Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Does UB need an Improved Home Schedule?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

In the past the coaches have wanted to go on the road to play big names and make a name for Buffalo.  Well now people know about Buffalo and the community turns out.  Give the community something to see.  No one wants to see blowouts and go three weeks between home games.

I'm part of the community and I thoroughly enjoyed every single game that I attended this season, both men's and women's, home/away/neutral site. Would I love to see more home games or "better" opponents? Of course, but it's easier said than done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

So it does work?

In the short run. 

But doing it log term isn’t part of the Gonzaga plan everyone talks about here.

You have to pivot now. Keep a few major games. But also add some good home games to build the fan base. 

You can get the donors and the revenue needed if you’re not getting the home crowd excited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

That probably wouldn't be good, we'd have to pay to park/walk too far away and would have to leave early because there'd be too much traffic getting out of there. Also we'd hear about bad sight-lines because it's a hockey arena, not a basketball one so there'd be too much space between the seats and the floor.

People already complain about the 2 minute walk they have to make to Alumni.  They have no problem walking from another zipcode for a Bills or Sabres game, but park one lot over at Alumni and it's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I get your wise cracks but the schedule needs more home games and better home games if you want fans to pack it in. 

You don't have to have big names, you just need good teams that give good games.  In the past the coaches have wanted to go on the road to play big names and make a name for Buffalo.  Well now people know about Buffalo and the community turns out.  Give the community something to see.  No one wants to see blowouts and go three weeks between home games.

Oats has spoken at LENGTH about the scheduling problems he faces.  

#1 Power conference teams don't like going on the road to mid-majors

#2 Power conference teams don't like playing good mid-majors at all.  

You act like the program doesn't try and schedule big home games and conveniently ignore the multiple times the coach talks about how he tried to schedule big home games and no one will come.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, UBigbobby said:

Oats has spoken at LENGTH about the scheduling problems he faces.  

#1 Power conference teams don't like going on the road to mid-majors

#2 Power conference teams don't like playing good mid-majors at all.  

You act like the program doesn't try and schedule big home games and conveniently ignore the multiple times the coach talks about how he tried to schedule big home games and no one will come.  

Where have I once spoken about power conference teams?

Do you even read what I write?  I literally mentioned scheduling the Patriot League.  Is the Patriot League a power conference now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Who is saying big team?

Get Harvard.  Get Lehigh.  Get Hofstra.  Get Charleston.  Get Grand Canyon.  Get Utah Valley.  Get Drake.  Get Radford. Get good teams. 

Which one of these teams do casual fans care about....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

They don't care about those teams.

They care about competitive games.  No one cares about Bowling Green or Central Michigan.  They care about the Bulls and competitive games.

So in this scenario: 

  1. We schedule Radford (who nobody cares about).
  2. For some reason fans come anyway.
  3. The game ends up being close (against a team nobody cared about).
  4. Suddenly they're compelled to come next week against Hofstra (who nobody cares about) hoping that it ends up being close again?
  5. ???
  6. Profit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about trying to get Arizona st here with some kind of deal where UB goes there twice? There is a personal connection there. Same could be said for UCF (White), Michigan (Beilein), Auburn (Greene). It’s worth a try. The SIU swap was great...do it again. Try to get something going with San Francisco, Dayton, Richmond...there are at least 100 teams that are worth trying to get a deal with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, UBigbobby said:

Oats has spoken at LENGTH about the scheduling problems he faces.  

#1 Power conference teams don't like going on the road to mid-majors

#2 Power conference teams don't like playing good mid-majors at all.  

You act like the program doesn't try and schedule big home games and conveniently ignore the multiple times the coach talks about how he tried to schedule big home games and no one will come.  

nate has spoken at length about it.

what i don't quite get is, why aren't all these good, up and coming mid majors doing more to schedule each other?  we did the home/home with siu this year, but why aren't these teams scheduling each other more?  to some extent, they're playing the same game that the bigger schools are - scheduling games at home that they can win to pad their records.  

i did like our ooc schedule this year though. but yeah, those home games.  sheesh.  even if i were still in buffalo, i'm not sure i'd buy season tickets with that schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

So in this scenario: 

  1. We schedule Radford (who nobody cares about).
  2. For some reason fans come anyway.
  3. The game ends up being close (against a team nobody cared about).
  4. Suddenly they're compelled to come next week against Hofstra (who nobody cares about) hoping that it ends up being close again?
  5. ???
  6. Profit

Yes.

That is exactly what happens. 

A competitive game doesn't mean it goes to OT.  It means the game was interesting and had back and forth drama even if one team pulled away to win.

This is an example of a team no one cares about and a game that isn't competitive and people felt like they wasted their time and money.  http://www.ubbulls.com/sports/mbkb/2018-19/releases/20181121ydgjoz

While this is an example of a team no one cares about that made a competitive game against a team they have an interest in seeing.  http://www.ubbulls.com/sports/mbkb/2018-19/releases/20190118yeljqh

If teams only wanted to see UB play and didn't care about competitive games, you might as well schedule another game against Nazareth or Central Penn.  Those are cheap games and they will pack the fans in to see the 50 point blowouts, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

No one cares about Bowling Green or Central Michigan.

 

3 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

While this is an example of a team no one cares about that made a competitive game against a team [EMU] they have an interest in seeinghttp://www.ubbulls.com/sports/mbkb/2018-19/releases/20190118yeljqh

What?

They didn't come out to EMU because the results were interesting. That's (at least to my knowledge) impossible. Fans came out to see us when they realized how good we were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ed said:

nate has spoken at length about it.

what i don't quite get is, why aren't all these good, up and coming mid majors doing more to schedule each other?  we did the home/home with siu this year, but why aren't these teams scheduling each other more?  to some extent, they're playing the same game that the bigger schools are - scheduling games at home that they can win to pad their records.  

i did like our ooc schedule this year though. but yeah, those home games.  sheesh.  even if i were still in buffalo, i'm not sure i'd buy season tickets with that schedule.

The up and coming mid-majors want to play these games.

The problem is deciding where to play them. 

For instance, both UB and SIU wanted a big home game this year.  So neither side would agree to a traditional home/home.  They were in a standoff.  They both wanted to play each other this year but they both wanted to play at home with the promise of going to the other team the next year. 

When they couldn't get any other teams to agree to play them at home, they finally agreed to play both games so that both sides are happy.

The problem is that no one wanted to host UB next year.  Teams would agree to play UB but not with UB having the first home game. 

They looked at how talented the team is and asked what they are getting out of it.  They go to play at Alumni Arena and they get no money for the game.  Which is fine for a team that is on a similar level than yours because the next year you get to bring in a team for a home game and don't have to pay them any more. 

But they looked at the UB roster and the history of the program and every team said "UB is going to graduate all their talent and their coach is going to get hired away.  We are going to go there and have to play a top-25 program and they are going to come here with a rebuilding team?  No thanks! We would rather get paid if we are going to have to play a top-25 team on the road."

That's the problem a lot of teams have.  If they don't have faith that your program will be as good and provide as much value the next year, they won't let you start with the home game in the series.  Many mid-majors are good for only a year or two.  Then they are back to rebuilding. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

 

What?

They didn't come out to EMU because the results were interesting. That's (at least to my knowledge) impossible. Fans came out to see us when they realized how good we were.

We are talking about season tickets and large number of fans.  Not people looking to see the flavor of the month.

Great.  Someone sees the team is ranked and comes out to watch a blowout.  You think they are coming back to see more of them?  No... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dutchcountry7 said:

We are talking about season tickets and large number of fans.  Not people looking to see the flavor of the month.

Great.  Someone sees the team is ranked and comes out to watch a blowout.  You think they are coming back to see more of them?  No... 

According to the steady rise in attendance this season, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jeseph said:

According to the steady rise in attendance this season, yes.

The team beat Arizona last year and returned all the star power. 

The second game of the year was a win over ranked West Virginia.

Every season has seen a steady rise in attendance.  It also coincides with how the teams tend to get better as the season progresses and the most meaningful games are late in the year.

Why did it take so long for the attendance to follow?  Isn't it curious how the attendance saw a rise as the competitive games started to happen.

Remember when football had a big win and then everyone turned out for Army?  Why did it take the basketball team so long to attract fans?  If better teams were being played the people would have come out sooner.

Tell me, what do you think the lowest attendance will be next year?  How many will turn out next year to see a team like St. Francis or Dartmouth?  You still expecting 6,500?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

The up and coming mid-majors want to play these games.

The problem is deciding where to play them. 

For instance, both UB and SIU wanted a big home game this year.  So neither side would agree to a traditional home/home.  They were in a standoff.  They both wanted to play each other this year but they both wanted to play at home with the promise of going to the other team the next year. 

When they couldn't get any other teams to agree to play them at home, they finally agreed to play both games so that both sides are happy.

The problem is that no one wanted to host UB next year.  Teams would agree to play UB but not with UB having the first home game. 

They looked at how talented the team is and asked what they are getting out of it.  They go to play at Alumni Arena and they get no money for the game.  Which is fine for a team that is on a similar level than yours because the next year you get to bring in a team for a home game and don't have to pay them any more. 

But they looked at the UB roster and the history of the program and every team said "UB is going to graduate all their talent and their coach is going to get hired away.  We are going to go there and have to play a top-25 program and they are going to come here with a rebuilding team?  No thanks! We would rather get paid if we are going to have to play a top-25 team on the road."

That's the problem a lot of teams have.  If they don't have faith that your program will be as good and provide as much value the next year, they won't let you start with the home game in the series.  Many mid-majors are good for only a year or two.  Then they are back to rebuilding. 

Right, like I said, they're doing what power conferences do - what's in it for me.  Fix it amongst yourselves before complaining that power teams won't play you. And Nate's obviously doing the same, given that we couldn't come to an agreement with siu. At least the teams could've done something like say, fine, home / home this year, but then for next and the year after, here's where we're playing. But nope, bunch of crabs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

The team beat Arizona last year and returned all the star power. 

The second game of the year was a win over ranked West Virginia.

Every season has seen a steady rise in attendance.  It also coincides with how the teams tend to get better as the season progresses and the most meaningful games are late in the year.

Why did it take so long for the attendance to follow?  Isn't it curious how the attendance saw a rise as the competitive games started to happen.

Remember when football had a big win and then everyone turned out for Army?  Why did it take the basketball team so long to attract fans?  If better teams were being played the people would have come out sooner.

Tell me, what do you think the lowest attendance will be next year?  How many will turn out next year to see a team like St. Francis or Dartmouth?  You still expecting 6,500?

This is all such nonsense.  You keep screaming, "UB NEEDS TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS AT HOME!!!".  And we're all like, "Yea, that would be great, I agree, but no one will come here and Nate has been trying."  And your response is just, "YEA, BUT UB NEEDS TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS AT HOME!!!".  Get off it man.  We ALL want better home games, but they simply have not been there for the taking.  Do you realize we were the first ranked team to play in most other MAC arenas in literally a decade or two?  You want better mid major games at home...yea...well so do those better mid majors!! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UBigbobby said:

This is all such nonsense.  You keep screaming, "UB NEEDS TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS AT HOME!!!".  And we're all like, "Yea, that would be great, I agree, but no one will come here and Nate has been trying."  And your response is just, "YEA, BUT UB NEEDS TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS AT HOME!!!".  Get off it man.  We ALL want better home games, but they simply have not been there for the taking.  Do you realize we were the first ranked team to play in most other MAC arenas in literally a decade or two?  You want better mid major games at home...yea...well so do those better mid majors!! 

No, that isn't true. 

There are teams willing to play.  But the long term has to make sense.  As I said, there were teams willing to play a home/home with the team but they refused to schedule because they wanted  a home game this year.  They weren't willing to play a road game and then get the home game next year.

They also are reluctant to schedule road games where they aren't getting paid. 

The games can be scheduled, but you need to be more flexible than they have been willing to be.

The question is if they want to make the commitment for the long term now that they have something going or look at the short term still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

No, that isn't true. 

There are teams willing to play.  But the long term has to make sense.  As I said, there were teams willing to play a home/home with the team but they refused to schedule because they wanted  a home game this year.  They weren't willing to play a road game and then get the home game next year.

They also are reluctant to schedule road games where they aren't getting paid. 

The games can be scheduled, but you need to be more flexible than they have been willing to be.

The question is if they want to make the commitment for the long term now that they have something going or look at the short term still.

That is true, Nate has specifically said that good teams don’t want to come play us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...