Are "buy games" bad for the Valley?

[MVCfans]

MVJ offers his 0.02 on The MVC Report:

link: The MVC Report - Are "buy games" bad for the Valley?

I'll add a poll as well.

[valleychamp]

It is not really a yes/no question, IMO. It depends on the team and situation. Taking a buy game with Duke or Syracuse is a lot different than taking one with Mississippi or Northwestern.

[Ace Dad]

The author of the article uses poor logic, I believe. We all "sell" ourselves to the highest bidder. All of us. We all have a price. Each of you reading this post must submit to a company, boss, or your customers in order to get paid. BCS teams are simply better paid "Whores." The BCS team is beholden to the power-broker donors and ESPN. Nothing wrong with a MVC team being paid for the opportunity to kick some BCS butt.

I say buy 2-3 games each year so you can get paid and beat the so-called better teams on their home court.

[tribecalledquest]

I say buy 2-3 games each year so you can get paid and beat the so-called better teams on their home court.

The problem is this isn't happening. Any MVC teams with a chance to win a "buy" game isn't getting the opportunity to get one. Besides, many of the MVC teams are in the business of being the "buyer" anyway. Wichita State, Creighton and Bradley, for example, will pay for teams to come to their place before they take money to go on the road.

[BirdmanBB]

Only when we are the ones doing the buying.

The buy game shouldn’t be to raise revenue, but to improve SOS.

This is great if we can win the games, but if we lose, it kills our conference RPI. I feel much better facing BCS teams on a neutral floor.

I know elgin is against buy games, however, I will propose this if it is possible. People are down on buy games because the odds are in the BCS favor. Same goes for us if we purchase a buy game so that is why we would rather do home/homes and the occasional 2-1. I think the idea of taking buy games can be sold if you are then turning around and offering the money made for taking a buy game to buy a good game at home (only if it is a good game). This can essentially be looked at as a home/home as long as the team you're bringing in is close in RPI to the team you are going to play. I don't think something like this should be frowned upon, but encouraged. What do you guys think?

[SubGod22]

My thoughts are you should only take a buy game when you have a team capable of winning just about anywhere. Taking a buy game and getting blown out does nothing for your team or the conference. Teams should be VERY selective on who they're willing to be bought by.

Willing to take 2 or 3 buy games a year is never going to lead to better home games. It'll be tough enough to get those games anyway, but if you're willing to whore yourself out like that it will never change.

I'd be OK with WSU taking a buy game from time to time but only with certain schools. Duke, UNC, Kentucky, UCONN, UCLA, Texas, Syracuse, Michigan State. There are probably a few others as well. Teams with historic pasts that still get a lot of pub and teams in the top 25 or so. But I wouldn't include all teams in the top 25. I may even consider someone like Georgia or Georgia Tech for recruiting purposes. I know I've been hoping to get a home/home with someone in the South for that reason. A buy game against a BcS team down there may be of some benefit for the Shox.

The biggest thing schools need to do is work on H/H series with good non-BcS teams and better buy games. Easier said than done, but I'd rather see that.

[LMS]

Just asking but how many A10 and CAA teams play buy games?

[BirdmanBB]

To further illustrate my proposal of taking a buy game to pay a similar buy game (so it is looked at essentially as a home/home)...here are some examples of teams in the 70's through 90's RPI from last year.

BCS Buy: California, Alabama, Minnesota, Nebraska, Miami, Northwestern, Washington St., Mississippi, Baylor, Maryland

We buy: Kent St., Bucknell, Drexel, Morehead St., Iona, Long Beach St., Wisc-Milwaukee, St. Peters, Fairfield, Robert Morris, Charleston, Long Island, Hofstra, James Madison, E. Tennessee St.,.

I think it would be fair to take the cash from a winnable buy game at Minnesota to pay off a Bucknell or Fairfield to come to your place. You would then have two top 100 teams on your schedule for an away and home game.

[jayball]

No effing way to a buy game at Minnesota.

In general I think buy games are a bad idea. There might be limited circumstances that it could make sense but I would rather get shots at the big boys in neutral site MTE rather than go bow down and go to their place for less money that we make at home games.

Ideally I want Creighton to find solid programs to do home and homes, get into good MTE events. If special opportunities arise to do other neutral site games with big boys...I"m interested. Gonzaga always seems to play someone big in Seattle on National TV. If we could do something like that in KC...I would be for it. Also, if something like the LSU-WSU 1-1-1 situation is available that might be worth a look.

If for some reason we do look at a straight buy game, I want it to be against a top 10 type program, national TV, and I want a lot of cash. (Duke, UCONN, Syracuse, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, Michigan St level programs) I don't seen any of them offering CU that sort of deal very often.

[unipanther99]

It's dangerous territory for UNI. We can get away with it once in a blue moon (Syracuse), but if we start taking them regularly, Iowa and Iowa State are going to start wondering why they have to come play at the McLeod Center. We really don't want give them a reason to shut down our home and home series. UNI, Drake, and Creighton (with Nebraska) are just about the only midwest mid-majors who regularly get BCS schools to come play on their court.

I would love for the Panthers to play at Minnesota or Wisconsin for recruiting reasons. We might be able to get away with a 2 for 1 or a "neutral" court game at Target Center or Bradley Center, etc.