Cupcake scheduling question

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

Personally I'd love a 3-1 with Loyola or Valpo.  Perhaps again down the road.

As someone who was at the "1" game at Valpo back in 2006, that is a trip I never want to repeat.

[brewcity77]

I totally agree with this.

If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"

Come on.

If the folks knew anything at all about college basketball, then yes, absolutely. SFA has been a tourney team each of the past two years. They're a good team.

To any knowledgeable fanbase, a team like SFA should definitely move the dial more than Presbyterian. Similar to what you usually expect from a Belmont or Weber State.

I'm not saying our fanbase does know the difference, but they sure as hell should.

[Jay Bee]

Remember that the RPI is dumb, which complicates things a bit. The key is to avoid teams that you believe are going to be complete sh1t shows -- and MU did not do so this year. Several opponents many of us could have said, "BAD idea" a year ago about...

Nonetheless,.. food for thought. Take a real world example from last year.. that brings home the point: the other team's RPI is ***NOT*** what matters.

In 2014-15, your RPI would have benefited more by playing #305 RPI (as of Selection Sunday) Samford than it would have by playing #238 Fordham.

Sure, #238 seems like it may be a lot better for your RPI than #305... but a year ago, it wasn't.

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS. They matter.

[bilsu]

For the sake of discussion, let's look at this from a business perspective.

Assume the following (bolded parts are known facts):

1) Average ticket price at BC is $30 in the lower bowl & $15 upstairs.
2) 18 home games/yr
3) 7,783 seats in lower bowl, 10,917 upstairs
4) 98% of lower bowl tickets are purchased for the season (either season tickets or individual games), 55% upstairs -- this is consistent with MU's average attendance last year (13,657/game).
5) Ticket revenues: approx. $318,885/gm on average (.98*7783*30+.55*10917*15)
6) FS1 contract of $500M over 12 years amounts to $41.67M/yr on average based on an average of 15 home games per team (i.e. producible content) + BE Tourney is 159 games (round to 160), i.e. the individual value of a home game with TV rights is ~$260,000 on average.
7) Bradley Center lease is $27,000/gm.
8) Revenue from suite sales and merchandise/concessions is negligible.
9) Marginal expenses (i.e. out-of-pocket to MU) for each game estimated to be roughly $10,000.
10) Average fee to buy opponents is $90,000.

In short, ticket revenue + TV revenue averages about $580,000 per home game to MU.

Sure, the numbers will fluctuate, but the bottom line is that a "buy" game is worth approx. $443,000 to MU.  In other words, foregoing a buy opponent for a home-and-home is going to be worth $221,500 (average per year over two years), a 2-for-1 is worth $295,000, and a 3-for-1 is worth $332,000.  This is strictly revenue... it does not take into account the expenses of travel for the "for-1" games.

Even allowing for some error/fluctuation in the numbers, even a 3-for-1 hits MU's bottom line by about $100,000/yr.  Even if the game was a guaranteed sell-out (i.e. the remaining 45% in the upper bowl & 2% in the lower bowl or $78k), that's still a $22,000 hit that MU has to take.

Sure, this is a grossly oversimplified and highly estimated hypothetical, but you can see that it's not as easy as saying "hey, let's just play a tougher schedule and cut out a couple home games.  At the end of the day, you're playing tougher competition, and a couple losses to teams with an upper 100s RPI at home may have a more detrimental impact on your RPI than playing a bunch of RPI 300s against whom a W can nearly be taken for granted (from a business standpoint, not a basketball perspective... never take a W for granted on the court).

You lose a lot of money, if the schedule is so weak that you do not get an NCAA bid. Also playing a weak schedule does not help recruiting.

[MU82]

If the folks knew anything at all about college basketball, then yes, absolutely. SFA has been a tourney team each of the past two years. They're a good team.

To any knowledgeable fanbase, a team like SFA should definitely move the dial more than Presbyterian. Similar to what you usually expect from a Belmont or Weber State.

I'm not saying our fanbase does know the difference, but they sure as hell should.

I was using SFA as an example -- and I think you knew that, brew. I just as easily could have chosen Kennesaw St (224), Morgan St (230) or Troy (246).

Most Marquette fans -- intelligent or otherwise -- are coming to these December games to see Marquette play. They aren't going, "Oh goodie, I get to see Morgan State."

And just because they aren't saying that, it doesn't mean they are stupid.

Personally, I would like to see us renew our rivalry with Notre Dame and play them every season. Maybe have a game against a Big Ten team every year. And maybe one 3-for-1 against a decent team every year. Put those together with some non-con tournament, the Wisconsin game and the Big East/Whichever Challenge their running that year, fill it out with some cupcakes, and you've got a nice non-con that helps the RPI and prepares you for the Big East season.

Having said all that, I totally understand why we "dumbed it down" for this season. We were shyte last year and we're young this year. Let's build the confidence, learn how to play together and go kick arse in the BE!

[mileskishnish72]

What are the financial implications of making the tournament?

[Jay Bee]

You lose a lot of money, if the schedule is so weak that you do not get an NCAA bid.

How so? What is a lot of money?

What are the financial implications of making the tournament?

Granted, there are 'soft benefits' that a tourney trip can get you - fan interest and support, increased interest from perspective students, etc... but the direct financial implications can be LOSING MONEY.

Let's say MU and Georgetown are both on the bubble.. MU gets in because of a better (based on some metric, potentially a flawed one) schedule... MU gets no additional tourney revenue because of this.

Furthermore, MU may lose a bunch on travel expenses if they take a party larger than the NCAA pays for.

In general at a larger conference level, tourney 'units' are paid out by the NCAA to member *conferences* and the conference splits up the money evenly among their schools.

So, MU edging out Georgetown (assuming the same performance once in the tournament would have occurred by either team) would result in the same $ going to the conference and ultimately going to each team within the conference.

[jsglow]

Remember that in the past MU didn't necessarily load up on buy games.  We've had H/H with NC St., ASU, Vandy and LSU and 3 (or 4) for 1 deals with UWM and Green Bay.  We also did that Vegas road trip a couple years back.  This year's schedule was constructed because we have the youngest team in college basketball. I can't remember a year where the season ticket package was fully 20 games when including the exhibition.  I'm anticipating a return to more normalcy next season.

And a quick comment on Benny's math.  Do recall that season ticket holders aren't charged based on the number of games.  Doesn't matter if the home slate is 18 or 20 games in a particular year, the cost is the same.  So to include incremental revenue of an added buy game seems erroneous to me.  If I recall from a few years back, we had a season that was 17 home dates and that got the phones lighting up at the Athletic Dept. 

[Marquette_g]

How so? What is a lot of money?

Granted, there are 'soft benefits' that a tourney trip can get you - fan interest and support, increased interest from perspective students, etc... but the direct financial implications can be LOSING MONEY.

Let's say MU and Georgetown are both on the bubble.. MU gets in because of a better (based on some metric, potentially a flawed one) schedule... MU gets no additional tourney revenue because of this.

Furthermore, MU may lose a bunch on travel expenses if they take a party larger than the NCAA pays for.

In general at a larger conference level, tourney 'units' are paid out by the NCAA to member *conferences* and the conference splits up the money evenly among their schools.

So, MU edging out Georgetown (assuming the same performance once in the tournament would have occurred by either team) would result in the same $ going to the conference and ultimately going to each team within the conference.

The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.

I'm not getting the plaque for season-ticket holder of the year anytime soon, but I've had mine since 2000, and this is stretch of schedule is the worst that I can recall.

I went to most of the games because they were weeknights where I had nothing else to do, but none of them were events I would have cancelled any other engagement for.

[brewcity77]

The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.

I'm not getting the plaque for season-ticket holder of the year anytime soon, but I've had mine since 2000, and this is stretch of schedule is the worst that I can recall.

I went to most of the games because they were weeknights where I had nothing else to do, but none of them were events I would have cancelled any other engagement for.

Why not? You can nominate yourself whenever you like

[Marquette_g]

Why not? You can nominate yourself whenever you like

I had no idea that is how they are chosen, well one of my buddies should appreciate the 200 words I just wrote about him.  Maybe they'll award him during the 299th ranked (KenPom) Stetson game.

[Litehouse]

I like Benny's analysis, but it's on a per game basis.  The cost of season tickets has been relatively consistent over the years.  There have been slight increases, but they charge you the same for the entire season, while the number of home games each year has varied.
10/11 - 19 games
11/12 - 16 games
12/13 - 16 games
13/14 - 16 games
14/15 - 17 + 1 at the Al
15/16 - 20 games

Does MU really make more money playing these extra 300+ home games?  or does it actually end up costing them more because they're making the same amount from season-tickets regardless of number of games.

[connie]

I totally agree with this.

If we had S.F. Austin (RPI 220) coming in Sunday instead of Presby (RPI 349), are there folks who actually believe fans would say: "I wasn't going to go to the game, but now that I see we're playing S.F. Austin, I'm there!"

Come on.

I think you look at this the wrong way. Why can't the discussion be "Aw crap, I'm not going to bother going to the BC, pay to park, etc, to see the f'ing 349th team in Division 1. I'll catch a bit on 540 or FS1."

SFAustin is at least a name that shows someone is trying.  To me,  the long run of other fodder capped by Presbyterian is almost a "screw you, you'll watch any garbage we put out there" to the fan base.  Probably an overreaction from me, and that's fair, which brings me back to an earlier point that it is not the cupcake or two or even three that is fueling this,  it is the steady stream of such low rated cupcakes that is the problem.  After seeing five or six of them in a row at home, I just don't need or even want another right now, no matter how hard you try to jam it down my throat.

[brewcity77]

I was using SFA as an example -- and I think you knew that, brew. I just as easily could have chosen Kennesaw St (224), Morgan St (230) or Troy (246).

I honestly thought you were using them as an example in the other direction, that teams like Belmont, SFA, Bucknell, Winthrop, and Weber State are just as significant to fan interest as teams like Chicago State, Grambling, and Presbyterian because fans don't know the difference between levels of cupcakes.

I'm sure we message board folk aren't the "typical fan" but when the scheduling tweets start coming out, I do get excited or disappointed based on the names that come across. I was hoping for Belmont and IUPUI in the Legends Classic, and have been excited in recent years when teams like Southern or Savannah State were announced.

Now admittedly, that excitement wasn't because I get to see Southern, but because I get to see a decent low-major opponent that should contend for a tourney berth and should have a positive impact on our tourney chances, while also seeing a better, more competitive game than we get out of the types of cupcakes we see this year.

I agree that I'd like to see Notre Dame, maybe a Minnesota or Northwestern type program, and some of those 3-for-1 deals; personally, I think we should run four of those at a time because it would solve three of the home cupcakes while also giving us a true road game each year for four years (paging Detroit, Valpo, Drake, and Fordham). MU won't do that, but I like the idea.

Right now, I'm just hoping these games do help build confidence and lead to Big East wins, because it'll be what we do the next 12 weeks that determines how our season ends, and I'd like to see it end with a tourney berth.

[martyconlonontherun]

I like Benny's analysis, but it's on a per game basis.  The cost of season tickets has been relatively consistent over the years.  There have been slight increases, but they charge you the same for the entire season, while the number of home games each year has varied.
10/11 - 19 games
11/12 - 16 games
12/13 - 16 games
13/14 - 16 games
14/15 - 17 + 1 at the Al
15/16 - 20 games

Does MU really make more money playing these extra 300+ home games?  or does it actually end up costing them more because they're making the same amount from season-tickets regardless of number of games.

I was about to type this same thing.

Alumni/Students- Alumni usually renew before the schedule is released so don't they pay for season tickets rather than per game? Students tickets were a flat rate. I guarantee both sides would rather have 16 home games with 3 1-and-1's each year over an extra couple games against chicago state-like teams.

Fox Sports- Yeah, they need content but I would think having a top-100 out of market game would be worth sacrificing an extra home game like Stetson that they aren't even broadcasting

Actual Attendance- You lose 8K worth of fans at a chicago st game but I'm sure the 1-and-1 would draw an extra 2-3K over an average cupcake. I also think people would buy more stuff at an actual game instead of practice game like last night. I wasn't so into the game where I got excited enough to buy a couple beers last night. No excitement in the gym and the game was over at halftime.

Other Costs: Kind of a push for not paying the extra 130k for the opponent and gym versus flying cross-country.

[Litehouse]

I also think people would buy more stuff at an actual game instead of practice game like last night. I wasn't so into the game where I got excited enough to buy a couple beers last night. No excitement in the gym and the game was over at halftime.

I don't think MU gets anything from concessions.  All that money goes to the Bucks as part of the lease agreement.

[martyconlonontherun]

I don't think MU gets anything from concessions.  All that money goes to the Bucks as part of the lease agreement.

I think you are right (though the 2006 agreement said it was split between the Bucks and BC). Too bad they don't have more incentives to have actual fans in the seats.

Either way, my point is even stronger since they definitely wouldn't lose money since they don't get concession revenue either way if there was 1 game or 2 

[WarriorFan]

I'd like to see a definitive strategy including some key points:
a) Home and home multi-year commitments with one or two "rivals".  ND is obvious. Louisville would be great... or develop a new one like Minnesota or Illinois that might also help regional recruiting

b)  3 and 1's with mid-level teams or 2-1 with better teams in areas where Wojo develops a strong recruiting base.  Too early to do this now, but let's say he develops a Philly pipeline... plenty of good options there, and great that you can promise a recruit one game in his home town during his time at MU.  One or two of these is the limit.  It can vary based on recruiting targets and where team members are from.

c) This is out of the box.  Work the NCAA for permission to do an annual in-state pre-season tournament every year.  Invite the top 2-3 small schools (UWSP, Platteville) plus UWM, Bucky, GB & MU.  3 games in 4 days, incorporating the home/home UW/MU game, one game against a D3 and one game against GB/UWM in alternate years.  Use it to build Wisconsin basketball.  Small school games start at 18:00, big school games immediately after.  I'd go to every game!

[We R Final Four]

The Sprecher Showdown in place of the Pepsi Classic.

[GGGG]

I'd like to see a definitive strategy including some key points:
a) Home and home multi-year commitments with one or two "rivals".  ND is obvious. Louisville would be great... or develop a new one like Minnesota or Illinois that might also help regional recruiting

b)  3 and 1's with mid-level teams or 2-1 with better teams in areas where Wojo develops a strong recruiting base.  Too early to do this now, but let's say he develops a Philly pipeline... plenty of good options there, and great that you can promise a recruit one game in his home town during his time at MU.  One or two of these is the limit.  It can vary based on recruiting targets and where team members are from.

c) This is out of the box.  Work the NCAA for permission to do an annual in-state pre-season tournament every year.  Invite the top 2-3 small schools (UWSP, Platteville) plus UWM, Bucky, GB & MU.  3 games in 4 days, incorporating the home/home UW/MU game, one game against a D3 and one game against GB/UWM in alternate years.  Use it to build Wisconsin basketball.  Small school games start at 18:00, big school games immediately after.  I'd go to every game!

Agree with (a).  Mostly agree with (b) but understand if it can't be done for budgetary reasons if we do (a).

Completely disagree with (c).  The only in-state team I care about playing is UW, and would rather do it on home courts.

[Benny B]

The ability to fund raise is very much impacted by the post-season success, so the "soft" benefits are very important.

Keep in mind the topic at hand here... we're discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of playing a bunch of cupcakes during OOC with the implication that it affects RPI/SOS and, therefore, MU's ability to get into the tournament. 

I'll sum up the anti-cupcake argument in one line:
"If we miss the tournament this year, it's because we got too fat on cupcakes."

Believe me... if it's the cupcakes that are jeopardizing MU's chances of making the tourney, there's probably little "success" to be found in the post-season any way.

[brewcity77]

Believe me... if it's the cupcakes that are jeopardizing MU's chances of making the tourney, there's probably little "success" to be found in the post-season any way.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I guess it depends on your definition of success. I think this year, just making the tournament would be success. But what if you get there and win 2-3 games. Get the right matchup and just about any team can make a run to the Sweet 16 or even Elite 8.

[bilsu]

We pay money for a non-return game (cupcake). What happens in a home and home? Do we pay something to Notre Dame when they come here and then get paid something by Notre Dame when we go there?

Scheduling teams like Minnesota and Illinois should result in an increase in attendance for a few reasons:
1. Big Ten teams would presumably be more attractive to the non-season ticket holders, because Wisconsin is also Big Ten country.
2. Large schools, which presumably will have more alumni in Milwaukee area, who might want to see their Alma mater.
3. Schools are close enough that some of their fans will travel to game.

I do not think the quality of the opponent matters as much as who the opponent is. For example we are more likely to sell out a game against Louisville this year than a game against Xavier. The same thing would hold true with Sryacuse, UConn, Notre Dame vs. Xavier.

[Benny B]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I guess it depends on your definition of success. I think this year, just making the tournament would be success. But what if you get there and win 2-3 games. Get the right matchup and just about any team can make a run to the Sweet 16 or even Elite 8.

Reaching the post-season can certainly be a success, but reaching the post-season isn't "post-season success."

That would be like calling yourself a college graduate on your first day of college.