Non-Con Schedule

[nagemj02]

A poster at GopherHole has the basic outline (a few opponents listed I hadn't known about yet for Purdue) of every B1G team's non-conference schedule for this upcoming season: http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/bo...-Look-At-2016-17-B1G-Non-Conference-Schedules

I'm not sure how good Cleveland State, Eastern Kentucky (had some NCAA Tourney caliber teams in recent seasons), or NJIT (they're on the rise as a program) are supposed to be next season but those last two are probably a bit better than some realize. Other than having maybe one too many directional Illinois teams, I'm pleased with it. What do the Boilermaker faithful here think about it?

 

[rasrar]

And just when I thought our schedule was hard...

IU has Kansas, North Carolina, Butler and Louisville? Nuts.

 

[Dryfly88]

My biggest issue is that with the exception of Villanova, all the "good" games are on the road. Not really much to get excited about at home until the conference season starts. I like that we have some good competition in the schedule just wish at least one more was at home.

 

[BBG]

My biggest issue is that with the exception of Villanova, all the "good" games are on the road. Not really much to get excited about at home until the conference season starts. I like that we have some good competition in the schedule just wish at least one more was at home.

Agree. It is a step in the right direction though as a road game will be tough. I'm a firm believer in that a challenging pre-conference schedule will only make us a better team in March ... even in losses.

 

[Dryfly88]

Agree. It is a step in the right direction though as a road game will be tough. I'm a firm believer in that a challenging pre-conference schedule will only make us a better team in March ... even in losses.

I'm being selfish, I'm getting season tickets and just want to see as many good games as possible. The real issue is playing quality teams and they are doing that. I'll try to see the big picture

I like the variety of teams/conferences we are playing and also the TV exposure we will get.

 

[TC4THREE]

It would seem to me like it would be tough to schedule alot of quality nonconference home games. Winning against good teams on the road is tough and not many people will sign up to do that and most will require a return game if they do. So you agree to a home-and-home against Vanderbilt or West Virginia or Xavier (I believe we did all these since Painter has been coaching) that means you have give up a home game in another season to go play at their place. That means you are giving up the gate of a home game at some point. I'm not sure what the gate is for a Purdue home basketball game but it's several hundred thousands of dollars.

Let's assume it's 500k for a sold out home game. Let's also assume that you're damn near selling out via season tickets so that the ticket revenue is roughly equal no matter who you are playing. You can cut McNeese State a check for 100k each season to come play and over two years you're netting 800k. Or you can schedule a home and home with Vanderbilt and have only 500k in revenue to show from it.

I have no idea how close my numbers are but I think there has to be a financial hit each time you agree to play a road game instead of buying a home game. I think they've done a fairly reasonable job over the years making sure we at least get one decent nonconference home game either via the Challenge or by scheduling targeted home-and-homes like the ones mentioned earlier. I just don't think it makes good financial sense to do it more often. Neutral courts are where you are going to see most of your high profile nonconference basketball games.

 

[DG10]

While some of what you said makes sense and is valid to an extent, it is not entirely valid.

There is increased revenue when people actually attend a game obviously...and people are going to attend a game against Vanderbilt opposed to a game against Incarnate Word.

The schedule has far less to do with concern for revenue than it does for concern for victories.

Playing a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent seems trivial at best...a token gesture, and there have been seasons in recent years in which there was not even a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent.

For that matter, smaller conference Div I programs would not require a home-and-home...I have a much bigger problem with the fact that while it is a given that Purdue is not going to play quality non-conference home games...that they go out of their way to find ridiculous non-quality non-conference home games that serve absolutely no purpose at all and are of virtually no benefit at all either.

There is no reason that Purdue cannot have games with in-state schools like Ball St., Indiana St., Valparaiso, and Evansville...without it having to be a home-and-home, but even if it were a home-and-home, why is that such a bad thing? At worse, it would be a case of two home games with any of them in exchange for a game at their place.

How hard would it be to get K-State on the schedule with Weber there? Cal with 'Zo? It seems that Pitt would make sense now with Stallings there. Painter has ties to Dixon, so that would be another opportunity. They were willing to play Baylor when Baylor was not any good.

 

[nagemj02]

While some of what you said makes sense and is valid to an extent, it is not entirely valid.

There is increased revenue when people actually attend a game obviously...and people are going to attend a game against Vanderbilt opposed to a game against Incarnate Word.

The schedule has far less to do with concern for revenue than it does for concern for victories.

Playing a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent seems trivial at best...a token gesture, and there have been seasons in recent years in which there was not even a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent.

For that matter, smaller conference Div I programs would not require a home-and-home...I have a much bigger problem with the fact that while it is a given that Purdue is not going to play quality non-conference home games...that they go out of their way to find ridiculous non-quality non-conference home games that serve absolutely no purpose at all and are of virtually no benefit at all either.

There is no reason that Purdue cannot have games with in-state schools like Ball St., Indiana St., Valparaiso, and Evansville...without it having to be a home-and-home, but even if it were a home-and-home, why is that such a bad thing? At worse, it would be a case of two home games with any of them in exchange for a game at their place.

How hard would it be to get K-State on the schedule with Weber there? Cal with 'Zo? It seems that Pitt would make sense now with Stallings there. Painter has ties to Dixon, so that would be another opportunity. They were willing to play Baylor when Baylor was not any good.

As far as your last two paragraphs, I know that Painter has said on record before that he doesn't want to play against his former coaching colleagues (Weber, Martin, Lusk, Ray, etc.) if he can help it. So, valuing closer friendships plays a role in Purdue's current scheduling as well.

 

[TC4THREE]

While some of what you said makes sense and is valid to an extent, it is not entirely valid.

There is increased revenue when people actually attend a game obviously...and people are going to attend a game against Vanderbilt opposed to a game against Incarnate Word.

The schedule has far less to do with concern for revenue than it does for concern for victories.

Playing a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent seems trivial at best...a token gesture, and there have been seasons in recent years in which there was not even a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent.

For that matter, smaller conference Div I programs would not require a home-and-home...I have a much bigger problem with the fact that while it is a given that Purdue is not going to play quality non-conference home games...that they go out of their way to find ridiculous non-quality non-conference home games that serve absolutely no purpose at all and are of virtually no benefit at all either.

There is no reason that Purdue cannot have games with in-state schools like Ball St., Indiana St., Valparaiso, and Evansville...without it having to be a home-and-home, but even if it were a home-and-home, why is that such a bad thing? At worse, it would be a case of two home games with any of them in exchange for a game at their place.

How hard would it be to get K-State on the schedule with Weber there? Cal with 'Zo? It seems that Pitt would make sense now with Stallings there. Painter has ties to Dixon, so that would be another opportunity. They were willing to play Baylor when Baylor was not any good.

Depends on how many season tickets you sold. We have had seasons where we have sold out on season tickets and come close in others. At that point, it doesn't matter whether we play Duke, Ball State, or Eastern Idaho State. The tickets are sold and the revenue is the same. Playing Duke requires you to give up another home gate though while the other two don't. I don't disagree that teams want to get wins also but I don't think the economics of the situation are irrelevant either.

 

[TC4THREE]

While some of what you said makes sense and is valid to an extent, it is not entirely valid.

There is increased revenue when people actually attend a game obviously...and people are going to attend a game against Vanderbilt opposed to a game against Incarnate Word.

The schedule has far less to do with concern for revenue than it does for concern for victories.

Playing a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent seems trivial at best...a token gesture, and there have been seasons in recent years in which there was not even a single non-conference home game against a quality opponent.

For that matter, smaller conference Div I programs would not require a home-and-home...I have a much bigger problem with the fact that while it is a given that Purdue is not going to play quality non-conference home games...that they go out of their way to find ridiculous non-quality non-conference home games that serve absolutely no purpose at all and are of virtually no benefit at all either.

There is no reason that Purdue cannot have games with in-state schools like Ball St., Indiana St., Valparaiso, and Evansville...without it having to be a home-and-home, but even if it were a home-and-home, why is that such a bad thing? At worse, it would be a case of two home games with any of them in exchange for a game at their place.

How hard would it be to get K-State on the schedule with Weber there? Cal with 'Zo? It seems that Pitt would make sense now with Stallings there. Painter has ties to Dixon, so that would be another opportunity. They were willing to play Baylor when Baylor was not any good.

We have always relied on the Challenge to provide one of the home games. Our opponent has not always been great but that is not within our control. Aside from that we've scheduled home-and-homes with various programs to ensure that we had at least one major program visiting in the non-conference. I mentioned Xavier, West Virginia, and Vanderbilt as the ones I remember.

I think 2007 was the last year where we didn't have a major conference team visiting in the non-conference schedule.

 

[DG10]

Depends on how many season tickets you sold. We have had seasons where we have sold out on season tickets and come close in others. At that point, it doesn't matter whether we play Duke, Ball State, or Eastern Idaho State. The tickets are sold and the revenue is the same. Playing Duke requires you to give up another home gate though while the other two don't. I don't disagree that teams want to get wins also but I don't think the economics of the situation are irrelevant either.

Any revenue generated is a bonus, as Purdue is relying on the BTN money to operate its athletic department.

And, it does matter from a revenue standpoint whether or not people are there...to Purdue, but even more so to the surrounding businesses in the West Lafayette area. Concessions and merchandise sales obviously increase (and in turn, increase revenue) when games are sold out and people actually attend.

When was the last time that Purdue sold out on season tickets? I honestly don't know the answer...it may have been close a year ago, but that would be the only time since the final year of JJ and E'Twaun, and that was the first time in over a decade when that occurred I believe.

 

[PurdueCF12]

My biggest issue is that with the exception of Villanova, all the "good" games are on the road. Not really much to get excited about at home until the conference season starts. I like that we have some good competition in the schedule just wish at least one more was at home.

Somewhat of a downfall of being predicted to do well. Hard to get teams to come to Mackey.

 

[PurdueCF12]

How hard would it be to get K-State on the schedule with Weber there? Cal with 'Zo? It seems that Pitt would make sense now with Stallings there. Painter has ties to Dixon, so that would be another opportunity. They were willing to play Baylor when Baylor was not any good.

Much harder than you think, considering most Power-5 schools play one true road game a year. With the Big Ten / ACC Challenge and Gavitt Games now, we may be seeing the end of a home-and-home, simply because that would give us two "true" road games.

 

[DG10]

We have always relied on the Challenge to provide one of the home games. Our opponent has not always been great but that is not within our control. Aside from that we've scheduled home-and-homes with various programs to ensure that we had at least one major program visiting in the non-conference. I mentioned Xavier, West Virginia, and Vanderbilt as the ones I remember.

I think 2007 was the last year where we didn't have a major conference team visiting in the non-conference schedule.

Actually, Purdue has relied on the Challenge multiple times (virtually every time for that matter) as not "one of the home games", but, the only quality home game...and in more than one case, it was anything but a quality home game...a recognizable name as the opponent perhaps. but that was it...and, as you alluded to, it was not something that Purdue controlled.

Bottom line, Purdue has made no effort at all for the better part of 10 years or more to make its non-conference home schedule remotely appealing, never mind competitive...it played Vanderbilt (due to ties) and West Virginia...and it had two games with Xavier in there at some point.

 

[TC4THREE]

Actually, Purdue has relied on the Challenge multiple times (virtually every time for that matter) as not "one of the home games", but, the only quality home game...and in more than one case, it was anything but a quality home game...a recognizable name as the opponent perhaps. but that was it...and, as you alluded to, it was not something that Purdue controlled.

Bottom line, Purdue has made no effort at all for the better part of 10 years or more to make its non-conference home schedule remotely appealing, never mind competitive...it played Vanderbilt (due to ties) and West Virginia...and it had two games with Xavier in there at some point.

Had a home and home with Missouri also.

 

[Dryfly88]

Somewhat of a downfall of being predicted to do well. Hard to get teams to come to Mackey.

You're right it is harder. I guess I would just like to see a "little" step up in the competition. Maybe a higher mid-major instead of the directional schools. Again, I'm admitting that this is at least partly just selfish of me because I want to see better games when I attend.

 

[BigRed3588]

Look at it this way: opportunities to get quality road wins.

As for the OP, didn't NJIT knock off a high major early in the season last year or the year before? I think it might have been Michigan.

 

[nagemj02]

Look at it this way: opportunities to get quality road wins.

As for the OP, didn't NJIT knock off a high major early in the season last year or the year before? I think it might have been Michigan.

Yes, they beat Michigan during non-conference play in the '14-'15 season: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/boxscore?gameId=400598837

Damon Lynn, Winfield Willis (redshirted in '15-'16 due to injury), Tim Coleman, and a couple of the reserve guys listed in the box score will be seniors this upcoming season.

So yes, they're another lesser-known program that Purdue cannot play lackadaisical against (really, shouldn't play lax against anyone, but we've seen it happen) in Mackey.