(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 06:18 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Wow, a criticism of the home BB schedule that I didn't start...........but I agree. Just like FB, the P5 are gaining the superior rep simply because they are P5 schools. The BB-weak SEC is a prime case. Beyond UK & UF, who do they have yet they will likely garner more tourney invites than the AAC. We will continue to see the erosion of the non-P5 schools in terms of tourney invitations because the P5 schools control the process. The irony is that by scheduling the way we do, the regular season means of comparing P5 and non-P5 schools greatly diminishes the argument that non-P5 schools belong. Agree the process & the tourney are much better than in FB where the cartel is in full control but unless schools like Memphis don't schedule enough P5 schools to protect their standing, this process will eventually lead to a complete P5 dominance that will be impossible to reverse. We see it now in tourney seeding, in TV money and will see the deck stacked more and more if the trend isn't stopped by improved scheduling.

I'm not sure I understand your argument about Memphis needing to schedule more P5 schools for basketball in order to preserve our perception as a basketball power.

I think it would be great to play a HH with Texas, Ohio State, Arizona, etc., but particularly in the SEC, in normal years, 12 out of their 14 teams would benefit playing Memphis more than Memphis would benefit by playing them.

Would it benefit Memphis by playing Nebraska, SoCal, Wake Forest, or Rutgers (oops, been there done that, but they're now B1G)?

My point is beating Gonzaga or Wichita State brings more to Memphis than those examples.

Fact is, the P5 have lots of basketball dregs. Just playing P5 for the sake of it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

We don't need a certain number of "buy" games...we need a certain number of "home" games.

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 06:18 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Wow, a criticism of the home BB schedule that I didn't start...........but I agree. Just like FB, the P5 are gaining the superior rep simply because they are P5 schools. The BB-weak SEC is a prime case. Beyond UK & UF, who do they have yet they will likely garner more tourney invites than the AAC. We will continue to see the erosion of the non-P5 schools in terms of tourney invitations because the P5 schools control the process. The irony is that by scheduling the way we do, the regular season means of comparing P5 and non-P5 schools greatly diminishes the argument that non-P5 schools belong. Agree the process & the tourney are much better than in FB where the cartel is in full control but unless schools like Memphis don't schedule enough P5 schools to protect their standing, this process will eventually lead to a complete P5 dominance that will be impossible to reverse. We see it now in tourney seeding, in TV money and will see the deck stacked more and more if the trend isn't stopped by improved scheduling.

I'm not sure I understand your argument about Memphis needing to schedule more P5 schools for basketball in order to preserve our perception as a basketball power.

I think it would be great to play a HH with Texas, Ohio State, Arizona, etc., but particularly in the SEC, in normal years, 12 out of their 14 teams would benefit playing Memphis more than Memphis would benefit by playing them.

Would it benefit Memphis by playing Nebraska, SoCal, Wake Forest, or Rutgers (oops, been there done that, but they're now B1G)?

My point is beating Gonzaga or Wichita State brings more to Memphis than those examples.

Fact is, the P5 have lots of basketball dregs. Just playing P5 for the sake of it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

Calm down we have Okie State and Bradley

(11-12-2014 10:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  We don't need a certain number of "buy" games...we need a certain number of "home" games.

Yea, but you know how that works. In order to guarantee X number of home games each year you are forced to have Y number of buy games each year.

(11-12-2014 10:48 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand your argument about Memphis needing to schedule more P5 schools for basketball in order to preserve our perception as a basketball power.

I think it would be great to play a HH with Texas, Ohio State, Arizona, etc., but particularly in the SEC, in normal years, 12 out of their 14 teams would benefit playing Memphis more than Memphis would benefit by playing them.

Would it benefit Memphis by playing Nebraska, SoCal, Wake Forest, or Rutgers (oops, been there done that, but they're now B1G)?

My point is beating Gonzaga or Wichita State brings more to Memphis than those examples.

Fact is, the P5 have lots of basketball dregs. Just playing P5 for the sake of it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

Calm down we have Okie State and Bradley

Okie State is considered marquee by most. Bradley wasn't even marquee when Hersey Hawkins was playing.

(11-12-2014 10:50 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:48 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

Calm down we have Okie State and Bradley

Okie State is considered marquee by most. Bradley wasn't even marquee when Hersey Hawkins was playing.

We can get there asses back for that 1957 NIT game !!!

(11-12-2014 10:50 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:48 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

Calm down we have Okie State and Bradley

Okie State is considered marquee by most. Bradley wasn't even marquee when Hersey Hawkins was playing.

3601..were you at that game at the coliseum w/ Hawkins? He was a shooting phenom but he could not carry his whole team. Another great memory was Wayman Tisdale.

(11-12-2014 10:48 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  We don't need a certain number of "buy" games...we need a certain number of "home" games.

Yea, but you know how that works. In order to guarantee X number of home games each year you are forced to have Y number of buy games each year.

Sure, but like your example, if one CAN schedule multiple "real" games at home, that person isn't restricted to a certain number to make room for "buy" games.

In 2015, Memphis will get Zags and Ole Miss here and in 2016 get Louisville. I think those are etched in stone.

(11-12-2014 10:50 AM)3601 Wrote:  Okie State is considered marquee by most. Bradley wasn't even marquee when Hersey Hawkins was playing.

I think Okie State (like Memphis, WVU, FSU, Mizzou, Illinois) are marquee if they are good.

I wouldn't expect to see Okie State sell out unless they are a Top 15 team at the time of the game. There is a chance, their 1st 7 games are a cakewalk, so they should show up undefeated and ranked.

(11-12-2014 11:12 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:50 AM)3601 Wrote:  Okie State is considered marquee by most. Bradley wasn't even marquee when Hersey Hawkins was playing.

I think Okie State (like Memphis, WVU, FSU, Mizzou, Illinois) are marquee if they are good.

I wouldn't expect to see Okie State sell out unless they are a Top 15 team at the time of the game. There is a chance, their 1st 7 games are a cakewalk, so they should show up undefeated and ranked.

There are definitely different levels of "marquee" opponents and it is very subjective and can vary from fan to fan.

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(11-11-2014 06:18 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Wow, a criticism of the home BB schedule that I didn't start...........but I agree. Just like FB, the P5 are gaining the superior rep simply because they are P5 schools. The BB-weak SEC is a prime case. Beyond UK & UF, who do they have yet they will likely garner more tourney invites than the AAC. We will continue to see the erosion of the non-P5 schools in terms of tourney invitations because the P5 schools control the process. The irony is that by scheduling the way we do, the regular season means of comparing P5 and non-P5 schools greatly diminishes the argument that non-P5 schools belong. Agree the process & the tourney are much better than in FB where the cartel is in full control but unless schools like Memphis don't schedule enough P5 schools to protect their standing, this process will eventually lead to a complete P5 dominance that will be impossible to reverse. We see it now in tourney seeding, in TV money and will see the deck stacked more and more if the trend isn't stopped by improved scheduling.

I'm not sure I understand your argument about Memphis needing to schedule more P5 schools for basketball in order to preserve our perception as a basketball power.

I think it would be great to play a HH with Texas, Ohio State, Arizona, etc., but particularly in the SEC, in normal years, 12 out of their 14 teams would benefit playing Memphis more than Memphis would benefit by playing them.

Would it benefit Memphis by playing Nebraska, SoCal, Wake Forest, or Rutgers (oops, been there done that, but they're now B1G)?

My point is beating Gonzaga or Wichita State brings more to Memphis than those examples.

Fact is, the P5 have lots of basketball dregs. Just playing P5 for the sake of it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

2008 was an aberration, but the odd thing is that in the end we only had 2 OOC opponents that ended up ranked. Arizona and Gonzaga ended the season unranked. I know that doesn't matter; all that matters is that a team is ranked when the game is played as far as buzz goes.

As recently as 2012; we didn't play a single home game against a ranked opponent. I agree that it would have been nice to squeeze one more decent opponent into the home schedule. At least we should be getting 3 decent home games inside the conference.

(11-12-2014 11:45 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:42 AM)3601 Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:36 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:32 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  I'm not sure I understand your argument about Memphis needing to schedule more P5 schools for basketball in order to preserve our perception as a basketball power.

I think it would be great to play a HH with Texas, Ohio State, Arizona, etc., but particularly in the SEC, in normal years, 12 out of their 14 teams would benefit playing Memphis more than Memphis would benefit by playing them.

Would it benefit Memphis by playing Nebraska, SoCal, Wake Forest, or Rutgers (oops, been there done that, but they're now B1G)?

My point is beating Gonzaga or Wichita State brings more to Memphis than those examples.

Fact is, the P5 have lots of basketball dregs. Just playing P5 for the sake of it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are a lot of P5 dregs. From year to year Memphis can follow the scheduling logic of the top P5 schools (meaning scheduling other lower level non-P5 in OOC) and not be affected much other than being downgraded slightly in a tourney seed. And there are some great programs not included in P5 conferences. But through scheduling, TV contracts and tourney bids & tourney seeding, the P5 is attempting to steadily marginalize the better non-P5 programs and conferences through the same strategies that have advanced the P5 in FB. The P5 already gets way more tourney bids than they deserve and among those, higher seeds, compared to better G5 programs. Memphis (as a G5 school) and other G5 schools don't have the luxury to schedule like P5 schools if the G5 is to remain relevant. From year to year not much shift toward the P5 is discernible (aside from TV revenue, tourney bids & seeding), but over time we will see non-P5 schools continue to be marginalized unless the non-P-5 schedule smart, meaning include several mid-level P5 schools in the schedule. By doing so, it presents first-hand evidence that non-P5 schools are relevant to those that watch college BB, award tourney bids and seeding. By not scheduling P5 schools, we give those who want to marginalize us an argument because we can't provide the head to head P5 results.

I understand BB is different than FB relative to the P5. But that difference is only because there is a tournament played where non P-5 schools are allowed to compete. There has even been some talk that the P5 would like to hold there own BB tournament. And it is no secret that the P5 will continue to attempt to suck up all the revenues they can wherever they can. I see head to head competition as the best means to combat that occurring.

Like a broken record. Three things you don't seem to understand...

1. IF we could get more big time opponents to play us home and home...we would

2. We have to play a certain number of buy games; we need the money and we can't drop any of them

3. No, you couldn't charge enough extra money for season tickets/ tickets to play an extra quality opponent home and home to make up for the lost revenue of a buy game

I agree with 1 and 3. I don't totally buy 2. I know that we need a certain number of buy games, but that was also the case in 2007/2008 when we played Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, and Tennessee at FedExForum.

We should have at least 2 marquee home OOC games every year.

2008 was an aberration, but the odd thing is that in the end we only had 2 OOC opponents that ended up ranked. Arizona and Gonzaga ended the season unranked. I know that doesn't matter; all that matters is that a team is ranked when the game is played as far as buzz goes.

As recently as 2012; we didn't play a single home game against a ranked opponent. I agree that it would have been nice to squeeze one more decent opponent into the home schedule. At least we should be getting 3 decent home games inside the conference.

Point being is that it is possible to have more than 2, but we should have at least 2 EVERY season. Since we moved to FEF...

04/05 olemiss, Providence
05/06 Gonzaga, Purdue, Texas, Tennessee
06/07 olemiss, Cincinnati,
07/08 Georgetown, Arizona, Gonzaga, Tennessee
08/09 Syracuse, Cincy
09/10 Tennessee, Gonzaga
10/11 Miami, Georgetown
11/12 Tennessee, Xavier
12/13 Louisville
13/14 Gonzaga
14/15 Oklahoma State

I would say olemiss, Providence and Miami are arguable. However, history shows that most years you should be able to get at least 2...until recently.

(11-12-2014 10:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  We don't need a certain number of "buy" games...we need a certain number of "home" games.

When you become the Duke head coach you can schedule Memphis home-home...til then, good luck getting teams like that in the Forum.

(11-12-2014 01:06 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 10:46 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  We don't need a certain number of "buy" games...we need a certain number of "home" games.

When you become the Duke head coach you can schedule Memphis home-home...til then, good luck getting teams like that in the Forum.

Where did I mention Duke?