Re: Valpo

[Brett Pappas]

I personally think it is neither of these. The biggest reason IMHO is money.
Money is why big schools won't play us because it means a 1 for 1 and money
is why Valpo is attractive (2 for 1 with a better than average team).

If all we cared about was schedule strength then we could easily find teams
like Duke, Kansas, etc.. willing to play us on their floor with no game in
return. But we wouldn't make much money doing that.

It isn't a coincidence that the only time we see two big time programs
playing each other anymore is when TV makes it happen (usually on a
semi-neutral court).

Again, I don't know any better than anyone else on this forum but that is
always my thinking when I see the schedule.

--Brett

----- Original Message -----
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Valpo


> In a message dated 8/13/02 11:13:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> address@hidden writes:
>
>
> > Is our scheduling the result of the top schools not wanting to play us
or is
> > it that we would rather play a Valpo?  Does anyone on this board know
the
> > answer?  We used to play a lot tougher schedule.
>
> I have often wondered that myself.  I'd think that it's a little bit of
both,
>  more of your first choice IMO.  Maybe Brian can add something in
reference
> to your question.  I know that I'd rather see UC play someone tough at
home
> with a bigger chance of a loss than a patsie and win by thirty points.
>
>
>
> Gregg


--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: address@hidden
For additional commands, e-mail: address@hidden