Jump to content

BDYZR

Member
  • Posts

    12,426
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Posts posted by BDYZR


  1. The Buccaneers, always on the lookout to bolster their lineup, could find in Jennings an invaluable addition to their interior offensive line. With the draft extending over three exhilarating days, the later stages, often coined as Day 3, become a ground fertile with high-upside potential players.

    image.png.5bd08062ef45090ef772652f4462bb27.png

    • Go Bulls! 2
  2. Good article, but I question the $7 number.

    $214,795
    Our back-of-the-envelope calculation on how much more basketball revenue the Bulls have gained through improved attendance. We get that number by adding last season’s reported figures for ticket sales and novelty/parking/concessions and dividing it by the total attendance. That equals $7 per fan. Multiply that by the overall increase in attendance (30,685 fans), and you get our good-faith guesstimate.

  3. 35 minutes ago, michibull said:

    I don’t disagree with you. Stanford and Cal bring A LOT more money, cache and negotiating power than Cincy and UCF. My concern is that having to travel across country for the other 25 sports teams that are not football, it’s ridiculous. These are supposed to be student athletes and it’s the Olympic athletes that are getting the raw end of this deal and nobody is talking about it. Back to the topic at hand, haha. I think the ACC needs to stay in the east coast OR have separate west coast/east coast divisions, in which if I was the ACC, I wouldn’t add anyone east of the Mississippi and just add the P2/MWC teams (to balance the travel) which would be disastrous for USF. 

    I think the term "Student Athlete" is going the way of the dinosaur. These are paid employees and should be treated as such. There always has been and always will be an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class.

  4. 7 minutes ago, USF_Bullsharks said:

    Looking at the NET there are a couple of things we have control over when it comes to boosting/padding our overall NET rankings year in and year out. Yes, the most important thing is to win all of your games. Those two Q4 losses are really hurting us, but guess what? FAU also has 2 Q4 losses and they're ranked 33rd. Play more Q1 games? We have no control over how other teams are going to perform when it comes to their own rankings - looking at you SMU and FAU. Memphis has barely snuck back into the top 75 rankings, so they are now a Q1 win again. But, we DO have control over the quadrant system handicap - by lowering the threshold for what qualifies for each quadrant - playing away/neutral site games. 

    This got me thinking, so I went back and looked at true mid-majors who are highly ranked to see how their home/away/neutral splits were and found the following: 

    #17 Gonzaga - 14 home games, 5 neutral site

    #18 St. Mary's - 17 home, 4 neutral

    #19 SDSU - 12 home, 3 neutral

    #20 Dayton - 14 home, 4 neutral

    #33 FAU - 13 home, 7 neutral

    #73 USF - 17 home, 1 neutral

    Mid-majors who are highly ranked ARE being boosted by how many Q1/Q2 games they are playing - and it could be a direct factor of playing more away/neutral games than we did this year. 

    Surprised nobody has mentioned this before, but because the NET rankings reward so heavily to "what games have you played", not necessarily "what games have you won", should USF be actively trying to schedule more away and neutral site games? In football, you want as many home games as possible. In basketball, the "ranking" system doesn't reward home game success because the tiers of Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 are skewed so heavily in favor of neutral and road games to boost standings. Unless the entire conference is highly ranked in the NET (B12), as a team who needs to earn their national coverage, I think USF should drop 4-5 home games and play more neutral/road games both in and out of conference (and of course, request home/homes with all highly-ranked conference opponents, not playing at SMU and FAU this season really hurts our potential NET, even if we lost those two games). Now, the conference tournament is a neutral site, so if we beat FAU/SMU - they will count as Q1 wins next weekend. But home games against lower ranked OOC schools should essentially all but be terminated if the NET continues to exist, which sucks for us as fans. IMO, we should trade any OOC home games early in the season for a neutral site tournament invitational or a road trip. What do you all think? Below are the "splits" for Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 - 

    • Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
    • Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
    • Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
    • Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

    Charlotte at home, Q3 win. Charlotte away, Q2 win. FAU/SMU at home, Q2 wins. FAU/SMU away, both be Q1 games (FAU Q1 at neutral) as long as they stayed in the top 50 (neutral) and top 75 (road). 

    It's obviously a flawed system, but since it is defined and objective, VPoAMK should be doing his best to give our guys their best shot at making the tourney every season, and unfortunately that may mean sacrificing home games for us fans. 

    Agree with this ↑ But until the surprise of this season there was no real reason to schedule anything but teams with a pulse. Nobody expected to have any reason to look ay NET rankings.

    Does VPMK schedule OOC games. WBBCF always made it seem like he did the scheduling. I honestly don't know.

×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.  Registration is free and reduces ads.