Jump to content
Buffalo Bulls - UB Fan Forum

Point Park Game (Name Fixed)


BrooklynBull

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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. 

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. 

Edited by DooleyBull06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.  
 

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.

Edited by DooleyBull06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BrooklynBull changed the title to Point Park Game (Name Fixed)

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.

Edited by DocCas86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours 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. 

Bona has the same issue to a lesser extent. How many road games should you play? 

I do get you don't put a schedule together to lose, but if you do 2-3 buy games that yield a return of ~90K, couldn't you then use that $$ to schedule good home games against Colgate, Yale, etc?

A10 sets limits against the number of times you're bought, but I don't believe the MAC has the same rules. 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.

While it's difficult, you could build an at large resume beating the top mid majors. It's much harder to project, but still possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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.  

I think we are getting our messaging mixed up. I want good teams to come play us at Alumni. I want the Bulls to be a good consistent winning program. We want the same things. Yes getting UNT and UCI was great for our home games. That moves the needle. But 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. Other than that we all want the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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. 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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. 

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. 

I know you don't build an at large resume from top losses, like Michigan, but they are not a blemish on your resume. If UB were to add two other teams in the top 20 or 30 and lose to them, they would not be knocked for losing. 

So with that in mind, you use that buy $ to get a Q2 game in AA. 

I get the comparison to the WCC, but the MAC schools aren't close in budget or quality.  Your scenario works if you have the money to buy decent games and have conference games that are Q1/Q2. Beating PP won't drop your NET, but also doesn't give you a chance at a good Quad1/2 win.

If the choice is Point Park or Chicago State, then I agree you play PP because it is cheaper than getting Chi State, and doesn't drop your NET. 

In an ideal world, you don't play more than one or two road games. Like you said, you play as many at home or on a neutral site, but that takes money and an invitation to a good MTE. 

Edited by RocChiTown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes 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. 

With this administration we budget for one thing... FOOTBALL.

I think a lot of this goes back to our Athletic Director and his unwillingness to understand we should be a basketball school and that is where our success comes from. My guess is most of the 95K from Michigan went to buy more ice for football.  Danny White understood the importance of hoops.  We might not agree with the way he went about things, but he was the only athletic director who saw that potential and that is why we had our biggest successes either with him in charge or thanks to the moves he made..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by dutchcountry7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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. 

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

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?

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by dutchcountry7
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...