Redbirdfan.com Sports Forum

It hasn't hurt Michigan State.

It hasn't hurt Purdue.

Next season, I am sure it won't hurt North Carolina.

I agree with this line of thinking. Therefore, for the same reasons, the likes of Duke, UNC, UConn and UCLA should no longer consider scheduling Illinois in their non-conference seasons. For them, beating Illinois isn't a big deal, barely beating Illinois makes them look bad, and losing to Illinois will have people wondering how badly their programs have slipped.

Correct.

The whole "we have nothing to gain and everything to lose" explanation is a long-winded way of saying "we're scared." Scared that a decent non-con opponent will be competitive enough to make it a close game or maybe even win. Scared that anything other than a blowout could dampen fan enthusiasm or optimism about the prospects for a great season. Scared that the alleged gap in quality between a Big Six conference program and someone else might once again be put into question. Avoidance of those risks can be rationalized, but at the end of the day it boils down to being "scared" that your program might suffer a loss in stature because you are not confident enough that your team has the power to win comfortably against a quality opponent.

Weber and the UIUC AD's office are wussies. So long as they would rather play with themselves, I'd rather focus on what ISU can do to generate interest in the other Division 1 schools in Illinois playing each other. Perhaps ISU could link up with three other programs, such as Northwestern, Northern Illinois, and Eastern Illinois, and agree to play a Thanksgiving tournament with a rotating venue. Granted it might have a bit of a "high school" feel to it, but it would prove that not every program in the state is afraid to play one another at their place or a relatively neutral site. Or pick a "neutral" site, such as Springfield or the suburbs of Chicago, and have the teams play there. Just a thought. Might not be an original one, but a thought.

Hardly. UIUC is a top-25 team and a longshot to win the Big 10 conference, which is also the conference that is roundly accepted to be the strongest in the nation this year.

Depends on your definition of "scared." If "scared" is I want to keep my job, put my team in the best position to earn revenue and get a high seed in the big dance, etc..., then yes.. they are scared.

I'm sick of playing the underdog card and complaining that people are scared to play us. The system is broke, not the BSC schools. If I were the AD at a BSC school and hired someone who played MVC schools on there home court, they are fired. It doesn't help them PERIOD. The system is broke folks, and after Obama fixes the BCS, I hope he addresses this issue.

That would have made you the AD who fired Roy Williams from North Carolina and Tom Izzo from Michigan State.

And Bill Self and Matt Painter.

I just don't want to hear any more B.S. about UIUC not having anything to gain in a home and home with a school like Illinois State. The Illini would have a lot to gain by beating one the top Valley schools on their home court.
Someone tell me what UIUC had to gain by playing a home game against Presbyterian? THAT was a meaningless exercise.

Why don't they just tell the truth. We have plenty to gain by playing Illinois State on equal terms but we also have something to LOSE - and we're afraid to LOSE.

If some members would remove their red-and-white homer goggles, they might see the validity in your post.

Not really.

College basketball--from an administrative standpoint--is about improving your path to the NCAA tournament, exposure from TV networks, and generating revenue (e.g. ticket sales, merchandising, increasing your endowment). Illinois entering a home-and-home with a Valley school would do very little to achieve any of these goals, especially since the Big Ten Network does not travel to out-of-conference schools--and ESPN and CBS would not cover it unless ISU makes serious noise in the NCAA tournament this year.

Furthermore, the collective RPI/SOS of the Valley is in the toilet because the fashionable trend these days is to demand home games, which is not impossible, but also not likely. (As for Painter and Izzo references, they are not valid. Their games with mid-majors are 2- and 3-for-1s. ISU won't even do that.)

Another reason is that UIUC currently sits atop the pecking order among the state's D1 basketball program. Whether justified or not, this perception exists. Perhaps more importantly, this perception is legislatively and publicly unchallenged. So, for someone like Weber and UIUC, the risk of having that perception altered is absolutely not worth the reward.

At any rate, that's my opinion. Here are a couple others:

In an ESPN.com article from 10/1/2007, mid-major guru Kyle Whelliston (whom I adore, btw), wrote about Univ. of Southern California's upcoming return game to Charleston, SC's The Citadel. The schools agreed to a 3-for-1 deal. As expected, Whelliston explored the "giving back to the little guys" angle for much of the article. He quotes then-coach Tim Floyd: "They asked us to return the game...I decided to go ahead and do it. … I felt like it was the right thing to do."

Well that's nice of him, right? I thought so too. Unfortunately, these major schools' underlying motivation was partially outed by Whelliston himself. He goes on to discuss the rising cost of guarantee games. He added that two-for-ones and three-for-ones are becoming more standard as a result.

The article ends with Jerry Palm’s opinion on the BCS @ MM scenarios playing out around the country. He says, "In ratings terms, it's better to have played the game on the road, but not [by] a whole lot…It's a game that can only hurt their tournament chances though. A big win is to be expected. Anything else could be a negative in the committee's eyes. … A loss would be a disaster."

So the original discussion focused on uiuc being "scared" or "afraid" to play SIU on the road. Or even being afraid to play most anyone other than another BcS school on the road. My opinion is that the point was proved above(in red). They are not sure they can win they don't play. So they are scared. Weber is scared to go to SIU cause he might lose...who cares if it doesn't help the post season or can only hurt. If he wasn't afraid of losing and was sure his team was superior he would go.

The argument in the prior paragraph argues that they may not want to schedule because of the dollars. That to me is an nccaa issue. As long as the ncccaa doesn't penalize teams who play all or most of their games at home or on neutral courts it won't change. Drawing only 5000 at home against a team like lets say Presbyterian is still more "profitable" for a team like the illieni. I would have more respect for Weber or coaches of his ilk if he just said it's about the money. But we all know it is also about the fear of losing.

Finally, I do not recognize any term made up by members of the BcS, or BcS media supporters, to minimize teams that they believe are beneath them.

Improving path to NCAA tournament - A victory over Illinois State at home and especially on the road would enhance UIUC as a selection. The win over Presbyterian does nothing.

TV exposure - the game was on the Big 10 network. How many people watched? I did for about 5 minutes. Many more fans of both UIUC and Illinois State would tune in to see that game.

Ticket sales, merchandising, endowments - games like Presbyterian don't do squat for merchandising and endowments. Illini fans are just like Redbird fans in this regard. They want good games. Tickets are being given away and many are still unused because Illini fans are waiting for good games.




Exactly. Contests with Illinois State would be quality, high interest games but losing makes it a risk for UIUC. We agree.

If the cornerstone of Illinois’ scheduling was Presbyterian, you would be correct on all accounts.

But it’s not.

Every team in the country schedules cupcakes to guarantee wins for the purpose of boosting their RPI. As an ISU fan, you more than most should know why these games are played. It has less to do with making fans happy in the short term, and more to do with preparing themselves with a winning resume in March. Those not-so-thrilling guarantee games--added to a dificult OOC and conference schedule--help get a good seed in the tournament. A higher seed increases the possibility of success. Success breeds hope which equals ticket sales the following year. Look at Illinois' ticket sales the year after their Final Four run. Even the guarantee games were sold out.

At any rate, the difference between UI and ISU is the rest of the schedule.

In addition to playing in the strongest conference in the country, Illinois plays Oklahoma State (or Bradley) and Utah in Vegas, Clemson, Boise State, Western Michigan, Vanderbilt, @ Georgia, Missouri, and Gonzaga in Chicago. A schedule like this makes the low-interest games like Wofford and Presbyterian much more tolerable.

As for the Big 10 Network, don’t underestimate it. Recruits, fans of the conference, and a MASSIVE alumni base are tuning in across the country. That’s a ton of exposure for all your guarantee games. Even if fans are only tuning in for 15 minutes, it’s a very big deal.

The RPI was developed to do just the opposite. It clearly didn't hurt the Valley in banner years like 2006 when we received four bids. So what's the difference between now and then? Clearly, the difference is that we used to schedule for at-large positions in the postseason. We didn't refuse games based on unequal terms. We didn't feel that the NCAA or BCS schools owed us a favor.

What's our conference's at-large/RPI strategy now?