"Juan Bid", The Fall of the A10

[section(105)]

I think Thorr has huge pride in the Rhody representation in the A-10 in the non huge revenue generator sports. I sometimes wonder what, if any influence that has on the continuation of URI remaining or leaving the A-10.

[URI_05]

I think the A10 has too weak of a bottom and has only made it a bigger problem over the past few years. Playing so many games against low net teams does nothing to help your NCAA odds and can kill your chances if you blow one.

Stop adding teams that have only had success with one coach.

[Jersey77]

Sorry can't help myself,

We are currently 4-6, last season 5-12, before that 7-10.
But yeah, the A10 isn't good enough for us.

Oh I forgot, our poor performance is Bernadette McGlade's fault.
Now I get it.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Sorry can't help myself,

We are currently 4-6, last season 5-12, before that 7-10.
But yeah, the A10 isn't good enough for us.

Oh I forgot, our poor performance is Bernadette McGlade's fault.
Now I get it.

Yes. Totally. She's the one that approved DC as HC, right?

[Blue Man]

ATP this is great.

I do agree with some of the points above - that while the A10 is doing what's "best" for the A10 - I'm not sure that what the A10 has done (adding mediocre teams with big past names)is the best.

We have a watered down conference top to bottom.

2014's version with Xavier and Butler gave us two top-end programs. We couldn't do enough to keep them. My thought why?

The bottom of the A10, the amount of teams, and what that does to the share.

By having a basement (really the bottom half) that not only can't be depended on to get to the tournament, but to be Q3/Q4 landmines waiting to blow up our contender's NCAA dreams, those good teams don't want to stay.

The one thing the A10 has done is they've added the teams with, as the kids say, "juice" not "sauce." Juice is temporary, sauce means forever.

What has Davidson really done since coming on board for 9 years? 3 appearances, 2 at large bids, 4 total units. You know what they do way more often? Suck in the OOC and then knock off top A10 teams and ruin their chances.

George Mason? ZERO in 10 years. Bouncing between AT BEST a Q2 (2 seasons) or a Q3/Q4 for most of them.

We added Loyola - they are worse than everyone else in a conference that's biggest problem is how bad we are at the bottom. They invest - but they're going to suck.

We lost Xavier and Butler because we couldn't trim the fat. If they A10 had said at the time - we're going to lose Charlotte/Temple - and drop historically poorly performing/investing teams like Fordham, Duquesne, La Salle, and GW.

You're left with 10 teams (similar to the Big East), but all that invest and have top-end ability. St Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, UMass, URI, Richmond, St Joes, St. Bonaventure. That's less teams to share revenue with, and no historic Q4 landmines that ruin everyone elses chances. It's why the Big East gets 6-8 teams in every year.

Unless we drop the junk - this 1-2 bid league is what we are.

We need to hope for a breakaway with some basketball only castoffs. My dream?

If the A-10 doesn't enforce some type of minimum-investment for our bottom tier teams - URI needs to get with the larger A10 programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond - grab Wichita State (AAC is going to SUCK) - and hope that you can grab a handful of like-minded schools in the eastern geography, and build a "low fat" mid major of 10 teams.

But as long as we have a 15-16 team league of 6+ Q4 games, we will be the juans.

[Jersey77]

ATP this is great.

I do agree with some of the points above - that while the A10 is doing what's "best" for the A10 - I'm not sure that what the A10 has done (adding mediocre teams with big past names)is the best.

We have a watered down conference top to bottom.

2014's version with Xavier and Butler gave us two top-end programs. We couldn't do enough to keep them. My thought why?

The bottom of the A10, the amount of teams, and what that does to the share.

By having a basement (really the bottom half) that not only can't be depended on to get to the tournament, but to be Q3/Q4 landmines waiting to blow up our contender's NCAA dreams, those good teams don't want to stay.

The one thing the A10 has done is they've added the teams with, as the kids say, "juice" not "sauce." Juice is temporary, sauce means forever.

What has Davidson really done since coming on board for 9 years? 3 appearances, 2 at large bids, 4 total units. You know what they do way more often? Suck in the OOC and then knock off top A10 teams and ruin their chances.

George Mason? ZERO in 10 years. Bouncing between AT BEST a Q2 (2 seasons) or a Q3/Q4 for most of them.

We added Loyola - they are worse than everyone else in a conference that's biggest problem is how bad we are at the bottom. They invest - but they're going to suck.

We lost Xavier and Butler because we couldn't trim the fat. If they A10 had said at the time - we're going to lose Charlotte/Temple - and drop historically poorly performing/investing teams like Fordham, Duquesne, La Salle, and GW.

You're left with 10 teams (similar to the Big East), but all that invest and have top-end ability. St Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, UMass, URI, Richmond, St Joes, St. Bonaventure. That's less teams to share revenue with, and no historic Q4 landmines that ruin everyone elses chances. It's why the Big East gets 6-8 teams in every year.

Unless we drop the junk - this 1-2 bid league is what we are.

We need to hope for a breakaway with some basketball only castoffs. My dream?

If the A-10 doesn't enforce some type of minimum-investment for our bottom tier teams - URI needs to get with the larger A10 programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond - grab Wichita State (AAC is going to SUCK) - and hope that you can grab a handful of like-minded schools in the eastern geography, and build a "low fat" mid major of 10 teams.

But as long as we have a 15-16 team league of 6+ Q4 games, we will be the juans.

Blue Man we lost Xavier and Butler because they were invited to join the NBE in 2013.
Creighton had already agreed to join the following year.
How do you turn that down?
The NBE back then had just agreed to a 12-year FOX Sports contract and will keep their championships in MSG.
At that time worth $500-$600M.

[section(105)]

That Dave Gavitt was genius.

[SGreenwell]

re: Adding "mediocre" teams to the A-10, I kind of struggle with what McGlade was supposed to do. It's not like the option was add George Mason and Loyola, or, Duke and UNC. Without Division I football, the A-10 just doesn't have that much leverage, since the (new) Big East has kind of scooped up some of the best basketball programs without football already. We added Butler, and they left almost immediately, and programs with ambitions in football (Charlotte) didn't stick around either. It's not like choosing Siena or Belmont instead of programs we did take in shifts the equation that much. Also, these expansions did net VCU, which has been a stellar program for the A-10.

I think there's an argument to be had now that having such a big conference means a slightly smaller OOC schedule, which probably hurts the Atlantic 10 more than it helps. It's not like teams are able to play a ton of games against power conference schools, but it would still probably be better to have 1 or 2 more OOC games against mid-tier conferences than 17 or 18 conference games.

[Rhody72]

I believe that in the history of the A10 no member has left to join a lower ranked conference while quite a few former members have left to join higher ranked conferences. The A10 has several members who lack the ambition to move up. Several members have moved up to the A10 from lower ranked conferences.

[RF1]

Founding member Duquesne left the A-10 in 1992 for the lower rated Midwest Collegiate Conference. They lasted just one year in their new league before returning. Charlotte left the A-10 in 2015 to join CUSA which then had a very weak men's basketball league.

[steviep123]

Founding member Duquesne left the A-10 in 1992 for the lower rated Midwest Collegiate Conference. They lasted just one year in their new league before returning. Charlotte left the A-10 in 2015 to join CUSA which then had a very weak men's basketball league.

Charlotte left for football reasons as did Temple. Duquesne leaving made sense for all other sports except hoops at the time and were in a league with X and Dayton and all 3 came to the A10. So while it's true about Duquesne and Charlotte, it's not really the same. Or at least it wasn't a basketball decision.

Edit: Oh God, I'm sort of defending R72 - ignore my post.

[Iggy1979]

You want to know the real reason the A-10 has started to suck?

It's best coaches since Dan left have been

Mark Schmidt, Mike Rhoades, Anthony Grant Keith Dambrot, Chris Mooney and Travis Ford

Now what Schmidt has done at St Bona is great, Dambrot does great with less as well, but the other guys? Mediocre city. You can't have average coaches at your power programs. The whole league atrophies.

Not too long ago we had Brad Stevens, Archie Miller, Phil Martelli, Dan Hurley, Chris Mack, Fran Dunphy, Rick Majerus (Jim Crews), Shaka Smart, Mark Schmidt, Chris Mooney and Mike Lonergan at the same time.

It was huge for the league to get Archie, Frank and Fran.

The thing is...only one or those three is in his prime

Exactly. It's all about the quality of the coaches

[RhowdyRam02]

re: Adding "mediocre" teams to the A-10, I kind of struggle with what McGlade was supposed to do. It's not like the option was add George Mason and Loyola, or, Duke and UNC. Without Division I football, the A-10 just doesn't have that much leverage, since the (new) Big East has kind of scooped up some of the best basketball programs without football already. We added Butler, and they left almost immediately, and programs with ambitions in football (Charlotte) didn't stick around either. It's not like choosing Siena or Belmont instead of programs we did take in shifts the equation that much. Also, these expansions did net VCU, which has been a stellar program for the A-10.

I think there's an argument to be had now that having such a big conference means a slightly smaller OOC schedule, which probably hurts the Atlantic 10 more than it helps. It's not like teams are able to play a ton of games against power conference schools, but it would still probably be better to have 1 or 2 more OOC games against mid-tier conferences than 17 or 18 conference games.

Yes we weren't choosing between George Mason and Loyola or Duke and UNC, but that doesn't mean we need to take every program in the eastern half of the country that has one run of success. You can say no to expansion, that option is always on the table

[Jdrums#3]

You want to know the real reason the A-10 has started to suck?

It's best coaches since Dan left have been

Mark Schmidt, Mike Rhoades, Anthony Grant Keith Dambrot, Chris Mooney and Travis Ford

Now what Schmidt has done at St Bona is great, Dambrot does great with less as well, but the other guys? Mediocre city. You can't have average coaches at your power programs. The whole league atrophies.

Not too long ago we had Brad Stevens, Archie Miller, Phil Martelli, Dan Hurley, Chris Mack, Fran Dunphy, Rick Majerus (Jim Crews), Shaka Smart, Mark Schmidt, Chris Mooney and Mike Lonergan at the same time.

It was huge for the league to get Archie, Frank and Fran.

The thing is...only one or those three is in his prime

Exactly. It's all about the quality of the coaches

I am with you both.

Quality head coaches (and assistants) are an important piece of the puzzle for having a good basketball conference - especially IF the conference (including all the members collectively) aspires to be a consistent top 7-10 basketball conference.

It takes a significant financial commitment from member programs to sign and keep good coaches. Thankfully, we have stepped up with Dan (but, too late) and now with Archie (including the assistants).

That said, I have doubts about 2 conf members following suit - but for different reasons - Fordham and LaSalle.

LaSalle is an unfortunate situation due to their precarious financial condition. With their financial struggles they do not seem to be able to follow suit in the coaching commitment (never mind other areas) to the standard needed to help the conf be a top 7-10 basketball conf consistently, imho. Further, I do not think it is fair, imho, nor in their best interests to expect the school to do so given their financial situation. I do not mean to pile on LaSalle because we have had our financial struggles - though not to their extent - and I sympathize. Therefore, I hope the Commish, conf school Presidents and AD’s - assuming LaSalle can salvage their institution and not just their athletics - are helping them toward a soft exit.

Fordham is a different story than LaSalle. They certainly appear to have the financial resources to commit to the standards needed to help the conf reach the 7-10 range consistently yet they have not. That is frustrating to me as a Rhody basketball fan because, to an extent, all the basketball members in this conf swim or sink together. Fordham has the potential to be a valuable A10 basketball member if they commit to follow in the footsteps of us and UMASS and step up to the plate. I would rather see them commit than not but if Fordham won’t- which is their prerogative and it may be for valid reasons aligned with their vision - then they should please leave for a basketball conference with like minded leadership and vision.

IMHO, If Fordham and LaSalle can be resolved, that will be a huge step in the right direction for the flagship sport of the A10.

However, my fear is that the conference leaders are not all in one accord on what they aspire the conference to be in regards to its flagship sport. And, as a result, the urgency and resolve needed for the conference to aspire to being the best non-P6 conference are absent and the conference slides to a consistent 12-15 (1-2 bid) ranked conference over the next 5-10 years despite the commitment and hard work from conf leaders like Pres Parlange and Thorr. Hopefully my fear is unwarranted.

I have no inside info. My post above is simply my opinion observing from the outside and from lurking on KB for years (so, you all have partial blame for my post ). Flame away.

[KingstonLane]

Two discussions to be had here. Longer term structural issues, which are getting plenty of attention in this thread, and this year issues

This year is purely a result of STL and Dayton dropping the ball. Two preseason top 25-50 teams.

STL had 4 good OOC opportunities this year with games vs Memphis, providence, Maryland and auburn. They went 2-2 in those. Ok, fine, it happens. But then they proceeded to drop 3 games in December to Iona, Boise St and SIUE. You really can’t afford 5 OOC losses (if they’re not all very high quality losses) with the structural issues we’ve discussed around the A10.

Dayton, similar story, granted they’ve had more injury woes

[bigappleram]

This is it. The top of the league has failed to meet expectations 4 of the last 5 seasons (UD 2020 run not included). Rhody still has the most recent run of tourney success (back to back trips and wins) and we are now 5 years removed from that. That is the story. Middle to bottom of league has gotten better of late but the top has to carry the league and it just hasn’t.

[Jersey77]

This is it. The top of the league has failed to meet expectations 4 of the last 5 seasons (UD 2020 run not included). Rhody still has the most recent run of tourney success (back to back trips and wins) and we are now 5 years removed from that. That is the story. Middle to bottom of league has gotten better of late but the top has to carry the league and it just hasn’t.

Yeah BAR, have to agree.

[RF1]

Routinely getting annual multiple NCAA bids from the A-10 with the present 68 team field would mean taking away at large bids from the power conferences. They will not allow that. A big part of the reason why the A-10 is getting less teams is because these power leagues have rigged the system in their favor. The revised NET formula and present selection process clearly favors them. The expanded conference schedules and league challenges have greatly reduced resume opportunities for teams from leagues such as the A-10. There is no way that the power conferences will accept a smaller piece of the pie when all they have been doing for the last four decades is working to carve out a bigger piece of the basically same size pie for themselves. In my view the only way the A-10 is going to get more NCAA tournament teams is via an expanded field. The power conferences will at worst send the same number of teams and likely send a few more with nearly every one their members finishing with a winning record NCAA bound. I see an expanded field very much benefiting the next rung of conferences such as the A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC on a yearly basis. It would also on occasion help other lower rung conferences in some years when their top team does not win their auto bid. An expansion of the NCAA field seems to be the only way the A-10 gets back to regularly sending three or more teams to the tournament.

[ramster]

RF1,
Do you have a listing of the A10 Teams and their seeding fit the NCAA Tournament over the last 10-15 years or so?
I think last year was the worst when we got 2 teams but Davidson was only a 10-seed and Richmond was a 12-seed.
While the number of A10 Teams selected has dropped and leveled at 2 the past 4-5;years, the seeding levels have also dropped.
A10 has dropped in ranking from 7-8 to 12-13 of late.
Thanks

[RF1]

RF1,
Do you have a listing of the A10 Teams and their seeding fit the NCAA Tournament over the last 10-15 years or so?
I think last year was the worst when we got 2 teams but Davidson was only a 10-seed and Richmond was a 12-seed.
While the number of A10 Teams selected has dropped and leveled at 2 the past 4-5;years, the seeding levels have also dropped.
A10 has dropped in ranking from 7-8 to 12-13 of late.
Thanks

I have a list of the number of A-10 NCAA bids since its inception. It however only has the seedings going back to 1990.



A-10 NCAA TOURNAMENT HISTORY
YEAR | BIDS | UNITS | WINS | TEAMS (SEEDS)
=================================================================
2022 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2021 - Davidson (10), Richmond (12)
2021 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2021 - SBU (9), VCU (10-FORFEIT)
2020 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2020 - NCAA Tourney Cancelled due to Covid
2019 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2019 - VCU (8) , SLU (13)
2018 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2018 - URI (7), St. Bonaventure (11), Davidson (12)
2017 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2017 - Dayton (7), VCU (10), URI (11)
2016 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2016 - Dayton (7), Saint Joseph's (8), VCU (10)
2015 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2015 - VCU (7), Davidson (10), Dayton (11)
2014 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 2014 - Saint Louis (5), VCU (5), UMASS (6), GW (9), St Joseph's (10), Dayton (11)
2013 | 5 | 12 | 7 | 2013 - Saint Louis (4), VCU (5), Butler (6), Temple (9), LaSalle (13)
2012 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 2012 - Temple (5), Saint Louis (9), Xavier (10), St. Bonaventure (14)
2011 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2011 - Xavier (6), Temple (7), Richmond (12)
2010 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2010 - Temple (5), Xavier (6), Richmond (7)
2009 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2009 - Xavier (4), Temple (11), Dayton (11)
2008 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2008 - Xavier (3), Saint Joseph's (11), Temple (12)
2007 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2007 - Xavier (9), George Washington (11)
2006 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2006 - George Washington (8), Xavier (14)
2005 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2005 - George Washington (12)
2004 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 2004 - Saint Joseph's (1), Xavier (7), Dayton (10), Richmond (11)
2003 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2003 - Xavier (3), Dayton (4), Saint Joseph's (7)
2002 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2002 - Xavier (7)
2001 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 2001 - Saint Joseph's (9), Temple (11), Xavier (11)
2000 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2000 - Temple (2), Dayton (11), St. Bonaventure (12)
1999 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1999 - Temple (6), George Washington (11), URI (12)
1998 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 1998 - Xavier (6) UMASS (7), Temple (7), URI (8), George Washington (9)
1997 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 1997 - Saint Joseph's (4), Xavier (7), URI (9), Temple (9), UMASS (11)
1996 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 1996 - UMASS (1), Temple (7), Virginia Tech (9), George Washington (11)
1995 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1995 - UMASS (2), Temple (10)
1994 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1994 - UMASS (2), Temple (4) George Washington (10)
1993 | 4 | 11 | 7 | 1993 - UMASS (3), URI (8), Xavier (9), George Washington (12)
1992 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1992 - UMASS (3), Temple (11), West Virginia (12)
1991 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 1991 - Rutgers (9), Temple (10), Penn St (13)
1990 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1990 - Temple (11)
1989 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
1988 | 2 | 7 | 5 |
1987 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
1986 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
1985 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
1984 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
1983 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
1982 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
1981 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
1980 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
1979 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
1978 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
1977 | 1 | 1 | 0 |

[Rhody72]

So the teams in conferences that have invested the most money in athletics are going to reap the greatest revenue benefit from post-season tournaments. Isn't that the way it works in most endeavors? Maybe the A10 should stop sharing post-season tournament revenue with schools that don't help generate that revenue. This might encourage laggard members to either drop down a level where they can compete to be the conference automatic qualifier OR increase their investment in their athletic programs.

If a 96 team field provides revenue scraps for more schools while not reducing revenue to power conference participants, it may work. The alternative is a FBS/FCS type division which insures that the FCS division tournament will be a money loser. I know I don't want PC being the only FBS eligible school in RI.

[Jdrums#3]

Safely getting annual multiple NCAA bids from the A-10 with the present 68 team field would mean taking away at large bids from the power conferences. They will not allow that. A big part of the reason why the A-10 is getting less teams is because these power leagues have rigged the system in their favor. The revised NET formula and present selection process clearly favors them. The expanded conference schedules and league challenges have greatly reduced resume opportunities for teams from leagues such as the A-10. There is no way that the power conferences will accept a smaller piece of the pie when all they have been doing for the last four decades is working to carve out a bigger piece of the basically same size pie for themselves. In my view the only way the A-10 is going to get more NCAA tournament teams is via an expanded field. The power conferences will at worst send the same number of teams and likely send a few more with nearly every one their members finishing with a winning record NCAA bound. I see an expanded field very much benefiting the next rung of conferences such as the A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC on a yearly basis. It would also on occasion help other lower rung conferences in some years when their top team does not win their auto bid. An expansion of the NCAA field seems to be the only way the A-10 gets back to regularly sending three or more teams to the tournament.

RF1, check out www.johngasaway.com

He wrote a compelling article titled, How the Post Season Can Value the Regular Season.

I read it a few weeks ago. I am not sure whether I agree or disagree yet having not put much thought into his proposal yet.

He has a few other stories related to NCAA Tourney expansion I haven’t read yet.

I am Really enjoying this thought provoking thread, ATP!

[McRam]

ATP this is great.

I do agree with some of the points above - that while the A10 is doing what's "best" for the A10 - I'm not sure that what the A10 has done (adding mediocre teams with big past names)is the best.

We have a watered down conference top to bottom.

2014's version with Xavier and Butler gave us two top-end programs. We couldn't do enough to keep them. My thought why?

The bottom of the A10, the amount of teams, and what that does to the share.

By having a basement (really the bottom half) that not only can't be depended on to get to the tournament, but to be Q3/Q4 landmines waiting to blow up our contender's NCAA dreams, those good teams don't want to stay.

The one thing the A10 has done is they've added the teams with, as the kids say, "juice" not "sauce." Juice is temporary, sauce means forever.

What has Davidson really done since coming on board for 9 years? 3 appearances, 2 at large bids, 4 total units. You know what they do way more often? Suck in the OOC and then knock off top A10 teams and ruin their chances.

George Mason? ZERO in 10 years. Bouncing between AT BEST a Q2 (2 seasons) or a Q3/Q4 for most of them.

We added Loyola - they are worse than everyone else in a conference that's biggest problem is how bad we are at the bottom. They invest - but they're going to suck.

We lost Xavier and Butler because we couldn't trim the fat. If they A10 had said at the time - we're going to lose Charlotte/Temple - and drop historically poorly performing/investing teams like Fordham, Duquesne, La Salle, and GW.

You're left with 10 teams (similar to the Big East), but all that invest and have top-end ability. St Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, UMass, URI, Richmond, St Joes, St. Bonaventure. That's less teams to share revenue with, and no historic Q4 landmines that ruin everyone elses chances. It's why the Big East gets 6-8 teams in every year.

Unless we drop the junk - this 1-2 bid league is what we are.

We need to hope for a breakaway with some basketball only castoffs. My dream?

If the A-10 doesn't enforce some type of minimum-investment for our bottom tier teams - URI needs to get with the larger A10 programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond - grab Wichita State (AAC is going to SUCK) - and hope that you can grab a handful of like-minded schools in the eastern geography, and build a "low fat" mid major of 10 teams.

But as long as we have a 15-16 team league of 6+ Q4 games, we will be the juans.

Are you suggesting that Davidson is not good enough to be this "new conference". I think they lost in the first round last year to Michigan state by 1 or 2, lost a close game with Purdue this year.

They have a "program" in a positive sense and keep their recruiting at a high level.

Do you really think they are not good enough?

[Blue Man]

ATP this is great.

I do agree with some of the points above - that while the A10 is doing what's "best" for the A10 - I'm not sure that what the A10 has done (adding mediocre teams with big past names)is the best.

We have a watered down conference top to bottom.

2014's version with Xavier and Butler gave us two top-end programs. We couldn't do enough to keep them. My thought why?

The bottom of the A10, the amount of teams, and what that does to the share.

By having a basement (really the bottom half) that not only can't be depended on to get to the tournament, but to be Q3/Q4 landmines waiting to blow up our contender's NCAA dreams, those good teams don't want to stay.

The one thing the A10 has done is they've added the teams with, as the kids say, "juice" not "sauce." Juice is temporary, sauce means forever.

What has Davidson really done since coming on board for 9 years? 3 appearances, 2 at large bids, 4 total units. You know what they do way more often? Suck in the OOC and then knock off top A10 teams and ruin their chances.

George Mason? ZERO in 10 years. Bouncing between AT BEST a Q2 (2 seasons) or a Q3/Q4 for most of them.

We added Loyola - they are worse than everyone else in a conference that's biggest problem is how bad we are at the bottom. They invest - but they're going to suck.

We lost Xavier and Butler because we couldn't trim the fat. If they A10 had said at the time - we're going to lose Charlotte/Temple - and drop historically poorly performing/investing teams like Fordham, Duquesne, La Salle, and GW.

You're left with 10 teams (similar to the Big East), but all that invest and have top-end ability. St Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, UMass, URI, Richmond, St Joes, St. Bonaventure. That's less teams to share revenue with, and no historic Q4 landmines that ruin everyone elses chances. It's why the Big East gets 6-8 teams in every year.

Unless we drop the junk - this 1-2 bid league is what we are.

We need to hope for a breakaway with some basketball only castoffs. My dream?

If the A-10 doesn't enforce some type of minimum-investment for our bottom tier teams - URI needs to get with the larger A10 programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond - grab Wichita State (AAC is going to SUCK) - and hope that you can grab a handful of like-minded schools in the eastern geography, and build a "low fat" mid major of 10 teams.

But as long as we have a 15-16 team league of 6+ Q4 games, we will be the juans.

Are you suggesting that Davidson is not good enough to be this "new conference". I think they lost in the first round last year to Michigan state by 1 or 2, lost a close game with Purdue this year.

They have a "program" in a positive sense and keep their recruiting at a high level.

Do you really think they are not good enough?

Yeah an obvious omission. The larger point being that they didn't keep on being the "Davidson" the A10 thought they were getting in terms of what we added.

But yes, for realistic programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond, URI, Davidson makes sense as a starting point. If you get Wichita State there's 8.

I don't know where you find the other 2 programs for 10. But the point being - in the new age of mid-major basketball, having a lot of teams that suck isn't good for the overall tourney hopes of your top 3-5 programs year in/year out.

[RhowdyRam02]

ATP this is great.

I do agree with some of the points above - that while the A10 is doing what's "best" for the A10 - I'm not sure that what the A10 has done (adding mediocre teams with big past names)is the best.

We have a watered down conference top to bottom.

2014's version with Xavier and Butler gave us two top-end programs. We couldn't do enough to keep them. My thought why?

The bottom of the A10, the amount of teams, and what that does to the share.

By having a basement (really the bottom half) that not only can't be depended on to get to the tournament, but to be Q3/Q4 landmines waiting to blow up our contender's NCAA dreams, those good teams don't want to stay.

The one thing the A10 has done is they've added the teams with, as the kids say, "juice" not "sauce." Juice is temporary, sauce means forever.

What has Davidson really done since coming on board for 9 years? 3 appearances, 2 at large bids, 4 total units. You know what they do way more often? Suck in the OOC and then knock off top A10 teams and ruin their chances.

George Mason? ZERO in 10 years. Bouncing between AT BEST a Q2 (2 seasons) or a Q3/Q4 for most of them.

We added Loyola - they are worse than everyone else in a conference that's biggest problem is how bad we are at the bottom. They invest - but they're going to suck.

We lost Xavier and Butler because we couldn't trim the fat. If they A10 had said at the time - we're going to lose Charlotte/Temple - and drop historically poorly performing/investing teams like Fordham, Duquesne, La Salle, and GW.

You're left with 10 teams (similar to the Big East), but all that invest and have top-end ability. St Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, UMass, URI, Richmond, St Joes, St. Bonaventure. That's less teams to share revenue with, and no historic Q4 landmines that ruin everyone elses chances. It's why the Big East gets 6-8 teams in every year.

Unless we drop the junk - this 1-2 bid league is what we are.

We need to hope for a breakaway with some basketball only castoffs. My dream?

If the A-10 doesn't enforce some type of minimum-investment for our bottom tier teams - URI needs to get with the larger A10 programs - UMass, Dayton, St Louis, VCU, Richmond - grab Wichita State (AAC is going to SUCK) - and hope that you can grab a handful of like-minded schools in the eastern geography, and build a "low fat" mid major of 10 teams.

But as long as we have a 15-16 team league of 6+ Q4 games, we will be the juans.

Are you suggesting that Davidson is not good enough to be this "new conference". I think they lost in the first round last year to Michigan state by 1 or 2, lost a close game with Purdue this year.

They have a "program" in a positive sense and keep their recruiting at a high level.

Do you really think they are not good enough?

They had a program under Bob McKillop, will be interesting to see if his son can keep it up

[RF1]

They had a program under Bob McKillop, will be interesting to see if his son can keep it up

That is the danger with adding members where all their recent success is basically tied to one coach. Was is solely the coach or was the school and its support also a big part? Davidson did have some success long ago as it is where Lefty Dreisell started his career in the 1960's with multiple Elite-8's and a Sweet-16 beating URI in the tournament one season. The Wildcats have appeared in 15 NCAA Tournaments. UMass could fall into one coach success category as only Calipari has ever won an NCAA game for the program. While URI has not had long sustained success, it has had somewhat recent flashes with numerous coaches getting to and winning NCAA games - Penders/Skinner/Harrick/Hurley).

[RF1]

The golden years of the A-10 lasted for some 26 seasons going from the 1991 to the 2016 NCAA Tournaments. The league averaged 3.23 bids, 3.04 wins, and 6.27 units for these 26 tournaments. It has been far different in the last five most recent tournaments played. The A-10 has averaged 2.40 bids, 0.80 wins, and 3.20 units (with URI's two appearances with wins accounting for much it).

[ramster]

The golden years of the A-10 lasted for some 26 seasons going from the 1991 to the 2016 NCAA Tournaments. The league averaged 3.23 bids, 3.04 wins, and 6.27 units for these 26 tournaments. It has been far different in the last five most recent tournaments played. The A-10 has averaged 2.40 bids, 0.80 wins, and 3.20 units (with URI's two appearances with wins accounting for much it).

And what do you attribute that significant drop most to?

[Jdrums#3]

Ramster, here’s my two cents regarding your good question…

it’s a confluence of reasons. In no particular order of importance I list the following: the introduction and tweaking of the NET; temp down turn of the conf; coaching turnover; P6 scheduling difficulties; poor A10 out of conference performance; transfer portal; football driven conf realignment; the reluctance (for lack of a better word at the moment) of some A10 programs to commit to a basketball program standard that helps the conference strive to be the best non-P6 basketball conference; limited exposure; no football generated revenue, NIL proliferation.

That’s all I have for now. I am sure there are other reasons I missed.

Some significant hurdles but I am a proponent of adapt and overcome strategy in the context of striving to be the best non-P6 conference. I think that is still doable.

[section(105)]

Can Add? No star power players, no decent national TV contract that shows nationally only a few select games, who wants to play on ESPN+?

[Jdrums#3]

105, I wonder (because I have no frickin’ idea) if near future streaming options can be utilized to the conferences advantage somehow in combination with a modest TV contract.

As I said, I have no idea of the potential near future media options available to the conference specific to its flagship sport of basketball.

[RF1]

Ramster, here’s my two cents regarding your good question…

it’s a confluence of reasons. In no particular order of importance I list the following: the introduction and tweaking of the NET; temp down turn of the conf; coaching turnover; P6 scheduling difficulties; poor A10 out of conference performance; transfer portal; football driven conf realignment; the reluctance (for lack of a better word at the moment) of some A10 programs to commit to a basketball program standard that helps the conference strive to be the best non-P6 basketball conference; limited exposure; no football generated revenue, NIL proliferation.

That’s all I have for now. I am sure there are other reasons I missed.

Some significant hurdles but I am a proponent of adapt and overcome strategy in the context of striving to be the best non-P6 conference. I think that is still doable.

I think you pretty much nailed it. It has unfortunately been a myriad of factors. Not much has gone in the A-10's favor in the last five to ten years.

[reef]

Hopefully this 1 bid season is a huge wake up call , if we have back to back 1 bid seasons I am not certain of the fallout ??

[Jdrums#3]

Ramster, here’s my two cents regarding your good question…

it’s a confluence of reasons. In no particular order of importance I list the following: the introduction and tweaking of the NET; temp down turn of the conf; coaching turnover; P6 scheduling difficulties; poor A10 out of conference performance; transfer portal; football driven conf realignment; the reluctance (for lack of a better word at the moment) of some A10 programs to commit to a basketball program standard that helps the conference strive to be the best non-P6 basketball conference; limited exposure; no football generated revenue, NIL proliferation.

That’s all I have for now. I am sure there are other reasons I missed.

Some significant hurdles but I am a proponent of adapt and overcome strategy in the context of striving to be the best non-P6 conference. I think that is still doable.

I think you pretty much nailed it. It has unfortunately been a myriad of factors. Not much has gone in the A-10's favor in the last five to ten years.

Thanks, RF1. I simply aggregated, from memory as best I could, the reasons you all have posted over the years.

I enjoy these type discussions and reading the various related points of view in between games and during the off-season.

[Rhody15]

If we all think the A10 has fallen, the Mountain West is ahead of the ACC in KenPom.

[section(105)]

The drop is due to; climate change, COVID, and Dave Gavett.

[SmartyBarrett]

[RF1]

Desire to apply does not equate to likely being accepted.

UMass may apply for membership but that does not mean there is reciprocal interest on the part of the AAC. UMass football is horrible at the FBS level. Their men's hoops program has just a single NCAA appearance in the last 25 years and has not won a tournament game since 1996 under Calipari, their only coach to ever win NCAA games for the program. I just checked out the UMass football board and even their fans think they are way down the list for the AAC.

[SmartyBarrett]

Definitely agree. But I do think it's time for them to at least attempt to put up or shut up when it comes to football, whether it's in the AAC or elsewhere.

[Rhodymob05]

SMU to the pac 10 - The college world is regionally dyslexic.

[Rhody15]

SMU to the pac 10 - The college world is regionally dyslexic.

Has been for years, this wouldn't even come close to the worst.

Marquette in the Big East might take the cake.

[RhodyKyle]

SMU to the pac 10 - The college world is regionally dyslexic.

Has been for years, this wouldn't even come close to the worst.

Marquette in the Big East might take the cake.

UCF to the B12 is a headscratcher too

[PeterRamTime]

SMU to the pac 10 - The college world is regionally dyslexic.

Has been for years, this wouldn't even come close to the worst.

Marquette in the Big East might take the cake.

UCF to the B12 is a headscratcher too

Oklahoma in It's last season in the Big 12 will open up Big 12 @Cincinnati this fall lol.

I really hate realignment lol

[reef]

Welcome to the world of NCAA realignment ugh

[RhowdyRam02]

Definitely agree. But I do think it's time for them to at least attempt to put up or shut up when it comes to football, whether it's in the AAC or elsewhere.

Looking back, they probably made a mistake turning down MAC membership when the MAC said join in all sports or football has to leave. Yeah the MAC is a worse basketball conference but it's not like UMass has had a good basketball team in that time anyway, and it's so hard to get on the carousel if you're not on it to begin with. Who knows, maybe if they join the MAC in all sports a decade or so ago they look more attractive to the AAC today

[Jdrums#3]

Definitely agree. But I do think it's time for them to at least attempt to put up or shut up when it comes to football, whether it's in the AAC or elsewhere.

Looking back, they probably made a mistake turning down MAC membership when the MAC said join in all sports or football has to leave. Yeah the MAC is a worse basketball conference but it's not like UMass has had a good basketball team in that time anyway, and it's so hard to get on the carousel if you're not on it to begin with. Who knows, maybe if they join the MAC in all sports a decade or so ago they look more attractive to the AAC today

It will be interesting to see what they do with football - UConn, too.

I don’t have an educated opinion on both football programs future prospects for FBS, but will follow developments closely none the less for consequences, IF any, for the A10.

That said, my guess, at this moment, is they will both continue to lobby - at least in the short term - to find an FBS home.

[rjsuperfly66]

The whole "P6 rig it for themselves" argument is so nauseating. Do I think it slants our way? Sure. But there are still plenty of pathways for non-P6 teams. MWC put 4 in last year and is flirting with 4/5 this year. How are they doing that if it's rigged against them?

[theblueram]

The whole "P6 rig it for themselves" argument is so nauseating. Do I think it slants our way? Sure. But there are still plenty of pathways for non-P6 teams. MWC put 4 in last year and is flirting with 4/5 this year. How are they doing that if it's rigged against them?

I'm still standing with the LIberty has beaten the NET this year. Follow that formula for a high NET.

[Jersey77]

The whole "P6 rig it for themselves" argument is so nauseating. Do I think it slants our way? Sure. But there are still plenty of pathways for non-P6 teams. MWC put 4 in last year and is flirting with 4/5 this year. How are they doing that if it's rigged against them?

I don't think it is rigged, but a little skewed toward the P6 because of $ and ratings.
The MWC has some excellent teams that have been on a roll.

[RF1]

There is ZERO doubt in my mind that the system is rigged to favor certain leagues. It is nauseating to think that some choose to ignore reality and deny this truth.