|
|
Post by flipper clark on Nov 28, 2010 18:37:46 GMT -6
amen to Duck... the Crazies are fired up about a LOSS!!! Marquette is a middle of the pack Big East team this year at best.
Saturday night was Milwaukee's best chance to ever beat MU and they failed.... and that is something to be excited about???
2 for 1 will never happen.... as I have mentioned before, this problem starts at the top(no leadership)... I know for a fact that Milwaukee is struggling to get anyone worth a darn to consider the AD position.... who wants to head up an Athletic Dept. and student population that gets excited with a loss!!!! Milwaukee, you had your chance with George Koonce, but let the inmates run the asylum.
|
|
|
|
Post by jhart05 on Nov 28, 2010 19:08:36 GMT -6
It's "fans" like a few of you that give all your fans a bad name.
You go your way now and we'll go ours.
End this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtownfan on Nov 28, 2010 19:16:14 GMT -6
Hard to negotiate a deal when you do not have an AD. But I do not see a 2-1 deal happening, and a home-and-home is out of the question. Sorry guys, but if last night proved anything, it proved you cannot draw a decent crowd, even if the other side provides half of it. While you are drawing 3,500 a game or less, which is about what you have averaged for years, there is no way you get a favorable deal from the guys across the street who sell four times that much in season tickets. I don't think I'd even argue for a home and home. I do know that the uwgb-MU deal is 2-for-1, and MU would definitely like the idea of sticking it to UW, who has effectively a 4-for-1 with both mid-majors; signing a 2-for-1 with UWM would make UW look bad for demanding more. If I were you, xtown, I'd be glad the Wisconsin state legislature hasn't made the same move that Iowa's did, which effectively has all four D-I teams in that state play home and home with each other. You've said, xtown, that you'd not like a 2-for-1. Say that is out of the question and MU refuses to sign that. What would you say to a 3-for-1? No, this is about money. Marquette's basketball team makes it. Lots of it. UWM's team loses it. A substantial amount of it. Marquette is not going to sacrifice a whole lot of money to "stick it to Wisconsin" or anything like it. I do not know know why Marquette signed a 2-1 deal with UWGB, but I suspect it helped that the coach at the time was a former MU assistant, and Marquette gets some benefit in recruiting fans and players in the GB area. If the MU athletic department chooses to sign a 2-1 deal with UWM, good for them, but I do not see it happening. The Iowa legislature thing isn't happening, either. This isn't Iowa. The legislature has no interest in this matter. And any legislation requiring private institutions to schedule basketball games in a particular manner would be unconstitutional. And the reason Iowa can get away with it is because Drake actually benefits from playing the big state schools every year. Below is a suggestion that a 2-1 deal would be "fair." Based on what, exactly? Last night was a pretty good night for UWM. That was probably the largest crowd you will draw all year. It worked out OK for Marquette. Marquette got a win on the road, which is helpful for RPI. Most Marquette fans would like nothing more than to see UWM run the table for the rest of the year, though probably not against DePaul, Wisconsin, or UWGB, as we play them as well. But that was all that Marquette got out of the deal. Marquette lost a home game, which would have generated a bunch of money. On a 4-1 deal, this makes sense. Does it make sense on a 3-1 deal? That is another question. Offhand, I do not think it makes sense on a 2-1 deal. Marquette fans would rather see Marquette play UWM rather than somebody terrible, but not all that much. In terms of RPI, a win at home against UWM is better than a win against a sub-200 RPI team, as long as UWM is not a sub-200 team, which it has been from time to time. The first year of the current series, UWM was absolutely terrible before rallying at the end. I do not know what your final RPI was, but it was not impressive. So is this a better game than one against say Bucknell? To some, maybe. But many others are indifferent. I was somewhat disappointed in the Marquette turnout last night myself. I expected Marquette fans to buy up whatever tickets were available, and they didn't. I have seen better Marquette turnouts against DePaul and a couple others. But DePaul draws on the many Marquette alums in the Chicago area. The fact that the game was scheduled opposite the Bucks did not help. I know at least some Marquette fans opted for that game, as I talked to them on the way out. Perhaps the holiday weekend had an effect. There were few Marquette students, as opposed to the thousand or so who usually make the trip to DePaul and Notre Dame. UWM chose to try and sell as many four-game ticket packages as they could, and put individual tickets on sale late. Not a bad decision, and Marquette did the same thing when this series began. It will probably mean a handful of Marquette fans showing up to cheer for Green Bay later in the year. But it limited the sale of tickets. I have seen Marquette fans travel in impressive numbers and take over opposing arenas. Last night would seem to indicate that there is just not huge interest in this series from the Marquette faithful. Meanwhile, I have read about how Marquette "makes a fortune off this game," how when the series re-started, UWM brought "at least 8,000 fans" to the BC, etc. This of course is all nonsense. Last night, you brought about 3,500 people to your place to see a game you guys supposedly have been drooling over for years. No way you brought more than 1000 or so to the BC to watch the teams play. And whoever suggested that you brought at least 8000 was clearly delusional. Both teams together drew less than that last night, and half of them were Marquette fans. So the bottom line is that you do not draw well. I do not know how else to put it. Marquette has a product that makes money. UWM has a product that loses money. When your team is not playing MU or UW or someone like that, you make more money playing non-conference games on the road. And for all the talk about who Marquette would be playing instead, consider who UWM would be playing instead. It is pretty clear that UWM does not have a lot of offers from major conference teams to play at your place. Really, besides Marquette or UW, when was the last one? I cannot remember a single one since UWM returned to D-1. It is really hard to build a fan base. I get that. But that fan base is a good part of what makes a team attractive, and frankly, you don't have one. You guys here are a passionate bunch and I give you credit for that. If passion translated into numbers, you would be punching above your weight. But it doesn't. So what this comes down to is what makes sense for Marquette, in terms of RPI, in terms of relations between coaches, and importantly, in terms of money. What helps UWM build its program is a whole 'nother question, and not Marquette's problem. |
|
|
|
Post by gomu11 on Nov 28, 2010 20:08:45 GMT -6
But I think a 2-1 deal is the most fair and realistic deal for this next series contract. For the city, the the state, for Milwaukee fans and Marquette fans (can you seriously say that last night's game provided less entertainment for Golden Eagles fans than would another game against a much less competitive team?). Hammer, meet head of the nail. If the Brew City rivalry doesn't make sense for Marquette, fine. But let's review some of the teams MU brings in this year; Prairie View A&M, Bucknell, gb, South Dakota, Longwood, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, The Badgers, Centenary, Mississippi Valley State.
When MU starts to prove that they can schedule games that actually will help them prepare for the Big East and eventually NCAA Tournament, then maybe I'll agree that the 2-for-1 doesn't make sense. I understand that the Big East is good, but schedule some games that will actually help your program. At least 6 of the above 9 don't help the team prepare for anything. A road game in The Cell does. 2-for-1 is the best deal for both parties. Way to conveniently leave out our games this year against Duke, Gonzaga and Vanderblit. Thats OK though... Renew it as a 4-1 thats fine, anything less would be disappointing and a questionable move by the MU Athletic Department. |
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Nov 28, 2010 20:17:01 GMT -6
December 2000 Colorado played at the Klotsche.
|
|
|
|
Post by milwsport on Nov 28, 2010 20:21:25 GMT -6
The point I was trying to make is that negatvity breeds negativity. If here on a Board devoted to being a UWM fan, you read all of these negative comments then where will we see a positive can do attitude?
If those looking to this board for guidance (administrators, recruits etc.) take what's being said here for the absolute truth, then we might as well fold our tents and stop wasting our time.
Constant criticism and hand wringing gets us no where. Ideas, offers to help and positive attitudes will get us somewhere. We can either accept what some people call reality, or we can try to change that reality.
In other words we can either fire up and work hard like we saw our Panthers do last night or we can give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Nov 28, 2010 20:27:16 GMT -6
Renew it as a 4-1 thats fine, anything less would be disappointing and a questionable move by the MU Athletic Department I really don't get this sentiment. If Marquette's athletic department can't sell the idea that MU is playing a game at the Mecca -- their home arena when they won an NCAA Championship -- then they deserve no more credit than UWM. Hell, Marquette could show up in Warriors throwbacks. Make it a point of emphasis. Seriously. There's Marquette history in that arena. And it's literally across the street from Marquette's home arena. How, in any way, is it difficult for Marquette fans to show up for that game? You guys should have made it a home atmosphere, but failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Post by xtownfan on Nov 28, 2010 20:48:50 GMT -6
Renew it as a 4-1 thats fine, anything less would be disappointing and a questionable move by the MU Athletic Department I really don't get this sentiment. If Marquette's athletic department can't sell the idea that MU is playing a game at the Mecca -- their home arena when they won an NCAA Championship -- then they deserve no more credit than UWM. Hell, Marquette could show up in Warriors throwbacks. Make it a point of emphasis. Seriously. There's Marquette history in that arena. And it's literally across the street from Marquette's home arena. How, in any way, is it difficult for Marquette fans to show up for that game? You guys should have made it a home atmosphere, but failed miserably. But what you conveniently forget is that this was a UWM home game. Marquette did not sell tickets. UWM did. Marquette made next to no effort to promote the game, and why should it? It is a road game. Marquette gets nothing out of increased ticket sales. Marquette would rather sell more tickets to games against Centenary or Longwood. UWM fans have to quit thinking of this as an "event," a real big deal that everybody is excited about. The same thing applies to that crazy idea that keeps resurfacing of an all-state tournament with games rotating between the four teams. That kind of thing is great - for UWM. It is not good for Marquette. Marquette is not going to do it. (Either is UW) And Marquette is not going to promote a game at somebody else's arena. If you want to make this a great big event, you have to do it by winning a whole bunch of games and building a fan base. No shortcuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Pounce Needs Pals on Nov 28, 2010 21:11:41 GMT -6
But I think a 2-1 deal is the most fair and realistic deal for this next series contract. For the city, the the state, for Milwaukee fans and Marquette fans (can you seriously say that last night's game provided less entertainment for Golden Eagles fans than would another game against a much less competitive team?). Hammer, meet head of the nail. If the Brew City rivalry doesn't make sense for Marquette, fine. But let's review some of the teams MU brings in this year; Prairie View A&M, Bucknell, gb, South Dakota, Longwood, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, The Badgers, Centenary, Mississippi Valley State. When MU starts to prove that they can schedule games that actually will help them prepare for the Big East and eventually NCAA Tournament, then maybe I'll agree that the 2-for-1 doesn't make sense. I understand that the Big East is good, but schedule some games that will actually help your program. At least 6 of the above 9 don't help the team prepare for anything. A road game in The Cell does. 2-for-1 is the best deal for both parties. I think you are looking at this wrong. The schedule is not all about helping your team get ready for league play, it's about getting home games for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Marquette does/did play Duke, Gonzaga and at Vanderbilt. Bucknell and Green Bay are schools with under 150 in the RPI. Buzz did drop playing a 2nd exhibition game for a close door scrimmage versus Kansas State and UVA over the last 4 years. Plus, stopped a home game versus Texas Southern, to sign a H/H vs. NC State. |
|
Rawls
Junior
Everyone's Entitled To My Opinion
|
Post by Rawls on Nov 28, 2010 21:37:48 GMT -6
Hammer, meet head of the nail. If the Brew City rivalry doesn't make sense for Marquette, fine. But let's review some of the teams MU brings in this year; Prairie View A&M, Bucknell, gb, South Dakota, Longwood, Texas A&M Corpus Christi, The Badgers, Centenary, Mississippi Valley State.
When MU starts to prove that they can schedule games that actually will help them prepare for the Big East and eventually NCAA Tournament, then maybe I'll agree that the 2-for-1 doesn't make sense. I understand that the Big East is good, but schedule some games that will actually help your program. At least 6 of the above 9 don't help the team prepare for anything. A road game in The Cell does. 2-for-1 is the best deal for both parties. Way to conveniently leave out our games this year against Duke, Gonzaga and Vanderblit. Thats OK though... Renew it as a 4-1 thats fine, anything less would be disappointing and a questionable move by the MU Athletic Department. Read what I wrote, Look who you bring in. Duke and the Zags were neutral site and you go to Vandy. I also didn't mention Milwaukee. So MU has scheduled all of two true road games non-conference, and you b**** about the possibility of more?! If MU seriously needs that many home games, then they seriously need someone else running the finances. Of course they don't need that many. They choose to play that many home games and they choose to play teams the caliber that they do. And if a 2-for-1 is a questionable move by your AD, then what in God's name is scheduling all those pushovers? A good move? Xtown was actually right in saying it's about money. If that was the main argument I heard, I would have no real issue. But when I hear the horse sh*t argument that you don't gain anything by the games, it makes me question you. Milwaukee gave you a bigger test than most of teams you will play at home. And on our worst year, we're still in the middle of the pack of the teams you bring into the BC. Where is the harm in playing across the street once every three years, especially when you go up GB just as often? I don't believe for a second that the financial loss would be devastating. This series was killed and the city missed some great basketball in the mid-2000's because of it. We at Milwaukee are climbing back there. If the powers at MU are going to play the card of financial interests and offer no better than a 4-for-1, we'll know where their priorities lie. But don't tell me you gain nothing with the 2-for-1 when you schedule 6 or more pushovers a year. Sometimes there's more than money that comes out of a game. |
|
|
|
Post by BBFran on Nov 28, 2010 21:42:32 GMT -6
For heaven's sake, people, the appropriate response when little Jamie posts in any of his disturbed aliases is to just roll your eyes at the boob -- and then ignore him.
As for Marquette (and it's a shame such an institution has to endure its association with such cretins as have rolled over here after their big win), that game's over. On to the H League. Marquette's "fans" who don't want the series renewed (and will be ignored by their administration) can console themselves, as always, that they are just one more super duper blue chipper away from achieving something -- next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtownfan on Nov 28, 2010 22:23:32 GMT -6
Way to conveniently leave out our games this year against Duke, Gonzaga and Vanderblit. Thats OK though... Renew it as a 4-1 thats fine, anything less would be disappointing and a questionable move by the MU Athletic Department. Read what I wrote, Look who you bring in. Duke and the Zags were neutral site and you go to Vandy. I also didn't mention Milwaukee. So MU has scheduled all of two true road games non-conference, and you b*tch about the possibility of more?! If MU seriously needs that many home games, then they seriously need someone else running the finances. Of course they don't need that many. They choose to play that many home games and they choose to play teams the caliber that they do. And if a 2-for-1 is a questionable move by your AD, then what in God's name is scheduling all those pushovers? A good move? Xtown was actually right in saying it's about money. If that was the main argument I heard, I would have no real issue. But when I hear the horse sh*t argument that you don't gain anything by the games, it makes me question you. Milwaukee gave you a bigger test than most of teams you will play at home. And on our worst year, we're still in the middle of the pack of the teams you bring into the BC. Where is the harm in playing across the street once every three years, especially when you go up GB just as often? I don't believe for a second that the financial loss would be devastating. This series was killed and the city missed some great basketball in the mid-2000's because of it. We at Milwaukee are climbing back there. If the powers at MU are going to play the card of financial interests and offer no better than a 4-for-1, we'll know where their priorities lie. But don't tell me you gain nothing with the 2-for-1 when you schedule 6 or more pushovers a year. Sometimes there's more than money that comes out of a game. Yeah, you guys are great preparing a team for post-season competition. It really helped three years ago, when we stomped you by 35. And it was even more helpful the next two years, when we beat you by 20. In your worst years, you are a pretty terrible team, and do nothing more than anybody else to prepare a team for the tournament. And unfortunately, since you have returned to D-1, that has been the case more often than not. Last night was notable for another reason besides the fact that it was at your place. It was the only one that was remotely close. Even if there were no financial implications, Marquette and nearly every other major team would schedule 2-4 games against bunnies, games they couldn't lose if they tried. They give a team a sure win, bring in some revenue, and let you play your bench. They are glorified practices with live competition. But there are financial implications. Marquette supports its entire athletic program on revenue from men's basketball. That means spending the money to send the women's volleyball team on a plane to the East Coast eight times a year, rather than sending them by bus to Detroit, Chicago, and Indianapolis. Ticket sales are a big deal. I do not know what the profit margin is, because I do not know what Marquette pays to rent the BC, but figure 14,000-15,000 a game at about $25 a ticket and you get an idea of the revenue you are talking about. Before you point out that not all those fans show up to every game, it doesn't matter. They pay for season tickets anyway. Sorry,. but when you are talking about what Marquette needs and wants and what it can afford, you are talking out of your @$$. A couple years ago, Marquette figured that it needed 16 home games to make it work. Perhaps it is less now, but not by much. This is a hard concept for a UWM fan to grasp, because your athletic program, and particularly your men's basketball program lose money. Even if you get the Cell for free, there is no way you make a profit on 2500 fans paying $10 a ticket at your home games. If you have to pay somebody to play at your place, you are losing money. No way you are making enough to pay for any other sport, and no way your for your team to pay for itself, much less support any other sport. But if a team is going to play a bunch of home games, it helps if some of them are against competitive teams. As for Marquette's home schedule this year, UWM and UWGB are probably a wash, though GB was better last year. Bucknell is actually pretty good. I think they gave us a better game than you did. In the past, Marquette has hosted IUPUI and Utah Valley State. Turn up your nose if you like, but in the years we played them, they were both better than UWM. Then there is usually an attempt to get a home and home with a good major-conference team. As the schedule went this year, there isn't any, other than UW. In the past, teams included Arizona when they were in the top 5. Last year, it included NC State and Nebraska. Again, turn up your nose if you want, but they were both better than UWM. So there is a balancing act here, with income and quality of competition factoring in. Frankly, UWM has not supplied much quality competition. Now, let's look at your schedule. This year, you have three non-conference home games: Northern Iowa, Western Michigan, and somebody else from the MAC. Not bad. Not great. Better than the last few years when you had to load up on D-2 teams. But you only have four non-con. home games. Next year, you get the return game on the bracket buster. Bracket buster is a good deal for a team like UWM. It is not a good deal for teams that can actually schedule somebody better, which is why Butler opted out. The teams you can typically get home-and-home are the likes of SIU-Edwardsville or MAC or WAC teams. I think next year you get a return game from South Dakota State. Marqeutte has gotten South Dakota at home the last two seasons without a return game. They're better. As noted, you last got a major conference team besides Marquette or Wisconsin to your place ten years ago. So clearly, you are in a weak bargaining position. You don't have a lot of options. The reason the series came to a halt was that Bo Ryan turned down a four-year extension. He demanded a home game. At the time, UWM was drawing 900 a game. No, I didn't miss a zero. That's less than a thousand. Great position to start making demands, huh? Tell me again how playing at your place helps us? |
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Nov 28, 2010 22:35:22 GMT -6
Yeah, you guys are great preparing a team for post-season competition. It really helped three years ago, when we stomped you by 35. And it was even more helpful the next two years, when we beat you by 20. In your worst years, you are a pretty terrible team, and do nothing more than anybody else to prepare a team for the tournament. And unfortunately, since you have returned to D-1, that has been the case more often than not. Last night was notable for another reason besides the fact that it was at your place. It was the only one that was remotely close. I like how you cite a game from three years ago as evidence that we are bad, and totally dismiss the game that was played TWO FUKCING DAYS AGO |
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Nov 28, 2010 22:36:03 GMT -6
But really. Mods. Ban this asshole. Please.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwmxctf on Nov 28, 2010 22:37:56 GMT -6
xtown - Please tell us why you have vested interest in the financial situation. If there is such limited interest in this game for MU fans, the revenue difference between ticket sales for a home game and the payment for an away game cannot be significant.
And, please, limit your response to two or fewer paragraphs.
|
|
