2023-2024 Gophers Basketball Schedule Thread

Donate To GopherHole
Holy Man said:
Your point is well-taken. But with the number of teams expanding, the likelihood of us routinely getting the good games at home decreases when playing them only once.

For the record, I would much rather see Purdue or Michigan State than UCLA or Oregon. No disrespect intended to those programs, but they mean very little to me now before March. It will take years, and a much improved Gopher program, for me to get super interested in the new comers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that - most of us who've been around since there were actually 10 teams in the Big Ten, developed familiarity and rivalry with those schools. It's not how good or bad they are that drives interest so much as it is our shared history. So, even though our adopted brethren-to-be are objectively better, the interest is more novelty than rivalry. I still feel that way about Nebraska, for example - they're not a "real" Big Ten team.
 

Holy Man said:
It hardly seems like a conference schedule when you're only playing three teams twice. From afar, it also seems like our somewhat expensive season tickets are being devalued, with a much more likely crappy home schedule. At least we should get Iowa and Wisconsin every year at home.

Seems like at every turn, the in person fan is getting a worse deal. They should at least pretend to think we are important in the system.
Click to expand...
There are rumors that they will expand to 20 and have four divisions, at least for football. I hope they would extend that to all sports. It would enable us to be with Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska and TBD and presumably play those 4 teams twice and the other 15 teams once.
 

Very interesting about the reports of the Big Ten considering going to 22 conference games in 2024-25. In combination with the very recent disclosure by Jon Rothstein that the Gavitt Games in 2024-25 are no longer a sure thing (after reports the series would be renewed), that tells me the increase to 22 games is going to happen. That's probably the "snag" that will end the Gavitt Games.

So if they go to 22 games, undoubtedly in an 18-team conference teams would play:

5 opponents (home & home) x 2 = 10
12 opponents (6 home, 6 road) x 1 = 12

As a Gopher fan, with the way Ben has scheduled (Charmin soft) in the non-conference his first 3 seasons, the more Big Ten games the better.

That said, I'm thinking selfishly. As the major conferences continue to expand their conference schedules, the "little guys" are going to get weeded out more & more from the at-large conversation. They'll be getting less & less opportunities to compete vs. the "big boys" during the regular season, and that's going to mean an even smaller chance of securing an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. That is not good for college basketball.

Speaking only for myself, I have little interest in an NCAA Tournament filled with only major conference teams. Boring. The Cinderellas are what give the tournament its pizzazz. Just like in football, all in the name of the almighy dollars the power conferences in essence are trying to ruin the sport.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Very interesting about the reports of the Big Ten considering going to 22 conference games in 2024-25. In combination with the very recent disclosure by Jon Rothstein that the Gavitt Games in 2024-25 are no longer a sure thing (after reports the series would be renewed), that tells me the increase to 22 games is going to happen. That's probably the "snag" that will end the Gavitt Games.

So if they go to 22 games, undoubtedly in an 18-team conference teams would play:

5 opponents (home & home) x 2 = 10
12 opponents (6 home, 6 road) x 1 = 12

As a Gopher fan, with the way Ben has scheduled (Charmin soft) in the non-conference his first 3 seasons, the more Big Ten games the better.

That said, I'm thinking selfishly. As the major conferences continue to expand their conference schedules, the "little guys" are going to get weeded out more & more from the at-large conversation. They'll be getting less & less opportunities to compete vs. the "big boys" during the regular season, and that's going to mean an even smaller chance of securing an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. That is not good for college basketball.

Speaking only for myself, I have little interest in an NCAA Tournament filled with only major conference teams. Boring. The Cinderellas are what give the tournament its pizzazz. Just like in football, all in the name of the almighy dollars the power conferences in essence are trying to ruin the sport.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the same lines, except I was thinking that a lot of these little guys will lose the opportunity to get their paydays for the buy games at the power conference teams home gyms in the noncon. It’s a vicious cycle for the mid major program who may struggle to survive financially.
 





Marcus in the Strib has an article on the scheduling process.
Gophers' Director of Basketball, Ryan Livingston, is the person who handles the nuts-and-bolts of setting the schedule.

some items of interest:

Their lone high-major opponent outside the Big Ten will be Missouri on Nov. 16. Two more Power Five programs showed interest in playing in Minneapolis but backed out.

"We've had some that changed their mind," Livingston said. "They're holding contracts and hedging their bets. They're using it to their advantage. We definitely wanted to play those games for sure."

Livingston said the Gophers had an opponent that agreed to play them in the last nonconference slot, "but ... another team came in and offered them $20,000 or $30,000 more. They needed the money.

"Fortunately, Florida Gulf Coast lost a game, and I know those guys. We worked out the date and we were able to get it done."

The Gophers paid Florida Gulf Coast $110,000 to play Dec. 9 at the Barn, according to contracts obtained by the Star Tribune. That was higher than the other individual home games — and the total payout was $685,000 to six schools for what are known as "guaranteed games" or "buy games."
 

Bottom line?

Backed out of a tournament that included San Diego State, Washington & Xavier and replaced it with Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Ball State & USC-Upstate.

Schedule is much more balanced (read: reasonably competitive) if Mizzou, San Francisco, and 2 of San Diego State/Washington/Xavier are all on the schedule.
 




This as well……

Starting an in-state rivalry with St. Thomas isn't in the Gophers' plans right now because Johnson sees no benefit. Regional rivalries could be intriguing with border states, but the Gophers haven't played Iowa State since 2007 and Marquette since 2000

In comparison, Minnesota's border rivals Wisconsin and Iowa have annual games against in-state programs Marquette and Iowa State, respectively. The Badgers and Hawkeyes play eight high-major opponents combined in nonconference play this season, including top 25 teams such as Tennessee, Creighton and Arizona.
 





RockChalk said:
Why have the BTN if you are going to farm out a good portion of games to a streaming network loads of people don't have?
Click to expand...
I feel like I've been a good sport about having to pay for ancillary streaming services like Big Ten + Plus in past years, and I think even the SEC network in some of the Richard Pitino era (before YouTube TV).

However, it really irritates me that I must tack on Peacock to watch my favorite team play. Is it going to break the bank? No. Will I still pay? Probably, yes. But where does this end?

It almost feels like Peacock games are perfectly spaced out, so you have to keep paying month-over-month during the season. At least with Big 10+, once the preseason ends, you can cancel it.

I drew a line in the sand with the Twins/Wolves refusing to pay extra for BSN access. I imagine people will start doing the same (and are already) with their favorite college teams.

No casual fan is going to put up with BS. This short-term money grab will lead to general apathy among middling programs, large-scale disinterest, and revenue decline in the long run.

Rant done.
 


topos said:
I feel like I've been a good sport about having to pay for ancillary streaming services like Big Ten + Plus in past years, and I think even the SEC network in some of the Richard Pitino era (before YouTube TV).

However, it really irritates me that I must tack on Peacock to watch my favorite team play. Is it going to break the bank? No. Will I still pay? Probably, yes. But where does this end?

It almost feels like Peacock games are perfectly spaced out, so you have to keep paying month-over-month during the season. At least with Big 10+, once the preseason ends, you can cancel it.

I drew a line in the sand with the Twins/Wolves refusing to pay extra for BSN access. I imagine people will start doing the same (and are already) with their favorite college teams.

No casual fan is going to put up with BS. This short-term money grab will lead to general apathy among middling programs, large-scale disinterest, and revenue decline in the long run.

Rant done.
Click to expand...
Never bought B1G+. Not gonna buy Peacock. Might listen on the radio. Hard to muster enough enthusiasm to pay more for a terrible schedule. The move to dice up a season and sprinkle games on numerous streaming service may finally solve my fanaticism. I can thank the NFL for giving me back my Thursday nights. It’s almost like back when I was a kid and MNF was the only non-Sunday NFL game. Of course, I did miss that epic match between the Bears and Panthers last night. 😏
 

I think I can sum this up by saying "get off my lawn!"

NBC is part of the mega-deal for the B1G, which is very beneficial financially for the schools. The reason they wanted that is for content that might drive Peacock subscriptions (I already subscribe for the EPL matches). Peacock does not have just the crappy games like BTN+. You don't have to like it, but this is how it works in 2023.

BTN+ is only attractive if you're a hockey fan. The only basketball on there is against terrible opponents.

And, BTW, practically everybody has Amazon Prime and the ability to watch TNF.
 


formerlybis said:
I think I can sum this up by saying "get off my lawn!"

NBC is part of the mega-deal for the B1G, which is very beneficial financially for the schools. The reason they wanted that is for content that might drive Peacock subscriptions (I already subscribe for the EPL matches). Peacock does not have just the crappy games like BTN+. You don't have to like it, but this is how it works in 2023.

BTN+ is only attractive if you're a hockey fan. The only basketball on there is against terrible opponents.

And, BTW, practically everybody has Amazon Prime and the ability to watch TNF.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Get off my lawn.
As if we must swallow everything that media companies push on us. While nearly everybody I know buys from Amazon online, I know two people that are Prime customers. Maybe you have a different circle. Add up all of your media spend and tell me you’re getting great value. It’s getting worse, and the comments here (including mine) are that people are reaching the point of “nope.” I realize that the trend is for content producers (including sports leagues) all hoping to control both the content and the distribution. Time will tell if they make more money that way, but I think the ad $ are already starting to dilute too much. And the direct cost to the customer has already grown too much. But we’ll probably never hear of the disasters after they flame out. It will just be shrugged off as “they were outbid” in the next contract cycle. I’m watching Prime to see if that continues beyond the current contract.
 



goldenboy said:
Yeah. Get off my lawn.
As if we must swallow everything that media companies push on us. While nearly everybody I know buys from Amazon online, I know two people that are Prime customers. Maybe you have a different circle. Add up all of your media spend and tell me you’re getting great value. It’s getting worse, and the comments here (including mine) are that people are reaching the point of “nope.” I realize that the trend is for content producers (including sports leagues) all hoping to control both the content and the distribution. Time will tell if they make more money that way, but I think the ad $ are already starting to dilute too much. And the direct cost to the customer has already grown too much. But we’ll probably never hear of the disasters after they flame out. It will just be shrugged off as “they were outbid” in the next contract cycle. I’m watching Prime to see if that continues beyond the current contract.
Click to expand...
There are 180 million US subscribers to Prime. When you factor out all the kids, and households that just have one account, that's a huge percentage. I think my circle is more typical.
 

Roland Brooks said:
This as well……

Starting an in-state rivalry with St. Thomas isn't in the Gophers' plans right now because Johnson sees no benefit. Regional rivalries could be intriguing with border states, but the Gophers haven't played Iowa State since 2007 and Marquette since 2000

In comparison, Minnesota's border rivals Wisconsin and Iowa have annual games against in-state programs Marquette and Iowa State, respectively. The Badgers and Hawkeyes play eight high-major opponents combined in nonconference play this season, including top 25 teams such as Tennessee, Creighton and Arizona.
Click to expand...
Marquette and Iowa State are leagues above St. Thomas. Silly comparison, if I'm being generous. Stupid comparison, if I'm being honest.
 

I had season tickets for 39 years. In the beginning they were worth it. I remember watching Al McGuire (Marquette) tearing his coat off at a bad call (in his mind), a great overtime win over Stanford, and the Gophers almost beating UCLA (when they were good), all at the Barn. Other top notch teams also were on the schedule. In those days even if the Gophers were mediocre, they played tough at home. I finally gave up the tickets when the quality of the opposition took a nose dive, while the price of tickets, along with the seating fees, went in the other direction. Now I watch them on TV, if at all. I miss the old days, but they're gone for good.
 


goldenboy said:
Yeah. Get off my lawn.
As if we must swallow everything that media companies push on us. While nearly everybody I know buys from Amazon online, I know two people that are Prime customers. Maybe you have a different circle. Add up all of your media spend and tell me you’re getting great value. It’s getting worse, and the comments here (including mine) are that people are reaching the point of “nope.” I realize that the trend is for content producers (including sports leagues) all hoping to control both the content and the distribution. Time will tell if they make more money that way, but I think the ad $ are already starting to dilute too much. And the direct cost to the customer has already grown too much. But we’ll probably never hear of the disasters after they flame out. It will just be shrugged off as “they were outbid” in the next contract cycle. I’m watching Prime to see if that continues beyond the current contract.
Click to expand...
If you buy things more than a few times/year, Prime is worth it just for the free shipping, even if you don't care about the streaming service.

Also, in many ways this is what consumers wanted. "I don't want to pay for all these channels I never watch on cable!" OK. This is the alternative. Pay separately for every service you DO want to watch. I don't necessarily like it either, but it's not going back to the way it was.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom