Indiana/Kentucky series over?

[BD80]

Crean learning that laying with dogs leads to fleas:


http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/58605/indiana-wont-play-kentucky-in-2012-13

The spontaneous spin spewing forth is special:

"We're not going to play," Kentucky coach John Calipari said Thursday. "We're not going to do a home-and-home. That's out. They don't want to play two games in the state of Indiana, which I'm fine with. There are a lot of people who want to play us." ...

"We couldn't have gotten our students up there," said Crean. ... "The bottom line is that they didn't want to play home-and-home and we did. We looked at it hard but it belongs on campus."

I am sure thar uk's recent loss on the IU campus has NOTHING to do with uk's insistance on "neutral" sites.

[tommy]

I don't know. Seems to me that it was Indiana that wanted to discontinue this. The offer on the table, per the report, was that the game be played in the state of Indiana every year -- never in Kentucky. Kentucky agreed to that, but it's just that they wanted the games to be in the bigger, off campus venue - Lucas Oil Stadium. That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me. Indiana's AD's excuses about "it would be too hard for our students to get to Lucas Oil" sound like just that, excuses. It's an hour's drive.

[MCFinARL]

I don't know. Seems to me that it was Indiana that wanted to discontinue this. The offer on the table, per the report, was that the game be played in the state of Indiana every year -- never in Kentucky. Kentucky agreed to that, but it's just that they wanted the games to be in the bigger, off campus venue - Lucas Oil Stadium. That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me. Indiana's AD's excuses about "it would be too hard for our students to get to Lucas Oil" sound like just that, excuses. It's an hour's drive.

Well, as I read the article, I'm not sure that was the offer on the table. It seemed like the plan was to do neutral sites alternating Louisville and Indianapolis, but that at some point in the negotiations the possibility of playing twice in Indiana came up. It's hard to tell, reading Calipari's remarks and the comments from the UK AD, exactly what was offered and what was refused.

You're right, though, that Indiana appears to be the side that broke things off. Of course I don't know their actual motives, but in their defense, there's a good (if old-fashioned) argument to be made that traditional rivalry games belong in traditional, on-campus venues. Yes, a reasonable number of indiana students could get to Lucas Oil one way or another (especially if someone had the initiative to arrange for charter buses), though, in addition to transportation costs, I'm betting their tickets would be more expensive, and the flavor and experience of the game would be very different than in an on-campus venue.

Not saying I think Indiana was clearly in the right here; just saying I'm not ready to lay all the blame at their door, either. The bottom line is that, whatever is going on here, as usual a host of other factors (money, exposure, etc.) trump the game of basketball as factors in the decision.

[Jderf]

Not saying I think Indiana was clearly in the right here; just saying I'm not ready to lay all the blame at their door, either. The bottom line is that, whatever is going on here, as usual a host of other factors (money, exposure, etc.) trump the game of basketball as factors in the decision.

Whether or not one side is right or wrong, I don't think anybody is surprised about which side of the disagreement each school took: Indiana on the side of having traditional rivalry games on campus, where actual students can fill the stands; Kentucky on the side of pro stadiums offering big-time ticket revenue. Exactly what you'd expect.

[MCFinARL]

Whether or not one side is right or wrong, I don't think anybody is surprised about which side of the disagreement each school took: Indiana on the side of having traditional rivalry games on campus, where actual students can fill the stands; Kentucky on the side of pro stadiums offering big-time ticket revenue. Exactly what you'd expect.

Yes, I agree.

[niveklaen]

I cant believe I am saying this, but I agree with UK on this. Big venues at neutral locations for big nonconference games are the way to go. The additional revenue allows basketball to better support the non revenue sports and the venues are more like the ones you play in the NCAA tournament. Coach K does this a lot and we all circle the wagons around him when fans from other schools whine about us being chicken to play at their home. We should recognize that Cal's reasons are just as legitimate as K's on this issue. I am going to go take a bath now.

[subzero02]

Yeah, a neutral site series at a large venue would generate a large amount of revenue. I just hope our boys get to break Kenucky's winning streak when we meet them in MSG next year.

[devildeac]

Well, if this doesn't work out for Cal, he could always schedule some exhibition games against NBDL teams or the Charlotte Bobcraps.

[Jderf]

I cant believe I am saying this, but I agree with UK on this. Big venues at neutral locations for big nonconference games are the way to go. The additional revenue allows basketball to better support the non revenue sports and the venues are more like the ones you play in the NCAA tournament. Coach K does this a lot and we all circle the wagons around him when fans from other schools whine about us being chicken to play at their home. We should recognize that Cal's reasons are just as legitimate as K's on this issue. I am going to go take a bath now.

Yes and no. Yes, K has shown the tendency to schedule those kinds of games in order to generate revenue and gain exposure, among other reasons -- often against smaller programs who wouldn't otherwise be able to schedule such high-profile games.

I strongly doubt, however, that Coach K would ever choose to destroy a rivalry (especially a rivalry which was just beginning to really heat up) because the other program refused to turn a vibrant home-and-home series into a money-generating neutral-site series. Big difference, in my opinion. Subtle, but big.

[Bluedog]

Yeah, a neutral site series at a large venue would generate a large amount of revenue. I just hope our boys get to break Kenucky's winning streak when we meet them in MSG next year.

We're actually playing them at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. The Champions Classic rotates sites - first year (i.e. last year) in NYC, second year in Atlanta, and third year at the United Center in Chicago (when we have Kansas).

And, yeah, I'll also somewhat defend Calipari since Coach K likes to do the same thing with neutral site games. It brings in more revenue and K thinks it prepares the team for the NCAA tournament since it's a similar venue/atmosphere. I don't think it's so ridiculous to suggest it for every third game. Sometimes coaches just can't agree with the scheduling logistics - it has happened at Duke with Coach K too. There are a lot of things to give Cal flack for, but I don't think this is one of them.

[luburch]

Well, as I read the article, I'm not sure that was the offer on the table. It seemed like the plan was to do neutral sites alternating Louisville and Indianapolis, but that at some point in the negotiations the possibility of playing twice in Indiana came up. It's hard to tell, reading Calipari's remarks and the comments from the UK AD, exactly what was offered and what was refused.

You're right, though, that Indiana appears to be the side that broke things off. Of course I don't know their actual motives, but in their defense, there's a good (if old-fashioned) argument to be made that traditional rivalry games belong in traditional, on-campus venues. Yes, a reasonable number of indiana students could get to Lucas Oil one way or another (especially if someone had the initiative to arrange for charter buses), though, in addition to transportation costs, I'm betting their tickets would be more expensive, and the flavor and experience of the game would be very different than in an on-campus venue.

Not saying I think Indiana was clearly in the right here; just saying I'm not ready to lay all the blame at their door, either. The bottom line is that, whatever is going on here, as usual a host of other factors (money, exposure, etc.) trump the game of basketball as factors in the decision.

Crean wanted to keep the game on campus so the student atmosphere still existed and Cal was concerned about money(Imagine that). Also playing in Lucas Oil provides UK with essentially a free recruiting trip to Indianapolis. Not to mention IU will be very good next year and playing at Rupp puts their home win streak in serious jeopardy. And lastly an early season road game in a hostile enviornment every other year with an inexperienced freshman team could ultimately result in a loss and Cal stated he wants an undefeated season.

IU may have decided to break it off, but UK didn't leave them much of an option. Notice UK also refused to play anyother home-and-home series with UNC.

[Billy Dat]

Cal even cites Duke in this Andy Katz's discussion of his new, K-style, scheduling philosophy:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7899648/wildcats-look-more-neutral-court-games

[BD80]

Cal even cites Duke in this Andy Katz's discussion of his new, K-style, scheduling philosophy:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7899648/wildcats-look-more-neutral-court-games

What Cal said:


Calipari said. "We're not a traditional program. We can't have our games locked in for nine or 10 years. We don't know what our roster is going to look like. We have to go year-to-year.

"I told our people that we won't do anything more than a two-year contract because of that,"

What Cal meant:

"I don't know if I'll be coaching the Knicks next year or not"