Jump to content

Lunch Today


Billboy1

Recommended Posts

The Valpo game was already signed and the Stanford game was just in the planning phase. Unless you wanted us to pull a MoState and cancel a signed contract(which we all know how Rick felt about that) we really didnt have much of a choice

You seem to have some connections on this one but that timing certainly isn't consistent with what has been publically known for quite a while. Meaning the date of the proposed Stanford game has been discussed on this board since June 1 whereas the Valpo game became public only on July 22. That is a long time for the Valpo contract to have been signed and for us to still be talking about the Stanford game.

The way Stanford makes it sound, we did poop on them. If the Valpo contract was really signed well before Stanford as you suggest, we never should have been discussing the game with them in the first place.

If nothing else, we should have played Valpo on the road this year and at home next. I don't get the imbalance of only playing 3 games away from home. It won't be looked at favorably by the committee come March

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You seem to have some connections on this one but that timing certainly isn't consistent with what has been publically known for quite a while. Meaning the date of the proposed Stanford game has been discussed on this board since June 1 whereas the Valpo game became public only on July 22. That is a long time for the Valpo contract to have been signed and for us to still be talking about the Stanford game.

The way Stanford makes it sound, we did poop on them. If the Valpo contract was really signed well before Stanford as you suggest, we never should have been discussing the game with them in the first place.

If nothing else, we should have played Valpo on the road this year and at home next. I don't get the imbalance of only playing 3 games away from home. It won't be looked at favorably by the committee come March

I agree with your last point. I dont get the imbalance of the schedule either but if we win the games we should win the schedule wont matter(especially if we knock of KU in Kansas City which is really a true road game), didnt you always preach this to Roy? Also, on point number 2 it was an ESPN writer that made it sound like we took a dump on Stanford so who knows if thats true or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) With only 3 games away from the Chaifetz, and only one outside of Missouri, this year's schedule lacks the tough road factor. Next year, we are already committed to playing SIUC, Valpo and SIUE on the road. Any BCS series that we try to start up will likely be on the road. Plus, the usual exempt tourney for 2-3 more games. So we are looking at 5-6 non-con road games next year vs. 3 this year. Why mess with balance of 4 on the road this year and 4-5 next year just because of one more day in Palo Alto?

Something still doesn't add up.

I think I would actually like to make the 2013-14 season more difficult road wise than 2012 - 13. Maybe I am over fearing our team's lack of proven big men, but I would rather have older Manning on the road. We won't have Mitchell, but I am considerably less concerned about our guard play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the one who asked May about the Stanford game. When I commented that we were essentially trading a road game for a home game, he agreed, but said only in the short term. He also said that getting out of the OOC schedule with at least 11 wins did play into the decision. The games in Kansas City and the road game in Washington will be very tough. Adding the Stanford game on a Sunday, and then immediately coming back and playing again, would put us on a tougher course towards that goal. He basically stated that he needed to get us the best possible winning percentage this season with as favorable a SOS as he could get. Valpo offered a better possibility at the time than Stanford.

I am sure that the tougher conference schedule also played into this, and that we will have our share of tough road games once the conference season starts. It seems like they are trying to hedge their bets as much as possible. Another consideration, and one he didn't really touch on, is how blah the home schedule was last season. Giving the season ticket holders a better home slate than the past two seasons can't be all bad. We should see better teams on a whole than last season, and get a little more bang for our buck (as well as an extra game.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the one who asked May about the Stanford game. When I commented that we were essentially trading a road game for a home game, he agreed, but said only in the short term. He also said that getting out of the OOC schedule with at least 11 wins did play into the decision. The games in Kansas City and the road game in Washington will be very tough. Adding the Stanford game on a Sunday, and then immediately coming back and playing again, would put us on a tougher course towards that goal. He basically stated that he needed to get us the best possible winning percentage this season with as favorable a SOS as he could get. Valpo offered a better possibility at the time than Stanford.

I am sure that the tougher conference schedule also played into this, and that we will have our share of tough road games once the conference season starts. It seems like they are trying to hedge their bets as much as possible. Another consideration, and one he didn't really touch on, is how blah the home schedule was last season. Giving the season ticket holders a better home slate than the past two seasons can't be all bad. We should see better teams on a whole than last season, and get a little more bang for our buck (as well as an extra game.)

But if you really think about it, the A-10 won't be much tougher for us this year rather than last. We traded second games with Xavier, Dayton and Duq for 2 games with Butler and 1 with VCU. It will depend on how well Butler rebounds as to whether that is an upgrade.

As to our non-con home schedule, this year is still pretty blah. New Mexico will be great and Valpo is OK. Beating the tar out of SIUC will be fun too but that's it. Next year is even worse. Who are we playing at home for sure next year. NOBODY! We don't have a single return home game scheduled and are already committed to 3 on the road vs. Valpo, SIUC and SIUE. Talk about unexciting.

As Westy points out, once the season begins we'll have to just play the best we can and make do with the schedule we have, but coming off an NCAA tourney appearance and having a decent BCS home and home slip through our hands (for whatever reason) while not adding a single new home and home worth a damn is disapointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you really think about it, the A-10 won't be much tougher for us this year rather than last. We traded second games with Xavier, Dayton and Duq for 2 games with Butler and 1 with VCU. It will depend on how well Butler rebounds as to whether that is an upgrade.

As to our non-con home schedule, this year is still pretty blah. New Mexico will be great and Valpo is OK. Beating the tar out of SIUC will be fun too but that's it. Next year is even worse. Who are we playing at home for sure next year. NOBODY! We don't have a single return home game scheduled and are already committed to 3 on the road vs. Valpo, SIUC and SIUE. Talk about unexciting.

As Westy points out, once the season begins we'll have to just play the best we can and make do with the schedule we have, but coming off an NCAA tourney appearance and having a decent BCS home and home slip through our hands (for whatever reason) while not adding a single new home and home worth a damn is disapointing.

Totally agree about the apparent void on this year and next years OOC home slate; it's disappointing. I remain hopeful another strong year and return trip to the NCAA will help us pick up at least one, maybe two home and homes to begin at the Fetz. That said, two wins in KC will go a long way in making some of our less attractive games much more enjoyable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't agree with the decision to choose Valpo over Stanford, especially if the main reason was one extra day on the West Coast

1) Stanford is a name school that they will be able to market when trying to sell tickets next year.

2) From an RPI standpoint they may be the same, but the reality remains that people (committees, fans, etc.) respect wins over upper Pac-12 teams more than they do top Horizon league teams.

3) With only 3 games away from the Chaifetz, and only one outside of Missouri, this year's schedule lacks the tough road factor. Next year, we are already committed to playing SIUC, Valpo and SIUE on the road. Any BCS series that we try to start up will likely be on the road. Plus, the usual exempt tourney for 2-3 more games. So we are looking at 5-6 non-con road games next year vs. 3 this year. Why mess with balance of 4 on the road this year and 4-5 next year just because of one more day in Palo Alto?

Something still doesn't add up.

Agree.

Stanford is big time big name that is what we want.

I don't buy the bs "story", either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure why everyone is getting all upset about this.

Valpo will be one of the best non-bcs schools in the country next year, and will provide a great opportunity for a 'quality win'... They should run their conference.

This is a great move short-term. Win now, continue to build on last season's success. Get bigger games down the road. That's how it works.

Didn't think I would hear this much b*t*hing about a schedule featuring New Mexico, Washington, (this year, a really good) Valpo, Texas A&M, KU/WSU .. local schools in SIUC & E + EIU.. and not to mention a loaded conference schedule (whoever said last year's teams are equal to this year needs to be banned)

The schedule is working out in our favor to a ridiculous degree. THIS IS A GOOD THING! All non-conferance home games are winnable. and the conference home schedule is almost unfair because virtually every contender comes thru the chaifetz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the info that we got at the lunch today. Much of it is was just chit-chat, but there were some interesting tidbits from May:

-The Stanford series cancellation came down to a couple of things. Stanford couldn't do a Saturday game and wanted to do it on a Sunday instead. At the same time, we had an offer from Valpo for a home and home. As the Stanford series wasn't actually signed, they decided to go with Valpo and start it at the 'Fetz. From an RPI standpoint, both teams were nearly identical last year. In the end, instead of staying on the West Coast a little longer to do the Stanford series, they decided to just go with an extra OOC home game this season and start a series with Valpo. Our only road games in the OOC schedule will be Washington and the pre-season tourney (which are technically 'neutral' games.)

Very interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have some connections on this one but that timing certainly isn't consistent with what has been publically known for quite a while. Meaning the date of the proposed Stanford game has been discussed on this board since June 1 whereas the Valpo game became public only on July 22. That is a long time for the Valpo contract to have been signed and for us to still be talking about the Stanford game.

The way Stanford makes it sound, we did poop on them. If the Valpo contract was really signed well before Stanford as you suggest, we never should have been discussing the game with them in the first place.

If nothing else, we should have played Valpo on the road this year and at home next. I don't get the imbalance of only playing 3 games away from home. It won't be looked at favorably by the committee come March

If Stanford had a demand of playing on Sunday then I would say that they pooped on themselves. If it was important to have us on their home schedule then playing on Sat would not have been a deal breaker. This sounds like a BCS school saying you need us more than we need you so take it or leave it. SLU said fine we leave it and Stanford was shocked by it. I am sure this Sat vs Sunday game problem was being talked about between the two schools during the negotiations so Stanford should not have been caught with their pants down. I do like that RM learned his lesson from the LMU debacle last year - the same people complaining about the Stanford thing were some of the same complaining about how stupid RM was for the scheduling of the LMU. Wonder if we had won that game if the Stanford game would have been on the schedule this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement w/ Cheese on this topic. Yeah, it was nice to see Stanford on the sched, but I never liked it coming on the heels of the UW game. It was like uh-oh another LMU game? This has nothing to do w/ being afraid of any team, but more w/ being afraid of bad scheduling and how it might hurt us come selection Sunday. UW is not going to be an easy road game. I'm not up on what Zo has this year in the Huskies, but I'll wager they're talented and will give us all we can handle. This Stanford game was just too risky, because if we stumbled and lost back to back games against two apparent middle of the pack PAC 12 teams, that would have raised a big red flag to the committee. And let's not get too carried away worrying about next year's schedule, what should be on our minds is making the dance this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stanford had a demand of playing on Sunday then I would say that they pooped on themselves. If it was important to have us on their home schedule then playing on Sat would not have been a deal breaker. This sounds like a BCS school saying you need us more than we need you so take it or leave it. SLU said fine we leave it and Stanford was shocked by it. I am sure this Sat vs Sunday game problem was being talked about between the two schools during the negotiations so Stanford should not have been caught with their pants down. I do like that RM learned his lesson from the LMU debacle last year - the same people complaining about the Stanford thing were some of the same complaining about how stupid RM was for the scheduling of the LMU. Wonder if we had won that game if the Stanford game would not have been on the schedule this year.

The Pac 12 football championship game is scheduled for the night of Friday, November 30 to be hosted by the team with the best regular season record, which could be Stanford. I can see why Stanford would want to plan ahead and not schedule a basketball game for the next day. If the whole issue really was one more day in California we should have conceded. Plain and simple.

Look, people can defend SLU all they want and blame the big bad BCS school, but here is what has occured for our schedule since the end of last season:

- Changes to the A-10 lead to second games with Xavier, Dayton and Duq being replaced with 2 with Butler and one with VCU. This is a modest positive but we really didn't have anything to do with it (besides telling the A-10 we'd like to play Butler).

- We added a 2 for 1 with SIUE.

- We added a home and home with Valpo.

- The CBE gave us two home buy-games.

That's it. You'll have to fogive me for not being excited about the state of our scheduling.

Coming off an NCAA tourney appearance and being predicted by many as a top 25 team, I expected more. One or two BCS caliber home and homes would have been nice. An announcement about an exempt tournament for 2013 would have been nice. Instead, we've gotten virtually nothing and now are committed to playing 3 road games against SIUC, SIUE and Valpo and have absolutely no home games on the 2013 slate. Our schedule this coming year is going to be another "blah" and next year is shaping up as a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-not sure one trip and one tourney win in 12 seasons makes us a Bo Derek 10 on other teams' schedule, it is a start and a helluva lot better spot than we have been in, but we are not yet x or gonz

-if the wash/stanford games were to be in late nov early dec you have the kids missing class all of thanksgiving week and then much of the next week, right before finals i would guess, i can see not wanting that

-does this scheduling deal mean there is one more home game this year as opposed to last year?

-i share the concern that we have no bcs team on the schedule for 2013-14, but if we do what is expected this year then we are in a better postion to schedule for the next season, so some of this should take care of itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kshoe, do you want to play the big name or the better basketball team?

You must have perfect foresite to know that two teams with near identical RPIs last year will be dramatically different this year. Stanford is generally expected to be in the top 4-5 of the Pac 12 next year that's good enough for me.

Last year, when people would ask who we played and beat in non-con my answer was always Washington, BC, Villanova and Oklahoma. I never mentioned Tennessee St. and Vermont, who actually had RPIs better than 2 of those teams. Perception does matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-not sure one trip and one tourney win in 12 seasons makes us a Bo Derek 10 on other teams' schedule, it is a start and a helluva lot better spot than we have been in, but we are not yet x or gonz

-if the wash/stanford games were to be in late nov early dec you have the kids missing class all of thanksgiving week and then much of the next week, right before finals i would guess, i can see not wanting that

-does this scheduling deal mean there is one more home game this year as opposed to last year?

-i share the concern that we have no bcs team on the schedule for 2013-14, but if we do what is expected this year then we are in a better postion to schedule for the next season, so some of this should take care of itself

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pac 12 football championship game is scheduled for the night of Friday, November 30 to be hosted by the team with the best regular season record, which could be Stanford. I can see why Stanford would want to plan ahead and not schedule a basketball game for the next day. If the whole issue really was one more day in California we should have conceded. Plain and simple.

Look, people can defend SLU all they want and blame the big bad BCS school, but here is what has occured for our schedule since the end of last season:

- Changes to the A-10 lead to second games with Xavier, Dayton and Duq being replaced with 2 with Butler and one with VCU. This is a modest positive but we really didn't have anything to do with it (besides telling the A-10 we'd like to play Butler).

- We added a 2 for 1 with SIUE.

- We added a home and home with Valpo.

- The CBE gave us two home buy-games.

That's it. You'll have to fogive me for not being excited about the state of our scheduling.

Coming off an NCAA tourney appearance and being predicted by many as a top 25 team, I expected more. One or two BCS caliber home and homes would have been nice. An announcement about an exempt tournament for 2013 would have been nice. Instead, we've gotten virtually nothing and now are committed to playing 3 road games against SIUC, SIUE and Valpo and have absolutely no home games on the 2013 slate. Our schedule this coming year is going to be another "blah" and next year is shaping up as a disaster.

Why could Stanford not have scheduled a bb game on Sat if the football game is on Friday - sorry that makes no sense. Also, the problem is not staying one more night but 4 more nights - by not playing Stanford, we can come on Thurs AM not Mon. AM. Had we been able to play on Sat we come home on Sun AM and no more classes or missed by the players. I am sorry I am not buying the football reason as a valid excuse - there is no assurances that they will even be in the football game championship game.

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...