How would you rate Coach Cox for the 2020 - 2021 Season?

[JimSidd]

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

You’re the only one in America to think that, but to each is own.

We were nowhere near the tournament when the A10 tourney started.

At least prior to the use of NET rating, the committee gave more weight to the last 10 games, which would have been bad for Rhody. At the very least, Rhody would have had to make the finals last year and lose a competitive game to Dayton to have been selected for the tournament.

[ace]

This year was a complete failure. But, I do think Cox can coach.

Just the roster makeup (not the talent) is an issue. And, Tyrese this year (and Shepard last year) would’ve significantly helped with that makeup. And, those are pieces Cox rightfully figured he’d have at the time.

And, last year, we earned an NCAA bid if you look at the season as a whole. Not saying the powers that be would’ve selected us. But, that’s an uphill battle all of our coaches would face.

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

The 14-15 team went 13-5 in conference and finished tied for second. They played in the NIT.

[URI2006_Andy]

I feel there’s bias towards bigger conferences when selecting at large teams. (Probably most of us do) Given that bias, I agree we would not have been selected last year. That’s not my point.

My point is, if you go 13-5 in the A-10, you have earned one of the 36 at large bids.

The fair thing would be the top 64 NET teams make the tournament. But, that ain’t happening because you would be replacing automatic wins for the top seeds (like Bryant) and replacing them with solid teams from WCC, AAC, A10.

[rhodyrudder]

C-

A year ago, we had one player on the roster...
(I guess it was actually 3, with Shep and Walker actually turning into the highlights of the year for me...but it felt like one so that's my story.)
Anyway, there was clearly a lot of work done to upgrade the roster.
Getting guys like the twins, Ish, AB, Martin...and convincing Fatts to return...were all huge, and there was WAY more potential than 10-15...
But DC is not getting fired this year.

So the team needs to stop underachieving, and that's fully on the HC.
IMO he deserves one more year to turn things around.
.500 in league play is a bare minimum for me next year.

The question then becomes, unfortunately, "Is that where we are?"
And if that's all it is, then we probably have the answer.
Many of us, looking back to that PC game, sounded prophetic 3 years ago.
I know I was sure as hell pissed when JD was taken out of the 1-spot.

But we're stuck for at least one more season.
And if there we're done before Selection Sunday, with no chance at any tourney, then I think we'll need to move on.

[Rhody15]

I feel there’s bias towards bigger conferences when selecting at large teams. (Probably most of us do) Given that bias, I agree we would not have been selected last year. That’s not my point.

My point is, if you go 13-5 in the A-10, you have earned one of the 36 at large bids.

The fair thing would be the top 64 NET teams make the tournament. But, that ain’t happening because you would be replacing automatic wins for the top seeds (like Bryant) and replacing them with solid teams from WCC, AAC, A10.

So 5-7 OOC and 13-5 in A10 gets you in?

No.

It’s the whole body of work.

[Jersey77]

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

The 14-15 team went 13-5 in conference and finished tied for second. They played in the NIT.

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

[ace]

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

The 14-15 team went 13-5 in conference and finished tied for second. They played in the NIT.

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

They won the A10 tournament and were an automatic bid.

The point remains the same- last year’s team would have had to do a lot of work in the conference tournament to make it, and things were not trending in a good direction.

[URI2006_Andy]

I feel there’s bias towards bigger conferences when selecting at large teams. (Probably most of us do) Given that bias, I agree we would not have been selected last year. That’s not my point.

My point is, if you go 13-5 in the A-10, you have earned one of the 36 at large bids.

The fair thing would be the top 64 NET teams make the tournament. But, that ain’t happening because you would be replacing automatic wins for the top seeds (like Bryant) and replacing them with solid teams from WCC, AAC, A10.

So 5-7 OOC and 13-5 in A10 gets you in?

No.

It’s the whole body of work.

If you got 7 non-conference losses, you’re not good enough to go 13-5 in the A-10.

[Jersey77]

The 14-15 team went 13-5 in conference and finished tied for second. They played in the NIT.

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

They won the A10 tournament and were an automatic bid.

The point remains the same- last year’s team would have to do a lot of work in the conference tournament to make it, and things were not trending in a good direction.

True, but most experts felt we were in anyway once we got to the finals.
I agree that we would of had to make a nice run in the NCAAT for consideration last season.

[URI2006_Andy]

The 14-15 team went 13-5 in conference and finished tied for second. They played in the NIT.

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

They won the A10 tournament and were an automatic bid.

The point remains the same- last year’s team would have had to do a lot of work in the conference tournament to make it, and things were not trending in a good direction.

Ace - In 2017, If Dayton beat Davidson in the 1/8 game that year, we would’ve played the 1 seed Dayton in the A-10 semis (and likely lost cause they had our number). And, because of the big conference bias, we would’ve been in the NIT in 2017 when clearly we were a tournament team. That’s my point.

You’re right about the wrong direction last year though.

[ace]

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

They won the A10 tournament and were an automatic bid.

The point remains the same- last year’s team would have to do a lot of work in the conference tournament to make it, and things were not trending in a good direction.

True, but many felt we were in anyway once we got to the finals.
I agree that we would of had to make a nice run in the NCAAT for consideration.

Right, but that gets us back to 13-5 in conference doesn’t necessarily earn anybody anything. The A10 is similar to the American. There are too many bad teams at the bottom- the better teams can’t overcome too many conference losses and make it nationally.

[Jersey77]

RPI Basketball Conference ratings as of 3/7/21

1 Big 12 0.569 Baylor (20-1)
2 Big Ten 0.557 Michigan (19-2)
3 SEC 0.551 Alabama (21-6)
4 WCC 0.543 Gonzaga (24-0)
5 ACC 0.540 Clemson (16-6)
6 Pac-12 0.539 USC (21-6)
7 Big East 0.539 Villanova (16-5)
8 American 0.536 Houston (20-3)
9 Southern 0.518 NC-Grnsboro (19-8)
10 Mountain West 0.512 San Diego St (20-4)
11 Atlantic 10 0.508 St Bonavent (15-4)
12 MVC 0.505 Loyola-Chi (23-4)
13 Patriot 0.502 Colgate (12-1)
14 CUSA 0.501 LA Tech (20-6)
15 MAAC 0.495 Canisius (7-5)
16 Sun Belt 0.494 Georgia St (15-5)
17 MAC 0.486 Toledo (20-7)
18 Northeast 0.486 Bryant (15-5)
19 CAA 0.479 Northeastrn (9-8)
20 Big West 0.475 UCSB (19-4)
21 Horizon League 0.475 Cleveland St (17-7)
22 Ohio Valley 0.472 Morehead St (23-7)
23 America East 0.468 Maryland BC (14-6)
24 Big Sky 0.465 S Utah (19-3)
25 Big South 0.457 Winthrop (22-1)
26 Atlantic Sun 0.452 Liberty (22-5)
27 WAC 0.441 Grd Canyon (15-6)
28 SWAC 0.440 Prairie View (14-4)
29 Southland 0.439 Sam Hous St (19-8)
30 Summit 0.437 S Dakota St (16-6)
31 MEAC 0.350 Norfolk St (14-7)
32 Ivy -- Yale (0-0)

I just included this just to show conference comparisons in reference to some previous posts.

[PeterRamTime]

Our 16-17 team also went 13-5 in conference, finished tied for 3rd and got invited to the NCAAT.
You never know how the committee will decide.

They won the A10 tournament and were an automatic bid.

The point remains the same- last year’s team would have had to do a lot of work in the conference tournament to make it, and things were not trending in a good direction.

Ace - In 2017, If Dayton beat Davidson in the 1/8 game that year, we would’ve played the 1 seed Dayton in the A-10 semis (and likely lost cause they had our number). And, because of the big conference bias, we would’ve been in the NIT in 2017 when clearly we were a tournament team. That’s my point.

You’re right about the wrong direction last year though.

Not so sure that 17 team was going to be stopped by Dayton at that point. But I get your point.

Still...you have to prove yourself. We needed to win out all the way to the finals because of the hole we dug ourselves losing to Fordham and blowing it in so many big games before that.

Last years team blew it down the stretch. If they made it to the finals they may have gotten in but it would have required a lot of help. That's what happens when you lose to Brown.

[Blue Man]

I think the clearest thing about all of these responses is that the “bar” is nowhere close to what Cox said it was.

If you can give this season a grade higher than D, and create excuses as to why, you’re complicit in why this program continues to suffer.

[PeterRamTime]

I think the clearest thing about all of these responses is that the “bar” is nowhere close to what Cox said it was.

If you can give this season a grade higher than D, and create excuses as to why, you’re complicit in why this program continues to suffer.

The injuries, bunch of new players and COVID are the only reasons it's not an F.

[Blue Man]

I think the clearest thing about all of these responses is that the “bar” is nowhere close to what Cox said it was.

If you can give this season a grade higher than D, and create excuses as to why, you’re complicit in why this program continues to suffer.

The injuries, bunch of new players and COVID are the only reasons it's not an F.

Shouldn’t have played his star through his injuries.

New players are his responsibility.

We had no Covid interruptions to our program.

[ramster]

I think the clearest thing about all of these responses is that the “bar” is nowhere close to what Cox said it was.

If you can give this season a grade higher than D, and create excuses as to why, you’re complicit in why this program continues to suffer.

The injuries, bunch of new players and COVID are the only reasons it's not an F.

Shouldn’t have played his star through his injuries.

New players are his responsibility.

We had no Covid interruptions to our program.

If he had retained his players he would not have needed so many new players. Retention of good talent is important in basketball and in the corporate world.

All teams had to deal with Covid - as all 350 teams and 350 Head Coaches had to deal with the same thing. It's no reason for Cox' Final Grade to be impacted favorably or unfavorably. It's just a line for the excuses thread.

[PeterRamTime]

I think the clearest thing about all of these responses is that the “bar” is nowhere close to what Cox said it was.

If you can give this season a grade higher than D, and create excuses as to why, you’re complicit in why this program continues to suffer.

The injuries, bunch of new players and COVID are the only reasons it's not an F.

Shouldn’t have played his star through his injuries.

New players are his responsibility.

We had no Covid interruptions to our program.

Yeah he should have rested, but the Makhi injury was pretty huge too. Who knows how much we suffer with Fatts resting for several weeks, so the injury is still huge.

I mention Covid because everybody is a little off dealing with this existential challenging year. And it seems like more teams that not are really off this year, those with or without covid interruptions. There's a lot of shit that just hasn't made sense.

That said. If Makhi and Fatts are totally healthy, with Cox we still likely find a way to do no better than an NIT team.

[ramster]

The injuries, bunch of new players and COVID are the only reasons it's not an F.

Shouldn’t have played his star through his injuries.

New players are his responsibility.

We had no Covid interruptions to our program.

Yeah he should have rested, but the Makhi injury was pretty huge too. Who knows how much we suffer with Fatts resting for several weeks, so the injury is still huge.

I mention Covid because everybody is a little off dealing with this existential challenging year. And it seems like more teams that not are really off this year, those with or without covid interruptions. There's a lot of shit that just hasn't made sense.

That said. If Makhi and Fatts are totally healthy, with Cox we still likely find a way to do no better than an NIT team.

Not everybody.
Games were played and there were an equal number of losers and winners - just like every year.

VCU was picked preseason to finish 11th in the A10. They are now in the Championship game and a lock for the NCAA. Think they were negatively affected by Covid?
Maybe it helped VCU that the weakly coached teams were blaming Covid so much that they did not play to expectations.

Good programs, good coaches, good players overcome obstacles. No excuses is a lifestyle. Poor programs, poor coaches, poor players don't excel at overcoming obstacles and excel at making excuses.

[Rhody15]

Remember someone here said they’d take Cox over Roades?

Lol.

[PeterRamTime]

Shouldn’t have played his star through his injuries.

New players are his responsibility.

We had no Covid interruptions to our program.

Yeah he should have rested, but the Makhi injury was pretty huge too. Who knows how much we suffer with Fatts resting for several weeks, so the injury is still huge.

I mention Covid because everybody is a little off dealing with this existential challenging year. And it seems like more teams that not are really off this year, those with or without covid interruptions. There's a lot of shit that just hasn't made sense.

That said. If Makhi and Fatts are totally healthy, with Cox we still likely find a way to do no better than an NIT team.

Not everybody.
Games were played and there were an equal number of losers and winners - just like every year.

VCU was picked preseason to finish 11th in the A10. They are now in the Championship game and a lock for the NCAA. Think they were negatively affected by Covid?
Maybe it helped VCU that the weakly coached teams were blaming Covid so much that they did not play to expectations.

Good programs, good coaches, good players overcome obstacles. No excuses is a lifestyle. Poor programs, poor coaches, poor players don't excel at overcoming obstacles and excel at making excuses.

Helps having someone like Bones carry them certainly helps. And yes they are very pedestrian without him.

Kinda like how with an unhealthy Fatts we weren't shit.

My excuses aren't dismissing anything, as I said, we were at best an NIT team because of the dumb system we have or maybe, Fatts would have carried us to the dance. Junior year Fatts would have carried this team to a pretty decent handful of wins and we still beat the best two teams in the league.

But yeah if you don't get it done you don't get it done and if it looks as bad as it did for us this year we look pretty fuckin screwed.

Cox's only hope is if he gets some really good transfer guard and with the Mitchell's and we just out talent enough people to mask his coaching difficiencies and make the tournament next year.

[rambone 78]

Sorry...Cox will not get us to the dance as long as he's here, no matter the talent.

We've never made the dance with a poor coach. Ever.

[Jersey77]

Remember someone here said they’d take Cox over Roades?

Lol.

I never quite understood why many were down on Mike Rhoades.
Not easy following the success of Will Wade and Shaka Smart, but his record is 78-42 and will have 2 NCAAT appearances in 4 years.
I realize last year was a disappointment, but good coaches rebound and he did in a difficult season.

[Rhody15]

Sorry...Cox will not get us to the dance as long as he's here, no matter the talent.

We've never made the dance with a poor coach. Ever.

Not many teams do though.

Not disagreeing with your post, just saying not many teams (if any) make the tournament with a poor coach.

[rambone 78]

Talent level in college means little, unless a coach can get the most out of that talent.

[URI2006_Andy]

Talent level in college means little, unless a coach can get the most out of that talent.

Agree. You got the 10 or so blue bloods who are in a league of their own talent wise. Then, you have a group of about 50-75 schools very close in talent every year. The schools in the bigger conferences can gain momentum because of scheduling opportunities. The A-10 schools need good to great coaching to keep up with that.

[rambone 78]

URI will never be consistently good, simply because they can't keep good coaches for very long.

We are just a rung on the ladder for a coach to move up, if he wins here.

There are a very few exceptions, like McKillop at Davidson, or Few at Gonzaga....

That's the reality. We did miss an opportunity with Pitino though. Boy have I changed my tune on him lol.

The only time we changed coaches and stayed good, or got better, was when Harrick followed Al.

But as we know, it didn't last long.

Will it happen again, and when?

[NC_Ram]

Davidson is a special place. It's a highly competitive private school where everything is first class, from the campus to the facilities to the alumni events. Mckillop is just one example of this. Two of my former employees live there and say they will never move. McKillop would never leave there, so I would exclude him from any and all coaching move comparisons.

[Rhody15]

URI will never be consistently good, simply because they can't keep good coaches for very long.

We are just a rung on the ladder for a coach to move up, if he wins here.

There are a very few exceptions, like McKillop at Davidson, or Few at Gonzaga....

That's the reality. We did miss an opportunity with Pitino though. Boy have I changed my tune on him lol.

The only time we changed coaches and stayed good, or got better, was when Harrick followed Al.

But as we know, it didn't last long.

Will it happen again, and when?

Few examples of mid majors who are always good and changes coaches a lot ?

VCU and Dayton of course, but also Murray St.

Sure they had Morant, but looks at their seasons. 20+ wins almost every year, with an NCAA appearance every 3/4 years.

[spookydog]

I challenge anyone to show me ONE piece of improvement with this program from year 1 to now, from last year to now, and from the beginning of this season to now.

That PC thread from 3 years ago reads like a game that happened last week.

Zero improvement. Zero development from the coach or from his players.

To be fair, the PC thread from 8 years ago reads like a game that happened last week as well

"If they gave points for turnovers, this game would be much more interesting."

"We lost defensive intensity in the second half. PC went on a 10-0 run and for some reason, Hurley didn't call a timeout. Shades of Al Skinner."

"URI is shooting 37.5% which is about as bad as they do most games. FT shooting is actually good. Rhody's problem looks to be the turnovers with 19 thus far."

"are you blaming the players or Hurley for the lack of defensive intensity in the 2nd half?"

And that is just from the first page of the thread.

[Blue Man]

I challenge anyone to show me ONE piece of improvement with this program from year 1 to now, from last year to now, and from the beginning of this season to now.

That PC thread from 3 years ago reads like a game that happened last week.

Zero improvement. Zero development from the coach or from his players.

To be fair, the PC thread from 8 years ago reads like a game that happened last week as well

"If they gave points for turnovers, this game would be much more interesting."

"We lost defensive intensity in the second half. PC went on a 10-0 run and for some reason, Hurley didn't call a timeout. Shades of Al Skinner."

"URI is shooting 37.5% which is about as bad as they do most games. FT shooting is actually good. Rhody's problem looks to be the turnovers with 19 thus far."

"are you blaming the players or Hurley for the lack of defensive intensity in the 2nd half?"

And that is just from the first page of the thread.

Are you about to compare game #9 of a true rebuild, on a team led by Xavier Munford, Nic Malesevic, and Mike Powell to year 1 of a non-rebuild with 3 returning conference champions, and arguably the best pure point guard in this program's history at the helm?

Because that would be dumb.

Especially because we know how things improved incrementally since that season, as expected.

If we really want to follow that thread, and I can't believe I'm spelling it out - but how many of those complaints changed in the following seasons? After Hurley had a chance to put his culture and his players into place?

2 years after that game, Hurley took a team with Gil Biruta and Jarrell Reischel, led by sophomores, to a near conference title, top 4 finish, won a game in the A-10 tourney, very nearly won another, went to the NIT, won a game there, and was poised for an NCAA run the very next year with his crown jewel recruiting class. 21-8, 13-5 in the 7th best conference in the country.

Here we sit 2 years after Cox's first Friars game. The complaints in that game are exactly the same, and not little things either. Why is he calling/not calling time outs? Why did he move the best player off the ball? Why does he let Fatts shoot so much when he's a poor shooter? Why don't we play with any fire? Etc, etc, etc. How did we do this year? Nearly bottom 4. 10-15, 7-10 in the 11th best conference in the country.

We lost 7 of our last 8. Our coach sounded lost and aloof in his press conferences, basically admitting he doesn't know how to scout teams and gameplan against them. He came out and openly said his team wasn't prepared for a team's best player not to play - even though said player was announced out by the coach the day before the game, and didn't play in UMass' previous game.

The problems go so far beyond the stats and numbers (which look terrible on their own), and permeate through every level of this program. There is not one, single thing that you can objectively point to David Cox, or this basketball team, doing anything "better" than they did during the PC game in his first season.

Ignoring the context of what is happening with this basketball program now, and trying to make any comparison to Hurley's first year is offensive.

[CTRamfan]

Tough year to grade.......throw the disappointment for the season out, and try to rationalize what happened.

Positives -
continued high level of recruiting.
Compared to Hurley, Baron, and Skinner his W-L record for his first three years is comparable.
According to SPORT REFERENSE, his SOS is the highest during his first three years compared to the other three.
With the exception of Fatts and Harris, all the players were new to the program.

Negatives - The year end swoon. It seemed to me our lack of offensive development was key. I want to think that was the biggest coaching shortcoming.

Unknowns - How much does Sutton help or hinder the X's and O's. Why did the previous year's roster leave.....coach or some other factor.

GRADE - C minus
I feel less than qualified to judge a D1 coach

[Blue Man]

I challenge anyone to show me ONE piece of improvement with this program from year 1 to now, from last year to now, and from the beginning of this season to now.

That PC thread from 3 years ago reads like a game that happened last week.

Zero improvement. Zero development from the coach or from his players.

To be fair, the PC thread from 8 years ago reads like a game that happened last week as well

"If they gave points for turnovers, this game would be much more interesting."

"We lost defensive intensity in the second half. PC went on a 10-0 run and for some reason, Hurley didn't call a timeout. Shades of Al Skinner."

"URI is shooting 37.5% which is about as bad as they do most games. FT shooting is actually good. Rhody's problem looks to be the turnovers with 19 thus far."

"are you blaming the players or Hurley for the lack of defensive intensity in the 2nd half?"

And that is just from the first page of the thread.

I hate this notion that continues here that this board is just full of complainers who don't like losing, instead of a message board like any other on the internet.

I went and found the PC loss from year 3 of the Hurley era, just for comparison's sake:

"Doubt we will see a game all year when you say we got Good PG play and lost. FT shooting, TOs, and a bad 5-6 min stretch in second half killed us. Thought DH coached a good game, I would have gone to Butler in first half to see if we could shoot them out of the zone."

"Loved our fight and defensive intensity in last 10 minutes. Our FR really struggled outside of a couple great defensive plays by JT. Witnessing the learning curve of a PG from high school to college, Jarvis really struggling. That will improve in time. Don't agree we are a big man away from being great, I think we will be great when we get great PG play. We didn't lose this game inside."

"The second half adjustment to put TJ in the middle on offense against the zone worked really well. Opened up Hassan on the baseline and was pretty effective."

"Dunn was the difference tonight. He played like crap against Brown, but woke up against us.
We've got to get to a higher level there to win games against better teams. I hope Jarvis is the answer. He shows flashes, but no consistency yet.
We need a good PG to win the close ones.
I now understand why Dan is still recruiting PG's. We may need more at that position."

etc, etc.

No one likes losing. Message boards exist for cathartic bitching and the exchange of ideas about something a bunch of strangers have common ground on.

This weird defense of Dave Cox and the thought that people on this message board are unnecessarily mean, instead of this board is consistent and they have a decent idea of what's good/bad when it comes to what they're watching, is asinine.

David Cox is a below-average to poor head coach. He has shown zero improvement in the past 3 years to refute that point.

It is not to say he can't get better, or that he won't, but facts are facts.

He won't get fired this year, but you could make a clear case as to why he should.

I am not sure you could make the same clear case for why he should get extended.

[spookydog]

I wasn't comparing the two at all. I understand they are two completely different situations. I just thought it was funny.
It was the lack of a timeout after a 10-0 run that made me laugh the most.

[Blue Man]

I wasn't comparing the two at all. I understand they are two completely different situations. I just thought it was funny.
It was the lack of a timeout after a 10-0 run that made me laugh the most.

Totally fair. It's tougher to get jokes reading the board. I'm sure reading takes on any board's game thread after a loss to a rival is high comedy.

[PeterRamTime]

This year was a complete failure. But, I do think Cox can coach.

Just the roster makeup (not the talent) is an issue. And, Tyrese this year (and Shepard last year) would’ve significantly helped with that makeup. And, those are pieces Cox rightfully figured he’d have at the time.

And, last year, we earned an NCAA bid if you look at the season as a whole. Not saying the powers that be would’ve selected us. But, that’s an uphill battle all of our coaches would face.

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

[Blue Man]

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

[Rhodymob05]

The difference is a Southland school isn't going 13-5 against anyone in the A-10.

[Jersey77]

We did not earn an NCAA after the register reason. At one point we were an 8/9 seed, then shit the bed down the stretch.

Only way we would have made it is if we won the A10.

Cannot defend Cox by saying we earned a big last year. We did not.

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

[Blue Man]

The difference is a Southland school isn't going 13-5 against anyone in the A-10.

I'm sure Stephen F Austin would've been fine in a conference where half the teams are Q3 or worse.

[rjsuperfly66]

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

While they might struggle to get home games, neutral court games are definitely plentiful. Most A10 teams play in OOC tournaments with multiple P5/BE teams, sometimes multiple quality ones. Have to take advantage of the opportunities that are there, and there are opportunities there. URI in particular has landed games against some powerhouse programs on the neutral court in recent years.

But sure, is a team like Indiana coming to play URI? Probably not. Georgia? Probably not... although you just got a home and home with 'Bama not too long ago. But can you snipe a team like that in the OOC in a tournament? Sure. It's not just a URI thing, PC has the same problem ... PC has scheduled one major conference opponent (Texas) to a home and home in the last several years.

RI isn't a fertile recruiting hot bed, PC and URI aren't dynamite programs that offer borderline guaranteed elite opposition, etc. And even further, many teams have shown preferences in one-off neutral court games when you know how good your opponent should be over 2-3 year commitments anyway. The difference in scheduling philosophies for those programs comes down to conference strength.

[Rhodymob05]

Off the top of my head in recent years, URI had had PC, Bama, a ranked Nebraska, Seton Hall come to the Ryan Center. West Virginia decided our "home game" was Mohegan Sun.

[rhodylaw]

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

[Rhody15]

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

We were not going to get in at 23-10 with a loss in the A10 finals.

We were nowhere near the bubble at the end of the regular season.

We were not even mentioned on ESPNs "Bubble Watch" at the end of the season, just went and looked it up. Richmond was the only team (other than Dayton) in the A10 to be listed.

[steveystuds06]

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

No way. We had to win the tournament to receive a bid last year

[Jersey77]

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

While they might struggle to get home games, neutral court games are definitely plentiful. Most A10 teams play in OOC tournaments with multiple P5/BE teams, sometimes multiple quality ones. Have to take advantage of the opportunities that are there, and there are opportunities there. URI in particular has landed games against some powerhouse programs on the neutral court in recent years.

But sure, is a team like Indiana coming to play URI? Probably not. Georgia? Probably not... although you just got a home and home with 'Bama not too long ago. But can you snipe a team like that in the OOC in a tournament? Sure. It's not just a URI thing, PC has the same problem ... PC has scheduled one major conference opponent (Texas) to a home and home in the last several years.

RI isn't a fertile recruiting hot bed, PC and URI aren't dynamite programs that offer borderline guaranteed elite opposition, etc. And even further, many teams have shown preferences in one-off neutral court games when you know how good your opponent should be over 2-3 year commitments anyway. The difference in scheduling philosophies for those programs comes down to conference strength.

We have been more fortunate than many mid majors in scheduling. Unfortunately it may keep getting a little more difficult as some of these P5 and major conferences discuss going to a 20 game schedule.

I just ran across this headline

"A big reason Majors don't travel to Mid-Majors like the MVC? They lose 60% of the time."

"

[steviep123]

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

While they might struggle to get home games, neutral court games are definitely plentiful. Most A10 teams play in OOC tournaments with multiple P5/BE teams, sometimes multiple quality ones. Have to take advantage of the opportunities that are there, and there are opportunities there. URI in particular has landed games against some powerhouse programs on the neutral court in recent years.

But sure, is a team like Indiana coming to play URI? Probably not. Georgia? Probably not... although you just got a home and home with 'Bama not too long ago. But can you snipe a team like that in the OOC in a tournament? Sure. It's not just a URI thing, PC has the same problem ... PC has scheduled one major conference opponent (Texas) to a home and home in the last several years.

RI isn't a fertile recruiting hot bed, PC and URI aren't dynamite programs that offer borderline guaranteed elite opposition, etc. And even further, many teams have shown preferences in one-off neutral court games when you know how good your opponent should be over 2-3 year commitments anyway. The difference in scheduling philosophies for those programs comes down to conference strength.

This - exactly this. URI has had their chances (of course there could be more), but with the exception of Cox' first season (which could have been mostly DH scheduling), last year and this year the schedule wasn't the problem. It was not having an abundance of wins to get them over the top.

Last year, we had potential needle moving games (at least on paper before the season) vs. the following teams that would have opened the committee's eyes in March:

Maryland (loss), LSU, WVU, WKU, Alabama, Providence. We went 3-3 in these games with the 3 wins being arguably against the weaker of the 3. That put us in the position in that even though we were well on the right side of the bubble in late Jan/early Feb going into the first Dayton game, not having a needle moving win at MD, at WVU or neutral vs. LSU made it so we likely needed to go at least 4-2 vs. non Dayton teams in the last 8 games to feel comfortable prior to the A10 tourney. Instead they went 3-3 and nearly went 1-5. The loss vs. Brown also made this possible with no super marquee win to offset it.

This year, prior to covid changes they had a decent schedule - covid changes made the schedule better, but no marquis wins except perhaps Seton Hall.

In the last two Hurley seasons, not only did we have marquee wins over teams in a tournament setting, but they led to a second marquee game.

2016-17 had a win over ranked Cincinnati leading to a match vs. Duke - next season's last second win vs. Seton Hall (who can forget JT's running bank with a few secs to play?) led to a matchup with Virginia. These are the games we need to win - not only to get the win, but it provides a second Q1/2 matchup that you don't get with a loss.

We had that opportunity this year - Arizona St - we beat them, then we get another Q1 vs. 'Nova. Those are the opportunities we need to take advantage of. They are there and have been most of the past 5 years, though there certainly could be more. We just need to take better advantage.

[rjsuperfly66]

In addition to some of the other things posted, this was from NBC:

RHODE ISLAND (NET: 57, NBC: Next four out): The Rams avoided disaster when they beat UMass (136) by one on the road on Saturday. At this point, I do not see how the Rams can get an at-large bid without beating Dayton at some point during the Atlantic 10 tournament, but that won’t happen unless they play in the title game. On the other hand, it makes it more likely that they will not need to beat the Flyers in order to get it done. They only have one Quad 1 win — at VCU (68) — and they also have a Quad 4 loss at Brown (224), and now that their NET is in the high-50s, they no longer have that to hang their hat on, either.

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com ... hern-iowa/

[Jersey77]

Exactly. If your 13 wins are against Fordham, La Salle, Duquesne, George Washington, George Mason, UMass, etc - and you are 1-5 against VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc... - you're no better than a SWAC or Southland school that beats no one's and expects an at-large invite.

In reality last year we needed to go 15-3 in conference if you wanted a realistic shot. Our best win in conference was #68 VCU. That was a Q1 because it was on the road. Does your "marquee" win really count if it's over a team that wasn't going to the tournament?

There were 3 top 50 teams in conference last year, Dayton (3), Richmond (38), and St Louis (49). We lost to them.

We played 7 Q1 games all of last year. We were embarrassed in 3 of them. We were 1-6.

We had a Q3 loss to Brown. That's not anywhere close to an NCAA team.

I agree that is not a tournament resume, but to say it was not close is wrong. They were a bubble team last year. We did not need to win the A10 tourney but probably had to beat Richmond, St. Louis or VCU again in the A10 tournament.

No way. We had to win the tournament to receive a bid last year

Not necessarily even though we played our way off the bubble , if we would of made it to the finals we probably would of been in.
This of course is all conjecture because who knows what would of happened.
Regardless, the way we finished the season was extremely disappointing.

[PeterRamTime]

13-5 in the Atlantic 10 is a tournament team. We should prepare for a long tournament drought if we think 13-5 doesn’t make it. Need to troll the selection committee. If we don’t defend the A-10, no one is.

13-5 can make it, but you better have some marquee non-conference wins to back it up. The crux of this issue is playing as many good teams as possible before conference play. With the A-10 you can't just point to a record and say "that will get us in!" You can do that of you're in a P5 for sure, but not in this league where the margin for error is so thin.

The problem is that if you are good program from a better mid-major conference it is sometimes difficult to schedule a team from a P5 or high major. They tend to stay away or won't want a home and away series, they feel it doesn't benefit them.

Yeah we all know that. Getting a P5 at home isn't that important and we still pull it off fairly often.

URI has had a solid non-conferencd schedule for years now with plenty of opportunities to pad a resume for March.

I don't think it's something we should complain about. We aren't going to any power conference anytime soon and we still get 3 to 4 marquee non-concerence games a year and the A-10 provides us with a few more opportunities.

I just don't like the "woe is me" mid major argument, especially because it doesn't really apply to us.

Last year. Bubble team. How much better would our bubble have looked if we didn't lose to Brown? What other bubble teams were losing to someone like Brown? 13-5 didn't get us in because we didn't earn it. The committee shouldn't give you a pass on record alone. If you lose to Brown you are justly penalized and if you don't beat the better teams in the A-10 then you don't deserve it. I don't think any of us after squeaking past UMass last year felt like we deserved to be in the dance because we were 13-5. We felt like we still needed to earn it.

Now we are in danger of losing some of those marquee games that we usually get with this year's crap performance.