Future of the Shootout/Classic

[Classof1985]

Okay, so what if it stayed at US Bank, but the tickets were managed differently?? I agree that it's a huge problem, and it does screw up the game because no one wants to go.

I'd like it a lot better if tickets were split between the two schools, and the game is included with season ticket holders every year. Whatever tickets are left over can be sold by the athletic departments at a price they feel is reasonable to fans. I'm assuming that a third party ticket vender is jacking up the prices, and I agree that is a huge problem. What if both Xavier and UC each got half the tickets, and it was up to their own ticket offices to handle them?? I would hope that would mean including the game with the season ticket package, and not gouging the fans.

That is the way tickets are currently handled - X gets half of the tickets, UC gets half of the tickets.

[Classof1985]

It shouldn't.

So then what are posters thinking when they make that claim? I don't think it should make any difference. The recent behavior when the game was played on home courts the last two times vs. the last two years makes a strong argument that the game should continue on a neutral floor. As long as both sides get equal shares of the revenue, it seems like both sides get treated equally.

[SM#24]

We can give all the reasons we want, and very rational reasons, for not wanting the Shootout downtown, but the truth of the matter is that the main reason for not wanting it downtown is because that is what UC wants and their reasons are stupid and phony. So, what you're getting is people's natural reaction to stupidity and that is stubbornness.

[Juice]

I don't understand this reasoning. You are saying that Xavier can get 10,250 fans to see the game in the Cintas Center, not not 8,500 (approximately) to seel out X's half of US Bank Arena? Why should the venue make that much difference?

Because the tickets are expensive and are on top of the price of season tickets. US Bank Arena sucks to watch a game at. It might be an upgrade over the Shoe, it's not one over Cintas. Also,

[bjf123]

I don't understand this reasoning. You are saying that Xavier can get 10,250 fans to see the game in the Cintas Center, not not 8,500 (approximately) to seel out X's half of US Bank Arena? Why should the venue make that much difference?

Quite simple. For me to get 2 seats in about the same place as my season tickets at Cintas, I'd have to spend about $300. 1. I shouldn't have to spend that much extra when it's a Xavier "home" game. 2. I don't have an extra $300 at this time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Muskie]

So then what are posters thinking when they make that claim? I don't think it should make any difference. The recent behavior when the game was played on home courts the last two times vs. the last two years makes a strong argument that the game should continue on a neutral floor. As long as both sides get equal shares of the revenue, it seems like both sides get treated equally.
Everyone involved, on both sides, is acting like a toddler.

[SM#24]

Everyone involved, on both sides, is acting like a toddler.

So what's your solution ?

[XUGRAD80]

I attended the game this past year with some friends that are UC ticket holders. The ticket I used was bought frim the UC ticket office. Does anyone know for sure how the student tickets are handled? Do they pay full price, or do they get a special rate? I assume both schools are given an equal amount of tickets for the students.


By the way, I also went with them to the UC-Louisville game at the YUM Center in Louisville. A friend of ours that lives in Louisville got the tickets for that game. The tickets for the shootout cost more than the ones at the YUM Center.

The YUM Center is the Taj Mahal compared to US Bank.

[LA Muskie]

So what's your solution ?
Don't play the game. I hate that result, but unless there's an available compromise that doesn't involve one side completely giving in, then I don't see an alternative.

That said, I think an annual neutral site game is better schedule-wise (or, more accurately, Committee metric-wise) than a H/H series. And so for that reason I don't think UC's proposal is inherently unreasonable. But I also agree that it's much more fun as a rivalry on campus sites, and that we need some marquee games at Cintas. So our position is equally reasonable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_eZmEiyTo0

[XU2011]

Everyone involved, on both sides, is acting like a toddler.

I guess even your boy you got kicked out of the Woods with is being a toddler- because he isn't going to let it be back at the US Dump.

[LA Muskie]

I guess even your boy you got kicked out of the Woods with is being a toddler- because he isn't going to let it be back at the US Dump.

As is his right. I didn't say the toddlers were wrong.

[xubrew]

That is the way tickets are currently handled - X gets half of the tickets, UC gets half of the tickets.

Okay. So, why the big mark up in price, and why the disproportionate fans?? I believe you. I just don't understand why they would be marked up so much.


Quite simple. For me to get 2 seats in about the same place as my season tickets at Cintas, I'd have to spend about $300. 1. I shouldn't have to spend that much extra when it's a Xavier "home" game. 2. I don't have an extra $300 at this time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a problem. I agree. But, if Xavier is handling the tickets, then why would they mark them up for the game at US Bank and not at the Cintas Center?? What's to stop them from charging the same price??

[xubrew]

This is interesting, because I have not heard this accusation anywhere else. What makes you think the main reason Xavier doesn't want to play downtown is because UC does? I've never seen this even hinted at by anyone associated with the game, or any rumor of this floated. Maybe I'm more out of the loop than I think but this is completely new to me.

I'm juxtaposing the people in this site for the people that actually make the decisions. I know that's not the case, but I guess I'm doing it anyway. I'm basing it on statements like "I really just don't want to give in to UC."

You say you're out of the loop, but I'm guessing that you're not and that you actually do know people who are directly associated with the game. So...that's encouraging.

[LA Muskie]

The pricing does sound absurd. Was it full? If so then I guess you could argue the pricing was market. If not you almost have to wonder if they didn't want a packed house.

[Classof1985]

The pricing does sound absurd. Was it full? If so then I guess you could argue the pricing was market. If not you almost have to wonder if they didn't want a packed house.

I don't think it was full, but I don't know how many people were actually there. The box scores I looked at said the attendance was 10,250. And I might be inclined to believe that, but that it was considered a "home" game for Xavier, and that also happens to be the capacity at Cintas. were there more people there? What I remember reading at the time suggests there were, but I don't know.

The pricing may have happened because ticket brokers bought up the tickets and drove up prices. It could also be that Ticketmaster or woever was marketing tickets for the game developed a pricing model that they thought would maximize ticket revenue, even if the house wasn't sold out.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Havent read the whole thread but here's my take:

1. It would be a shame if the game wasnt played.

2. I'd rather play on campuses but I'd rather play anywhere than not at all. I love going to the shootout. I love watching it.

3. The ticket prices are absurd at US Bank. That seems to be the reason, in my mind, that the game hasnt sold out either year. I've bought the $50 tickets each year and I hate having to pay that price, its more like the cost of an NFL game than a college basketball game. Its frustrating.

4. UC sucks, I hope they win zero games next year.

[XUGRAD80]

I would love to see the figures on what it costs to rent US Bank for an event such as this. My guess is the higher cost tickets cover that rental fee, and still allow the universities to get a gate equal to what would gotten by an average home game held on-campus. Pure speculation on my part however. I also wonder how the concessions money is handled....paid an exhorbiment amount for a Guiness last year, 12.00 I think....who gets the profit there?

[Nigel Tufnel]

What's interesting is that on the UC message boards I've read, there are a lot more UC fans that want it home and home than there are Xavier fans that want it at US Bank Arena. Makes me think this is 100% on Cronin. Lots of UC fans I've read have posted the same things as X fans have here...they want a home at the Shoe against X.

[chico]

What's interesting is that on the UC message boards I've read, there are a lot more UC fans that want it home and home than there are Xavier fans that want it at US Bank Arena. Makes me think this is 100% on Cronin. Lots of UC fans I've read have posted the same things as X fans have here...they want a home at the Shoe against X.

Trust me, this is 100% Cronin.

[paulxu]

It's all perspective. And you're only seeing one side of it. Offering to play the game every year on a neutral court is equally fair in theory.

I've got good reasons which I've enumerated for my side. I haven't heard one good reason for their side.

Plus, history is on my side (always wanted to say that). And, why should X have to pay rental for what should be a home game?

[LA Muskie]

I've got good reasons which I've enumerated for my side. I haven't heard one good reason for their side.
Sure you have. You've just chosen to disregard it. A very valid reason to play at US Bank annually is that it's better for NCAA tourney purposes for both teams, win or lose.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Sure you have. You've just chosen to disregard it. A very valid reason to play at US Bank annually is that it's better for NCAA tourney purposes for both teams, win or lose.

I havent read most of the thread. Why is it better for NCAA tourney purposes for both teams? BC its a neutral court?

[LA Muskie]

I havent read most of the thread. Why is it better for NCAA tourney purposes for both teams? BC its a neutral court?
Yes. For the winner it's a win away from home. For the loser it's not a home loss.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Yes. For the winner it's a win away from home. For the loser it's not a home loss.

I'm not sure thats all the advantage its made to be. I think a road win against a quality opponent is much more valuable than it not being a home loss. I'd rather have a shot of a road win at a quality opponent every other year with the potential of a home loss than a neutral court win.

[LA Muskie]

I'm not sure thats all the advantage its made to be. I think a road win against a quality opponent is much more valuable than it not being a home loss. I'd rather have a shot of a road win at a quality opponent every other year with the potential of a home loss than a neutral court win.
I think you're underestimating the value of neutral court wins, but I'm hearing ya.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think you're underestimating the value of neutral court wins, but I'm hearing ya.

I know neutral wins are good but it just sticks in my head hearing all year about Xavier, and other teams this year and others, about a lack of quality road win. The way we played I think we would have beaten UC at UC. Also I dont think a home loss to a quality team is all that bad.

[dnnrobert]

Most fans on both sides want the games back on campus. If US Bank arena was a state-of-the-art, NBA/NHL caliber arena, and something could be worked out with ticket prices and including the game for at least some season ticket holders, I think a lot more people on both sides would like the idea.

UC fans who don't want the games back on campus cite the behavior of Xavier fans at Cintas. I am sure this can go both ways, and there are guilty parties on both sides. I do think, comparatively speaking, Cintas is a more hostile environment for a visitor than Fifth Third. That's not meant to be an insult -- road environments are supposed to be hostile. That is part of what makes college basketball great. I have been to both UC and X games and I have never been treated rudely, nor have I ever seen anyone else be treated rudely, so I have no personal opinion on that stuff.

I don't think anyone on either side wants this game to end. There are fans on both sides of the aisle who will pretend they don't care, but the majority of them are kidding themselves. It's a fantastic rivalry that needs to be maintained in this crazy era of conference realignment. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned a bunch of rivalries that have been destroyed by conference realignment. It's a damn shame.

[LA Muskie]

I know neutral wins are good but it just sticks in my head hearing all year about Xavier, and other teams this year and others, about a lack of quality road win. The way we played I think we would have beaten UC at UC. Also I dont think a home loss to a quality team is all that bad.

I think the committee treated road wins and neutral wins fairly similarly. It was more about being away from home than playing on a hostile road floor.

[XU2011]

As is his right. I didn't say the toddlers were wrong.

So what exactly are you arguing if Mike Graham and Xavier's position isn't wrong?

[D-West & PO-Z]

I think the committee treated road wins and neutral wins fairly similarly. It was more about being away from home than playing on a hostile road floor.

I would have to completely disagree here. I never heard anyone talk about a teams solid neutral wins. Sure a having a neutral win is better than having only home wins but I dont think a good neutral win compares to a good road win.

[XUFan09]

I would have to completely disagree here. I never heard anyone talk about a teams solid neutral wins. Sure a having a neutral win is better than having only home wins but I dont think a good neutral win compares to a good road win.

Neutral wins are a big deal, but you're right, road wins are even bigger. The weight that the Committee puts on a win on the road is staggering. A borderline top 100 road win is the equivalent of a top 50 neutral win.

Now, games/wins away from home is another metric, and in that sense, they're viewed similarly.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[LA Muskie]

I would have to completely disagree here. I never heard anyone talk about a teams solid neutral wins. Sure a having a neutral win is better than having only home wins but I dont think a good neutral win compares to a good road win.
I heard a hell of a lot of "wins away from home" talk. I also think that's why you're seeing a lot more non-tournament, non-local rivalry neutral site games, especially among "power conference" teams.

[xsteve1]

I know neutral wins are good but it just sticks in my head hearing all year about Xavier, and other teams this year and others, about a lack of quality road win. The way we played I think we would have beaten UC at UC. Also I dont think a home loss to a quality team is all that bad.

The game would have been at Cintas this year. I wonder if that game had been at Cintas if X even makes the tourney since more credit is given to Neutral Court wins and x was apparently one of the last 2 in.

[MADXSTER]

Personally I think the NCAA should mandate that all teams play at least 3 true away OOC games(not neutral). That way there is a better way to measure teams. Not the best but better. Some teams like Syracuse rarely play true away games.

[LA Muskie]

Personally I think the NCAA should mandate that all teams play at least 3 true away OOC games(not neutral). That way there is a better way to measure teams. Not the best but better. Some teams like Syracuse rarely play true away games.
3 might be tough with the proliferation of the exempt tournament. And this year probably isn't the best for getting on our high horse about it -- We played exactly the same number of true OOC road games (1), and they at least played a reasonably good team (St. John's). But I agree in theory. Of our 9 non-exempt tourney games we played 7 at home, 1 true road game and 1 neutral site game. We played SIX home buy games. That seems like a lot for a team trying to build a tourney resume. All of that said, this year was a bit of a scheduling anomaly because of the move to the Big East. I think we'll see better balanced schedules going forward (although so far next season's schedule is less than awe inspiring).

[MADXSTER]

3 might be tough with the proliferation of the exempt tournament. And this year probably isn't the best for getting on our high horse about it -- We played exactly the same number of true OOC road games (1), and they at least played a reasonably good team (St. John's). But I agree in theory. Of our 9 non-exempt tourney games we played 7 at home, 1 true road game and 1 neutral site game. We played SIX home buy games. That seems like a lot for a team trying to build a tourney resume. All of that said, this year was a bit of a scheduling anomaly because of the move to the Big East. I think we'll see better balanced schedules going forward (although so far next season's schedule is less than awe inspiring).

Exactly. Doesn't matter to me if it works in Xavier's favor or not, 3 true OOC road games should be a must. That was always my biggest pet peeve about the Big East in past years. I'm not changing my position now that Xavier is in the Big East.

[paulxu]

I never heard anyone talk about a teams solid neutral wins.

Well done. I've got to work that into a conversation. Something like...

"Well, ya'll suck and we're better than you by a long shot. We had a solid neutral win." That'll convince 'em for sure.

[LA Muskie]

Well done. I've got to work that into a conversation. Something like...

"Well, ya'll suck and we're better than you by a long shot. We had a solid neutral win." That'll convince 'em for sure.

With all due respect, I'm much more concerned with the opinions of the NCAA basketball committee members than random fans.

Obviously a road win is best. But a home loss is the worst. (It probably got us the play-in game). Neutral sites best balance the benefit and risk.

I'd still prefer they play the games H/H. It's more fun that way. But again, that doesn't mean there aren't valid, rational reasons for preferring a neutral site.

[Classof1985]

Most fans on both sides want the games back on campus. If US Bank arena was a state-of-the-art, NBA/NHL caliber arena, and something could be worked out with ticket prices and including the game for at least some season ticket holders, I think a lot more people on both sides would like the idea.

UC fans who don't want the games back on campus cite the behavior of Xavier fans at Cintas. I am sure this can go both ways, and there are guilty parties on both sides. I do think, comparatively speaking, Cintas is a more hostile environment for a visitor than Fifth Third. That's not meant to be an insult -- road environments are supposed to be hostile. That is part of what makes college basketball great. I have been to both UC and X games and I have never been treated rudely, nor have I ever seen anyone else be treated rudely, so I have no personal opinion on that stuff.

I don't think anyone on either side wants this game to end. There are fans on both sides of the aisle who will pretend they don't care, but the majority of them are kidding themselves. It's a fantastic rivalry that needs to be maintained in this crazy era of conference realignment. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned a bunch of rivalries that have been destroyed by conference realignment. It's a damn shame.

I don't think most UC fans care whether the game is played again or not. I agree it would be a shame to let the series end, but I don't think it will be played on home courts again while Mick Cronin is the coach at UC.

Historically, this game has always been more important to Xavier than to UC. Xavier needed to boost its non-conference schedule to bolster its resume. UC was on top of the heap in their conference and didn't really need another non-conference game to boost its resume.

In the past 10 ten years the worm has turned somewhat. Xavier's program has continued to thrive, while UC's hit the skids. Now, X is arguably in a better league. UC may need the game more. But I don't see the UC administration as being emotionally invested in the game.

I would like for the series to continue. But if it doesn't, I won't be hurt.

[MuskieFN]

No more Bridge Bowl. Roughly the football equivalent of the Shootout ending.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/college/othercolleges/2014/04/03/mount-st-joe-cancels-bridge-bowl/7285361/

[xubrew]

In a press release Mount St. Joseph officials said, "This decision by the Mount's Athletic Department and leaders of the football program is based on the goal of expanding their football contests to include new opponents in the future."In a press release Mount St. Joseph officials said, "This decision by the Mount's Athletic Department and leaders of the football program is based on the goal of expanding their football contests to include new opponents in the future."

Uh huh....


Thomas More won the last six meetings, including the last two seasons by a combined score of 134-19.

My roommates brother played for Thomas More when I was at Xavier. I actually got to know the guys on the team pretty well at the time, and the games were fun to go to. I assumed Mount Saint Joe's and Thomas More were in the same conference, but I guess not.

[Masterofreality]

You guys should listen to the D&V podcast with Rick Broering and Mario. Rick and Dan are giving it away free. Check SvoBot's link.

The game will be played and Mario says that, contrary to message board Pap, there is plenty of communication going on between the two schools. There is no where near the rancor and disagreement that is made out for there to be. They have a lot to work out as to dates, TV availability for ESPN who would have the game and other stuff, but the desire on both sides is to play.

[xubrew]

You guys should listen to the D&V podcast with Rick Broering and Mario. Rick and Dan are giving it away free. Check SvoBot's link.

The game will be played and Mario says that, contrary to message board Pap, there is plenty of communication going on between the two schools. There is no where near the rancor and disagreement that is made out for there to be. They have a lot to work out as to dates, TV availability for ESPN who would have the game and other stuff, but the desire on both sides is to play.

AWESOME!!!!

Actually, maybe not.

It's a lot more fun to banter back and forth while forming strong opinions based on wild and biased speculation. That's what message boards are for.

Thanks a lot for ruining it, MOR!!!!

[Masterofreality]

AWESOME!!!!

Actually, maybe not.

It's a lot more fun to banter back and forth while forming strong opinions based on wild and biased speculation. That's what message boards are for.

Thanks a lot for ruining it, MOR!!!!

Well, that's true, Brew. Reckless finger pointing, Mindless speculation, upheaval and tumult are always preferable to rational thought.

Like the old saying goes, no good stories come from a boring life.

[SlimKibbles]

My roommates brother played for Thomas More when I was at Xavier. I actually got to know the guys on the team pretty well at the time, and the games were fun to go to. I assumed Mount Saint Joe's and Thomas More were in the same conference, but I guess not.

They used to be in the same conference years ago but TMC has moved a couple of times. The one they're in now is pretty tough. MSJ has been in the same one, as far as I know, since their program started. I went to TMC and am familiar with the Bridge Bowl. Just from knowing TMC football players while I was there and since, they always took the Bridge Bowl seriously. They wanted to win badly. It was a big rivalry for them. TMC's program is just a lot better right now than MSJ.