Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

My biggest Mick pet peave. You have to do better with buy games. Get creative. Use computer protections to figure out who is likely to be top 200 rpi and play those teams. They are goimg yo cost themselves aseedline at least

3-39? Good lord... those players don't deserve that.

Did we take the money we normally give to buy games and put it towards BB&T?

(12-18-2017 08:00 AM)MercerCo_BearCat Wrote:  Did we take the money we normally give to buy games and put it towards BB&T?

That's my guess. The TV commentators earlier this season were saying the facility charge is $20,000.00 per game. Probably much more when you consider shuttling the team, equipment, floor setup, etc. Then add the cost of bus transportation for students. No question, the November/December home schedule has been pretty awful. If cost is the issue, I'm a little more understanding of the decision in view of the incredible investment in big ticket items for basketball and football the past five years.

Part cost and part only having a small and specific number of open dates to work with...

i think mick was just trying to bless a couple HBCUs. It may be something his players asked for or was promised

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

People can write bigger checks to correct this.

This is an athletic department that is $40 million in the hole for funding the 5th 3rd rehab. Difference in scheduling a Savannah State buy game versus a Valpo buy game is upwards of $100K a game.

I would t care about the quality of these lesser opponents if they would just play less of them and instead do some home and homes with middling P5 schools.

(12-18-2017 08:15 AM)GameTime_21 Wrote:  Part cost and part only having a small and specific number of open dates to work with...

Great catch--two D1 programs scheduling the same facility for a full season is problematic. And NKU, rightly, would have first pick of dates.

The AD and staff need to be smarter than to schedule these types of buy games. Play at Wright State on weekend which would allow UC fans to travel up there. Better RPI game and then you probably get in return a home next year against a regional team that which is better than most of our buy teams. Take a chance with a home and home this season WKU or Marshall.

I just can't understand why UC needed to play six buy home games plus one exhibition game with only one game played on a weekend. This was the year to play five non-conference home games. Miss State and four buy games. Just playing so-so teams like Wright State and Toledo would have improved non-conference schedule, saved the team a seed line, and set the program up for future high level non-conference buy level home games against regional opponents. I am not saying UC needs to be Temple, no buy games only four non-conference home games but rather UConn and Wichita State who play solid regional buy games mixed in with high profile non-conference opponents.

(12-18-2017 07:41 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

My biggest Mick pet peave. You have to do better with buy games. Get creative. Use computer protections to figure out who is likely to be top 200 rpi and play those teams. They are goimg yo cost themselves aseedline at least

One of Huggs' assistants ( I can't remember which one) was a master at that. He would schedule smaller programs with good RPI's. That's why Huggs' teams always finished with high RPI's every year, but when you sat back and looked at their schedule, it never looked too incredibly tough. I think when Mick took over and they got into the BE, they got spoiled because the BE schedule was enough to boost their RPI. There was never a need to find the better buy games. They haven't adjusted well since being in the AAC.

(12-18-2017 09:24 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:41 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

My biggest Mick pet peave. You have to do better with buy games. Get creative. Use computer protections to figure out who is likely to be top 200 rpi and play those teams. They are goimg yo cost themselves aseedline at least

One of Huggs' assistants ( I can't remember which one) was a master at that. He would schedule smaller programs with good RPI's. That's why Huggs' teams always finished with high RPI's every year, but when you sat back and looked at their schedule, it never looked too incredibly tough. I think when Mick took over and they got into the BE, they got spoiled because the BE schedule was enough to boost their RPI. There was never a need to find the better buy games. They haven't adjusted well since being in the AAC.

They all were good at it.

Andy Kennedy has made a living off of it at Ole Miss Of course, he loses to those smaller teams too often which is why they play in the NIT most years.

The real problem here is the fact that people use metrics like the RPI to rate teams.

If UC plays Savannah St or Cal St Northridge the result of the game is going to be the same .... a blowout. But yet those two teams are 150 rpi spots apart.

So how does it make sense to say one team is significantly better than another based on this?

(12-18-2017 08:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

People can write bigger checks to correct this.

This is an athletic department that is $40 million in the hole for funding the 5th 3rd rehab. Difference in scheduling a Savannah State buy game versus a Valpo buy game is upwards of $100K a game.

So it's a money thing? I get that to some extent I guess, as you always see Duke and UK with better buy games against Ivy, Horizon, and MAC schools. But still, look at the SOS and schedule in the 2002-2003 season. That team was in CUSA still and yet they figured away to get a top 5 SOS that year which was the reason they ended up an 8 seed despite only 17 wins. Not one team on that schedule was over 200 on the RPI and only 5 games over 150. Truly genius the way they were able to put that schedule together.
collegerpi

I thought Chad answered this above already?

Just in terms of RPI, below are the current rankings of our OOC schedule. Someone with more time will have to verify but I believe Mick has scheduled weaker OOC teams as a whole in past years.

13 X
54 Miss. St.
62 Florida
65 Wyoming
71 Buffalo
112 UCLA
186 W. Carolina
209 Sav. St.
260 Richmond
303 Coppin St.
322 Clev. St.
333 Ala. St.
350 Ark. PB

Yep. And for the reason I stated this has been (and may continue to be) an issue for this program no matter who is doing the scheduling.

And while true road games against MAC teams is a great idea, lose the ticket, ad, and concessions revenue from these buy games and an athletic department that is living off of credit cards in the form of subsidies in the mid 40%s and you have an even worse financial situation.

New arena revenue may change all of this, however.

(12-18-2017 12:00 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep. And for the reason I stated this has been (and may continue to be) an issue for this program no matter who is doing the scheduling.

And while true road games against MAC teams is a great idea, lose the ticket, ad, and concessions revenue from these buy games and an athletic department that is living off of credit cards in the form of subsidies in the mid 40%s and you have an even worse financial situation.

New arena revenue may change all of this, however.

Agree. In particular, the bolded.

(12-18-2017 12:00 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Yep. And for the reason I stated this has been (and may continue to be) an issue for this program no matter who is doing the scheduling.

And while true road games against MAC teams is a great idea, lose the ticket, ad, and concessions revenue from these buy games and an athletic department that is living off of credit cards in the form of subsidies in the mid 40%s and you have an even worse financial situation.

New arena revenue may change all of this, however.

These games are the reason I'm thinking of cancelling my tickets next year, so there can be a case made that they also don't bring in revenue. It is a lot cheaper to buy mini plan with all the big games (X, Wich. St., etc.) and just buy tickets to the games I want to see. Anyways, I still think there is a case to get a little more creative, by doing some research on these teams ahead if time. Typically schools from conferences like the SOCON and Big South all suck really bad, with 300+RPIs.