Gregg Marshall on Sports Sunday (March 8)

[RoyalShock]

I don't consider the TCU thing a slight by the MVC. It's just a timing misfortune. It only makes sense to utitlize the existing contracts when there were three games between the conferences already scheduled for next season. Had HCGM scheduled the TCU series differently, we would be pleased as punch.

I'm assuming the MSU-Utah game was only for this year?

I didn't see anything in the agreement that I was reading that said we had to return a game the next year back to TCU. This isn't the crappy Bracketbusters.

I didn't say there was. I'm just pointing out that it made sense to utilize the existing contracts (a home and home) and piggy-back the MWC challenge off of those. Again, if we had been the home team first in that deal, we wouldn't be complaining.

[WuDrWu]

I don't consider the TCU thing a slight by the MVC. It's just a timing misfortune. It only makes sense to utitlize the existing contracts when there were three games between the conferences already scheduled for next season. Had HCGM scheduled the TCU series differently, we would be pleased as punch.

I'm assuming the MSU-Utah game was only for this year?

I didn't see anything in the agreement that I was reading that said we had to return a game the next year back to TCU. This isn't the crappy Bracketbusters.

I didn't say there was. I'm just pointing out that it made sense to utilize the existing contracts (a home and home) and piggy-back the MWC challenge off of those. Again, if we had been the home team first in that deal, we wouldn't be complaining.

I understand what you are saying Royal but it does turn a home and home deal into a road only deal. We already had this home game scheduled. All this challenge is giving us are 2 road games and 1 home game. I realize it's a matter of perception and I do see your point. CU is certainly not unhappy with how it worked out for them. Just because we wouldn't be complaining if the shoe was on the other foot doesn't mean we cannot complain now.....I might add that the other foot hasn't seen anything remotely resembling a shoe of late, btw.

And I think that's part of the point. If the league REALLY wanted to have our backs, they would have lobbied for a different outcome. We think things are a little slanted to the rest of the league and the league obviously likes it like that. The easy way out isn't always the best way out.

[RoyalShock]

I agree that the situation sucks, but if I were negotiating the deal on behalf of either conference, I'd have to reluctantly admit that it is reasonable to piggy-back off those existing games.

I wonder if that deal even gets done without those games already in place.

And as rr pointed out, we aren't the only ones (UNI).

[WuDrWu]

I wonder if that deal even gets done without those games already in place.

And as rr pointed out, we aren't the only ones (UNI).

You may very well be correct in that assessment. The Valley quite possibly could have been forced to take the 2 for 1 (WSU and UNI for CU) deal...but if that's the case, I don't think much of our negotiators.

Maybe they could have scheduled a "premiere game" in KC or OKC or even the INTRUST ARENA (I know that's still a home game, but they might be able to promote and get a better deal or payoff or TV out of it).

[Shox21]

Ok. This is what I found from this season:

11/16 New Mexico at Creighton
11/28 Utah at MSU
12/08 WSU at TCU
12/13 UNI at Wyoming


This is the schedule for next year:
11/13/09 Bradley at BYU (BYU, 2-1, last met 12/17/77)
11/20/09 Colorado State at Indiana State (tied, 1-1, last met 12/30/81)
11/21/09 Southern Illinois at UNLV (UNLV, 2-1, last met 12/23/83)
12/05/09 Air Force at Missouri State (first meeting)
12/12/09 TCU at Wichita State (WSU, 5-2, last met 12/8/08 )
12/19/09 Creighton at New Mexico (UNM, 2-1, last met 11/16/08 )
12/19/09 Illinois State at Utah (first meeting)
12/22/09 San Diego State at Drake (DU, 4-2, last met 11/25/77)
12/23/09 Wyoming at Northern Iowa (UW, 3-0, last met 12/13/08 )


Looks like UNI is gonna get the hosing too. And they're using Creighton's return in it as well. I wonder if things will be different the next year.

According to Bruce, we are getting hosed, because in 2010, we have to go back to TCU as part of the MWC deal -- essentially a 2 for 1 advantage for TCU.

Okay I am getting really confused. At the risk of getting embarrassed by my lack of knowledge, WHERE does it say ANYTHING about us having to return the game to TCU in 2010?

These pair-ups are for 9 teams from each conference. Since the MVC has 10 teams, one team has to sit out each year. In 2009, that team is Evansville (since they finished 10th last year). Since there were already three MVC teams scheduled to meet MWC teams next year (CU, UNI and WSU), the conferences just utilized those games and they became part of the MWC/MVC challenge series. The other parings were based on RPI and standings over the last three years to try to get the best possible matchups. NO WHERE IS IT SAID THOSE SAME TEAMS HAVE TO RETURN THAT SAME GAME THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

If all 9 MVC teams have to return the game the following year (2010) that would leave Evansville out two years in a row. Don't think Evansville will sit still for that (and no where is this indicated).

It would seem to me that each year the pairings would be reshuffled so the 10th place team in the MVC is the one left out. That is not always going to be the same team.

If the games do not need to be returned the following year, then CU, UNI and WSU all get one home and one away game:

2008-09 New Mexico at CU; WSU at TCU; UNI at Wyoming

2009-10 CU at New Mexico; TCU at WSU; Wyoming at UNI

If the pairings are refigured each year (due to our 10th place team being left out), no one would be playing the same team.


I'm sure someone will point our where my reasoning is faulty --- so go ahead.

[WuDrWu]

We already had a home and home with TCU.

All the challenge gives us is 1 home game and 2 away games against MWC opponents.

We could get that deal anytime we want....and we don't want.


Make sense? (not trying to be a smartass...just will clarify if not).

[WSUwatcher]

TCU

Actually, Doc, given WSU's recruiting emphasis on Texas and the prevalence of Dallas and Houston area talent in Texas, I'd think the Shocks would be happy to play TCU down there any time. David Kyles would no doubt enjoy the trip; Durley and Murry, too, considering that it's as close as WSU gets to their homes (and even Reggie Britton, for that matter).

Personally, I'd like to see WSU add an annual home and home with someone in the Houston area, although I think it's unlikely to happen inasmuch as the most appealing team from around there is A&M, and we all know what a certain coach thinks about playing dangerous teams at "our level" if he can avoid it (now that he's no longer at "this level," of course).

Anyway, I don't see the negative here. Bruce is just a typical TV guy and Wichitan, the former always looking for controversy and something to complain about, and the latter always finding a way that WSU is getting the shaft. Why take his bait?

[Shox21]

We already had a home and home with TCU.

All the challenge gives us is 1 home game and 2 away games against MWC opponents.

We could get that deal anytime we want....and we don't want.


Make sense? (not trying to be a smartass...just will clarify if not).

Doc - I'm not stupid and I do understand that we had a home and home with TCU. I just don't see that it is this horrible deal you make it out to be. Is losing a home game bad -- sure it is, but it did make sense that the MVC and MWC utilize the three contracts already in place. CU got their home game first while WSU and UNI got the away game first. Bad luck, sure it is, but we wouldn't be crying foul if the tables were turned. I think everyone is just mad (considering what just happened Friday) that, once again, CU comes out smelling like a rose. And I do agree that because WSU and UNI contracted well, they both lose a home game. Unfair, yeah it is, but would the alternative have been to lose the challenge series? Even MSU comes out better than UNI or WSU. MSU was at home with Utah this past year (apparently no return game or possibly they played Utah the year before) and they get another home game next year with Air Force. I understand that you feel we got screwed, but our timing just sucked on this.

I understand the sentiment on this board that WSU seems to be getting the short end of the stick a lot recently (having to go freeze our butts off next year in Cleveland, losing a home game with TCU, Friday night's debacle), and I agree with that. I just don't see what good comes from chewing on it. If we keep complaining about everything that happens we just get the reputation of being whiners. One of these days the pendulum will swing the other way.

[ShockerFever]

WSUWatcher, you don't see anything negative about being backed into a 2 for 1 with TC-freaking-U?

Are you stupid or something?

[wsu789]

The alternative is quite simple: let us have the home game we contracted with TCU and give us either a home game with another MW opponent this year, and an away next year, or vice versa. Scheduling is hard enough without getting screwed out of a quality home game either this year or next. That is precisely what happened to us. If any other Valley schools have the same issue, then they got it too. What we should have is a home game with TCU next year, and a home and home with another MW opponent for next year and the year after. Only the Valley can control this; not us. So "our timing" didn't suck. The MVC did.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

The alternative is quite simple: let us have the home game we contracted with TCU and give us either a home game with another MW opponent this year, and an away next year, or vice versa. .

That makes way to much freaking sense to actually do.

just saying.

[ShockTalk]

Considering WSU's scheduling, I don't like the "timing" of this deal with the MWC either, but it is what it is.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more of this co-operation between the upper mid-major conferences -- C-USA, WAC, WCC, Atl 10 (probably won't happen) and a few other select schools. We had 6 bad RPI games this year and many BCS schools only want "one and done" deals. The Valley and these other conferences could improve their teams' RPI's by replacing 2 or 3 of these bad games with "RPI-like" home and home pairings. Continue to play BCS-type teams in early season tournaments, grab a home and home with a BSC school when you can find one, and continue to play just a couple of lower conference schools.

If the Big Boys continue to refuse to give these better mid-major conferences home and home arrangements, then don't play them. Let the BSC schools have to go to the 200-325 RPI range schools to come play them. The upper mids improve their SOS, RPI, and play good competition while the Bigs lower their SOS, RPI, and play lesser competition.
Yes, we might have one or two fewer home games, but playing a lot of home games is what we complain about the Bigs doing.

What Say Ye?

[rrshock]

There is nothing that says WSU has to return the game the following year to TCU. I don't know where that came from. Next season, TCU completes the contract and comes to WSU. The conferences are just counting that as one of the matchup games. The next season, WSU will go on the road to another MWC school, but not TCU.

And I like ShockTalk's idea. It would be nice to see an A-10 school or two on the schedule (and I don't mean St. Louis). Xavier is very good. Temple takes us to a very large city where there is always potential recruits. UMass has been good off and on over the years too.

[WSUwatcher]

Lesson time

WSUWatcher, you don't see anything negative about being backed into a 2 for 1 with TC-freaking-U?

Are you stupid or something?

No, Fever, unlike you, I am not. I'm also smart enough not to take what your equally brilliant kindred spirit Bruce Haertl says at face value. Here are a couple of excerpts (my highlighting) from the actual press release announcing the challenge series:

"A number of factors were taken into consideration in determining the nine match-ups for the 2009 Challenge, starting with the inclusion of match-ups of teams in three previously-scheduled games that were already contracted as part of home-and-home series between teams in the two conferences. The initial Challenge spans nearly a month and a half from start to finish (Nov. 13 to Dec. 23), but future challenges will have a more concentrated schedule for the games in the series.

For the following three years of the Challenge, the series match-ups will be made by a Challenge Committee consisting of three athletics directors from each league and representatives of each conference office staff."

There's nothing in there about returning games, and in fact the text pretty clearly implies that the matchups will be made from scratch each year. Unless something has been changed and officially announced otherwise, which I don't believe is the case, Bruce simply made the faulty assumption that this series resembles Bracket Busters (despite having no evidence to support him) in lieu of doing his homework. Gee, what a surprise. And you, as well as some of our other posters who should know better but seem to be on victimization patrol these days, took the bait.
:shock:

You might also consider asking yourself whether Coach Marshall might actually like the idea of playing in a prime recruiting area that gives some of his guys a chance to be seen in person by their families.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I say you continue to schedule the Texas Tech's, the OK St's, and the Providence's.

Go on the road and beat them. Then when Providence knocks off UCONN at home, we can toot that we did something UCONN couldn't, and say that is why they won't play us.

I think it's time to take a Gonzaga approach. Starting late 90's they scheduled nice teams. Not tough, not weak, but ones that would show up either as good wins or bad losses. They built their record up, and got better and better recruits each year. Then they made some noise in the Dance, year after year they won a couple games.

Now the TV wants to watch them, and BCS teams play one-one's.

We need to get to the dance, and show we don't have 2 left feet when we get there. We need a coach that will not be tempted by lure of Iowa St's and Texas A&M's (which I think we have), a fan base that is passionate (which I know we have), and to get those recruits that fit the system the coach is applying.

The biggest reason good mid-major programs have trouble landing higher level recruits is the fear that if they win a couple years in a row the coach will bail and leave them stuck. Coach Marshall broke that mold at Winthrop, and I expect him to break that mold here.