I have never understood why football and basketball scheduling appears to not be better coordinated. If you look at the "WANTS" of each, there is some very interesting synergy.
Basketball: we want to play "tier 1" schools that would be in the top 50/100 - home/away, doesn't matter - WANT to improve our overall schedule.
Football: We want to play beatable "P5" schools" - with a home and home preferred as we WANT to improve our home schedule.
So why not coordinate and horse trade? let's approach schools with packages, e.g., give us 2 or 3 basketball games - all on YOUR court - but we also get a home and home football. There are a number of schools that have higher-end basketball, and lower-end football - THOSE are the ideal targets:
ACC: NC State, Pitt, Ga. Tech. Wake, Syracuse, Virginia, Duke (last 2 maybe not)
AAC: everyone but Cincy makes sense (they would not play us in Athens).
Big 12: Texas Tech, KState, Iowa St. Kansas?
Big 10: Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minny, MD
SEC: MO, Miss St. Vandy, Ole Miss (especially with their issues).
I would take any of these teams on the road in basketball and any of them in Pedan Stadium.
Why not coordinate?
I don't think Syracuse has scheduled us since we became the first -- and, I think, only -- school to beat them in the first round of their own tournament, the late Carrier Classic. (We beat them in '98 and they ditched the tournament about three years later.) They were #12 in the nation and we beat them with a very young team: one senior (Corey Reed), three juniors (Diante Flenorl, Shaun Stonerook and LeDrell Whitehead), three sophomores (Dustin Ford, Nick Terry and Sanjay Adell)and three freshmen (Patrick Flomo, Jason Crawford and Jeremy Thrapp).