's why you don't give them the opportunity to take that next step because it doesn't help you, it only helps them.

I'm sure Fran is saying it's great for college basketball.  He's probably also saying something really stupid about them still being the little brother or cousin or other complete bullcrap he normally spews about now.  

You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record.  It's their superbowl?  Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl.  Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun.  We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years.  Yes they may pull off an upset.  But so what?  That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home?  You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?

[MR.HAYWARD]

You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record.  It's their superbowl?  Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl.  Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun.  We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years.  Yes they may pull off an upset.  But so what?  That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home?  You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?

chicos makes me think of bill clinton,  but on second thought scared little girl may be more accurate. 

[mugrad99]

As as Exhbit A...quarterbacks
Jay Cutler
Rex Grossman
Rick Mirer
Jeff George.....

OK bad examples

[79Warrior]

mu 1984 and mu-hilltopper are right.  Scared little pansies avoid these games, unless you are truly a pretender you have nothing to fear in these games.  if Mu loses to UWGB or UWM and then goes on to lose a recruit to them or miss the NCAA tourney becuase of that single loss then well they dont have much of a program anyway. 

IF Wisconsn goes on to miss the tourney this loss will have nothing to do with it and like the article says everyone of those kids on GB were offered a scholie by UW they would have taken it in a heartbeat. 

At the end of the day it gives UW and MU a much better game to prepare for the confernece season than going out and blowing out some patsie by 40. 

champions fear noone ...losers would not play anyone if they had their choice.

Chicos is absolutely right. Road games at BS Wisconsin schools is a joke. I am ok with UW, the other schools we should not spend 10 cents on gas.

[radome]

As as Exhbit A...quarterbacks
Jay Cutler
Rex Grossman
Rick Mirer
Jeff George.....

OK bad examples

Huh?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Disagree.  Playing UWGB is not going to add to their visibility, nor add to their "market share."  It's just a game.  Even if we lose.  Besides getting 18 seconds on ESPN this morning, UWGB is still UWGB after beating Bucky.  

Helping your little brother is not a good analogy.  Little brothers grow up.  UWGB will not be doing that.  They are who they are.

Clearly, Cottingham and Buzz do not agree with your thought process.

 

Clearly.....and clearly Dan Guerrero and many other ADs do concur with my thought process.   The market share comment was more about UWM than UWGB.....right now UWM has almost none, so why in hell help them out.  It's ridiculous.  Instead of giving them no opportunity make any headway, we caved and gave them 1 chance in every 5 years (they aren't going to beat us at home), now we're going to 1 in every 3 years.....hell, if they win one or two they'll be demanding a home and home.  All it's going to take is one or two wins, which now that we've decided we'll play there more and more often, and then MU will not be able to get out of the contract.  The press will scream that MU is bailing because we lost.

You can see this one a mile away which is why high profile high major programs DO NOT DO THIS....speaks volumes about how we think the department right now.


If we want to play UWGB and UWM, you make them 100% at home.  PERIOD!  And the last thing on earth you do is go from a 4 for 1 to a 2 for 1.  What an absolute joke. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

And this is where I stop reading. UMES and Centenary WILL NOT ASK FOR A RETURN GAME! Just about any mid-major deal that gives a road game away is bad business for MU. Same with Valpo, Oakland, etc.

Exactly....I don't know why this is so damn hard for some people to process in their brains.  I really don't, but for some reason it is. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos - Where your argument falls flat on my end is that we have a deal with two teams, two games a year.  In my eyes, I see this as a swap for the UMES and Centenary's of the world not a swap for NC State or Arizona a few years back.  You make it seem like we will now not do a home/home with a Pac-10, ACC, SEC, etc team where I don't see how that can't happen amd how this is handcuffing our scheduling going forward. 

Also, I am pretty sure these deals do not get done without Buzz's approval and his encouragment so knocking the admin is probably not the right target.  No matter who the AD is, when it comes to basketball scheduling, the buck will always stop with the HC.

Oh, I have no doubt they didn't get done without Buzz's approval....this is also why you have an AD who is supposed to see the bigger picture, the long term consequences, and most importantly to look out for OUR PROGRAM not someone else's.  And you still don't get it when you compare UMES and Centennary....NO RETURN GAMES for those teams.  You fail to understand how this works when you continue to bring those true BUY games into your argument.  You're making a water melon to pencil comparison.


PS  Can someone translate stupid for me?  I tried reading Hayward's post and I don't have a translator that can properly put those letters and characters into words, sentences, and paragraphs.  Thanks.

[MU1984]

And you still don't get it when you compare UMES and Centennary....NO RETURN GAMES for those teams. 

No, I got it now.  Stupid to bring up that comparison on my part.

The one thing I still don't understand (and that's because I don't know) why does this prevent other home and home with schools from the larger conferences in addition to UWM & UWGB agreements? 

[rocky_warrior]

All it's going to take is one or two wins, which now that we've decided we'll play there more and more often, and then MU will not be able to get out of the contract.  The press will scream that MU is bailing because we lost.

Chicos, the same screaming would happen if the games were 100% at home and we lost, and then eventually dropped the series.

Other than the fact that you think it portrays MU in a negative light (which I strongly disagree with), I haven't read a single good argument not to play the series.

Did the Big East just send MU a letter telling us that they were disappointed that we were stooping so low as to go play a game at Green Bay?  No.  You're getting all worked up over nothing.  It's basketball, it's fun.  Your personal biases are getting in the way.

Or are you lobbying to be the next MU AD?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are not a boxing manager protecting a young prospect's perfect record.  It's their superbowl?  Well than why do you want to take away their superbowl.  Last I checked sports were supposed to be fun.  We are supposed to roll in and pound a team like this a every few years.  Yes they may pull off an upset.  But so what?  That hurts some sort of magical prestige calculation in the back of your head?You seriously spend as much time as you do watching teenagers trhow a ball in a basket and you don't get the point of letting a team have a shot at us away from home?  You don't think that makes you sound like a scared little girl?

Last I checked, this is a business and you need to protect your business, which includes your backyard.  You need to protect your brand.  Is UCLA a little girl in college basketball because they don't play road games against other L.A. schools?  Please.  Is Georgetown a little girl because they don't play at American University?  Please.  Is DePaul now a complete shadow of what they were and relegated to playing at UIC and such?  Yes.  Powerful, big time schools do NOT go play at small schools with very few exceptions.  And they most certainly don't do it every third year.  When Duke starts playing at UNC Asheville every third year, let me know.  When UNC starts playing at UNC Wilmington every third year, let me know.  When UCONN plays at Connecticut State every 3rd year, let me know. 

MU should be doing things based on the business of MU basketball, not based on whether there's a nice guy at another school and you want to throw him a solid.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, the same screaming would happen if the games were 100% at home and we lost, and then eventually dropped the series.

Other than the fact that you think it portrays MU in a negative light (which I strongly disagree with), I haven't read a single good argument not to play the series.

Exactly Rocky, that's why I said we should not play it to begin with.  But, let's also be realistic, the chances of us losing at home to one of these guys is very slim.  The chances on the road, greater (see last night with UW-Madison).  Why even play into their hands?  Why even open up that door?  It's stupid. 

No, my personal biases are not in the way.  How are my personal biases extended to all of the other schools I've mentioned that DON'T DO IT?  Am I the AD at UCLA?  Is he channeling my biases?  No, he's just smart about who he schedules.  Same for any other high major program in the country.  There is no upside, and if there is no upside for your team, family, program, business, you don't do it.

Seriously Rocky....WHAT IS THE UPSIDE?  Can someone explain that to me?

I've heard it's good for the state.  Sports are fun.  Travel costs are less (really....less than a drive to NIU...what are we saving, $350?).  What is the upside?

In turn, what's the potential DOWNSIDE?

The ROI on this is crap which is why so many other high majors don't do it. 

[MUfan12]

The one thing I still don't understand (and that's because I don't know) why does this prevent other home and home with schools from the larger conferences in addition to UWM & UWGB agreements?  

Because we have one away game per year, basically. The exempt tourneys count as one game, so that is more attractive. The long-standing thought is MU needs 18 home games to bring in enough revenue to continue to fund the other sports at the same level. UW takes that slot every other year. By giving GB and UWM a home game, you're taking up that slot for two more years.

So here's what we're left with (if my knowledge of these contracts is accurate)-

2010-11- at UWM
2011-12- at UW
2012-13- at GB
2013-14- at UW
2014-15- at UWM

So for the next 5 years, the odds of getting a home and home are basically gone, unless something dramatically changed with the finances of the AD.

That's why I have a problem with this setup.

[MU1984]

Because we have one away game per year, basically. The exempt tourneys count as one game, so that is more attractive. The long-standing thought is MU needs 18 home games to bring in enough revenue to continue to fund the other sports at the same level. UW takes that slot every other year. By giving GB and UWM a home game, you're taking up that slot for two more years.

So here's what we're left with (if my knowledge of these contracts is accurate)-

2010-11- at UWM
2011-12- at UW
2012-13- at GB
2013-14- at UW
2014-15- at UWM

So for the next 5 years, the odds of getting a home and home are basically gone, unless something dramatically changed with the finances of the AD.

That's why I have a problem with this setup.

Okay, and the reasoning for this is that they with play either UW/GB, UW/UWM, or GB/UWM at home all those years which will bring in additional ticket sales than an average non-conf home game.  Judging by the NC State attendence this year, its not a horrible financial agreement because of the nature of the 2 for 1.

Thoughts?