Future of the Shootout/Classic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Muskie

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/spor...-bowl/7285361/