Stanford off Schedule

[brianstl]

maybe they wanted a 2 for 1. maybe they were insisting on some expense money or goodies on the return trip. maybe they wanted pac 10 refs both games. maybe they included an opt out clause for the return trip that made it pretty obvious they were never going to play the st louis game.

we dont know. but like i said, it doesnt make much sense talking about a hotel stay and a few meals. we spend that regularly for extra days in january and february on the east coast. i would look for a stanford wrinkle.

Katz stated the deal was done and that the Billikens backed out. It doesn't appear Stanford was demanding anything.

Yes we pay a lot of money to travel on the east coast. All the more reason for Biondi to be hesitant to do it on the west coast this year too. Last year they didn't have to pay for travel to and lodging in Vegas because that was covered as part of the tournament.

[Westy03]

This has nothing to do with money or Biondi its a scheduling conflict

[brianstl]

Come on guys. All this speculation about money is baseless. May told our lunch meeting group that there in no shortage of funding for basketball.

How can anyone claim that there is no shortage of funding for any program at SLU when Biondi can and will transfer money for one program to his discretionary fund at his pleasure?

[Westy03]

How can anyone claim that there is no shortage of funding for any program at SLU when Biondi can and will transfer money for one program to his discretionary fund at his pleasure?

I agree.

[Bobby Metzinger]

I agree.

I just saw him buy a gallon of skim milk at Schnucks. Cut that irony with a knife.

[BillikenROAR]

It is not $$ related.

[willie]

I am just telling you what the man said. Also I think all of Roys reasons are possible.

[brianstl]

This has nothing to do with money or Biondi its a scheduling conflict

Well I hope it is a scheduling conflict for a decent opponent instead of a buy game.

[SShoe]

Well I hope it is a scheduling conflict for a decent opponent instead of a buy game.

I was told the game had to be cancelled because it was the only time we could get Rockhurst on the schedule.

[moytoy12]

I was told the game had to be cancelled because it was the only time we could get Rockhurst on the schedule.

Does Rockhurst count? I forget.

[Chicago Billiken]

So I assume we have an open date on the schedule then?

[Chicago Billiken]

So I assume we have an open date on the schedule then?

[Westy03]

Does Rockhurst count? I forget.

It depends if our RPI is over or under 122

[jbizzle09]

It depends if our RPI is over or under 122

It's KenPom! Get it right!!!

[kshoe]

This has nothing to do with money or Biondi its a scheduling conflict

Can you give more detail on the scheduling conflict? It was known from the beginning that we wanted to play at Stanford the weekend after the Washington game. Is Stanford no longer able to host us that weekend?

Or does this have to do with the return game next season? Seems like we should still have enough dates available to make whatever they want work.

[slu72]

I don't know the financials on the UW and Stanford games, but it doesn't make sense from a $ point of view to cancel this game. We'd be getting 2 pay days instead of 1 for a minor increase in costs, ie flight from Seattle to Palo Alto and another 1 or 2 days in a hotel. Have no idea why this was done, but it can't be because of $$ unless Stanford was wanting the biggest piece of the pie.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I am really upset as is my pal Bay Area Billiken and all the other alums and fans that live out here. He must be out of the country since he didn't comment on the law school dean thread.

The cancellation of this Stanford "home and home" is a real bummer. BAB had been telling some people out here about the game, and there was quite a bit of interest in it, once the people were told of it. A Stanford MBA friend had said he would go with BAB to the game. The Billikens are on the national radar.

There must be a compelling reason.

[cheeseman]

Not sure what the issue was but when May said that the contact had not been inked I began to think that there was some issue. This is the type of contract that RM would love to have from what he says but something must have spooked him. At the very least we will find out at the first Billiken Club meeting or from someone who is going to one of the luncheons should ask May.

[slu72]

There can only be about 4 or 5 reasons for this:

1.) More expensive WC trip- This doesn't make sense. It would seem the revenues from two WC games would more than cover any additional expense of flying down the coast to Palo Alto and spending one or two additional nights in a hotel.

2.) Stanford was holding out for a 2 for 1 deal? Hey, Cardinal, you ain't exactly the Duke of the WC.

3.) Some revenue sharing issue? Stanford wanted a bigger slice of the pie?

4. ) Stanford wanted the St. Louis game to be held at Scott Trade? I'm not buying this because this game would not bring in many more fans than the Fetz could hold. Now if it were UNC or UK, yes, have it at Scott Trade, we'd fill the joint.

5.) A ranking issue? RM gets cold feet thinking that back to back games on the WC against two of the better Pac 12 teams would result in 2 losses thereby hurting our chances at being ranked in the top 25? I would have thought this would have been considered long before calling up Stanford to see if they had any interest in the game.

There a probably more issues, but it seems like we've thrown away a golden opportunity by begging off this game.

[MusicCityBilliken]

5.) A ranking issue? RM gets cold feet thinking that back to back games on the WC against two of the better Pac 12 teams would result in 2 losses thereby hurting our chances at being ranked in the top 25? I would have thought this would have been considered long before calling up Stanford to see if they had any interest in the game.

Larry, when I first heard we want out of Stanford game, I thought of this. Even if we beat Kansas, if we immediately go out to the west coast and come back with 2 L's, that shoots any kind of ranking go into conference play. If we can stay ranked for most of the season and even not win the A10 that may give better then a 7 seeding.

[cheeseman]

I do not believe that RM is worried about rankings - he wants to play the best schedule he can. He has said this many times. Cost is not the reason and was a silly one when first brought up. If it was a 2 -1 deal that would have come out by now. Revenue sharing is not an issue since usually the home team keeps the tix sale and a home and home deal would be a wash - now if Stanford wanted us as a buy game then payment could have been an issue. Why would Stanford want to play at the Scott Trade - that makes no sense - they do not have a huge StL following and as far as TV would be concerned, it makes difference to them where the game is played for televising. Lets just wait until somebody comes up with some solid info and stay away from all the speculation.

[P.B.]

I do not believe that RM is worried about rankings - he wants to play the best schedule he can. He has said this many times. Cost is not the reason and was a silly one when first brought up. If it was a 2 -1 deal that would have come out by now. Revenue sharing is not an issue since usually the home team keeps the tix sale and a home and home deal would be a wash - now if Stanford wanted us as a buy game then payment could have been an issue. Why would Stanford want to play at the Scott Trade - that makes no sense - they do not have a huge StL following and as far as TV would be concerned, it makes difference to them where the game is played for televising. Lets just wait until somebody comes up with some solid info and stay away from all the speculation.

Majerus says a lot of stuff, most of it is true but he talks a lot of things up. Most of the peple here are ignorant of the fact that we might be scared of getting a loss there and that is why we canceled it. I dont know the reason but this has to be at least considered. Just cause we dont like when other teams are pusssies for not scheduling us in years we might be cnsidering our resume for march like they have done and now doing the same thing. I hope it is not the case but it has to be considered. We were the ones that canceled it so we need to speculate on our rational not Stanford's

[Bizziken]

Majerus says a lot of stuff, most of it is true but he talks a lot of things up. Most of the peple here are ignorant of the fact that we might be scared of getting a loss there and that is why we canceled it. I dont know the reason but this has to be at least considered. Just cause we dont like when other teams are pusssies for not scheduling us in years we might be cnsidering our resume for march like they have done and now doing the same thing. I hope it is not the case but it has to be considered. We were the ones that canceled it so we need to speculate on our rational not Stanford's

I do remember hearing that Majerus consulted extensively with Joe Lunardi about scheduling theory to make us more attractive to the Tournament Committee...perhaps there is actually something to this...however, it does seems at odds with Majerus saying on numerous occasions that we will play "anybody anywhere any time"...who knows

[Prairie Bill]

Surely Majerus & May would worry less about RPI than a reputation for reneging on deals. Perhaps, as someone said, the deal was proposed but never finalized. SLU is mum; has there been any mention of it on a Stanford site?

[slu72]

I do not believe that RM is worried about rankings - he wants to play the best schedule he can. He has said this many times. Cost is not the reason and was a silly one when first brought up. If it was a 2 -1 deal that would have come out by now. Revenue sharing is not an issue since usually the home team keeps the tix sale and a home and home deal would be a wash - now if Stanford wanted us as a buy game then payment could have been an issue. Why would Stanford want to play at the Scott Trade - that makes no sense - they do not have a huge StL following and as far as TV would be concerned, it makes difference to them where the game is played for televising. Lets just wait until somebody comes up with some solid info and stay away from all the speculation.

Cheese, I wan't speculating on anything really. I just offered a sampling of reasons why we pulled out of the deal. I am as clueless as any of us as to why we wouldn't want a home and home w/ Stanford. But the more I think about it, the more I think #5 might be the reason. Playing 2 games against power conference schools 1400 miles from home is not smart scheduling regardless of statements like, "we'll play anyone anywhere anytime." We're looking at a much tougher A-10 sched this year, and back to back losses on the WC might be a little hard to overcome come selection Sunday if our conference record is only 10-6. I think now if I had to vote for one of the 5 possible reasons for reneging, I'd give 5 my vote. Look at how the Loyola Marymount game haunted us through out last year. We were ranked prior to it, and then never even sniffed it after that loss. Yes, it's disappointing we won't face the Cardinal, especially for BAB and Sonoma Bob, but I'd rather we make the dance than risking it just to play a meaningless OOC game in Palo Alto.