dutchcountry7

2 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

Noted, I am not privy to Monmouth's scheduling details. I never saw a return trip so figured it was a buy.

STILL, I wouldn't agree to scheduling more than three games that I thought would be a loss. 

They didn’t lose more than three games OOC.  They beat Memphis. 
 

Are you telling me that if we had Michigan scheduled and then got a call from the Battle 4 Atlantis asking us to play in it you’d turn them down because that would make a fourth game you expect to lose?

Or would it be fifth game?  Do you count St Bona as an expected loss too?

8 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

Monmouth was bought by Syracuse, South Carolina, Memphis and UNC, no?

No. 
 

They were only bought by Memphis and UNC. 
 

South Carolina and Syracuse were games assigned by participating in the Barclays Classic. 

14 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

Show me the schedule you think would merit at large consideration. 

The goal should be more home games. More home games means more wins. Which is good even if you're not a real at large contender. If UB does not have the budget to do that, then they'll have do something else to make that happen.

 

 

This year’s schedule is one that would warrant at large bids with the wins. 
 

The goal is more home games and more wins. Which is why you don’t sell games.  

There is nothing wrong with the schedule. 

5 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

What don't I know? How to get a team into the NCAAs? You're attacking me without proposing what you'd do. 

Monmouth won a bunch of games against poor competition, that much I do now. Drexel, SCST, Cornell, Holy Cross, Wagner, Army and Princton were their OOC games they won. Maybe one or two of those games were quality. 

Show me the schedule you think would merit at large consideration. 

The goal should be more home games. More home games means more wins. Which is good even if you're not a real at large contender. If UB does not have the budget to do that, then they'll have do something else to make that happen.

 

 

Playing top teams and losing to those top teams while winning your other games won’t get you in.  
 

They didn’t sell Five games.  
 

They played in one event and sold two games. 
 

if you want to stay a low tier program keep your plan.  
 

If you want to build a program then you don’t follow your proposal.  
 

If your fans only care about your team if you're playing Michigan or West Virginia then you don’t have fans. 
 

We need top-150 teams at Alumni.  
 

Selling three games to buy three games outs you at a disadvantage on the court with no financial upside.  
 

The whole point of selling games and giving up an advantage is to get the benefit of the money. 
 

Small potatoes. 

1 hour ago, DooleyBull06 said:

In an either or situation I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.  I just find it hard to believe that we couldn’t get anyone, Q3 or 4 to come to Alumni. I understand finances are the reason but don’t we budget in advance. Sounds like we are living paycheck to paycheck, which, if so, is a shame. 

Also imo 20 wins isn’t the standard anymore, for this very reason. Schedule the max number of non D1 games and you can map a road to 20 wins. 

Yes, this is literally the situation.  It is an either or situation.  
 

You didn’t know how tight our finances are?  
 

We literally have budgeted every year to have one non-D1 home game.  That has been planned because of our limited budget.  
 

The move to getting better quality home games and moving to more conference games resulted in the need for a second one.  
 

The option was to play them or two play two fewer games.  
 

Glad you support the decision made by the staff.  
 

If you want one of them dropped then you should donate $85k to the program and earmark it for paying St Francis or Youngstown State to come in for a game. 

12 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

Where did I say UB should play FIVE road games OOC like Monmouth did? That Monmouth model is not what I am close to suggesting. 

I said play three against top competition that pays. Monmouth didn't sniff the NCAAs because they did not have any good teams at home or on a neutral site. They did not get into as good of an MTE as UB did this year. 

My philosophy does work, but it takes money to make happen. The goal should be maybe 1 H&H (Bona) and two or three buys against a top 25. You then use that money to get GOOD home buys. Something Monmouth did not do. 

It costs money to be a good hoops program consistently. That's why you see so many different teams in the mix outside of the top 10 conferences. 

 

Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about and are trying to say they aren’t a parallel despite being what you’re proposing. 
 

Have you even looked at the 2016-17 Monmouth schedule?

38 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

The Monmouth situation only happens because they had horrible luck. Monmouth had great "name wins" but those teams just happened to have the worst years in program history.

They beat UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Georgetown. It just so happens all of those teams stunk. 

Had they had that season in 2019, they would have made it as they would have benefited from the Quadrant system that was yet in place. 

Thank you for proving my point.  
 

I was talking about the 2016-17 where they did everything you said they needed to do and were left out.  Not even close.  Which is why you don’t remember them. 

They doubled down on what you proposed and again we’re left out. 
 

Which is where you come in justifying it.  
 

your philosophy doesn’t work.  It’s a fool’s errand. 
 

Edit: and no the quadrant system wouldn’t have guaranteed them a bid in 2019.  The quad system is simply a tool all the others. The committee discretion is still what selects teams and there is no committee member that selects teams because they lost close games. 

16 minutes ago, DooleyBull06 said:

scheduling two crap non D1 schools pushes that needle backwards. Not one but 2. I don’t care about the metrics or math…get them off the schedule. Don’t care how, get it done. 

Are you saying you’d rather play two fewer games this year?

That’s the option available to you.  
 

You play these non-D1 teams or you don’t play games at all in those slots. 
 

It absolutely does not set you back to have two more wins it might be superficial but those cosmetic wins absolutely look good.  When you tell recruits that you won 20 games each of the previous three full seasons they don’t care that one of those wins in 2020 that got you to 20 wins was against Nazareth.  
 

But I do want you to answer if you seriously want the team to play two fewer games at Alumni arena and play a reduced schedule. 

24 minutes ago, RocChiTown said:

As we've seen many times on Selection Sunday, good losses don't really count/ hurt you, but you better have some good wins in there. While SJFC and PP don't hurt your NET rankings, they don't give you the Q1/Q2 wins that every mid major looking for an at large bid needs.

 

This is not correct.  
 

People believe it because they see a team like Syracuse or NC State getting in to the tournament as middle of the pack ACC teams. 
 

You can’t apply the same rules to them.  They get in because they have Top-20 wins to go with their losses.  
 

You’re much more likely to get in with a win over North Texas than a loss to Duke. 
 

Wins matter more than who you beat.  The problem is when you have six losses and no quality wins.  That’s when midmajors get slighted.  
 

Like the Monmouth team in that was left out.  
 

They did exactly what you proposed.  Only played top teams.  Lost to South Carolina who made the Final Four that year, lost to a ranked Syracuse (NIT), and National Champion UNC. 
 

They played three tough games and lost them.  Beat everyone else OOC. 
 

Finished the regular season with 5 losses after dropping two MAAC games. 
 

They were left out of the tournament because you don’t get any credit for losses to top teams. 
 

This is a common scenario.  
 

The only way to become a top program is to have a fan base and culture around your program that isn’t based on one coach or the current players.  
 

It is much better to be snubbed from the NCAA with a great record.  That puts you in a better position to build the program. Which is what the WCC schools did.  Gonzaga helped advise them and shipped the strategy of the conference members.  Now they are a great conference but they were getting snubs year after year and were told not to take buy games.  Only do home/home an neutral site games and continue to have great records and eventually you’ll get the respect and the recruits will come to the winner. 

19 hours ago, UBlearns said:

  Say what you will about early Kenpom rankings, but the 2nd-ranked team in the A-10 is only #73 (Richmond).  Bonnies are likely far and away the best team in the A-10 this year.

That’s not the whole picture.  
 

#73 Richmond 

#80 Rhode Island

#81 Davidson

#91 Saint Louis

#94 VCU

Any time you have a top-100 team half way through OOC you have a contender for NCAA /NIT.  Those are all solid teams. There are enough games remaining to raise your standing 30 spots. 
 

There is also #107 Dayton who is coming off wins over Miami FL, Kansas, and Belmont.  
 

I am not convinced they are far and away the beat team in the A10. 
 

They are going to have losses for sure.  I wouldn’t be shocked if the A10 is a three bid league. 

21 minutes ago, DocCas86 said:

Fun fact: Dennis Miller, comedian, political and sports commentator graduated from Point Park.

Also UCI, beat a good Santa Clara team on the road and now is ranked 58 on latest Massey composite.  This turned out to be a very good home game.

The staff went out and worked hard to schedule home/home with good mid majors.  UCI was a good get as was UNT.  
 

They are doing the right things to bring good games to the fans at Alumni.  

9 hours ago, DooleyBull06 said:

Math never was my strong suit lol.

I’m not doing the work but my eyes tell me almost every season we play more road non conference games than we do home games. It’s not 8 road games to 3. I know that. And I don’t care what the math is but don’t play non D1 schools. Period. Don’t care what the math is. Never ever ever schedule them. Let alone twice. Just to get a home game that won’t sell out. Which is a whole other issue. 

You build a good program by winning. Whether that be on the road or at home. You win. Win. Then as the profile of the schools rises you get home games. But as a mid major we will always have to play most of our non conference on the road. It’s just mid major life.

That’s not correct.  
 

Programs are built by their fan bases and the culture that surround them.  
 

What you’re talking about is having good teams but not a program.  Those are the teams that were good until they lost their coach or star players.  
 

Programs are more than the team on the court at any given time.  They persist over the years.  They are respected and get good games even when they have losing streaks.  
 

You’re proposing a fleeting low major model.  
 

We need a program.  

3 minutes ago, DooleyBull06 said:

You have to be forward thinking and progressive when it comes to scheduling. I am definitely not saying try to get top teams to come to Alumni. Forget that pipe dream. It’s not going to happen right now. 

Progressive thinking: MTEs and home/homes. But also looking at other mid major who have a young roster and say to yourself hmm in 2-3 years we should have them come to Alumni when that squad will be an experienced team. And schedule years ahead. 

The reason you take a road game against a top team is for all the reasons I mentioned. You want to play top talent. Win or lose. You mention playing a bottom feeder…would you rather play a home game against a bottom feeder or Point Park College? I mean come on. F the metrics and give me some kind of challenging game at home. What will excite fans more…PP or a real school?

Let’s not kid ourselves here, we are a nice mid major school. But we don’t call our shots. And because of that our non conference will feature more road games than home games. My argument is that the home games shouldn’t ever be against Point Park or whatever the other school is. 

And for those that dream of an at large…we aren’t going to get it without beating top P5 teams and playing 2 high school teams. If you fancy yourself a good team then you should be able to beat a Q4 team at home always.

We did what you said.  We have home/home deals with solid mid majors that will bring good teams to Alumni.  
 

If you want more than three OOC home games then we can’t sell more than one game.  
 

Your math just doesn’t add up. 
 

And no you don’t build a program by playing few home games and thinking being on TV is special.  It isn’t.  This isn’t the 90s.  Anyone who wants to see a game can see them.  Every game gets media coverage.  
 

3 minutes ago, DooleyBull06 said:

If the top teams are buying we should be selling. Simple as that. I disagree that it’s no upside. Take the payday. Run with it. Get the kids some national exposure against elite talent. Game provides good teachable moments. Potentially knock off a giant. It’s good for our metrics to have played a top team. What’s the downside? We lose? Ok no biggie in the grand scheme of things. 

Balance the rest of the non conference with home games. Home/homes. The local rivalry games. 

It’s not much money.  And they are hard to come by because they can buy anyone.  
 

How do you expect to have home games?

You want to sell three games. 
 

Then we have two or three games in a tournament. 
 

We have one home game between St Bona and Canisius. 
 

That’s 8 games out of the 11 possible.  So we only have three dates remaining. 
 

I don’t know why you’d sell a game against a team you’re a long shot to win just to take the money and turn around and give it to some bottom feeder who does nothing for you and the fans don’t care about.  
 

You don’t get credit for losing games to good teams.  That was removed with the NET.  The RPI use to reward losing to good teams.   That isn’t the way things work anymore.  Win games.  Build a program.  

5 minutes ago, UBlearns said:

I'd also be curious if it's difficult for a team like UB to land buy games from major schools.  UB has been a consistently-solid mid-major in recent years, and has shown that it can win road games at major schools.  If you're a top program, would you rather UB come in and give you a close game, or a lower-tier school for an easier win for the same price?  Beating UB at home is - at best - a Q2 win, and more likely Q3, whereas an upset loss hammers your NCAAT seeding.  Is it worth it to play UB when you can play some Kenpom 250th-ranked opponent instead for the same price?

The problem isn’t the top teams.  They will buy. But the lower and mid power conference teams won’t.  
 

So there are few teams to buy and the top teams are long shots and don’t give much upside. 

Just now, DooleyBull06 said:

Which is why I’m in the camp of scheduling at least 2 or 3 games against top P5 teams. On the road. Nothing but upside. Chance for an upset. Good for the metrics. Cash. National broadcast. 

It’s more downside.  
 

You don’t schedule buy games if you want to build a program and have fans care about your program.  
 

We turned the corner which is why we are scheduling home/home deals like a respectable program.  
 

52 minutes ago, DooleyBull06 said:

Ok so how much did we make by going to Michigan? And is that enough to offset some stuff. How much did we get by going to North Texas?

I believe it was $95k for Michigan and UNT will return the game so nothing for the trip to Texas. 
 

One buy game from Michigan doesn’t get us anything.  That is needed to operate the program.  We need a few buy games to have money to play with.  

16 minutes ago, promotherobot said:

Couldn't UNI stick around till Monday to play UB? That would be a better game than Park Place U.

It would be amazing if we could schedule them.  
 

They are a great program.  I remember watching their win over #1 UNC a few years ago. 
 

They are always tough. Even when rebuilding. 
 

I doubt they would be willing to play back to back tough road games.  They play good home/homes and money for travel doesn’t seem to be an issue for them. 

6 hours ago, BullBoy said:

 

2. Money - It's expensive to bring a D-I team in for a buy game.  Probably talking at least $50k...That's a lot of money.. You want better matchups?? Donate to the Blue and White Fund.  My guess is we are paying Point Park and St. John Fisher no more than 10k each.

Your numbers are off.  
 

$85k is the going rate for a D1 guarantee.  
 

$2k is what we have historically paid D3 teams for a game. 
 

Nationally D2 teams try to get $5k.  Sometimes you see more—high end of $10k if it is a long trip but we don’t schedule teams that travel. 

1 minute ago, DooleyBull06 said:

Not the point I’m making. I’m well aware of the rules. What I’m saying is we scrimmaged preseason against Colgate. I would have rather paid them to come to Alumni for a regular season game. And I’m calling the decision not to…cheap.

Yeah, we can’t afford to buy them.  But just because a game isn’t scheduled doesn’t mean there isn’t an effort.  
 

Sometimes you just can’t get open dates to align with teams. 
 

The important thing is that they played Colgate and got the challenge on the court. 

8 hours ago, Big 4 Hoops Blogger said:

I don’t know how they came to be but this was the explanation I received.

I’m paraphrasing… “They’re easy wins at home that don’t negatively impact your metrics at 1/4th of the cost to schedule a bottom tier D1 opponent.”

That’s the political answer.  
 

It’s money.  We don’t have the budget to get other games. 
 

No money to pay a team to come to down. They are such horrible teams scheduled because better D2 teams required more money than we could pay.  It went down the line to whoever would do it for the least amount of money.  
 

Home/home deals require us to travel so we couldn’t afford to book those either.  
 

The Northern Texas, UC Irvine type games are what should replace these games but we can’t afford the additional flights.  
 

Can’t afford to travel for games or to pay teams to come here. So we are left with these two games on the schedule.  
 

It is what it is.

7 hours ago, DooleyBull06 said:

We could schedule a scrimmage with Colgate but couldn’t get them to come to alumni? Cheap. 

The Point Park and SJFC games had nothing to do with scrimmages played or not played.  You’re only allowed two scrimmages and we played two. One against Medaille and a closed door scrimmage. 

3 hours ago, squire17 said:

I would avoid FloHoops like the Plague, if I were you. I signed up last year. It never worked for me. I was unable to navigate its site, and never saw one second of any college basketball, let alone UB. I tried to cancel but was unsuccessful. I was unable to contact them by phone, text, or email. Every month they charged my credit card $29. I would call the bank and have the bill reversed. Finally after the 3rd or 4th month of doing that, the bank told me to destroy my credit card, and it issued me a new credit card number. 

FYI: In the future, you should ask your credit card for a virtual credit card number.  
 

They will issue you a temporary number for a specific purchase to prevent reoccurring charges or giving up data to a potentially unsecured website. 

Flo network is notorious for complaints from customers.  
 

They are a subscription service.  You sign up for a year.  You have to cancel. 
 

They get these minor tournaments without TV rights to lock in fans to their subscriptions.  They also do minimal production of the event.   They just have a video feed with two camera that are often manned by middle school kids.  
 

All the close games they are playing makes it seem like they are not too good. But I have seen this type of situation play out a lot where teams just continue to eek out wins and then they go one to be top programs.  
 

Clearly they are better than they have been playing.  The fact they take over the second half just tells me they are capable of playing at a much higher level and that they do it when needed.  
 

Would be great to take the win over them.  If they keep playing games close they will lose one sooner than later. 
 

I like the chances. Should be a good game. 
 

This is the big game remaining on the schedule.