2023-24 MBB Schedule

[GoldenEagleFan]

The holiday tournaments don’t make sense for a team who is trying to be financially wise. Unless you are a host team (typically P5) then you have to play 2 true road games against P5 teams, followed by 2 neutral games against “like opponents”. The money that you are paid by the tournament to play 2 true road games is only a fraction more than the amount of money paid for just 1 normally scheduled guarantee game, if you were to just schedule a team on your own outside of a tournament.
 

So you basically are playing 2 road games for the “paycheck” of 1. Terrible deal for mid major teams looking to play as few P5 true road games as possible. Even worse if you are trying to net as much money as possible from those true road P5 games. 
 

And for those who say “why not play an all-mid major” event rather than a P5+MM event, there are typically no guarantee payments in those scenarios. Many of them require you to play at least 1 true road game. And there are no return games the following year, since it is just a single year event.
 

The only way it would make sense is if ORU forked up the money to host an event… which would cost a lot more than just filling your schedule with Home/Home series with teams that would be the same level as the ones potentially playing in your event. 

[Old Titan]

1 hour ago, GoldenEagleFan said:

The holiday tournaments don’t make sense for a team who is trying to be financially wise. Unless you are a host team (typically P5) then you have to play 2 true road games against P5 teams, followed by 2 neutral games against “like opponents”. The money that you are paid by the tournament to play 2 true road games is only a fraction more than the amount of money paid for just 1 normally scheduled guarantee game, if you were to just schedule a team on your own outside of a tournament.
 

So you basically are playing 2 road games for the “paycheck” of 1. Terrible deal for mid major teams looking to play as few P5 true road games as possible. Even worse if you are trying to net as much money as possible from those true road P5 games. 
 

And for those who say “why not play an all-mid major” event rather than a P5+MM event, there are typically no guarantee payments in those scenarios. Many of them require you to play at least 1 true road game. And there are no return games the following year, since it is just a single year event.
 

The only way it would make sense is if ORU forked up the money to host an event… which would cost a lot more than just filling your schedule with Home/Home series with teams that would be the same level as the ones potentially playing in your event. 

All of that is true, and provides a great blueprint for what to avoid:  the 4-game "get slaughtered for two contests before playing two you might win" format.

There are other options; and ORU just needs one solution per season.  Picking up the torch from last off-season on this very topic:  isn't this why coaches and AD's get paid the big bucks - to come up with creative alternatives?  

[GoldenEagleFan]

30 minutes ago, Old Titan said:

Picking up the torch from last off-season on this very topic:  isn't this why coaches and AD's get paid the big bucks - to come up with creative alternatives? 

To appease the fans or to win games and keep their jobs?

[Old Titan]

15 minutes ago, GoldenEagleFan said:

To appease the fans or to win games and keep their jobs?

Man, I had a scorcher of a retort all typed out and ready to "Submit", but frankly I'm so disappointed by both your contemptuous reference to fan "appeasement", plus the very notion that a Tier One program at ORU would avoid competion at the highest levels in the interest of job security, that I don't even feel like arguing with you.

Here's all I have to say instead:  "Thank you, Kelsi Musick and Ryan Folmar, for having the courage to play the very best teams you can, home or away, without regard for what it might mean to your W-L record."

That is all....  #smh  #Anybody/Anywhere/Anytime  #IronSharpensIron

[GoldenEagleFan]

Non Conf SOS:

2017-18… 10th
2018-19… 56th
2019-20… 6th
2020-21… 4th
2021-22… 82nd
2022-23… 15th

The gap between messageboard narrative and reality continues to grow.  
 

“Avoiding competition” would look way different in my eyes than your eyes. 
 

I’m curious if a “Creative Alternative” you begged for would be what the UHouston and Texas Southern event was last year? 2 true road games against NCAA tournament teams with a return from Texas Southern the following year? Seems pretty creative. Seems like pretty tough competition. Wasn’t UHouston #1 in the country at one point last year? Didn’t Texas Southern make the NCAA tournament last year?

Didnt St Mary’s and Utah State also make the tournament? Wasn’t New Mexico 14-0 when ORU reached out to them about scheduling them on the road in the middle of the season? That doesn’t seem like “avoiding competition”. It seems like “Anybody/Anywhere/Anytime” to me. 
 

but that wouldn’t fit the narrative. 

[Old Titan]

What would fit the narrative is hearing how a Power 5 match-up fits into your smoke-and-mirrors scheduling model (other than Mike Boynton being a stand-up guy until he too turned chicken last season).

P.S.  Thanks for confirming Texas Southern as a home game! 

[Old Titan]

Revised 5/6/23:

• TULSA
• WEBER STATE
• TEXAS SOUTHERN
• NON-D1 #1
• NON-D1 #2
• NON-D1 #3
• at Montana State
• at Missouri State
• at Texas-Arlington

Now, seriously - wouldn’t a P5 guarantee game or two with nice fat paychecks just be the cherry on top of this sundae?

[ORUalum]

i'm okay with 1 or 2 paydays, but have no desire of going back to the Sutton days where ORUMBB had to use the schedule as a fundraiser for athletics.....by the time they got to league play the team was beat up (confidence wise) and well under .500.

[Old Titan]

1 minute ago, ORUalum said:

i'm okay with 1 or 2 paydays, but have no desire of going back to the Sutton days where ORUMBB had to use the schedule as a fundraiser for athletics.....by the time they got to league play the team was beat up (confidence wise) and well under .500.

Some may recall that I was the one annually beating the drum for Scott Sutton to add a non-D1 breather game or two into the midst of all the guarantee battles.

But I fear the pendulum has now swung too far in the other direction.  Avoiding top-flight competition in the interest of hopefully getting a 13-Seed instead of a 14-Seed in a potential NCAA bid is not only over-thinking the process, it also flies completely in the face of Oral Roberts' mission of ORU Athletics boldly venturing into every man's world.

Losing games at Saint Mary's or Utah State does nothing to move the needle outside the NET ranking; occasionally upsetting a P5 team on their home floor does. 

YOU CAN'T EVER BEAT THEM IF YOU DON'T EVER PLAY THEM.

[SpaceManSpiff]

1 minute ago, ORUalum said:

i'm okay with 1 or 2 paydays, but have no desire of going back to the Sutton days where ORUMBB had to use the schedule as a fundraiser for athletics.....by the time they got to league play the team was beat up (confidence wise) and well under .500.

I agree. We should schedule a couple, if possible, to play some solid competition. However, fully reverting to Sutton era scheduling virtually eliminates non-conference home games on the calendar. Not the best way to build a fan base...

My general home game scheduling thoughts:

There are competing priorities with scheduling: level of competition, financial impact, fan engagement, etc. (Just to name a few...)

I'd imagine the athletic department (and fans) would love to play P5 or high-quality mid-major teams at home. But if we want a high-quality opponent at home we're going to have to pay for it. Like we did for Liberty just last year.

That leaves us with quality teams that are willing to come to the Mabee Center without being paid... which surely are harder to come by. Queue the NON-D1 vs 200-365 NET ranked teams debate our situation creates...

Personally, I'd take a NON-D1 team over any 200-365 NET team at home every time. Playing a D1 school in that range offers no benefit from a ranking or preparedness perspective. We already play too many teams in that range due to our low-major conference status.

[Old Titan]

15 minutes ago, SpaceManSpiff said:

I agree. We should schedule a couple, if possible, to play some solid competition. However, fully reverting to Sutton era scheduling virtually eliminates non-conference home games on the calendar. Not the best way to build a fan base...

My general home game scheduling thoughts:

There are competing priorities with scheduling: level of competition, financial impact, fan engagement, etc. (Just to name a few...)

I'd imagine the athletic department (and fans) would love to play P5 or high-quality mid-major teams at home. But if we want a high-quality opponent at home we're going to have to pay for it. Like we did for Liberty just last year.

That leaves us with quality teams that are willing to come to the Mabee Center without being paid... which surely are harder to come by. Queue the NON-D1 vs 200-365 NET ranked teams debate our situation creates...

Personally, I'd take a NON-D1 team over any 200-365 NET team at home every time. Playing a D1 school in that range offers no benefit from a ranking or preparedness perspective. We already play too many teams in that range due to our low-major conference status.

Great points; I'm just rankled by the suggestion in GoldenEagleFan's initial post on this topic re: "mid major teams looking to play as few P5 true road games as possible".

Seriously?? Since when?

It is by no means irresponsible, NET ranking AND job security wise, for a mid-major to play a couple of big-boy games on the road each season.

Otherwise, what's the point?  Might as well have the men's basketball program return to NAIA status, while women's basketball and the baseball team stay D1 and continue to take on ranked P5 teams on the road, year in and year out.

[Keenan Henderson]

1 hour ago, Old Titan said:

Revised 5/6/23:

• TULSA
• WEBER STATE
• TEXAS SOUTHERN
• NON-D1 #1
• NON-D1 #2
• NON-D1 #3
• at Montana State
• at Missouri State
• at Texas-Arlington

Now, seriously - wouldn’t a P5 guarantee game or two with nice fat paychecks just be the cherry on top of this sundae?

Thanks for the update.  So, we basically know 9 out of of the 12 non conference teams on next year's schedule.  Looking at what you have posted and ORU has 6 home games and 3 road games.  Most mid majors like to schedule about half and half (home and road) on their non conference schedule.  The staff is just looking for 3 more road games and the schedule would be complete.  

In the past the Summit has just reversed the home and road games but kept the same lineup as the past year's schedule.  Meaning ORU would start at SDSU and South Dakota and then go home to face Omaha and Denver.  We will see if they continue that this year.  On a side note SDSU already has the roster for next year and Luke Appel is back (15 guys listed on their roster's website).

[GoldenEagleFan]

1 hour ago, Old Titan said:

I'm just rankled by the suggestion in GoldenEagleFan's initial post on this topic re: "mid major teams looking to play as few P5 true road games as possible".

You must have misunderstood me. I’m all for playing true road games against the best competition. As long as you earn the paycheck from playing the game. When did I say I think MM teams should play as few P5 true road games as possible?

 

[Old Titan]

15 hours ago, GoldenEagleFan said:

So you basically are playing 2 road games for the “paycheck” of 1. Terrible deal for mid major teams looking to play as few P5 true road games as possible. Even worse if you are trying to net as much money as possible from those true road P5 games. 

See bold above…

For the record, I try to avoid putting quote marks around anything I claim someone said unless it’s just that:  a direct quote. 

[GoldenEagleFan]

For the record, I think ORU needs to schedule 2-3 true road games against P5 (or should we say Quad 1) teams each year. To me, “as few as possible” does not mean 0. Maybe I should have said “as few as needed in order to raise the minimum amount of money for the budget/athletic department.”

[oruvoice]

So, have we finally put to bed the phony narrative that was being sold, that "Nobody will play us"? And, that's why we had to schedule so many NAIA games?!? 

[theeagleman5]

Actually....TheEagleman thinks our schedule so far looks pretty darn good....would love to see us at Oklahoma State and another Power 5 team on the road to complete the OOC portion......agree with the comment that we can't beat them if we don't play them......

[GoldenEagleFan]

9 minutes ago, oruvoice said:

So, have we finally put to bed the phony narrative that was being sold, that "Nobody will play us"? And, that's why we had to schedule so many NAIA games?!? 

Helps when Abmas and Vanover are no longer on the roster.