"Juan Bid", The Fall of the A10

[rjsuperfly66]

I think it certainly favors certainly leagues, but it's not an end all. All good teams typically make the tourney. Good teams can come from any conference.

[theblueram]

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

Looking more and more at the NET, I'm convinced you need to really pound Q4 teams. Just play the worst Q4 teams and beat them by 30+. Sprinkle in some Q1 and Q2 games and take care of Q3 in conference. Gets you a top 50 NET.

[theblueram]

The NET. Maybe we just play the schedule pc plays OOC. Rider, Northeastern, Stonehill, Merrimack, Columbia, Manhatten, Albany. They lost games against Miami, SLU and TCU. So they didn't beat anyone of note OOC. Then they play conference, who probably played the same pudding soft schedule. If every A10 team plays a pudding soft OOC and kills the teams, I bet the league would turn NET upside down. The A10 is still playing an RPI schedule.

[Jdrums#3]

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.

Adapt and overcome.

[Jdrums#3]

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

Looking more and more at the NET, I'm convinced you need to really pound Q4 teams. Just play the worst Q4 teams and beat them by 30+. Sprinkle in some Q1 and Q2 games and take care of Q3 in conference. Gets you a top 50 NET.

Scheduling is an important part as we all know. I think you are on the right track - pound some Q4’s at home or neutral (if play in an early season tourney), beat Q3’s at home by 10 or more (leave the starters in longer if you have to), schedule 2 Q1 possible road games (already have 1 potential with PC every other year) and hopefully grab another Q1 or a couple Q2’s in an early season tourney or try to get a potential Q1 or 2 by scheduling a neutral or two. Additionally, the league should has to try to rearrange an inter-conference challenge.

I make it sound easier than it sounds, I know, but it is still doable. Do all we can to manipulate the metrics to our (Rhody and conf as a whole) advantage.

If every team in the conference gets on board with a plan, I think that would be a step in the right direction.

[reef]

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

Looking more and more at the NET, I'm convinced you need to really pound Q4 teams. Just play the worst Q4 teams and beat them by 30+. Sprinkle in some Q1 and Q2 games and take care of Q3 in conference. Gets you a top 50 NET.

Scheduling is an important part as we all know. I think you are on the right track - pound some Q4’s at home or neutral (if play in an early season tourney), beat Q3’s at home by 10 or more (leave the starters in longer if you have to), schedule 2 Q1 possible road games (already have 1 potential with PC every other year) and hopefully grab another Q1 or a couple Q2’s in an early season tourney or try to get a potential Q1 or 2 by scheduling a neutral or two. Additionally, the league should has to try to rearrange an inter-conference challenge.

I make it sound easier than it sounds, I know, but it is still doable. Do all we can to manipulate the metrics to our (Rhody and conf as a whole) advantage.

If every team in the conference gets on board with a plan, I think that would be a step in the right direction.

Yeah it’s not bad just make sure you do crush the Q4s and not squeak by

It’s easier for the P6 teams as they will be tested in conference

[RhodyKyle]

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

Looking more and more at the NET, I'm convinced you need to really pound Q4 teams. Just play the worst Q4 teams and beat them by 30+. Sprinkle in some Q1 and Q2 games and take care of Q3 in conference. Gets you a top 50 NET.

Scheduling is an important part as we all know. I think you are on the right track - pound some Q4’s at home or neutral (if play in an early season tourney), beat Q3’s at home by 10 or more (leave the starters in longer if you have to), schedule 2 Q1 possible road games (already have 1 potential with PC every other year) and hopefully grab another Q1 or a couple Q2’s in an early season tourney or try to get a potential Q1 or 2 by scheduling a neutral or two. Additionally, the league should has to try to rearrange an inter-conference challenge.

I make it sound easier than it sounds, I know, but it is still doable. Do all we can to manipulate the metrics to our (Rhody and conf as a whole) advantage.

If every team in the conference gets on board with a plan, I think that would be a step in the right direction.

Beating the brains out of cupcakes in the OOC certainly worked out for NC State back 2019.....(narrator: it did not work out for NC State)

[Jdrums#3]

I think it certainly favors certainly leagues, but it's not an end all. All good teams typically make the tourney. Good teams can come from any conference.

Good point, RJ, but the one important issue here raised in one of the 2 questions in the opening post - and for the A10 as a whole - is what are the things the conference as a whole can do to get back to and stay at a 3 bids annually (or if miss out at 3 some years then at least have 2 bids plus a few on the bubble) given the current college basketball landscape (football too which drives realignment).

I am curious as to your thoughts on that outside the obvious like NIL or scheduling more P5’s for instance. Any suggestions?

[bigappleram]

Ya know, play 8 quad 1 road OOC games. and hope you win a couple. This was part of the point Mooney was trying to make. It’s incredibly difficult for a mid major to build a resume that leaves any margin of error. Can’t get good teams to play you at home…only so many MTEs to enter so while it’s not rigged per se it’s not an equal opportunity playing field either.

[theblueram]

Why play quad 1 teams OOC when you can play 300-350 teams, blow them out, then play in conference where every team is top 100?

[SGreenwell]

It might have been said in the previous pages, but - I kind of think the biggest reason for this dip is somewhat coincidental, in that a bunch of coaching decisions made in the past 10 years didn't work out. Obviously, we're familiar with how that is. If you "whiff" on a coach, you're usually out of the NCAA tournament mix for 5+ years, depending on when you ultimately decide to cut bait. Unless it's a Jerry D-like disaster, most programs aren't willing to fire a coach after one or two years. I'll exclude Dayton, VCU, Davidson, St. Louis, Bonaventure and Richmond from this, because they transitioned to new coaches well or had long-time coaches; and Loyola, because they've been in the A-10 for one year. The others:

- We had Cox after Hurley, and we weren't serious NCAA contenders in any of his four years despite having two guys who'd end up in the NBA, and we suck this year. Our realistic goal for next year is probably .500 or slightly better, so we'll be 5+ years out probably unless we surpass expectations drastically.

- At La Salle, Giannini went to the NCAAs in 2012-13, then finished near or under .500 the next five years. Ashley Howard was under .500 in his four years. Fran Dunphy has them at 12-13 so far. He's 74 years old. They have four seniors that have started between 16 and 23 games each, so there's no guarantee that they continue to improve from this point.

- UMass made the tournament in 2013-14 with Derek Kellogg, who then went near .500 for three years and was fired. McCall finished under .500 in four of his five years. I'm more bullish on Frank Martin to continue recruiting quality high school and transfer market players than Dunphy, but he's also got five seniors on a team that's currently 13-12. They also seem a likely candidate to step back next year.

- Phil Martelli made the tournament with St. Joe's in 2013-14 and 2015-16. His final three seasons, his teams won 11, 16 and 14 games. The leash seemed a bit short, but he also wasn't really the type known for his sterling personality. Regardless, Billy Lange has been awful, winning 11 games his first two years, before an 11-19 record last year and 13-12 this year so far. Erik Reynolds is a very nice player and a sophomore. Their second best player (Cam Brown) is a senior and might not be back. I don't really think Lange should be given any more time unless St. Joe's finishes especially strong, but he's the hire of the AD that fired Martelli, so I bet he'll be back one more year.

- For GW, Lonergan got them to the tournament in 2013-14, and gets fired after 2015-16 for verbally abusing players. The team won 28 games that year, but only had 23 at Selection Sunday time. Five came from them winning the NIT. Maurice Joseph went 20-15 with Lonergan's players mostly, then was under .500 for two years and fired. Jamion Christian went well under .500 for three years (29 total wins) and got fired. Chris Caputo has them at 12-13 so far, but has four seniors who play regularly. Maximus Edwards is a keeper.

- Fordham has never made the NCAAs while in the A-10. Tom Pecora started in 2010-11, and had a high water mark of 10 wins in five years. Jeff Neubauer got five and a half years, and went 17-14 one year, but otherwise finished under .500. Kyle Neptune got them to 16-16, then left for Villanova. Keith Urgo is 20-5 this year, 8-4 in conference play, with a schedule currently ranked as 311th in the country, between the weakness of the A-10 this year and their OOC portion. They're 131 in NET and not considered a bubble team. This would be the first time since 2006-07 that Fordham finished with a winning conference record, though.

- Duquesne fired Ron Everhart after six years in 2011-12. He compiled a 99-89 record, and they weren't really on the bubble in any of those years. Jim Ferry got five years, and went .500 or worse in all five of them. Keith Dambrot is in his sixth year, with mixed results. They were 21-9 in 2019-20, but weren't on Bubble Watch before the season was suspended. They're 17-8 this year, but their SOS is 203 by KenPom, and they're 111 in NET. They have four seniors who are all playing between 14 and 25 MPG, so they'll also have to replace a significant amount of production this off-season and aren't a guarantee to continue improving.

- George Mason joined the A-10 in 2013-14, two years removed from an NCAA berth, and with Paul Hewitt coming off a 22-16 year. Hewitt was fired after two years, in which he won 20 games total. Dave Paulsen was hired in 2015-16. He had one soft 20-14 season, and while they didn't bottom out (95-91 total record), they never got past 20 wins again. Kim English was 14-16 in his first year, and 14-12 this year. They have four seniors, three of which have started 20+ games each.

That's eight different programs that have made roughly 10 coaching changes over the past decade, and have zero NCAA berths to show for them. A bunch of them are making Baron-esque runs at 20 wins this year, but doing so in a Charmin soft A-10 with senior-laden teams. I think we've made the right hire with Miller, and I'd be optimistic on UMass and Mason going forward, but the other five are still TBD to me (Fordham, La Salle, G.W.) or probably on the verge of making another coaching change (Duquesne, St. Joe's).

[reef]

I think you need a mix , when you feel like you have a team that can dance play one or 2 Q1 road games then s hood mix of Q2 home and away with a couple Q3 and Q4

[ace]

Ya know, play 8 quad 1 road OOC games. and hope you win a couple. This was part of the point Mooney was trying to make. It’s incredibly difficult for a mid major to build a resume that leaves any margin of error. Can’t get good teams to play you at home…only so many MTEs to enter so while it’s not rigged per se it’s not an equal opportunity playing field either.

The better teams in conferences like the A10, the MWC, the AAC, absolutely play easier conference schedules, so they have to have near perfect OOC schedules. It’s definitely pressure-filled but so is going through the gauntlet of a really good, really competitive conference schedule. It’s just different. The teams in better conferences, for the most part, are still playing competitive OOC schedules. I don’t know where the idea that they’re all playing 300+ teams all the time is coming from. The MTEs are huge, which is why URI needs to establish itself as an elite A10 team to get consideration for those. The A10, as a whole, has to get back to having that core group of really good teams at the top. If those top teams have OOC success and also provide opportunities for the other top teams to get big conference wins, it helps.

[Jdrums#3]

Good points made above. It is definitely a multi-pronged attack over time on an individual institution and conference wide basis ( scheduling to manipulate the NET and adjusted efficiency, competent coaching and adequate pay level for HC’s/assistants, support infrastructure investment, viable TV/streaming opportunities, good marketing and other things I can’t remember to mention at the moment ).

If the A10 can get half to 2/3’s on board willing to work in concert together, I think that could keep it in 3 bid land most seasons, barring periodic downturns due to bad breaks, coaching turnover, unfortunate injuries.

Good discussion.

[reef]

I’m confident once Arch feels he had a team that can dance he will schedule accordingly

The SOS will never be a reason we don’t dance

[woodennickel1]

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.

Big East is probably going to get five bids this year maybe six tops . It is pretty much in line with what they have gotten all along . If you don't think the level of play has dropped off in the A10 you are just kidding yourself. The A10 is the 11th ranked conferences in the net behind Conf USA, west coast conf , mwc and aac. They used to be ahead of all these conferences except maybe aac who used to have uconn. You can go on making excuses and blaiming the Big conferences but it is not going to solve any of tge A10's issues.

[KevanBoyles]

If you have to, you play everybody on the road until you win enough. Anytime, anyplace. Once you capture that attitude and reputation, they will come to you. Road games give you a bump in Quad level. Wins become better and loses don’t hurt as much. Then beat lesser opponents at home. There has to be a balance of course.

[rjsuperfly66]

I think it certainly favors certainly leagues, but it's not an end all. All good teams typically make the tourney. Good teams can come from any conference.

Good point, RJ, but the one important issue here raised in one of the 2 questions in the opening post - and for the A10 as a whole - is what are the things the conference as a whole can do to get back to and stay at a 3 bids annually (or if miss out at 3 some years then at least have 2 bids plus a few on the bubble) given the current college basketball landscape (football too which drives realignment).

I am curious as to your thoughts on that outside the obvious like NIL or scheduling more P5’s for instance. Any suggestions?

The obvious answer to the "what you need to do" question is have 3-4 teams perform strong in the OOC and come into conference play in at-large position. They do that by playing in a strong OOCT, playing a tough road game or two, having no bad losses and dominating bad competition, and stealing a game or two against good/great competition. If your top 4 teams are combining for about 8 Q1 wins, some other Q2 wins, and don't really have any bad losses to speak of, you should be in a good spot for resume purposes. And then in conference play, the top teams mostly beat up on each other, maybe take 1 upset, but that's it.

And that's perhaps where I'd argue about dynamic scheduling that has been talked about as nauseum. With 15 teams, you play the 14 teams once, and then pod everyone 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and play your pod once... That way you guarantee your top teams all play 2x.

But at the end of the day, you don't beat enough good teams, you aren't making the tournament.

[RhodyKyle]

But at the end of the day, you don't beat enough good teams, you aren't making the tournament.

I'll be curious to see where UNC ends up on the bubble/in the field...as of right now, I think they have zero Q1 wins this season. They are currently a play-in team on bracket matrix.

[rjsuperfly66]

But at the end of the day, you don't beat enough good teams, you aren't making the tournament.

I'll be curious to see where UNC ends up on the bubble/in the field...as of right now, I think they have zero Q1 wins this season. They are currently a play-in team on bracket matrix.

UNC is an interesting test case because they are 0-9 in Q1 games but 6-1 in Q2 games, no bad losses, SOS of 11.

Compare them to Utah St who is currently on the outside looking in - 0-4 Q1, 6-1 Q2, 2 Q4 losses, SOS of 29.

Without the Q4 losses, Utah St is ahead of UNC.

[RhodyKyle]

But at the end of the day, you don't beat enough good teams, you aren't making the tournament.

I'll be curious to see where UNC ends up on the bubble/in the field...as of right now, I think they have zero Q1 wins this season. They are currently a play-in team on bracket matrix.

UNC is an interesting test case because they are 0-9 in Q1 games but 6-1 in Q2 games, no bad losses, SOS of 11.

Compare them to Utah St who is currently on the outside looking in - 0-4 Q1, 6-1 Q2, 2 Q4 losses, SOS of 29.

Without the Q4 losses, Utah St is ahead of UNC.

I agree with your take on UNC. If they get in with 0 Q1 wins (and they should get a handful more between now and Selection Sunday) then your theory takes a hit - 6-10 in Q1 and Q2 should not be enough to get in so if that ratio gets even worse and they still get in, then get ready for the NCAA conspiracy theories.

[rjsuperfly66]

It shouldn't be enough but I think it depends on your peers. I don't think teams should be penalized for playing tough schedules, so to me UNCs 0-9 is really no different than Utah Sts 0-4 in Q1 games, so with both teams 6-1 in Q2 games, I think both teams in terms of games against quality opponents are virtually even. I'd lean Utah St in that scenario, but not by much. The miss for Utah St is the 2 terrible losses, that's why I'd have them a line or two behind UNC.

I do ultimately think for UNC to be a tournament team they need to steal a few of their Q1 opportunities, whether regular season or conference tournament.

[SGreenwell]

I'll be curious to see where UNC ends up on the bubble/in the field...as of right now, I think they have zero Q1 wins this season. They are currently a play-in team on bracket matrix.

UNC is an interesting test case because they are 0-9 in Q1 games but 6-1 in Q2 games, no bad losses, SOS of 11.

Compare them to Utah St who is currently on the outside looking in - 0-4 Q1, 6-1 Q2, 2 Q4 losses, SOS of 29.

Without the Q4 losses, Utah St is ahead of UNC.

I agree with your take on UNC. If they get in with 0 Q1 wins (and they should get a handful more between now and Selection Sunday) then your theory takes a hit - 6-10 in Q1 and Q2 should not be enough to get in so if that ratio gets even worse and they still get in, then get ready for the NCAA conspiracy theories.

It's probably a "problem" that takes care of itself, to an extent. They have games against Duke (34 NET), NC State (38 NET) and Virginia (16), plus the ACC tournament. They probably need at least two wins to get into the 30s. If they don't win them, or lose to Florida State or Notre Dame (both NET 150+), they're going to slip to the 50s or worse. As is, their best win is against Ohio State (ranked at the time, but now NET 53 and 11-14) or Michigan (71) or Clemson (64).

[reef]

It shouldn't be enough but I think it depends on your peers. I don't think teams should be penalized for playing tough schedules, so to me UNCs 0-9 is really no different than Utah Sts 0-4 in Q1 games, so with both teams 6-1 in Q2 games, I think both teams in terms of games against quality opponents are virtually even. I'd lean Utah St in that scenario, but not by much. The miss for Utah St is the 2 terrible losses, that's why I'd have them a line or two behind UNC.

I do ultimately think for UNC to be a tournament team they need to steal a few of their Q1 opportunities, whether regular season or conference tournament.

What is the status of the New Mexico Lobos ??

[rjsuperfly66]

New Mexico is 3-2 Q1, 2-1 Q2, 8-3 Q3, 5-1 Q4.

Right now they are a fringe tourney team, probably in. Crushing them is the 4 bad losses.

Believe they have 2 Q1, 2Q2, and 1 Q3/Q4 game left.

3-2 probably has them feeling uncomfortable before the conference tournament but likely on the right side, but in play-in, bid theft territory.

[reef]

They are a Wierd case last remaining undefeated team now with a below .500 conference record in a non P6 league

[Jersey77]

New Mexico is 3-2 Q1, 2-1 Q2, 8-3 Q3, 5-1 Q4.

Right now they are a fringe tourney team, probably in. Crushing them is the 4 bad losses.

Believe they have 2 Q1, 2Q2, and 1 Q3/Q4 game left.

3-2 probably has them feeling uncomfortable before the conference tournament but likely on the right side, but in play-in, bid theft territory.

They should be out as of now.
Losing their last 4 games isn't a good look, plus currently having a losing conference record 6-7 doesn't help either.

[reef]

Yeah a 6-7 conference record in the Mountain West is scary

[Jdrums#3]

I don’t know if their resume is good enough yet.

However, they are in the 7th rated conf in Adjusted Efficiency (right behind and very, very close to the ACC according to the to the chart in the opening post of this thread) which should lead to 4-5 bids for their conf, perhaps. So, I think, if they finish strong and get to the semi’s or final of the MWC Tourney, they get in as a 4th or 5th MWC team.

Edit add: Was looking at the conf NET’s last night. MWC is rated 5th above 2 P6 conferences. Assuming that ranking remains, I would expect the tourney committee to grant a min of 4 bids - if not 5 - to the MWC based on the committee’s created and self-imposed metrics.

[reef]

Lunardi has them out of the field currently, I am hopeful for 4 bids in the MWC but it may be 3

[Jdrums#3]

Lunardi has them out of the field currently, I am hopeful for 4 bids in the MWC but it may be 3

I know of Lunardi but do not follow him closely. Is he credible?

[RhowdyRam02]

Lunardi has them out of the field currently, I am hopeful for 4 bids in the MWC but it may be 3

I know of Lunardi but do not follow him closely. Is he credible?

Not really, but because he was one of the first/most well known for being on ESPN people still use him. According to this site he's ranked 88 out of 148 they track:

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

There are much better prognosticators

[Jdrums#3]

Lunardi has them out of the field currently, I am hopeful for 4 bids in the MWC but it may be 3

I know of Lunardi but do not follow him closely. Is he credible?

Not really, but because he was one of the first/most well known for being on ESPN people still use him. According to this site he's ranked 88 out of 148 they track:

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

There are much better prognosticators

Thanks, 02. I will check out the link.

[RhodyKyle]

I know of Lunardi but do not follow him closely. Is he credible?

Not really, but because he was one of the first/most well known for being on ESPN people still use him. According to this site he's ranked 88 out of 148 they track:

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

There are much better prognosticators

Thanks, 02. I will check out the link.

That site also brackets based on a composite of everyone who is ranked which I find helpful.

[Jdrums#3]

Not really, but because he was one of the first/most well known for being on ESPN people still use him. According to this site he's ranked 88 out of 148 they track:

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

There are much better prognosticators

Thanks, 02. I will check out the link.

That site also brackets based on a composite of everyone who is ranked which I find helpful.

I stopped in to the site for a quick look see. Will check it out more. You all on here have probably posted about it before and I likely forgot about it.

[reef]

Yeah love bracketmatrix that’s the best site to look at , Lunardi is just 1 of 148

[bigappleram]

Not so great

[reef]

Not so great

So much parity in college hoops this year I don’t know what to really make of that stat , their top 5 teams are solid then the next couple of teams are middle of the road but DePaul and Hoyas tend to drag that conference down

[RF1]

Not so great

So much parity in college hoops this year I don’t know what to really make of that stat , their top 5 teams are solid then the next couple of teams are middle of the road but DePaul and Hoyas tend to drag that conference down

21-28 versus the P5 leagues.

[Jdrums#3]

Not so great

So much parity in college hoops this year I don’t know what to really make of that stat , their top 5 teams are solid then the next couple of teams are middle of the road but DePaul and Hoyas tend to drag that conference down

I am not sure what to make of it either. BUT, it does bring a bit of a smile to my face.

That said, it probably has to do with parity as you posted.

[Jdrums#3]

This season, an unwanted visitor is likely to return for the first time in 18 seasons -- "Juan Bid". With just 3 teams in the KenPom and NCAA NET Top 100 -- Dayton ranked highest in each at 67 and 72, respectively -- there is a high likelihood the league will not earn an at-large bid to The Dance.

The league has often been referred to as "THE 3 Bid League", where in 11 of the past 15 seasons the A10 has had at least 3 representatives in the NCAA Tournament. Exactly 3 teams made the field in 8 of those years.

After averaging 5 teams a year between 2012-2014, peaking at 6 bids in '14, the league was poached by the New Big East and seemed to stabilize at 3 bids through 2018. Over the past 4 seasons, 2 teams have made it from the A10 (assuming 2 in the canceled COVID season).

Now, 2023 looks to be the first time since 2005 the A10 joins the other mid- and low-major conferences as a One Bid League.

Has A10 commissioner McGlade successfully navigated the conference through this new NCAA world? The results would indicate she has not.

What should be done to restore the A10 to "3 Bid League" status?

Warning: some readers may find the following graphics disturbing


A10Decline.png

3Top100.png

11thBest.png

I am going to park the main content of my thoughts in this post below. I am parking it here because, I believe, imho, that ATP raises valid red flags regarding the A10 in this thread but goes even further by asking the important question of “What should be done to restore the A10 to 3 league status?” I am hoping, as the season winds down here, others who see the point he is making but haven’t posted their suggestions yet, will give his question serious thought and post their suggestions and others who answered his question will expound on their answer.

That said, disregarding the NBE for the moment, I want to post that yes, we (as in Rhody and other non-P5 conferences) are at a disadvantage compared to the P5. But, we do, I believe have an advantage over many of the P5 schools and that is a love and passion for basketball whereas their love and passion is mostly football.

Many of the P5 schools down south, out west and in the mid-west love their football far more than basketball. Football is their religion; basketball is a way to pass time until spring football practice. Sure, their are exceptions: Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, the true blue bloods. I am not talking about the exceptions.

Rhody, has a love of basketball, a passion for basketball and history of basketball that many P5 schools do not have. Our core supporters and boosters are smaller in number than other basketball loving schools, perhaps and no doubt when the on court results are below average, but that core group is no less passionate and loyal than other basketball schools and even more passionate than many of those P5 football is religion schools, imho. I truly believe that.

This passion is one of our strengths over those P5’s and we ( Rhody ) and the other basketball loving schools remaining in the A10, and the P6 (also known as the NBE here), MVC, WCC, The Summit, MAAC, CAA and basketball schools trapped in conferences who dream of big time football, like Temple and Wichita State - need to continue to stoke it and use it against those college football loving heathens.

Let them feed and love their football programs until they are choking on it and slowly neglect their basketball programs to our benefit. It is those football is religion schools that we can adapt and overcome against because they lack the passion, love and history of basketball that we have. They are the common foe’s of the basketball loving schools. Let’s take those football loving basketball neglecting programs down. Adapt and overcome!

ATP, I know my “suggestion” directly above is not the analytics based suggestion you may have been expecting when you authored this thread and asked your question, and for that I sincerely apologize but, I had to get it off my chest as it has been building for all the years I lurked here and since I finally joined last spring.

I also apologize to our younger KB’ers who haven’t lived through our programs high’s and low’s of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. But, I sincerely want those high’s for you - more of the high’s like we all experienced together when DH was here - before us old timers are a memory here. Therefore, Don’t let the passion fade. Don’t allow the programs that do not love basketball drag us down. Don’t settle for mediocrity. Don’t let this program fade into irrelevancy.

It is truly NCAA or Bust time. Go Rhody!

[RhowdyRam02]

That's a great thought, but the problem is those football is religion schools are making so much money on the football side of the house that they can't possibly spend it all and are starting to funnel more and more resources into men's basketball, which is part of why it's so tough to be a mid-major now. P5 schools have never marshalled their resources into basketball like this plus they're freezing the middle class out of scheduling

[Jdrums#3]

True. But how many are doing that - every P5 school is dumping tons of money into basketball after football is fed? Or, is that money also going into other sports too, for the men and women? Particularly when I am talking about the less popular branded P5 schools and non-P5 football first conferences like the AAC, Conf USA and MWC, for example?

Money is a great tool but, everybody doesn’t it use it effectively and efficiently.

There is a stratification within the P5, I believe. You have 30-40 major brands then a drop off. I am focusing on that next level down and lower.

I think if we and other non-P6 basketball schools are branding ourselves as basketball schools that love basketball, provide good resources and a fair level of NIL, with all the players out there domestically and overseas, we can attract our share versus the bottom half of the less popular branded P5’s and non-P5 football first conference schools.

I think you can attract good to very good players that want to play at a school that has a passion for basketball, puts basketball first financially over other sports, puts basketball first socially (within the campus community) and has a fanbase that loves and has a passion for basketball. Players that want to be a big fish in a basketball pond versus a basketball fish in a huge football pond and a second class citizen on campus to the football team.

The NBE doesn’t have football money, yet they compete. Gonzaga does it. St. Mary’s is starting to do it. Programs without big time football compete. They have a formula to compete. Learn from them and implement the things they do on a lesser scale but to the best of your ability.

Before you jump on me for that comment above, keep in mind I am not talking about the A10 as a basketball conference, for instance, ascending to the level of the NBE but, it can certainly ascend back to a consistent top 10 basketball conference or the best Non-P6 conference that can have 4-5 teams ranked in the top 75 Net most years (with 2 teams in the top 30) by following the formula used by the NBE. Therefore equating to 3 potential NCAAT teams or 2 with one or two in the bubble conversation.

Again, when I am talking about attracting players versus the P5, I am not talking about out recruiting the blue blood basketball schools or the top branded schools like Texas, Bama, USC, Notre Dame, etc. To be clear, I do not believe that will not ever happen. But I believe we would be able to compete for players against the less successful P5’s, the lower half so to speak, and the non-P5 football first conference schools.

I am not talking about a snap of the fingers and it is done. It will take work, smarts, and commitment. The hurdles are real, significant but not insurmountable to get back to the level of a consistent top 10, 3 bid basketball conference. I think we (I mean Rhody and most A10 programs that want to strive to compete at an NCAA or bust level) have the smarts and have shown the commitment to get back to that level and be relevant again.

I hope this provides some clarity to what I was trying to get at in my prior post.


ETA: Rhowdy, I appreciate you jumping in. I didn’t address your freezing out point regarding scheduling. I agree it is happening. There are fewer opportunities and imho,this is exactly why it is so very important for Rhody and the conference to have an urgency to get back to being a consistent top 10 conference that has teams that are good enough to draw relevant, compelling match-up’s and justify potential multiple NCAAT bids annually. An urgency to be the best or amongst the best of the non-P5 and right after the NBE (P6).

I think teams in conferences that fall consistently outside the top 10 conferences have a significant risk of falling behind so dramatically that eventually it will not be worth it for the P5 to even play them in a regular season game. I think those teams that fall way behind like that will potentially only be worth an exhibition game eventually as a tune-up before the regular season starts. Right before that point, I think the P5 will push to even deny them their bids to the NCAAT and push them down to the NIT, effectively reducing their relevance comparable to FCS in football.

[SmartyBarrett]

This is... not great.

[SGreenwell]

The A10 men's basketball Twitter account is a truly bizarre hodgepodge of tweets about random games, and RTs of games underway and scores with no clear focus. It reads like it's not someone's exclusive job to update it, which happens often with social media. Updating the accounts just becomes someone else's job that they might not have any experience doing, or any real skill set to do.

[KingstonLane]

The A10 men's basketball Twitter account is a truly bizarre hodgepodge of tweets about random games, and RTs of games underway and scores with no clear focus. It reads like it's not someone's exclusive job to update it, which happens often with social media. Updating the accounts just becomes someone else's job that they might not have any experience doing, or any real skill set to do.

They should just hire whoever runs A10 talk to run the official a10 mbb account too. They almost have the same follower count and a10 talk is exponentially more active and informative in sourcing beats for every team

[ace]

Not surprising that Dayton’s accounts are the most popular/interacted with in the conference.


Also, I hadn’t looked at the A10’s KenPom numbers in a while. Ugly, viewer discretion is advised. Six 200+ teams and only two in the top 100.

[reef]

I’m certain Dayton’s board going nuts after the loss @ St Louis

[Blue Man]

This is... not great.

See - stuff like this is why I feel like there needs to be a change in leadership.

While the A10 doesn't have football - being that far behind other irrelevant basketball only conferences in fan engagement is kind of disgusting.

[Rhodymob05]

Not sure I believe those rankings lol. Football or no football, I couldn’t tell ya who is even in half of those conferences ahead of the A10.