Gary Parrish on why we should do a "buy game"

[Fuente 858]

link to the podcast:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24446733/eye-on-college-basketball-podcast-why-wichita-should-be-a-1-seed-and-more

(Parrish is too close to the mic which makes an old fart like me irritable. The entire podcast is interesting including stuff about Crouton, Shox discussion starts at 24:30... schedule discussion about pay to play starts at 34:15)

Parrish says HCGM should send out the word next year that we will go to any top 4 Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 or ACC as a $90,000 buy game. We tell them "We'll come to your place, take your check and beat your ass." I love that, it sounds like something he would actually say!

[Shock Therapy]

That assumes that anyone would want to buy us. No one buys teams that they think might beat them. Coaches only buy teams that they think won't give them too much trouble, not teams coming off of a final four. If someone knows of of an instance where a coach bought a team that was around the top ten when the contract was signed, please feel free to share. I doubt that it's ever happened before.

[WuDrWu]

That's fine, but seriously, don't we PAY more than 90k on our buy games?

I'm all for anyone, anywhere, anytime, but if we're not getting a return gig then the check better be large.

[RoyalShock]

No one is going to pay us $100k for a high potential loss. They might pay $40k, to which I say, forget it.

That wasn't a well thought-out suggestion by Parrish.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I swear Ive said this 2 times in the past month alone.

[ciaomichael]

Why don't teams just negotiate a two for one (or one for two) deal instead of all this stonewalling on either home-and-home or buy games? It's done in college football sometimes. I mean, if it's obviously one-sided competitively, buy games make sense - revenue for the inferior school and entertainment for the dominant school. But, sometimes it not that clear cut and each school could use a bit of both.

[Shock Therapy]

Why don't teams just negotiate a two for one (or one for two) deal instead of all this stonewalling on either home-and-home or buy games? It's done in college football sometimes. I mean, if it's obviously one-sided competitively, buy games make sense - revenue for the inferior school and entertainment for the dominant school. But, sometimes it not that clear cut and each school could use a bit of both.

I don't know how the two for ones are structured. It's been my understanding that there is no revenue sharing like there is for a buy game, which would mean that we would lose money on the deal. I could be wrong thogh.

[WSUwatcher]

It does sound like something Marshall might say, but I don't think it's likely to happen. Nor should it, in my view -- I think it would make getting a home-and-home, or home-and-neutral, deal less likely if the high and mighty thought WSU could be bought.

[ABC]

This is a bit ironic. On a podcast earlier this season, Parrish was talking about Turgeon getting so frustrated with scheduling that he did a buy game at Syracuse. Parrish went on to say, "program like WSU don't do that - that don't need to do buy games."

I think a better option is to work more neutral site games like Gonzaga has one. Maybe WSU should play Duke in KC or something like that. Play Illinois in Chicago, Texas in Dallas.

It would be great to really know what converations have happened regarding scheduling. We don't need to play Duke, we need to play top 50 programs like Colorado, New Mexico, Florida State etc.

[eeshocker]

My take on this is that we should not do buy games period. We are the #3 team in the country, looking at a very high seed. Why change now? Seems like we have a good thing going. Who cares what a bunch of hacks write? The committee has said they are going to start looking at schedule issues this year. If it looks like an honest attempt was made to schedule tougher, they will consider that. Our schedule looked pretty good when putting it together. Not the teams fault some of the teams didn't live up to it.

[mattdalt]

Until we quit validating our existence through others, this small mindedness will continue. NIT championship, coming off a final 4 appearance, (and except for a bounce here or there, it would have been a championship appearance, or even a championship!), #3 team in the national rankings, and people still think we need these other teams to play us in order to justify our place in the basketball universe? As Marshall said earlier this year, "We don't need to play KU, we went to the final four without them." Those of you on this board who constantly complain about the ranking, or KU not playing, or some other perceived slight, give validity to the idea that WSU is the little brother, always begging for the parents to "look at me." Next year, or the year after, ESPN will begin arranging games, similar to what they did for Gonzaga. For goodness sake, can we act like we belong, instead of constantly needing the approval of others? 27-0, ENJOY! Buy in game? F*** THAT!

[wufan]

My take on this is that we should not do buy games period. We are the #3 team in the country, looking at a very high seed. Why change now? Seems like we have a good thing going. Who cares what a bunch of hacks write? The committee has said they are going to start looking at schedule issues this year. If it looks like an honest attempt was made to schedule tougher, they will consider that. Our schedule looked pretty good when putting it together. Not the teams fault some of the teams didn't live up to it.

Or…we could request an obscene amount of money to do a buy game, which would be earned next year. Play us home and home, or we will play there for 25% more than we normally earn playing home games. If they don't want to play us home and home due to potential lost revenue, we can play the same care since we are a consistent sell out.

[kochHead]

We are in the hunt for a National Championship. We don't need no stinken buy game.

[1979Shocker]

I don't know about other schools, but Coach Marshall isn't going to go to Allen Field House for a check.

http://shockernet.net/forum/showthre...se-for-a-check.

[Steeleshocker]

In theory, the idea sounds great. The ultimate stick it to the man tour, and take his paycheck while you are at it.

But I think there are two reasons that we should not. First, there are a lot of people who she'll out serious money for season tickets, and all the best games would be away from home with no return promised. That is unfair to those who want to see our beloved Shocks take on the top teams in person.

Second, it makes leverage for other home and home series much more difficult, as the top teams would all expect buy games. We treat everyone the same, consistent and fair. How would Tennessee, Alabama, and St. Louis feel if we just started accepting any buy game offered.

My thoughts on the matter.