Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Next year's OOC Schedule
Page: 4 of 9
mail
person
71 BOBCAT
6/8/2016 9:14 AM
This issue is always a difficult balancing act.
You want top tier games on the schedule but can't negotiate for them to come to Athens so you select a few road games for revenue. A coach also wants to have as many winnable games scheduled to help his record.
The yearly dialog around an at large bid for the MAC will be dependent on the entire conference becoming stronger and moving up the the overall conference rankings.


GO BOBCATS
mail
person
Flomo-genized
6/8/2016 9:32 AM
Bobcat Love wrote:expand_more
I've been telling people the solution for years, yet nobody has the balls to implement the idea.

If you want a seat at the table, you to have to be ready to walk away from the table. It's the same in football as it is in basketball. The solution is that you do NOT play the games. Your best bargaining chip is always the ability to WALK.

While the Power 5 band together to change the landscape of college athletics, the Group of 5 sits idle. It's pathetic and reeks of lack of fiduciary responsibility (IMO).

If the Group of 5 stuck to their guns and said "we won't continue this cycle of only playing buy-games on the road" - the cycle would end and you would see more scheduling equality and a level playing field.

Think about it. If you had the Group of 5 teams completely cease scheduling P5 teams - you would have an entire new class of P5 "have nots" (Indiana, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Maryland). These new P5 "have nots" could only be supplemented on schedules by FCS schools and the SWAC/MEAC garbage we are forced to play today. Without MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc - the P5 would be forced to schedule more away games with a higher probability of losses, lost home game revenue, etc. Oregon State (or fill in your bottom feeder Big 12/Pac-10/SEC/Big-10/ACC team) is only going to play so many buy games before their fans get restless like we are today. They will demand home and homes.

The elephant in the room is that every Athletic Director and their staff wants to move onto a Power 5 school, so there's absolutely no reason to rock the boat. Ossakow (Maryland), Broders (Oregon), Frazier (Va Tech), etc etc the list goes on and on. Schaus and White are no different. While I love what Schaus has done, he wants bigger and better just like anyone else - so why rock the boat.

We can subsist playing a schedule made up of Texas State, Utah State, Idaho, etc for as many years as we need to. We've come this far doing it - so why not band together and change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that the P5 needs us more then we need them. It's up to our leaders to figure it out and do something about it. Until we demand it from them - nothing will change.
That would be a great idea except for the fact that it would be illegal under federal antitrust law. All involved would end up in jail for illegal price fixing.
mail
The Optimist
6/8/2016 9:45 AM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
I've been telling people the solution for years, yet nobody has the balls to implement the idea.

If you want a seat at the table, you to have to be ready to walk away from the table. It's the same in football as it is in basketball. The solution is that you do NOT play the games. Your best bargaining chip is always the ability to WALK.

While the Power 5 band together to change the landscape of college athletics, the Group of 5 sits idle. It's pathetic and reeks of lack of fiduciary responsibility (IMO).

If the Group of 5 stuck to their guns and said "we won't continue this cycle of only playing buy-games on the road" - the cycle would end and you would see more scheduling equality and a level playing field.

Think about it. If you had the Group of 5 teams completely cease scheduling P5 teams - you would have an entire new class of P5 "have nots" (Indiana, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Maryland). These new P5 "have nots" could only be supplemented on schedules by FCS schools and the SWAC/MEAC garbage we are forced to play today. Without MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc - the P5 would be forced to schedule more away games with a higher probability of losses, lost home game revenue, etc. Oregon State (or fill in your bottom feeder Big 12/Pac-10/SEC/Big-10/ACC team) is only going to play so many buy games before their fans get restless like we are today. They will demand home and homes.

The elephant in the room is that every Athletic Director and their staff wants to move onto a Power 5 school, so there's absolutely no reason to rock the boat. Ossakow (Maryland), Broders (Oregon), Frazier (Va Tech), etc etc the list goes on and on. Schaus and White are no different. While I love what Schaus has done, he wants bigger and better just like anyone else - so why rock the boat.

We can subsist playing a schedule made up of Texas State, Utah State, Idaho, etc for as many years as we need to. We've come this far doing it - so why not band together and change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that the P5 needs us more then we need them. It's up to our leaders to figure it out and do something about it. Until we demand it from them - nothing will change.
That would be a great idea except for the fact that it would be illegal under federal antitrust law. All involved would end up in jail for illegal price fixing.
Refusing to play a road game in football constitutes price-fixing?

LOL
mail
Andrew Ruck
6/8/2016 10:26 AM
I'm just happy this topic brought back both Bobcat Love and Flomo. If Slimmy weighs in too, I'll just lose my mind.

Like all efforts of cooperation (or better stated - Collusion), it works great until a few break the unwritten and not even remotely enforceable agreement. That, along with the other reasons BL laid out as to why it would never happen with these ADs viewing us as a stepping stone.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
6/8/2016 10:38 AM
Hello Love and Flomo.
mail
person
Flomo-genized
6/8/2016 1:00 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
I've been telling people the solution for years, yet nobody has the balls to implement the idea.

If you want a seat at the table, you to have to be ready to walk away from the table. It's the same in football as it is in basketball. The solution is that you do NOT play the games. Your best bargaining chip is always the ability to WALK.

While the Power 5 band together to change the landscape of college athletics, the Group of 5 sits idle. It's pathetic and reeks of lack of fiduciary responsibility (IMO).

If the Group of 5 stuck to their guns and said "we won't continue this cycle of only playing buy-games on the road" - the cycle would end and you would see more scheduling equality and a level playing field.

Think about it. If you had the Group of 5 teams completely cease scheduling P5 teams - you would have an entire new class of P5 "have nots" (Indiana, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Maryland). These new P5 "have nots" could only be supplemented on schedules by FCS schools and the SWAC/MEAC garbage we are forced to play today. Without MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc - the P5 would be forced to schedule more away games with a higher probability of losses, lost home game revenue, etc. Oregon State (or fill in your bottom feeder Big 12/Pac-10/SEC/Big-10/ACC team) is only going to play so many buy games before their fans get restless like we are today. They will demand home and homes.

The elephant in the room is that every Athletic Director and their staff wants to move onto a Power 5 school, so there's absolutely no reason to rock the boat. Ossakow (Maryland), Broders (Oregon), Frazier (Va Tech), etc etc the list goes on and on. Schaus and White are no different. While I love what Schaus has done, he wants bigger and better just like anyone else - so why rock the boat.

We can subsist playing a schedule made up of Texas State, Utah State, Idaho, etc for as many years as we need to. We've come this far doing it - so why not band together and change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that the P5 needs us more then we need them. It's up to our leaders to figure it out and do something about it. Until we demand it from them - nothing will change.
That would be a great idea except for the fact that it would be illegal under federal antitrust law. All involved would end up in jail for illegal price fixing.
Refusing to play a road game in football constitutes price-fixing?

LOL
Sure it does. If a sizeable group of schools (all of which currently compete with one another in the football-game-scheduling market) team up and say that they'll only play a road game if the power five school agrees to a return game, that's no different than the same set of schools agreeing to only play road games against the power five for a set amount of money. In either case, the competitors are colluding to demand a certain benefit (return game, higher pay) that they couldn't obtain individually in the open market.

Now if the non-power-five teams simply agree to refuse to play the power five at all, then that wouldn't be price fixing. It would be a group boycott, though, which in most cases is equally unlawful.
mail
bornacatfan
6/8/2016 3:04 PM
Andrew Ruck wrote:expand_more
I'm just happy this topic brought back both Bobcat Love and Flomo. If Slimmy weighs in too, I'll just lose my mind.

\
I'm with you 'Drew....
mail
FearLeon
6/8/2016 10:08 PM
Bobcat Love wrote:expand_more
It takes two to tango, so I have been told. Wanting them to come here is only half of the process of getting them to come here.
I'm fully aware of that but that doesn't mean you just give in and play on their terms and their terms only. That's the definition of a self-defeating cycle. If they won't come here then play them on neutral courts in tournaments.
Exactly what leverage do mid majors have to break this cycle? That's not a jack*** question, I'm serious. You want the cycle broken, what leverage do schools like us have to turn that around?
I've been telling people the solution for years, yet nobody has the balls to implement the idea.

If you want a seat at the table, you to have to be ready to walk away from the table. It's the same in football as it is in basketball. The solution is that you do NOT play the games. Your best bargaining chip is always the ability to WALK.

While the Power 5 band together to change the landscape of college athletics, the Group of 5 sits idle. It's pathetic and reeks of lack of fiduciary responsibility (IMO).



If the Group of 5 stuck to their guns and said "we won't continue this cycle of only playing buy-games on the road" - the cycle would end and you would see more scheduling equality and a level playing field.

Think about it. If you had the Group of 5 teams completely cease scheduling P5 teams - you would have an entire new class of P5 "have nots" (Indiana, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Maryland). These new P5 "have nots" could only be supplemented on schedules by FCS schools and the SWAC/MEAC garbage we are forced to play today. Without MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc - the P5 would be forced to schedule more away games with a higher probability of losses, lost home game revenue, etc. Oregon State (or fill in your bottom feeder Big 12/Pac-10/SEC/Big-10/ACC team) is only going to play so many buy games before their fans get restless like we are today. They will demand home and homes.

The elephant in the room is that every Athletic Director and their staff wants to move onto a Power 5 school, so there's absolutely no reason to rock the boat. Ossakow (Maryland), Broders (Oregon), Frazier (Va Tech), etc etc the list goes on and on. Schaus and White are no different. While I love what Schaus has done, he wants bigger and better just like anyone else - so why rock the boat.

We can subsist playing a schedule made up of Texas State, Utah State, Idaho, etc for as many years as we need to. We've come this far doing it - so why not band together and change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that the P5 needs us more then we need them. It's up to our leaders to figure it out and do something about it. Until we demand it from them - nothing will change.
He's back.
BLove is back.
Welcome back BLove.
Hope you stick around for the 2016-2017.
The board needs ya.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
6/8/2016 10:19 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
I've been telling people the solution for years, yet nobody has the balls to implement the idea.

If you want a seat at the table, you to have to be ready to walk away from the table. It's the same in football as it is in basketball. The solution is that you do NOT play the games. Your best bargaining chip is always the ability to WALK.

While the Power 5 band together to change the landscape of college athletics, the Group of 5 sits idle. It's pathetic and reeks of lack of fiduciary responsibility (IMO).

If the Group of 5 stuck to their guns and said "we won't continue this cycle of only playing buy-games on the road" - the cycle would end and you would see more scheduling equality and a level playing field.

Think about it. If you had the Group of 5 teams completely cease scheduling P5 teams - you would have an entire new class of P5 "have nots" (Indiana, Vanderbilt, Colorado, Maryland). These new P5 "have nots" could only be supplemented on schedules by FCS schools and the SWAC/MEAC garbage we are forced to play today. Without MAC, AAC, CUSA, etc - the P5 would be forced to schedule more away games with a higher probability of losses, lost home game revenue, etc. Oregon State (or fill in your bottom feeder Big 12/Pac-10/SEC/Big-10/ACC team) is only going to play so many buy games before their fans get restless like we are today. They will demand home and homes.

The elephant in the room is that every Athletic Director and their staff wants to move onto a Power 5 school, so there's absolutely no reason to rock the boat. Ossakow (Maryland), Broders (Oregon), Frazier (Va Tech), etc etc the list goes on and on. Schaus and White are no different. While I love what Schaus has done, he wants bigger and better just like anyone else - so why rock the boat.

We can subsist playing a schedule made up of Texas State, Utah State, Idaho, etc for as many years as we need to. We've come this far doing it - so why not band together and change the status quo. The truth of the matter is that the P5 needs us more then we need them. It's up to our leaders to figure it out and do something about it. Until we demand it from them - nothing will change.
That would be a great idea except for the fact that it would be illegal under federal antitrust law. All involved would end up in jail for illegal price fixing.
Refusing to play a road game in football constitutes price-fixing?

LOL
Sure it does. If a sizeable group of schools (all of which currently compete with one another in the football-game-scheduling market) team up and say that they'll only play a road game if the power five school agrees to a return game, that's no different than the same set of schools agreeing to only play road games against the power five for a set amount of money. In either case, the competitors are colluding to demand a certain benefit (return game, higher pay) that they couldn't obtain individually in the open market.

Now if the non-power-five teams simply agree to refuse to play the power five at all, then that wouldn't be price fixing. It would be a group boycott, though, which in most cases is equally unlawful.
Making this happen would be on a scale of getting all truckers to take a stand on long haul prices, there are too many and they are looking out for themselves, the G5 will never stand together
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
6/9/2016 10:27 AM
Isn't it something of a pushme/pullyou in that, as we rise under Saul, we become a more attractive opponent to schedule while becoming an opponent that 'big' schools don't want to schedule because we might beat them?
mail
OhioStunter
6/9/2016 10:53 AM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=Bobcat Love]

That would be a great idea except for the fact that it would be illegal under federal antitrust law. All involved would end up in jail for illegal price fixing.
Refusing to play a road game in football constitutes price-fixing?

LOL
Sure it does. If a sizeable group of schools (all of which currently compete with one another in the football-game-scheduling market) team up and say that they'll only play a road game if the power five school agrees to a return game, that's no different than the same set of schools agreeing to only play road games against the power five for a set amount of money. In either case, the competitors are colluding to demand a certain benefit (return game, higher pay) that they couldn't obtain individually in the open market.

Now if the non-power-five teams simply agree to refuse to play the power five at all, then that wouldn't be price fixing. It would be a group boycott, though, which in most cases is equally unlawful.
I would love to see how it would play out in court because it would be the P5 that would likely need to file the suit. Imagine how that would play out -- the multi-billion dollar P5 suing the lowly G5 for trying to share the wealth/competition.
mail
Ted Thompson
7/13/2016 2:17 PM
Ohio at Georgia Tech scheduled for November 18th.
Ohio at Marshall November 30th.
mail
Ted Thompson
7/13/2016 4:18 PM

OU_Country wrote:expand_more
I'm hearing we're starting a series with Iona starting on the road.


If so, this is a good one for one.


 

NYCBuckets.com showing Iona with a home against Ohio: http://www.nycbuckets.com/non-conference-schedule-tracker/

mail
OU_Country
7/18/2016 3:32 PM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
I'm hearing we're starting a series with Iona starting on the road.


If so, this is a good one for one.

NYCBuckets.com showing Iona with a home against Ohio: http://www.nycbuckets.com/non-conference-schedule-tracker /

Good road test right before conference season starts!
mail
FearLeon
7/19/2016 12:42 AM
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
Ohio at Georgia Tech scheduled for November 18th.
Ohio at Marshall November 30th.
I'm calling it right now. Ohio beats Georgia Tech. Couldn't ask for a better date. A fall Friday night in Georgia during High School football season? There will be nobody at this basketball game. Crowd will be zero factor. I look forward to watching Josh Pastner lose this one....we owe him big time. #RememberMemphisDebacle

Edit: I will also go on record and say OHIO wins this game by double-digits.
Last Edited: 7/19/2016 11:52:11 PM by FearLeon
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
7/19/2016 2:13 AM
FearLeon wrote:expand_more
Ohio at Georgia Tech scheduled for November 18th.
Ohio at Marshall November 30th.
I'm calling it right now. Ohio beats Georgia Tech. Couldn't ask for a better date. A fall Friday night in Georgia during High School football season? There will be nobody at this basketball game. Crowd will be zero factor. I look forward to watching Josh Pastner lose this one....we owe him big time. #RememberMemphisDebacle

I LIKE THIS!
mail
person
Taiwan BC
7/19/2016 8:01 AM
I would think we will be favored at Iona... They lost 3 starters including their star player, A.J. English. Heck, I don't think we will be underdogs in any of our out of conference games as it sits. Can't wait to see what big (Payout?) games are being worked on right now...

GO BOBCATS!
mail
OU_Country
7/19/2016 11:11 AM
I wouldn't favor us in terms of betting in the Iona game. Home court means a lot in college basketball as we all know. Now, I really like OUr chances to win, and I'd love to see this kind of game more often.
mail
The Optimist
7/19/2016 1:32 PM
Any indication which (if any) of these games would include return trip?

Those are all teams I'd love to see in the Convo.

You would think we could fetch a pretty solid $ figure these days as a straight buy game in men's hoops.
mail
OU_Country
7/19/2016 3:12 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Any indication which (if any) of these games would include return trip?

Those are all teams I'd love to see in the Convo.

You would think we could fetch a pretty solid $ figure these days as a straight buy game in men's hoops.

Someone indicated the Iona game has a future return trip.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
7/20/2016 10:08 AM
Guys, I'd recommend being careful of unrealistic expectations, which sets a fan base up for disappointment. Reminds me of the off season after the Sweet 16 run, with some folks expecting a repeat then bashing the coaches and team when it didn't happen.
mail
bornacatfan
7/20/2016 10:32 AM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Guys, I'd recommend being careful of unrealistic expectations, which sets a fan base up for disappointment. Reminds me of the off season after the Sweet 16 run, with some folks expecting a repeat then bashing the coaches and team when it didn't happen.
you're right Jeff. We're one loss to Marietta or Walsh away from tar and feathers.
mail
OhioCatFan
7/20/2016 12:53 PM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
Guys, I'd recommend being careful of unrealistic expectations, which sets a fan base up for disappointment. Reminds me of the off season after the Sweet 16 run, with some folks expecting a repeat then bashing the coaches and team when it didn't happen.
you're right Jeff. We're one loss to Marietta or Walsh away from tar and feathers.
Tar and feathers will be too good for him after he gets whipped by Rio Grande. Woe is us! ;-)
mail
The Optimist
7/20/2016 1:35 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
Guys, I'd recommend being careful of unrealistic expectations, which sets a fan base up for disappointment. Reminds me of the off season after the Sweet 16 run, with some folks expecting a repeat then bashing the coaches and team when it didn't happen.
I don't agree with this line of thinking at all.

High expectations are not parallel with disrespecting players or coaches.

I'm a firm believer that positive energy surrounding a program helps feed said program to greater heights.

Finally, I think it's fairly safe to assume my definition of "unrealistic expectations" differs from others on this board.

I wasn't any less happy when we made the Sweet 16 in 2012 because the team only "met" my expectations from the prediction thread on this board that year.
mail
person
Taiwan BC
7/21/2016 9:16 AM
Is Jeff trying to rain on my parade? I wonder if Fake Jeff McKinney will write up one of his famous weather reports to clear the matter up.
In all seriousness, I would admit to having high expectations. Unreasonable? Well, in saying that I thought we would be favored in all of our known out of conference games, I could see how that might look at first blush as too lofty a prognostication. However, being favored in Vegas versus winning all those games is quite a different thing. Lots of variability in each team, on each night, on each group of refs, the list goes on and on... Of course we will have a head scratching loss or three this year. But I expect this team, barring some unforeseen problem, to be battling for the MAC title this year. If that means I am drinking the green Kool-aid, so be it!

GO BOBCATS!
Showing Messages: 76 - 100 of 219
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)