Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Your feedback: Scheduling poll.


Your feedback: Scheduling poll.  

32 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  1. What are your thoughts on UB playing an official game every year against a non-D1 team?
    Don’t really care much one way or the other.
  2. What do you think about the in-season home/home scheduled this year with Southern Illinois?
    This is the one that I actually could vote for. I’m fine with it as long as the team is supposed to be decent. 
  3. How would you like to fill non-Major games on the schedule?
    I’d rather sub-200 teams than home and home against sub-200 teams. 
  4. Do you understand that no major programs from the top conferences are going to come to Alumni Arena?
    No, I do not understand. Stanford came here this year and they are a major program. Otherwise, yes, Duke and UNC are not coming here. 

I’m not familiar with the last question 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rma said:
  1. I’d rather sub-200 teams than home and home against sub-200 teams. 

Those teams aren't sub-200 teams. It would be like scheduling Bowling Green, Central Michigan, or Northern Illinois.  Good teams that can give you a game but not great teams.

 

8 minutes ago, rma said:
  1. No, I do not understand. Stanford came here this year and they are a major program. Otherwise, yes, Duke and UNC are not coming here. 

Women's basketball doesn't make money for schools and they don't have TV contracts like the men.  Women's basketball is a completely different animal.  It would be like saying "Seton Hall came to Alumni Arena this year for volleyball so I don't know why they wouldn't come for basketball."  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scheduling is always an uphill battle for mid majors.  We always have to cater to the big programs.  Even if those big programs are the bottom feeders of their big conferences.  They want games on their terms.  So there are things we can do to circumvent this:

1) Get into these non conference tournaments.  These are vital.  They give us potentially 3 games against solid teams.  That's 3 less games we have to schedule.  For example next year we are in the Charleston Classic with a good field (hopefully we play some combo of Miami, Florida, Xavier and UCONN).  In 2020 we will be in one too that Nate in an interview slipped up and referenced.  In the past we played Cincy and one of the Dakota St schools (can't remember which one but they beat us and were a tournament team at season's end).  Also these tournaments provide exposure in terms of recruiting and media attention.

2) We can't be afraid to go on the road to take on big schools.  Think Wofford this season.  They played numerous tournament teams on the road.  The only reason they got Carolina at home was because Roy Williams was gracious enough to play a return game because Wofford beat UNC at UNC the season before.  Imagine if Boeheim did that for us next season.  Doubt he would.

3) The MAC has to establish a home and home conference versus conference series.  This will help ease scheduling.  Also its becoming a thing that most big conferences are doing.  We have to keep up with the haves and not become a have not.  That's both us as a program and as a conference.  The MAC must step up.

4) We have to keep our local rivalries going. That means the Big 4 schools.  Those games should all bring in high attendance numbers.

5) I don't like games against non D-1 schools.  To me they are glorified scrimmages that don't provide valuable experience.  I understand we schedule them just to get a home date.  And I understand that they are pretty much guaranteed wins which is better than losing to a Q 2 or 3 team at home. But I don't like them.  The less of them I see the better.

6) In season home and homes are cool.  I dig them.  They aren't something I would do every season but I like them.  Perhaps we can use some foresight and schedule teams who are on the come up.  I can't stress this enough...good mid majors can't be afraid to schedule other good mid majors.  

7) When I attended UB we got Pitt and Rutgers to come to AA.  I see no reason why we can't get a team like Northwestern, Penn St, or Temple to come in.  Obviously we'd have to pay so then it becomes a money issue.  So whats the answer, is it bringing in sub 200/non D-1 teams just for a home date or shelling out some cash to buy games?  Maybe the answer is one season dish the cash then the next penny pinch.

Those are just some thoughts.  Our schedule this season was suppose to be better but WVU had a miserable season.  St. Frances, PA failed to win their league.  SIU underachieved and subsequently fired their coach. But the construction of the schedule to me was solid.  

Edited by DooleyBull06
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

Option two in question three is confusing.  Do you mean a home and home like Southern Illinois this year or alternating home games?

Either/or.

Ideally alternating seasons home/homes would be scheduled but if only in-season home/home can be scheduled then it would. 

The question is basically: Would you be willing to give up a weak home game (likely Lemoyne) to get a game with a team that is at the top of a mid-major conference? 

2018-2019 - give up one home game, go on the road to mid-major in contention for their conference championship

2019-20 - replace the game against the weak team with a trip to Alumni Arena by the mid-major in contention for their conference championship that UB visited the year before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DooleyBull06 said:
3 hours ago, rma said:

Bring back bracket busters

That was interesting for the few years it lasted. Didn’t it also gaurantee [sic] a return game the following year?

It did require a game the following year.  It was known as a budget buster within athletic departments and did not do what the name implied it would do.  It just matched mid-majors against other mid-majors.  To have done what the name implied it would have had mid-majors playing the big conferences to show what they could do against them and bust the bracket by giving extra spots to mid-majors in the tournament.

 

Good riddance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In scheduling, it takes two to tango.

The question to me would be are there good games that UB is saying NO to? I assume no. If that assumption is true, then there is little that can be done to improve scheduling outside of putting more money into it. At this point, I'd rather money be put into facilities. I'm OK with UB going 30+ wins against inferior opponents while still putting better and better UB teams on the court for a while until we get our facilities right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BrooklynBull said:

It did require a game the following year.  It was known as a budget buster within athletic departments and did not do what the name implied it would do.  It just matched mid-majors against other mid-majors.  To have done what the name implied it would have had mid-majors playing the big conferences to show what they could do against them and bust the bracket by giving extra spots to mid-majors in the tournament.

 

Good riddance.

Yeah...that bracket buster may have been good for the first five or so teams at the top, but then you had the all of the rest of the games.  I imagine it was "budget buster" for most schools who got almost nothing out of it, except a February non-conference game that they had to travel to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, UB92 said:

Yeah...that bracket buster may have been good for the first five or so teams at the top, but then you had the all of the rest of the games.  I imagine it was "budget buster" for most schools who got almost nothing out of it, except a February non-conference game that they had to travel to.

That's wasn't why it died.

ESPN took the rights to all the games.  As TV rights expanded, some schools couldn't give the rights to ESPN, while other schools signed deals with ESPN for ESPN3 which meant ESPN already had rights to late season games for those bubble teams and had no incentive to work on the Bracket Buster.

ESPN killed it.  It wasn't the schools who overall were still willing to do it because it was good for their conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why no one would schedule us for a home/home starting in Buffalo this year. 

Every team believed that Oats would jump ship and a decimated UB team would go to their arena next year. 

Interestingly, that was the same reason no one would go to Southern Illinois for a game this year and they also had a change in Head Coach.

I always suspected that Oats knew he was on his way out when he refused to do home/home agreements that started at someone else's place.

Edited by dutchcountry7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

I always suspected that Oats knew he was on his way out when he refused to do home/home agreements that started at someone else's place.

Why would he not want a home game this past year with the senior class we had?

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...