|
Post by justducky on Sept 16, 2010 15:02:59 GMT -5
This year it is conceivable that WSU might finish fifth in the conferance yet still be considered for CBI or CIT participation. Under those circumstances would they decline the invitation? Might their previous refusals help determine if the phone ever rings?
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 18, 2010 8:27:34 GMT -5
When it all comes down to it, you ask yourself this: is the banner and possible postseason championship worth the price of admission? Wright State said no. Most of the other schools said yes. And to be honest, just the money made from the gate alone could make the school money. For someone that is trying to be a journalist, you really haven't done a damn bit of research on this topic. We WOULD not make money by playing in either one of those tournaments. Both of these tournaments charged a large fee to participate. Based on WSU's ticket prices we would have had to bring in over 5000 full price paying fans for each game to cover the cost of what the CBI wanted to play in their tournament. That does not include the number of tickets we would have to sell to cover our own operational costs to hosting the game and advertising for the game. Now if you did ANY research whatsoever, you would know that Wright State barely averaged 5000 TOTAL fans a game on the year. We average between 500-600 student tickets and another 300-400 faculty tickets that we do not receive revenue from. That doesn't even include the discount tickets or freebies. Take those out of the equation and we are well under the 5000 full price tickets we need to cover the cost of the tournament. Our AD did contact season ticket holders to gage interest in the tournament. Very few people said they would purchase tickets. No one wants to watch a BS tournament at Wright State when the team across town is hosting NIT games and the NCAA tournament is on TV. Considering that UW-Milwaukee's athletic department is several million dollars in the hole, I think WSU is going to pass on listening to your advice on scheduling decisions. Now if you guys want to really worry about how to upgrade the HL, why don't you guys talk about upgrading the conference's RPI and SOS. Those things will help get multiple teams into REAL tournaments that people care about. Someone pointed out that the HL only had 2 teams in the post season vs 4 for the WCC and 6 for the CAA. Take a look at their conferences. The CAA finished with 4 teams in the top 100. The WCC finished with 3 teams in the top 100. Last year, the HL only had 2 teams with an RPI in the top 100: Butler at 12 and WSU at 80. It's hard to have a good NCAA resume when you only play 1 conference team that is considered a quality win/loss. The HL needs to improve everyone's RPI if we want to get multiple teams in the post season.
|
|
|
Post by dylanrocks on Sept 18, 2010 10:59:03 GMT -5
This is a good, insightful post, Big D. Thanks for sharing some background. A couple of questions and a few observations: Was the opportunity to travel extended to Wright State as it was to Valpo and Green Bay, who both scored quality non-conference wins for the league? Could the cost to host a CBI or CIT home game have been absorbed by a wealthy donor interested in hanging a banner or two rather than season ticket-holders? In the end, each program must ask itself if it feels that the cost of participation -- or corresponding participation in a preseason event held by one of the staging groups -- is worth the experience of competing in one of these admittedly lesser, fledgling tournaments. I will note that there's now little differentiation in how the preseason college basketball publications consider the NIT, CBI and CIT. They're all considered "other" postseason play. In regards to strength of schedule, is it better to buy a win against the likes of low-RPI Division 1 schools like Mississippi Valley State or play non-D1 colleges like St. Joseph, North Park or IU South Bend? On the one hand, you're guaranteed a Division 1 victory; on the other, you get a certain victory that won't damage your RPI. Not sure how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Sept 18, 2010 14:36:31 GMT -5
Somebody a little sore on the subject? You need to take a step back and check your temper, I don't appreciate the shots. As if I had anything to do with Milwaukee's athletics deficit.
Say you only have 3,000 paying customers (1,000 less than you claimed); at $10 a game (I'll assume that, because in your post you didn't share ticket price points), that's 30,000. Playing a second home game, which almost every CBI home team has done since its inception if they advanced, gets you the gate of 60,000. Obviously four rounds, including the possibility of two home games in the final series, would bring in money. I'm not even including the money made on concessions or parking, but I didn't because of the operations costs of putting on a game.
In my eyes, the money isn't as important as the banner; for a program that has such a short and thin history in Division I, the opportunity to hang a banner is well worth the price of admission, even if you pay the smaller amount for the road game (or take the future preseason tournament admission like Valpo and Green Bay did). The CIT is cheaper than the CBI.
My point is that programs with better history and similar fan bases to yours have seen the value in the CBI and CIT and not regretted the choice, even if they didn't make money at the gate. Is that incorrect? I'm merely pointing out a fact. Had WSU accepted bids the last three years as we've heard, then they would have more than doubled the amount of banners. You say that fans told WSU that they didn't care for the tournament. It's the job of the marketing department at WSU to make them care about playing in the postseason.
If you really want to improve your RPI, you might want to consider winning in Milwaukee for the first time since the nineties, haha (that was a joke, don't get angry). You're absolutely right about improving our schedules and winning our non-conference games; fans from more than just WSU or MKE have said it, and not all our coaches get it. I'm happy to say that our coaches finally rid our schedule of the D-II home games and limited low-major non-conference opponents this season; now we have to go win, but that's what everyone has to do: win.
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 24, 2010 22:52:33 GMT -5
Somebody a little sore on the subject? You need to take a step back and check your temper, I don't appreciate the shots. As if I had anything to do with Milwaukee's athletics deficit. You really need to take a step back and stop going to the message boards of every team in the HL and tell us all how we need to spend our money and run our programs. That is what is pissing me off. You like to talk big. You have many big ideas on how to spend money, but you don't have a real clue to how to balance a budget. The most recent example besides this is your little rant on adding D1 footballl you posted on Raider Nations. You completely underestimated the costs of it, just like you completely underestimated that cost of hosting CBI games. I know. I have been involved with WSU's athletic department for close to 40 years now as an employee and as a major booster. I've spent more time on these topics then you have been alive, yet you feel the need to lecture me and others on these topics. Considering that the only exposure you have to a college athletic department is as a writer for a student newspaper for UWM, which is millions of dollars in the hole, I don't think I need to be lectured to about how my school needs to spend it's money. We aren't in the hole. In fact, in our short existence as a D1 program we have managed to build some of the best athletic facilities and fielded some of the best teams in the HL. Say you only have 3,000 paying customers (1,000 less than you claimed); at $10 a game (I'll assume that, because in your post you didn't share ticket price points), that's 30,000. Playing a second home game, which almost every CBI home team has done since its inception if they advanced, gets you the gate of 60,000. Obviously four rounds, including the possibility of two home games in the final series, would bring in money. I'm not even including the money made on concessions or parking, but I didn't because of the operations costs of putting on a game. Once again, you don't know your facts. You don't pay a one time fee to play in the CBI. You have to pay a guarantee for EACH game you host. Our full price tickets are $15. As I already stated, we would have to bring in 5000 for EACH game at that price to cover the cost for EACH game. There is no chance for us to make money on the tournament so we would be going into the hole to participate in these fake tournaments. We would rather spend our money on our recruiting budget/ travel budget/ scheduling budget etc that participate in a BS tournament that no one cares about. In my eyes, the money isn't as important as the banner; for a program that has such a short and thin history in Division I, the opportunity to hang a banner is well worth the price of admission.............. You say that fans told WSU that they didn't care for the tournament. It's the job of the marketing department at WSU to make them care about playing in the postseason. That is really the problem here. You are basing all of this on your opinion. You don't know my community and what OUR fans care about. Dayton is a basketball town, much more so that anything else. UD hosts the opening round NCAA tournament game every year and first round games every 2-3 years. UD has a huge NCAA and NIT tournament history. WSU has 2 NCAA appearances in our 20 years of D1 play. People in this town know and care about real basketball. They see these fake tournaments for what they are: a chance for schools with some cash to BUY a few post season wins. Take a look at these tournaments the last few years. You will find more that one BCS team with loosing records buy their way into these tournaments. I'm merely pointing out a fact. Had WSU accepted bids the last three years as we've heard, then they would have more than doubled the amount of banners. We WOULD NEVER hang one of those banners in our house. We have way too much pride in our real achievements to do that. And once again, you really should know your facts before you preach to someone. We have more than 2 banners in the Nutter Center. We have one celebrating our 1983 DII National Championship. We have one celebrating our 1993 Mid-Con title. We have one celebrating our 2007 Horizon League title. We have one with all of our DII NCAA tournament appearances: 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986. And Finally we have one with our two D1 NCAA appearances: 1993 & 2007. We are proud of these REAL achievements.
|
|
|
Post by blackpantheruwm on Sept 25, 2010 10:23:36 GMT -5
Once again, you don't know your facts. You don't pay a one time fee to play in the CBI. You have to pay a guarantee for EACH game you host. We WOULD NEVER hang one of those banners in our house. We have way too much pride in our real achievements to do that. 1. Thanks for pointing that out; we didn't realize that the guarantee is paid out for each game. That completely changes my view on paying into the CBI. Anyways, since you're involved, what are the exact fees for the CBI for home games and away games? 2. I've never been to the Nutter (that will be rectified in December) but I am surprised to hear that the D-II tourney banners are up. Maybe it's because our banner situation at the Cell is so mind-numbingly retarded that I figured other programs did it the same way. I won't back off on everything I said, but I'll admit when I'm wrong; the guarantee-for-every-home-game was something I didn't know; the people I had talked to made it seem like it was a one-time fee, and to play at home more you needed to win. So thank you for setting me straight.
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 25, 2010 13:38:17 GMT -5
1. Thanks for pointing that out; we didn't realize that the guarantee is paid out for each game. That completely changes my view on paying into the CBI. Anyways, since you're involved, what are the exact fees for the CBI for home games and away games? I do not know what the fees were this past year. I wasn't approached by our AD to contribute towards it. He did approach me 2 years ago and the guarantee was $60K for each home game then. There was no fee for the away team, but you had to cover your own travel expense and be willing to host a home game (and pay the $60K guarantee) if you advanced to the later rounds.
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Sept 27, 2010 7:38:23 GMT -5
Interesting. I have a vague recollection that CBI covered Valpo's travel expenses to Washington, and presumably on to Houston.
I don't know about agreeing to host (and $60k guarantee) later rounds. They did re-shuffle later rounds, I think. The procedure wasn't completely deterministic when the initial bracket was released.
I believe there was also a commitment to play in one of the company's in-season tournaments (Gazelle?) in a future season.
Maybe the details were negotiated by the individual schools.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Sept 27, 2010 8:35:45 GMT -5
You completely underestimated the costs of it, just like you completely underestimated that cost of hosting CBI games. Fine. Why not play a road game, then, like we did? I never hounded your ass for refusing to host a CBI game, as I remember how much of a burden that would have been for Valpo. But the original poke was not about refusing to host. It was about refusing to participate.
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Sept 27, 2010 10:09:20 GMT -5
It seems odd that Valpo, a small private school, could make sense of playing in the CBI, but Wright State, a large public school, couldn't. Maybe it say something about the fan base or donor's generosity, I don't know. I also don't know anything about the financial success or failaure of our participation. All I know is we played and Wright State didn't. We beat Washington at their place and gained some national exposure as a result. We, and all but Butler in the Horizon, can't be picky about post season play. That can be said for the vast majority of other mid-majors basketball schools as well.
|
|
|
Post by jerome1 on Sept 27, 2010 10:23:00 GMT -5
Interesting. I have a vague recollection that CBI covered Valpo's travel expenses to Washington, and presumably on to Houston. From Mark Lazerus Valparaiso heads west -- way west By Mark Lazerus on March 17, 2008 12:41 AM The process went well past Mark LaBarbera's bedtime, but it was worth the wait. Valparaiso will play at Washington on Wednesday at 8 p.m. central time in the first round of the CBI. VU is the fourth seed, Washington is the top seed in that bracket. The game will be televised nationally on Fox College Sports. If VU wins, it'll travel to the winner of the Nevada-Houston game for a Monday night quarterfinal. LaBarbera -- who first was contacted by the CBI after 11 p.m. -- and coach Homer Drew weren't exactly giddy about being placed in the West bracket (though most travel expenses are paid for by the tournament). "Oh, my gosh, can you believe that?" Drew said. "We have the farthest to go of anybody. We'll be out west all week. It's a hard, hard trip for our guys to take, and to miss this much school right after spring break. Read more: valpofans.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=valposports&action=display&thread=3442&page=4#ixzz10k9qZJke
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 27, 2010 11:54:48 GMT -5
All I know is we played and Wright State didn't. We beat Washington at their place and gained some national exposure as a result. We, and all but Butler in the Horizon, can't be picky about post season play. That can be said for the vast majority of other mid-majors basketball schools as well. Yeah what "National Exposure" did you gain? I sure don't remember seeing the highlights on ESPN or CBS during March Madness. I get USA Today and I sure don't remember reading an article about your massive upset of that ****** 16-16 Washington team. If you guys want to waste your time and money in these BS tournaments that's fine, but don't get pissed at other HL teams that don't want to participate. If teams participate or not, it doesn't affect the HL in the least. It doesn't bring any extra money to the HL. It doesn't gain the HL any exposure since the games are not televised and are barely covered by the media at all. I'm personally happy that we used the money we would have wasted on the CBI in our recruiting budget. That is something that will help improve my team and as a result improve the HL.
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 27, 2010 12:02:21 GMT -5
You completely underestimated the costs of it, just like you completely underestimated that cost of hosting CBI games. Fine. Why not play a road game, then, like we did? I never hounded your ass for refusing to host a CBI game, as I remember how much of a burden that would have been for Valpo. But the original poke was not about refusing to host. It was about refusing to participate. March 17, 2008 Recently, WSU was polled by the CBI to measure interest and told the school it would have to guarantee a $60,000 gate to host a game. Wright State said it would be glad to play, but wouldn't host a game. www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/college/wsu/2008/03/17/ddn031708wsubbweb.html
|
|
|
Post by vu72 on Sept 27, 2010 12:17:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigdwsu on Sept 27, 2010 13:29:36 GMT -5
Could you please try again. You haven't provided a single example of NATIONAL EXPOSURE. You provided a few regional articles for the Washington area. The University of Washington is going to get regional coverage for any of their games. I'm sure you can find a handful of articles in Indiana papers that provided regional coverage for Valpo fans too. Sorry, that isn't National Exposure. It's regional coverage. The other couple of links you provided were of the AP press release for the game. It was published online only. Like I said earlier, the story wasn't carried in USA Today. I don't even know if they ran a box score of the game. And none of the highlights were carried on any of the sports channels, except maybe your local news and Washington's local news. You guys are making the argument that WSU hurt the conference by not playing in the CBI because it cost the HL "National exposure." Sorry, but an AP press release is not national exposure. The National Media was covering the NIT the night you beat Washington. The highlights on sportscenter included Cal beating New Mexico, Florida beating San Diego St, Miss beating USCB, Nebraska beating Charlotte, Illinois St beating Utah St, UAB beating VCU, VTech beating Morgan St, and Dayton beating Cleveland St. When they weren't covering those games they were talking about the upcoming NCAA games. The CBI got no coverage whatsoever.
|
|