Kansas had a great OOC this year. But I am who thinks doing a neutral site game in KC with WS
is a good idea?

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  To use a couple examples from the college football world, if I'm running the Penn State or Michigan State athletic department, why would I give up a single cent in order to play a road game at Temple or Western Michigan?

Yet, those games are on the schedule in week 1 of the college football season.

I guess I'm an idealist, but not everything in college athletics needs to be a "revenue optimization" exercise.

Penn State plays Temple on a 2-for-1 basis (meaning 2 games at PSU and 1 game at Temple), so then they get an extra home game without having to pay Temple any guarantee fee. That road game is also in the pro stadium located in the city with the most Penn State alums, so there's a legit business/alumni reason to play that game.

Michigan State is playing Western Michigan on a 3-for-1 basis (meaning 3 games at MSU and 1 game at WMU), so sure, MSU is going on the road to play WMU, but that's in exchange for not having to pay for 2 guarantee games.

So, in each of those cases, those are very much revenue optimization strategies since guarantee games have been costing in the high six figures or even low seven figures lately (and in the case of PSU, they want to play games regularly in Philadelphia, anyway, and it's effectively a home crowd for them).

At the same time, neither of those is comparable to a home-and-home series of equals between Kansas and Wichita State, which is what Wichita State has been demanding. If Wichita State offered maybe 2 games in Lawrence and the Wichita State "home" game being played in Kansas City, then you're starting to getting more in line with the PSU/Temple and MSU/WMU deals.

And look - it's not just about being a small school. Gonzaga can get power teams to come to them because they've established a brand name with great ticket-selling power and also offer Seattle as an alternative site for road games. Gonzaga is PROVIDING value to those power schools, not just TAKING it (which is what so many non-power schools are essentially asking for). Wichita State doesn't have that type of brand name yet and, in the case of KU, Wichita's location is useless for them. Even the suggestion of Kansas City as a neutral site doesn't do anything for KU because KU already plays a sellout game at the Sprint Center every year where they get to keep 100% of the revenue.

Ultimately, every suggestion is essentially asking Kansas to unilaterally give up something (i.e. money, home court advantage, opportunities to play other games nationally, etc.) in order to play a game that has VASTLY more importance for the other team. Why would they do that? Why would any other school in the position of Kansas do that? I understand the populist sentiment that every team should just be willing to play on a playground somewhere regardless of location for pure pride, but that's not the multi-billion industry of college basketball.

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:48 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's be fair: every power school does the same.

Doesn't justify their reasons for not doing though. If Kentucky can play in-state schools, no reason why Kansas can't do the same.

Does Kentucky play any in-state school outside of Lexington besides Louisville (which is right next to Kentucky as the most revenue-rich basketball program in America, so they're financial equals)?

Don't think it really should matter. I'm sure Wichita wouldn't mind playing KU at their place.

Why not a one game in wichita, two games in Lawrence, and one in KC?

Also Kansas does have something to gain by playing Wichita and that's keeping the reputation that your the best program in state. If Kansas would play wichita and beat them every time no one would ever think that wichita is on their level. Now that wichita has crushed them on a neutral site it shows that maybe wichita does have the better program at the moment. If Kansas wants to keep their reputation and prove that they really are by far the best team in state go play them and beat them. If they don't play them wichita can just keep saying we're the best in state and Kansas is just afraid to play us on far and balance schedule.

(03-23-2015 12:38 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:48 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's be fair: every power school does the same.

Doesn't justify their reasons for not doing though. If Kentucky can play in-state schools, no reason why Kansas can't do the same.

Does Kentucky play any in-state school outside of Lexington besides Louisville (which is right next to Kentucky as the most revenue-rich basketball program in America, so they're financial equals)?

Don't think it really should matter. I'm sure Wichita wouldn't mind playing KU at their place.

Of course it matters. It's basically the ONLY thing that matters in this case. Wichita State has been demanding a home-and-home series. They have been on the record on that point.

(03-23-2015 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 12:38 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:48 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's be fair: every power school does the same.

Doesn't justify their reasons for not doing though. If Kentucky can play in-state schools, no reason why Kansas can't do the same.

Does Kentucky play any in-state school outside of Lexington besides Louisville (which is right next to Kentucky as the most revenue-rich basketball program in America, so they're financial equals)?

Don't think it really should matter. I'm sure Wichita wouldn't mind playing KU at their place.

Of course it matters. It's basically the ONLY thing that matters in this case. Wichita State has been demanding a home-and-home series. They have been on the record on that point.

Well at this point, Wichita State has earned that right to do so. There is no reason for KU not to play Wichita and no reason not to give them a home and home. Lets just call it what it is, KU is scared to play Wichita. It's not a financial thing or a recruiting thing. KU barely recruits in Kansas. It's KU fearing something that is totally ludacrous. It's that simple.

(03-23-2015 10:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 10:33 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Remember gents, stay insular, be exclusive, stay snobby like academia.


I think Wichita State football could beat Kansas football too.

Wichita State doesn't have D1 football. They got rid of it after a horrible accident back in the early 1970s. They do have a stadium and play football at a lower level.

http://www.kansas.com/news/article1124488.html

I know all that.

My comment was a joke.

Time to revisit that proposed law forcing them to play each other, methinks.

(03-23-2015 12:40 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Why not a one game in wichita, two games in Lawrence, and one in KC?

Also Kansas does have something to gain by playing Wichita and that's keeping the reputation that your the best program in state. If Kansas would play wichita and beat them every time no one would ever think that wichita is on their level. Now that wichita has crushed them on a neutral site it shows that maybe wichita does have the better program at the moment. If Kansas wants to keep their reputation and prove that they really are by far the best team in state go play them and beat them. If they don't play them wichita can just keep saying we're the best in state and Kansas is just afraid to play us on far and balance schedule.

That's classic message board talk (and I acknowledge, of course, that we're on a message board). "THEY NEED TO PLAY FOR STATE PRIDE!" is a popular argument for the non-flagship schools that have less scheduling power, but ultimately irrelevant to the conversation. KU lost to Kansas State this year, too - do you honestly think that matters one iota in the scheme of things in the state of Kansas? The schools that Kansas is competing with for attention and recruits are Duke, UNC and Kentucky. They're not worried about (and shouldn't worry about) being the champions of the state of Kansas. They are competing for completely different types of players compared to WSU (or even KSU).

And with that, I'm going to take a shower now for wallowing in the filth of actually defending that program. To be clear, I personally loved seeing Wichita State beating them yesterday as a sports fan. I just also completely understand why Kansas has absolutely no reason to willingly play WSU away from Lawrence.

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:48 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 11:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's be fair: every power school does the same.

Doesn't justify their reasons for not doing though. If Kentucky can play in-state schools, no reason why Kansas can't do the same.

Does Kentucky play any in-state school outside of Lexington besides Louisville (which is right next to Kentucky as the most revenue-rich basketball program in America, so they're financial equals)? I took a quick perusal at the schedules for the last 5 years for UK and they haven't done so. Like I've said, I'm pretty sure that Kansas doesn't have an issue if Wichita State were to play in Lawrence without a return game (just as UK has played other in-state schools ONLY in Lexington). The issue is Wichita State's demand for a home-and-home series - you're not seeing Kentucky going on the ROAD to Western Kentucky or Eastern Kentucky (and no one should expect them to do so).

Are there any other schools in Kentucky (besides Louisville) that have been to the Final Four recently? Ranked?

So not a valid comparison

(03-23-2015 10:54 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 10:33 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Remember gents, stay insular, be exclusive, stay snobby like academia.


I think Wichita State football could beat Kansas football too.

Wichita State doesn't have D1 football. They got rid of it after a horrible accident back in the early 1970s. They do have a stadium and play football at a lower level.

http://www.kansas.com/news/article1124488.html

They played for 15 years after that - program was disbanded in 1986, after a seat count found that Cessna Stadium didn't have the 30K seats needed to qualify to remain I-A. Rather than adding the seats, the anti-football president decided that he would use this to drop the sport.

WSU doesn't have any type of football currently.

(03-23-2015 12:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The issue is Wichita State's demand for a home-and-home series - you're not seeing Kentucky going on the ROAD to Western Kentucky or Eastern Kentucky (and no one should expect them to do so).

Wichita is no Eastern or Western KY. You got anything other comparisons?

(03-23-2015 12:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  And look - it's not just about being a small school. Gonzaga can get power teams to come to them because they've established a brand name with great ticket-selling power and also offer Seattle as an alternative site for road games. Gonzaga is PROVIDING value to those power schools, not just TAKING it like Wichita St is asking for. Wichita State doesn't have that type of brand name yet.

The facts belie your example.

Final Fours
Wichita St 2
Gonzaga 0

Elite 8s
Wichita St 5
Gonzaga 1

Sweet 16s
Wichita St 6
Gonzaga 6

Attendance
Wichita St 10,700
Gonzaga 6,000

(03-23-2015 12:50 PM)justinslot Wrote:  Time to revisit that proposed law forcing them to play each other, methinks.

Maybe you're joking, but I'd be fine with that. They don't pay taxes, and they take orders from the state anyway...fall in line, I say. You've got a charter and a mission...fulfill it. Or, rather, have the Kansas BoR enforce it.

This isn't like WSU playing in Generoso Pope Athletic Complex...Kansas plays in smaller venues in the Big XII conference every year. They should get over themselves.

(03-23-2015 01:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 12:50 PM)justinslot Wrote:  Time to revisit that proposed law forcing them to play each other, methinks.

Maybe you're joking, but I'd be fine with that. They don't pay taxes, and they take orders from the state anyway...fall in line, I say. You've got a charter and a mission...fulfill it. Or, rather, have the Kansas BoR enforce it.

This isn't like WSU playing in Generoso Pope Athletic Complex...Kansas plays in smaller venues in the Big XII conference every year. They should get over themselves.

I would too ..... word it something like "if any 2 D-1 schools which get tax-payer support from the State of Kansas both finish in the Top 40 of the season-ending RPI, and if they do not reside in the same conference, they are required to play a home-and-home series over the next 2 basketball seasons."

That way:

(1) The series only exists if both schools have proven themselves to be competing at a very high level.

(2) Wichita could theoretically get a piece of K-State too. Wildcats have been ducking the Shockers over the years too.

College athletics are not ALL about "revenue optimization for a school's athletic department." They are also about the fans, who are the people who are partially paying the bills for those schools.

(03-23-2015 02:06 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 01:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 12:50 PM)justinslot Wrote:  Time to revisit that proposed law forcing them to play each other, methinks.

Maybe you're joking, but I'd be fine with that. They don't pay taxes, and they take orders from the state anyway...fall in line, I say. You've got a charter and a mission...fulfill it. Or, rather, have the Kansas BoR enforce it.

This isn't like WSU playing in Generoso Pope Athletic Complex...Kansas plays in smaller venues in the Big XII conference every year. They should get over themselves.

I would too ..... word it something like "if any 2 D-1 schools which get tax-payer support from the State of Kansas both finish in the Top 40 of the season-ending RPI, and if they do not reside in the same conference, they are required to play a home-and-home series over the next 2 basketball seasons."

That way:

(1) The series only exists if both schools have proven themselves to be competing at a very high level.

(2) Wichita could theoretically get a piece of K-State too. Wildcats have been ducking the Shockers over the years too.

College athletics are not ALL about "revenue optimization for a school's athletic department." They are also about the fans, who are the people who are partially paying the bills for those schools.

I think they should host a Sunflower "showdown" virtual tournament with KU and K-State alternating years, and WSU as "host"

Participants are WSU, KU or KSU, one of 4 Div II Ks Schools (Emporia St, etc), and 5 regional D-1 programs - close enough to Wichita for fans, etc-- Tulsa, Oral Roberts, Arkansas, SMU, North Texas, UALR, Texas-Arlington, Creighton, etc.

You could play opening round as "home" games for host D-1 schools - then play a 2-game tourney in Wichita if you advance - that way KU or KSU only play WSU if they can beat Arkansas or SMU, etc. which would make it a valuable game.

The joke here in Kansas is that if Brownback keeps cutting funding for higher education, KU and KSU will be joining Wichita St in the Missouri Valley.

I think this is really much ado about nothing. If it makes sense for any schools to schedule one another from the perspective of both schools, games get scheduled. If it doesn't for either party, it doesn't. It's true across the country for all schools.

(03-23-2015 02:29 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think this is really much ado about nothing. If it makes sense for any schools to schedule one another from the perspective of both schools, games get scheduled. If it doesn't for either party, it doesn't. It's true across the country for all schools.

Agree. Most schools have something like this in at least one sport. BC gains nothing from playing UCONN in football, and UCONN gains nothing from playing BC in basketball. It would be great for New England sports/fans/culture, but it doesn't benefit both schools (who both need to be on board to make it happen).