* An age-old argument comes up in sports, particularly at the college level and somewhat less so at the high school level, with regards to the level of competition of the opponent. Particularly prevalent in football and basketball, teams will sometimes deliberately schedule games against perennially weak programs to guarantee a win, reasoning that it builds confidence and allows teams to – once a large lead is built – work on untested plays or actual game situations that have given them trouble against better competition, and/or play deep reserves who normally wouldn't see playing time without having to pay much of or any price. On the other hand, other programs – including but not always traditionally strong programs – will schedule games against as strong of teams as possible, believing that one does not get better by consistently playing bad teams, and it is this latter philosophy that fits this trope ... beating or at least being competitive against strong teams, or even just the opportunity to learn from playing the better team after taking a brutal loss, no matter the strength of your own team, has more benefits in the end than soundly and decisively beating a pitifully weak team.

9th Apr '13 3:22:34 PM Briguy52748

Send Briguy52748 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

sports

Added line(s) 45 (click to see context) :

This list shows the last 10 events of 23. Show all.

new edits

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy