Scheduling Going Forward

[pafan]

I don't disagree at all but that's the exact mentality a lot of them have. Look at Marty, he finished above 6th three times in eleven years but because of the pillowy soft non-cons he had the 'you can't fire me, I won 18-22 games' card to play.

And the AD at the time demanded a specific number of home games per season. I think it was 18, including exhibitions, but my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Which in a way made sense - beating Tennessee-Martin at Roberts Stadium in front of 6500 probably does make you more money than losing at Arkansas, even if Arkansas is a buy game.

[BEARZ77]

I'm not endorsing the insanity that UNI put together this year (and frankly most years at this point) as I think it's actively hurting the program right now but you also can't bring in the SWAC/MEAC parade.

I have to disagree to a few points; yeah no doubt more teams in the MVC need to schedule up in the noncon. But I don't see UNI as having over scheduled , their noncon SOS is in the 50'S , same as Loyola. To me that's about right for a noncon schedule if you want an at large chance. The issue was losing to other mid majors like Liberty , Richmond, etc. I think UNI's only played 3 Q-1 games and their only Q-1 win was Missouri St. I'm not dissing their schedule at all, I'm just saying you certainly don't want less than that, and need more teams in that neighborhood. But also UNI and Loyola have the current advantage of recent success, so getting a better MTE or H/H with other solid MM's comes a little easier. You have to have a certain # of home games and when you simply can't get a P-5 or other quality MM program to come to your place , and your MTE has more similar programs as opposed to P-5 and higher level teams, you're basically not going to get a noncon SOS of the level you need. I'm not alibiing for coaches who consistently schedule weak, and despite the difficulties I've noted, scheduling is a part of the job and you either get it done or you don't; saying it's too hard isn't an option. Every job has difficult parts to it, that's why it's called a job. But it also takes some luck at this level, your MTE has to standup 1-2 years later as does your advance scheduling with other MM; the team with a NET of 30 when you schedule might be 130 the year you play. Look at how that quality win over St Bonnie has dropped abit as they have faded to a NET over 80 of late.

So my point is if we only schedule 20, maybe we need a way of making sure the two games our top teams don't play aren't ones against each other , so we at least maximize the scheduling with our own teams. I'd hate to be
an MVC team on the bubble late in the year, and say UNI and Murray St are 2 other MVC teams having great years, but I only play them 1 x each while i play the 11/12 teams twice. But to do that, you'd have to build some flexibility into how you determine those match ups in conference and I'm not sure how that works.

[BCPanther]

I'm not endorsing the insanity that UNI put together this year (and frankly most years at this point) as I think it's actively hurting the program right now but you also can't bring in the SWAC/MEAC parade.

I have to disagree to a few points; yeah no doubt more teams in the MVC need to schedule up in the noncon. But I don't see UNI as having over scheduled , their noncon SOS is in the 50'S , same as Loyola. To me that's about right for a noncon schedule if you want an at large chance. The issue was losing to other mid majors like Liberty , Richmond, etc. I think UNI's only played 3 Q-1 games and their only Q-1 win was Missouri St. I'm not dissing their schedule at all, I'm just saying you certainly don't want less than that, and need more teams in that neighborhood. But also UNI and Loyola have the current advantage of recent success, so getting a better MTE or H/H with other solid MM's comes a little easier. You have to have a certain # of home games and when you simply can't get a P-5 or other quality MM program to come to your place , and your MTE has more similar programs as opposed to P-5 and higher level teams, you're basically not going to get a noncon SOS of the level you need. I'm not alibiing for coaches who consistently schedule weak, and despite the difficulties I've noted, scheduling is a part of the job and you either get it done or you don't; saying it's too hard isn't an option. Every job has difficult parts to it, that's why it's called a job. But it also takes some luck at this level, your MTE has to standup 1-2 years later as does your advance scheduling with other MM; the team with a NET of 30 when you schedule might be 130 the year you play. Look at how that quality win over St Bonnie has dropped abit as they have faded to a NET over 80 of late.

So my point is if we only schedule 20, maybe we need a way of making sure the two games our top teams don't play aren't ones against each other , so we at least maximize the scheduling with our own teams. I'd hate to be
an MVC team on the bubble late in the year, and say UNI and Murray St are 2 other MVC teams having great years, but I only play them 1 x each while i play the 11/12 teams twice. But to do that, you'd have to build some flexibility into how you determine those match ups in conference and I'm not sure how that works.

You game the schedule every year. You know Evansville is going to be dogshit for the foreseeable future so your projected top two teams only get them once and you give the lesser of those two the road game. You don't have to have any long term rhyme or reason for anything, if the bottom of the league is pissed about not getting a home game with UNI or Missouri State or Drake or Murray or Belmont then win more and it won't be a problem.

And thanks for the outside perspective on the non-con. As a fan base we're just kind of sick of playing these home and homes where the team we're playing is built for one year and that's the year we play there and then get a lesser team in the same jerseys the next year at home. It's great we played Bonaventure this year (though they aren't quite as good as advertised) but they've got 6 seniors that play 93% of their minutes so the team we get at home next year is a shell of this team and it's (most likely) not a great matchup. We've had that happen with Old Dominion, George Mason, Wyoming, Arlington, Milwaukee (in the Pearl/Jeter days) and a couple of others. It's just maddening when those are the tickets you're buying.

And I shouldn't complain, UNI has zero problems getting really good, highly visible MTEs and that continues into the future. I know other schools in the league aren't as lucky.

[BEARZ77]

Well it ain't luck; UNI earned a little scheduling panache with real consistent winning teams over an extended period. But yeah, it's probably easier for them and Loyola to get those top mid major H/H s or getting invited to a MTE with 3-4 p-5's in it right now vs most of the rest of theValley.

[BCPanther]

Well it ain't luck; UNI earned a little scheduling panache with real consistent winning teams over an extended period. But yeah, it's probably easier for them and Loyola to get those top mid major H/H s or getting invited to a MTE with 3-4 p-5's in it right now vs most of the rest of theValley.

It helps but I'm guessing MSU will be there before too long.

We've already got Bonaventure (H), Richmond (A) and Boise (A) and an ESPN event (probably the Main Event in Vegas) for next year and we're going back to Atlantis for the 3rd time in 2023. Plus working on a series with Colorado State since Ali is on staff there.

[05Racer]

I hate the D2 games and don't know anybody that doesn't. My theory on the question of why mid majors keep scheduling Division 2/3 teams is that it's the coaches that fight for these games. Speaking for Murray, our fans are not stupid so the crowds for D2 teams are awful to the point we'd be better off scheduling a local high school team. I can't imagine ADs and college presidents are hammering the desk advocating for these as an alternative to another road games against a Power 5 team that will probably make more money win or lose and generate more attention for the University if they pull an upset, or possibly lead to the possibility of an at large bid, which is a huge boon at our level.

Sooo, if the fans hate these games and don't support them, and there is no strong financial incentive for the ADs or schools, that leaves... the coaches. I suspect the coaches like these games and probably insist on keeping at least one or two for the same reason Saban always schedules a couple FCS teams to play Alabama. The media and fans hate those too. The coaches want these games to evaluate the talents of guys that don't play much, test plays against a 'safe' opponent, work on defensive schemes, etc. They serve the same function as the exhibition games we don't have anymore.

When I was a kid, Murray always had a couple exhibition games against low level pro teams from Europe or semi-pro American teams (VASDA being the one I remember). Those teams were usually fairly good and occasionally very good. Those games were fun, competitive, and a great way to evaluate talent. They drew decently too, but the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided college teams couldn't play pro teams even in exhibition games. A terrible decision, IMHO. Didn't understand it back then and still don't now. Its better for the teams and the fans to play a quality opponent in a game that doesn't count rather than a team with less talent than most AAU teams in a game that does count.

I'm all in for a 22 game conference schedule or anything that results in something better than beating Campbellsville by 50 again.

[BCPanther]

I hate the D2 games and don't know anybody that doesn't. My theory on the question of why mid majors keep scheduling Division 2/3 teams is that it's the coaches that fight for these games. Speaking for Murray, our fans are not stupid so the crowds for D2 teams are awful to the point we'd be better off scheduling a local high school team. I can't imagine ADs and college presidents are hammering the desk advocating for these as an alternative to another road games against a Power 5 team that will probably make more money win or lose and generate more attention for the University if they pull an upset, or possibly lead to the possibility of an at large bid, which is a huge boon at our level.

Sooo, if the fans hate these games and don't support them, and there is no strong financial incentive for the ADs or schools, that leaves... the coaches. I suspect the coaches like these games and probably insist on keeping at least one or two for the same reason Saban always schedules a couple FCS teams to play Alabama. The media and fans hate those too. The coaches want these games to evaluate the talents of guys that don't play much, test plays against a 'safe' opponent, work on defensive schemes, etc. They serve the same function as the exhibition games we don't have anymore.

When I was a kid, Murray always had a couple exhibition games against low level pro teams from Europe or semi-pro American teams (VASDA being the one I remember). Those teams were usually fairly good and occasionally very good. Those games were fun, competitive, and a great way to evaluate talent. They drew decently too, but the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided college teams couldn't play pro teams even in exhibition games. A terrible decision, IMHO. Didn't understand it back then and still don't now. Its better for the teams and the fans to play a quality opponent in a game that doesn't count rather than a team with less talent than most AAU teams in a game that does count.

I'm all in for a 22 game conference schedule or anything that results in something better than beating Campbellsville by 50 again.

There absolutely is financial incentive to play them.

Season ticket holders are paying full price and you're only paying them $7500 instead of the $50k+ that you pay a bad DI team to come in.

I don't love them either but there's a reason they exist.

[05Racer]

I hate the D2 games and don't know anybody that doesn't. My theory on the question of why mid majors keep scheduling Division 2/3 teams is that it's the coaches that fight for these games. Speaking for Murray, our fans are not stupid so the crowds for D2 teams are awful to the point we'd be better off scheduling a local high school team. I can't imagine ADs and college presidents are hammering the desk advocating for these as an alternative to another road games against a Power 5 team that will probably make more money win or lose and generate more attention for the University if they pull an upset, or possibly lead to the possibility of an at large bid, which is a huge boon at our level.

Sooo, if the fans hate these games and don't support them, and there is no strong financial incentive for the ADs or schools, that leaves... the coaches. I suspect the coaches like these games and probably insist on keeping at least one or two for the same reason Saban always schedules a couple FCS teams to play Alabama. The media and fans hate those too. The coaches want these games to evaluate the talents of guys that don't play much, test plays against a 'safe' opponent, work on defensive schemes, etc. They serve the same function as the exhibition games we don't have anymore.

When I was a kid, Murray always had a couple exhibition games against low level pro teams from Europe or semi-pro American teams (VASDA being the one I remember). Those teams were usually fairly good and occasionally very good. Those games were fun, competitive, and a great way to evaluate talent. They drew decently too, but the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided college teams couldn't play pro teams even in exhibition games. A terrible decision, IMHO. Didn't understand it back then and still don't now. Its better for the teams and the fans to play a quality opponent in a game that doesn't count rather than a team with less talent than most AAU teams in a game that does count.

I'm all in for a 22 game conference schedule or anything that results in something better than beating Campbellsville by 50 again.

There absolutely is financial incentive to play them.

Season ticket holders are paying full price and you're only paying them $7500 instead of the $50k+ that you pay a bad DI team to come in.

I don't love them either but there's a reason they exist.

Was not aware of either of these factors. I still don't like it but at least now I get the logic. Never a big fan of making decisions solely for profit, especially for an educational institution, but it is what it is. I always have viewed buying season tickets as a way to support the university and the program and would rather pay a fixed amount for however many games there are rather than a per game rate. Had no clue that teams got paid a fixed fee for coming in and playing another team. I was under the impression the opponent got some percentage of the gate receipts. Still, makes me wonder how much Auburn or Memphis pays us.

[BCPanther]

I hate the D2 games and don't know anybody that doesn't. My theory on the question of why mid majors keep scheduling Division 2/3 teams is that it's the coaches that fight for these games. Speaking for Murray, our fans are not stupid so the crowds for D2 teams are awful to the point we'd be better off scheduling a local high school team. I can't imagine ADs and college presidents are hammering the desk advocating for these as an alternative to another road games against a Power 5 team that will probably make more money win or lose and generate more attention for the University if they pull an upset, or possibly lead to the possibility of an at large bid, which is a huge boon at our level.

Sooo, if the fans hate these games and don't support them, and there is no strong financial incentive for the ADs or schools, that leaves... the coaches. I suspect the coaches like these games and probably insist on keeping at least one or two for the same reason Saban always schedules a couple FCS teams to play Alabama. The media and fans hate those too. The coaches want these games to evaluate the talents of guys that don't play much, test plays against a 'safe' opponent, work on defensive schemes, etc. They serve the same function as the exhibition games we don't have anymore.

When I was a kid, Murray always had a couple exhibition games against low level pro teams from Europe or semi-pro American teams (VASDA being the one I remember). Those teams were usually fairly good and occasionally very good. Those games were fun, competitive, and a great way to evaluate talent. They drew decently too, but the NCAA, in their infinite wisdom, decided college teams couldn't play pro teams even in exhibition games. A terrible decision, IMHO. Didn't understand it back then and still don't now. Its better for the teams and the fans to play a quality opponent in a game that doesn't count rather than a team with less talent than most AAU teams in a game that does count.

I'm all in for a 22 game conference schedule or anything that results in something better than beating Campbellsville by 50 again.

There absolutely is financial incentive to play them.

Season ticket holders are paying full price and you're only paying them $7500 instead of the $50k+ that you pay a bad DI team to come in.

I don't love them either but there's a reason they exist.

Was not aware of either of these factors. I still don't like it but at least now I get the logic. Never a big fan of making decisions solely for profit, especially for an educational institution, but it is what it is. I always have viewed buying season tickets as a way to support the university and the program and would rather pay a fixed amount for however many games there are rather than a per game rate. Had no clue that teams got paid a fixed fee for coming in and playing another team. I was under the impression the opponent got some percentage of the gate receipts. Still, makes me wonder how much Auburn or Memphis pays us.

You're making far more than $50k on those games because you're worth more in metrics numbers.

UNI got $95k from Arkansas this year and $110k from Colorado in 2019 (pre-pandemic). I would assume you guys are in a similar spot.

[RacerJoeD]

Mark Adams has talked about a flex scheduling concept that gives top teams multiple chances against each other with the thought that it will increase the strength of schedule.