2023-24 Schedule (top post is current)

[jcru]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

[Jersey77]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

Not sure what your point is jcru?

The A10 is doing what it can to react to the expansion of the P6.

The blame on teams not performing or getting bids falls on the individual programs, not on A10 leadership.
The conference doesn't hire the head coaches, build the rosters, or responsible for the wins and losses.

Though I do feel the NCAA hasn't made it easier for the mid-majors.

[hrstrat57]

Don’t really think it’s being negative to expect a club of nearly 100% Miller recruited players to tear thru this cupcake schedule.

(And be disappointed if we don’t)

Go Rhody

[Jersey77]

Don’t really think it’s being negative to expect a club of nearly 100% Miller recruited players to tear thru this cupcake schedule.

(And be disappointed if we don’t)

Go Rhody

Unfortunately, many will view URI as one of your so called "cupcakes" on the A10 schedule.

For me I don't see any cupcakes for us and feel every game in our conference will be a challenge.
Even LaSalle who will probably be at or close to the bottom return solid guards in; Brantley (14 pts), Brickus (10 pts), and Gill (8 pts).

Besides after finishing 14th last season and basically starting all over, we shouldn't be the ones casting stones.

[rjsuperfly66]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

Not sure what your point is jcru?

The A10 is doing what it can to react to the expansion of the P6.

The blame on teams not performing or getting bids falls on the individual programs, not on A10 leadership.
The conference doesn't hire the head coaches, build the rosters, or responsible for the wins and losses.

Though I do feel the NCAA hasn't made it easier for the mid-majors.

Is that true though?
As an example years, people have talked about alternative scheduling strategies that would ideally maximize quality opponents for the top programs in the conference.
With 15 teams, it's actually an easier setup, you play everyone once, and then pod teams 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and play everyone in your pod once.
CUSA invented the idea but claimed it useless in large part because CUSA will pretty much always be a one-bid league and no creative scheduling can really change that.
If it were me, and the results were getting worse and worse, I'd be begging to mix it up, try something new.
This scheduling model won't fix poor OOC performance, but should at least give A10 NCAA/NIT contenders strong opportunities while everyone is really paying attention to Bracketology.

[ramster]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

Not sure what your point is jcru?

The A10 is doing what it can to react to the expansion of the P6.

The blame on teams not performing or getting bids falls on the individual programs, not on A10 leadership.
The conference doesn't hire the head coaches, build the rosters, or responsible for the wins and losses.

Though I do feel the NCAA hasn't made it easier for the mid-majors.

77,
What do you think A10 Leadership has done to improve the status and reputation of the A10? How about the Commissioner's performance during the past several years involving:
Covid years management including the Free Covid Year for all players
P6 Expansion of Conference Schedules to 18, 20, 22 games
P6 Teams excluding Mid Major game opportunities
NIL management
Media Contracts
All Conference Team Recognition consistency/accuracy
Other

I'll share my thoughts too

[Jersey77]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

Not sure what your point is jcru?

The A10 is doing what it can to react to the expansion of the P6.

The blame on teams not performing or getting bids falls on the individual programs, not on A10 leadership.
The conference doesn't hire the head coaches, build the rosters, or responsible for the wins and losses.

Though I do feel the NCAA hasn't made it easier for the mid-majors.

Is that true though?
As an example years, people have talked about alternative scheduling strategies that would ideally maximize quality opponents for the top programs in the conference.
With 15 teams, it's actually an easier setup, you play everyone once, and then pod teams 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and play everyone in your pod once.
CUSA invented the idea but claimed it useless in large part because CUSA will pretty much always be a one-bid league and no creative scheduling can really change that.
If it were me, and the results were getting worse and worse, I'd be begging to mix it up, try something new.
This scheduling model won't fix poor OOC performance, but should at least give A10 NCAA/NIT contenders strong opportunities while everyone is really paying attention to Bracketology.

Aside from just winning, not sure there is any secret formula.
C-USA had 11 teams last season and only FAU got a bid, we are all well aware of their performance.
Both North Texas (31 wins) and UAB (29 wins) played each other in the NIT Championship.
As of July 1st, C-USA is losing 6 teams to the AAC.

[Jersey77]

At the expense of number of bids. Got it. Who cares how relevant it all stays for everyone, so long as the A-10 get's paid.

That, is why this league is heading for the crapper.

Not sure what your point is jcru?

The A10 is doing what it can to react to the expansion of the P6.

The blame on teams not performing or getting bids falls on the individual programs, not on A10 leadership.
The conference doesn't hire the head coaches, build the rosters, or responsible for the wins and losses.

Though I do feel the NCAA hasn't made it easier for the mid-majors.

77,
What do you think A10 Leadership has done to improve the status and reputation of the A10? How about the Commissioner's performance during the past several years involving:
Covid years management including the Free Covid Year for all players
P6 Expansion of Conference Schedules to 18, 20, 22 games
P6 Teams excluding Mid Major game opportunities
NIL management
Media Contracts
All Conference Team Recognition consistency/accuracy
Other

I'll share my thoughts too

More important Ramster is that the member schools seem to like Bernadette McGlade.
Last season they extended her contract through the 25-26 academic year.

https://atlantic10.com/news/2022/9/1/ab ... tract.aspx

She most recently served on the NCAA Men's Basketball Committee.
Also one of the few administrators to serve on both the Men's and Women's Basketball Selection Committee.
She was also the Vice Chair of the DI Collegiate Commissioner’s Association (CCA) for 2022-23.

"McGlade also led the successful negotiation of lucrative long-term media rights packages with ESPN, CBS Sports Network, NBC Sports, which were extended in 2021."

"Hired in 2008, McGlade is in her 15th year as A-10 Commissioner, making her the longest serving commissioner in A-10 history. She is the longest tenured full-time female commissioner of the 32 Division I Conferences and is the sixth-longest tenured Division I commissioner overall."

The conference did an adequate job navigating through the Covid Pandemic.

Not sure what the conference leadership can do regarding NIL, or P6 expansion.
Bringing in Loyola/Chicago I think was very positive move in helping to strengthen our conference.

[RhowdyRam02]

How does Loyola Chicago strengthen the conference? They're another mouth to feed out of a shrinking pie that plays second fiddle to a Big East school and a Big 10 school in a pro sports market. They increase the travel costs for most schools and they cost every school revenue. That's bad math. Beyond that, their 40 year history shows they're not a program, they were Porter Moser, and he's not there anymore.

The Atlantic 10 is a men's basketball conference, first, last and everything in between. All our revenue, all of our exposure comes from that one sport. If you've been the A10 commissioner for 15 years and the conference produces one bid that is a clear sign that new leadership and a new vision is necessary.

You say it's not on A10 leadership. Well if they're not doing anything while the conference continually slides down the mountain why even have conference leadership in the first place? It is their job to keep the conference as the best mid major basketball conference in the country and they're not doing their job.

But hey, at least people like Bernadette. Because it's not about being successful, it's about the friends we make along the way to becoming a one bid league

[jcru]

I couldn't agree more, RR02.

[RIFan]

What could she do? Jettison a few perpetual under performing programs and establish a minimum level of commitment. Maybe adjust revenue sharing to encourage and reward performance. Just a couple thoughts. If nothing like this is possible then change the charter or figure out a way to fold the A10 and create a new conference. I don’t know…there has to be something she could do other than adding teams who were a flash in the pan and most likely will never see the same success again.

[Jersey77]

How does Loyola Chicago strengthen the conference? They're another mouth to feed out of a shrinking pie that plays second fiddle to a Big East school and a Big 10 school in a pro sports market. They increase the travel costs for most schools and they cost every school revenue. That's bad math. Beyond that, their 40 year history shows they're not a program, they were Porter Moser, and he's not there anymore.

The Atlantic 10 is a men's basketball conference, first, last and everything in between. All our revenue, all of our exposure comes from that one sport. If you've been the A10 commissioner for 15 years and the conference produces one bid that is a clear sign that new leadership and a new vision is necessary.

You say it's not on A10 leadership. Well if they're not doing anything while the conference continually slides down the mountain why even have conference leadership in the first place? It is their job to keep the conference as the best mid major basketball conference in the country and they're not doing their job.

But hey, at least people like Bernadette. Because it's not about being successful, it's about the friends we make along the way to becoming a one bid league

Totally disagree.

Didn't realize you were privy and such an expert on the inter-workings of our conference.
I guess you know the conference dynamics better than all the member presidents and ADs do.
The schools all voted to accept Loyola/Chicago, but again you probably have a better understanding of their purse strings than they do.

And of course, Bernadette is responsible for all the team's wins/losses and disappointments this past season.
Remember she also hired the coaches and recruited their rosters.

Stop with pointing the blame at conference leadership for our 1-bid last season because the individual programs shoulder that responsibility.

Maybe you will be satisfied if the A10 poaches the BE and AAC to strengthen our conference.

[jcru]

Rod used to reference the saying every once in a while "We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs"

It's mostly a political saying, but it applies here. Forget about what the A-10 says, and focus on what they actually do.

They seek out new members in far off markets. And recently it isn't to replace members who leave, it's just expansion for the sake of expansion.

That means MONEY $$$ for the sake of money. The interest isn't in the well being of any particular member team, or any of them for that matter.
They'll just keep expanding so they can make new lucrative deals for more money and to hell how it affects the member teams, particularly, the original member teams who have been here since the beginning. If they got to get to 20 teams to get what they want, that's what they are going to do.

And people are starting to cotton on. The "one bid" situation is a nightmare. It makes it so they are no better than an America East or a Patriot League, and they are actually worse, because in those conferences, less teams are fighting over that one bid.

And their response is to downplay it and pretend it's an aberration. They have no plan to right this situation, except to make sure they make money for themselves. And they are desperately hoping the Conference somehow mathematically gets two bids next year, through strength of schedule coinciding with the regular season champion, and having a separate tourney champion, so they can come back and tell everyone everything is good. It's the David Cox supporters all over again, hoping he can do just enough to keep his job alive.

Contrast that to the actual Big East who currently stands at 11 members, but always in anticipation of a member leaving. They constantly promote their teams, and their nucleus of teams are in the North East area, which consolidates the interest of their fans.

[jcru]

"The schools all voted to accept Loyola/Chicago, but again you probably have a better understanding of their purse strings than they do."

I'm sure the form letter went out that read: "Dear Athletics Director __________. If you want to continue to receive your school's $_________ .00 disbursement from the Atlantic 10 Conference, you'll need to approve our decision to add ____________ University/College as an Atlantic 10 Conference member for all sports. Please sign below. Thank you."

In other walks of life, it's called bribery. When the money up front doesn't exceed the money lost in loss of post season appearances, across the board, not to mention the loss of fans, interest, etc, then the rubber will meet the road.

[RhowdyRam02]

What could she do? Jettison a few perpetual under performing programs and establish a minimum level of commitment. Maybe adjust revenue sharing to encourage and reward performance. Just a couple thoughts. If nothing like this is possible then change the charter or figure out a way to fold the A10 and create a new conference. I don’t know…there has to be something she could do other than adding teams who were a flash in the pan and most likely will never see the same success again.

First, we absolutely need to stop adding schools. We shouldn't have added Loyola Chicago. All we do by trying to react to super conferences is getting bigger ourselves but we're adding schools that take from the table and becoming a bloated mess in the process. All we have to do is look at the Big East to see that for basketball only conferences smaller, not bigger, is better. And if and when you do add it has to be a slam dunk, not a "this should probably work, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary."

Second, something has to be done about teams that take and not bring to the table. Adjusting revenue is a must and kicking schools out should be on the table. If the Big East could kick Temple football out there should be a way to boot schools that belong in the Patriot League or NEC. If we can't kick them out, they should be so starved of revenue that they look to leave themselves instead of incentivizing them to stay and steal money from the other schools.

Third, we need to adopt the CUSA scheduling formula and we need to be more aggressive with partnering with other mid majors to produce bracket buster type games in mid to late February. Our scheduling model of "we think these teams will be good so we'll match them, we think these teams will be average so we'll match them, and we think these teams will be bad so we'll match them" doesn't work, and we have almost a decade of declining tournament bids to show this. The fact is, too many teams aren't properly assessed before the season (to be fair, that's really hard to accurately predict) which leads to not getting the scheduling results we're looking for. Instead, the last four games should be pods that are created based on NET rankings. This way the real top teams, after they've played everyone once, no longer have landmines in the regular season that bring down their NET rankings and have opportunities to increase their NET rankings. Ideally once we get rid of the dead weight in the conference you have more than 4 games that are scheduled based on actual team quality and not preseason team quality. For the non-conference bracket buster games, we should have a compact with other top mid major conferences where each conference sends their top 2 to 4 teams into a pool and each team gets a home and home non-conference bracket buster based on NET rankings. Instead of complaining about conspiracies and nepotism hires while we do nothing to fix ourselves we need to game the NET.

Fourth, I don't allow anyone with a losing conference record into the conference tournament. People might complain because the conference tournament gives everyone a chance. I say if you had a losing conference record you had your chance already and you lost it. No losing teams that bring top teams NET rankings down unless you beat them bad enough.

We can't keep going business as usual, it's not working and it's only going to get worse. We have to become a leaner, meaner conference. If that leaves teams by the wayside, so be it. If that means fans have to be nimble with their February home games, so be it, though I think fans of the top teams can adapt to having better home games rather than set games against blah opponents. If that means the conference tournament looks different, oh well, we have to do what's best for maximizing NCAA bids.

Or we can keep sliding down as a conference to the point where URI is better off in the one bid America East than the one bid Atlantic Ten

[RhowdyRam02]

How does Loyola Chicago strengthen the conference? They're another mouth to feed out of a shrinking pie that plays second fiddle to a Big East school and a Big 10 school in a pro sports market. They increase the travel costs for most schools and they cost every school revenue. That's bad math. Beyond that, their 40 year history shows they're not a program, they were Porter Moser, and he's not there anymore.

The Atlantic 10 is a men's basketball conference, first, last and everything in between. All our revenue, all of our exposure comes from that one sport. If you've been the A10 commissioner for 15 years and the conference produces one bid that is a clear sign that new leadership and a new vision is necessary.

You say it's not on A10 leadership. Well if they're not doing anything while the conference continually slides down the mountain why even have conference leadership in the first place? It is their job to keep the conference as the best mid major basketball conference in the country and they're not doing their job.

But hey, at least people like Bernadette. Because it's not about being successful, it's about the friends we make along the way to becoming a one bid league

Totally disagree.

Didn't realize you were privy and such an expert on the inter-workings of our conference.
I guess you know the conference dynamics better than all the member presidents and ADs do.
The schools all voted to accept Loyola/Chicago, but again you probably have a better understanding of their purse strings than they do.

And of course, Bernadette is responsible for all the team's wins/losses and disappointments this past season.
Remember she also hired the coaches and recruited their rosters.

Stop with pointing the blame at conference leadership for our 1-bid last season because the individual programs shoulder that responsibility.

Maybe you will be satisfied if the A10 poaches the BE and AAC to strengthen our conference.

I've finally got a read on you. Everything was going great for you when Cox was killing our program and while the A10 crumbles, but thinking we'll be too good this year is a step too far for you. That tells me everything I need to know about you as a poster. Either you're not a real fan or you're the type of fan that doesn't really care about URI being successful, being comfortable is more important than success.

And yeah, I guess I do know better than to chase fools gold like Loyola Chicago. Since the 1968-69 season they've had 4 tournament appearances. Those were 1985, 2018 and 2021 (Porter Moser), and 2022 (Porter Moser's players). There was nothing in the last 50 years suggesting they belonged in the A10 other than a coach that isn't there anymore. And low and behold, Loyola Chicago went back to what they've been almost all of the last 50 years, a pumpkin. Adding them was chasing a basketball program that didn't really exist and a media market they don't own even while the top conferences are showing that media markets don't matter as much in this round of expansion

[Jersey77]

How does Loyola Chicago strengthen the conference? They're another mouth to feed out of a shrinking pie that plays second fiddle to a Big East school and a Big 10 school in a pro sports market. They increase the travel costs for most schools and they cost every school revenue. That's bad math. Beyond that, their 40 year history shows they're not a program, they were Porter Moser, and he's not there anymore.

The Atlantic 10 is a men's basketball conference, first, last and everything in between. All our revenue, all of our exposure comes from that one sport. If you've been the A10 commissioner for 15 years and the conference produces one bid that is a clear sign that new leadership and a new vision is necessary.

You say it's not on A10 leadership. Well if they're not doing anything while the conference continually slides down the mountain why even have conference leadership in the first place? It is their job to keep the conference as the best mid major basketball conference in the country and they're not doing their job.

But hey, at least people like Bernadette. Because it's not about being successful, it's about the friends we make along the way to becoming a one bid league

Totally disagree.

Didn't realize you were privy and such an expert on the inter-workings of our conference.
I guess you know the conference dynamics better than all the member presidents and ADs do.
The schools all voted to accept Loyola/Chicago, but again you probably have a better understanding of their purse strings than they do.

And of course, Bernadette is responsible for all the team's wins/losses and disappointments this past season.
Remember she also hired the coaches and recruited their rosters.

Stop with pointing the blame at conference leadership for our 1-bid last season because the individual programs shoulder that responsibility.

Maybe you will be satisfied if the A10 poaches the BE and AAC to strengthen our conference.

I've finally got a read on you. Everything was going great for you when Cox was killing our program and while the A10 crumbles, but thinking we'll be too good this year is a step too far for you. That tells me everything I need to know about you as a poster. Either you're not a real fan or you're the type of fan that doesn't really care about URI being successful, being comfortable is more important than success.

And yeah, I guess I do know better than to chase fools gold like Loyola Chicago. Since the 1968-69 season they've had 4 tournament appearances. Those were 1985, 2018 and 2021 (Porter Moser), and 2022 (Porter Moser's players). There was nothing in the last 50 years suggesting they belonged in the A10 other than a coach that isn't there anymore. And low and behold, Loyola Chicago went back to what they've been almost all of the last 50 years, a pumpkin. Adding them was chasing a basketball program that didn't really exist and a media market they don't own even while the top conferences are showing that media markets don't matter as much in this round of expansion

Yeah right I am not a real fan and don't want the program to succeed.
Been one longer than you, traveled with the team, and been loyal through good times and bad times.

And no, never thought everything was great under Cox but I did agree with Thorr in giving him the opporunity and a proper chance.
When it didn't work out, he deserved to get fired.

I applauded the hire of Archie and was elated when Thorr was able to get it done.

Now I will again be patient with Archie like I was with Dan and was also a big fan of DH well before he was hired at URI.

And yes, I agreed with A10 leadership and the committee when they brought in Loyola.
I have no problem with us extending our footprint in the Midwest and adding the Chicago market.
I think in the long run this addition will work out well for us, maybe even seeing positive results for them in 23-24.

Calling someone out for not being a fan because they may be critical of your post, is hitting below the belt.

There have have been times when I agreed with you and times I haven't, but I still believe you are a fan, regardless.

[hrstrat57]

Don’t really think it’s being negative to expect a club of nearly 100% Miller recruited players to tear thru this cupcake schedule.

(And be disappointed if we don’t)

Go Rhody

Unfortunately, many will view URI as one of your so called "cupcakes" on the A10 schedule.

For me I don't see any cupcakes for us and feel every game in our conference will be a challenge.
Even LaSalle who will probably be at or close to the bottom return solid guards in; Brantley (14 pts), Brickus (10 pts), and Gill (8 pts).

Besides after finishing 14th last season and basically starting all over, we shouldn't be the ones casting stones.

Sadly from our Rams point of view last year no A10 programs were cupcakes. Conference games however should always be hotly contested.

My cupcake comment is referring to this overall non conference schedule. I gave Miller a pass last year due to circumstances (stuck with players he didn’t recruit, getting into the portal late and lingering pandemic nonsense) it appears most posters gave him a pass.

This season it’s his team 100% I fully expect our Rams should roll thru the preseason schedule if we’re reaping the rewards of our big coaching hire. Again, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to expect wins. I don’t have a problem with a cupcake schedule either, rack up the wins, let’s roll!

Also saying Jersey77 isn’t a Rhody fan and loyalist is kinda dumb - bordering on trolling and just plain mean.

Go Rhody

[Jersey77]

Don’t really think it’s being negative to expect a club of nearly 100% Miller recruited players to tear thru this cupcake schedule.

(And be disappointed if we don’t)

Go Rhody

Unfortunately, many will view URI as one of your so called "cupcakes" on the A10 schedule.

For me I don't see any cupcakes for us and feel every game in our conference will be a challenge.
Even LaSalle who will probably be at or close to the bottom return solid guards in; Brantley (14 pts), Brickus (10 pts), and Gill (8 pts).

Besides after finishing 14th last season and basically starting all over, we shouldn't be the ones casting stones.

Sadly from our Rams point of view last year no A10 programs were cupcakes. Conference games however should always be hotly contested.

My cupcake comment is referring to this overall non conference schedule. I gave Miller a pass last year due to circumstances (stuck with players he didn’t recruit, getting into the portal late and lingering pandemic nonsense) it appears most posters gave him a pass.

This season it’s his team 100% I fully expect our Rams should roll thru the preseason schedule if we’re reaping the rewards of our big coaching hire. Again, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to expect wins. I don’t have a problem with a cupcake schedule either, rack up the wins, let’s roll!

Also saying Jersey77 isn’t a Rhody fan and loyalist is kinda dumb - bordering on trolling and just plain mean.

Go Rhody

Thanks hrstrat57

Yeah the home OOC schedule so far is very condusive for wins and confidence building, Yale won't be a cakewalk though.
I would be very satisfied with a split at the Mohegan Sun, PC could easily be ugly.
At Charleston will be tough, they will most likely be favored.

[Jdrums#3]

What could she do? Jettison a few perpetual under performing programs and establish a minimum level of commitment. Maybe adjust revenue sharing to encourage and reward performance. Just a couple thoughts. If nothing like this is possible then change the charter or figure out a way to fold the A10 and create a new conference. I don’t know…there has to be something she could do other than adding teams who were a flash in the pan and most likely will never see the same success again.

First, we absolutely need to stop adding schools. We shouldn't have added Loyola Chicago. All we do by trying to react to super conferences is getting bigger ourselves but we're adding schools that take from the table and becoming a bloated mess in the process. All we have to do is look at the Big East to see that for basketball only conferences smaller, not bigger, is better. And if and when you do add it has to be a slam dunk, not a "this should probably work, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary."

Second, something has to be done about teams that take and not bring to the table. Adjusting revenue is a must and kicking schools out should be on the table. If the Big East could kick Temple football out there should be a way to boot schools that belong in the Patriot League or NEC. If we can't kick them out, they should be so starved of revenue that they look to leave themselves instead of incentivizing them to stay and steal money from the other schools.

Third, we need to adopt the CUSA scheduling formula and we need to be more aggressive with partnering with other mid majors to produce bracket buster type games in mid to late February. Our scheduling model of "we think these teams will be good so we'll match them, we think these teams will be average so we'll match them, and we think these teams will be bad so we'll match them" doesn't work, and we have almost a decade of declining tournament bids to show this. The fact is, too many teams aren't properly assessed before the season (to be fair, that's really hard to accurately predict) which leads to not getting the scheduling results we're looking for. Instead, the last four games should be pods that are created based on NET rankings. This way the real top teams, after they've played everyone once, no longer have landmines in the regular season that bring down their NET rankings and have opportunities to increase their NET rankings. Ideally once we get rid of the dead weight in the conference you have more than 4 games that are scheduled based on actual team quality and not preseason team quality. For the non-conference bracket buster games, we should have a compact with other top mid major conferences where each conference sends their top 2 to 4 teams into a pool and each team gets a home and home non-conference bracket buster based on NET rankings. Instead of complaining about conspiracies and nepotism hires while we do nothing to fix ourselves we need to game the NET.

Fourth, I don't allow anyone with a losing conference record into the conference tournament. People might complain because the conference tournament gives everyone a chance. I say if you had a losing conference record you had your chance already and you lost it. No losing teams that bring top teams NET rankings down unless you beat them bad enough.

We can't keep going business as usual, it's not working and it's only going to get worse. We have to become a leaner, meaner conference. If that leaves teams by the wayside, so be it. If that means fans have to be nimble with their February home games, so be it, though I think fans of the top teams can adapt to having better home games rather than set games against blah opponents. If that means the conference tournament looks different, oh well, we have to do what's best for maximizing NCAA bids.

Or we can keep sliding down as a conference to the point where URI is better off in the one bid America East than the one bid Atlantic Ten

Good post, 02, imho because I favor a proactive approach rather than a reactive or passive approach. And, you make some compelling proactive strategies to assist the A10 in the changing college sports landscape.

What concerns me with the conference is expanding while the revenue stream continues to shrink as the changing landscape requires increased financial commitment. That does not appear to be a sustainable business model to me.

That said, IF the financial pressures to compete for NCAAT relevance and at-large NCAAT bids continue to mount, I expect some attrition from A10 programs that do not have the financial resources to sustain A10 membership (LaSalle is the first program that comes to mind for me). I don’t have a specific timetable for attrition other than a window of the next 5 years of at least one program or perhaps two.

IF the conference is unable to turn the tide regarding at-large NCAAT bids and attrition doesn’t occur, I can envision the possibility of the conference disbanding in the future.

Finally, I too believe that a smaller A10 conference is more sustainable in the changing landscape of college sports.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

What could she do? Jettison a few perpetual under performing programs and establish a minimum level of commitment. Maybe adjust revenue sharing to encourage and reward performance. Just a couple thoughts. If nothing like this is possible then change the charter or figure out a way to fold the A10 and create a new conference. I don’t know…there has to be something she could do other than adding teams who were a flash in the pan and most likely will never see the same success again.

First, we absolutely need to stop adding schools. We shouldn't have added Loyola Chicago. All we do by trying to react to super conferences is getting bigger ourselves but we're adding schools that take from the table and becoming a bloated mess in the process. All we have to do is look at the Big East to see that for basketball only conferences smaller, not bigger, is better. And if and when you do add it has to be a slam dunk, not a "this should probably work, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary."

Second, something has to be done about teams that take and not bring to the table. Adjusting revenue is a must and kicking schools out should be on the table. If the Big East could kick Temple football out there should be a way to boot schools that belong in the Patriot League or NEC. If we can't kick them out, they should be so starved of revenue that they look to leave themselves instead of incentivizing them to stay and steal money from the other schools.

Third, we need to adopt the CUSA scheduling formula and we need to be more aggressive with partnering with other mid majors to produce bracket buster type games in mid to late February. Our scheduling model of "we think these teams will be good so we'll match them, we think these teams will be average so we'll match them, and we think these teams will be bad so we'll match them" doesn't work, and we have almost a decade of declining tournament bids to show this. The fact is, too many teams aren't properly assessed before the season (to be fair, that's really hard to accurately predict) which leads to not getting the scheduling results we're looking for. Instead, the last four games should be pods that are created based on NET rankings. This way the real top teams, after they've played everyone once, no longer have landmines in the regular season that bring down their NET rankings and have opportunities to increase their NET rankings. Ideally once we get rid of the dead weight in the conference you have more than 4 games that are scheduled based on actual team quality and not preseason team quality. For the non-conference bracket buster games, we should have a compact with other top mid major conferences where each conference sends their top 2 to 4 teams into a pool and each team gets a home and home non-conference bracket buster based on NET rankings. Instead of complaining about conspiracies and nepotism hires while we do nothing to fix ourselves we need to game the NET.

Fourth, I don't allow anyone with a losing conference record into the conference tournament. People might complain because the conference tournament gives everyone a chance. I say if you had a losing conference record you had your chance already and you lost it. No losing teams that bring top teams NET rankings down unless you beat them bad enough.

We can't keep going business as usual, it's not working and it's only going to get worse. We have to become a leaner, meaner conference. If that leaves teams by the wayside, so be it. If that means fans have to be nimble with their February home games, so be it, though I think fans of the top teams can adapt to having better home games rather than set games against blah opponents. If that means the conference tournament looks different, oh well, we have to do what's best for maximizing NCAA bids.

Or we can keep sliding down as a conference to the point where URI is better off in the one bid America East than the one bid Atlantic Ten

There's so much absurdity with this post, I'm not sure where to start. Bottom line, you can't blame a conference commissioner for how a conference's programs perform in a particular sport. Was it Jim Delany's fault that the Big Ten hasn't won a men's basketball championship since MSU in 2000?

And you're not going to allow teams with a losing record attend a conference tournament? In reality, you could have a rule (before the season) that states the top-8 teams go. But based on record? So fans book plane tickets, hotels, etc. (because their team is 2 games above .500 in January) and then their team hits a slide for whatever reason and finishes below .500. These same fans are going to cancel those reservations and get all their money back? Ridiculous.

I mean c'mon, get serious.

[TruePoint]

What could she do? Jettison a few perpetual under performing programs and establish a minimum level of commitment. Maybe adjust revenue sharing to encourage and reward performance. Just a couple thoughts. If nothing like this is possible then change the charter or figure out a way to fold the A10 and create a new conference. I don’t know…there has to be something she could do other than adding teams who were a flash in the pan and most likely will never see the same success again.

First, we absolutely need to stop adding schools. We shouldn't have added Loyola Chicago. All we do by trying to react to super conferences is getting bigger ourselves but we're adding schools that take from the table and becoming a bloated mess in the process. All we have to do is look at the Big East to see that for basketball only conferences smaller, not bigger, is better. And if and when you do add it has to be a slam dunk, not a "this should probably work, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary."

Second, something has to be done about teams that take and not bring to the table. Adjusting revenue is a must and kicking schools out should be on the table. If the Big East could kick Temple football out there should be a way to boot schools that belong in the Patriot League or NEC. If we can't kick them out, they should be so starved of revenue that they look to leave themselves instead of incentivizing them to stay and steal money from the other schools.

Third, we need to adopt the CUSA scheduling formula and we need to be more aggressive with partnering with other mid majors to produce bracket buster type games in mid to late February. Our scheduling model of "we think these teams will be good so we'll match them, we think these teams will be average so we'll match them, and we think these teams will be bad so we'll match them" doesn't work, and we have almost a decade of declining tournament bids to show this. The fact is, too many teams aren't properly assessed before the season (to be fair, that's really hard to accurately predict) which leads to not getting the scheduling results we're looking for. Instead, the last four games should be pods that are created based on NET rankings. This way the real top teams, after they've played everyone once, no longer have landmines in the regular season that bring down their NET rankings and have opportunities to increase their NET rankings. Ideally once we get rid of the dead weight in the conference you have more than 4 games that are scheduled based on actual team quality and not preseason team quality. For the non-conference bracket buster games, we should have a compact with other top mid major conferences where each conference sends their top 2 to 4 teams into a pool and each team gets a home and home non-conference bracket buster based on NET rankings. Instead of complaining about conspiracies and nepotism hires while we do nothing to fix ourselves we need to game the NET.

Fourth, I don't allow anyone with a losing conference record into the conference tournament. People might complain because the conference tournament gives everyone a chance. I say if you had a losing conference record you had your chance already and you lost it. No losing teams that bring top teams NET rankings down unless you beat them bad enough.

We can't keep going business as usual, it's not working and it's only going to get worse. We have to become a leaner, meaner conference. If that leaves teams by the wayside, so be it. If that means fans have to be nimble with their February home games, so be it, though I think fans of the top teams can adapt to having better home games rather than set games against blah opponents. If that means the conference tournament looks different, oh well, we have to do what's best for maximizing NCAA bids.

Or we can keep sliding down as a conference to the point where URI is better off in the one bid America East than the one bid Atlantic Ten

There's so much absurdity with this post, I'm not sure where to start. Bottom line, you can't blame a conference commissioner for how a conference's programs perform in a particular sport. Was it Jim Delany's fault that the Big Ten hasn't won a men's basketball championship since MSU in 2000?

And you're not going to allow teams with a losing record attend a conference tournament? In reality, you could have a rule (before the season) that states the top-8 teams go. But based on record? So fans book plane tickets, hotels, etc. (because their team is 2 games above .500 in January) and then their team hits a slide for whatever reason and finishes below .500. These same fans are going to cancel those reservations and get all their money back? Ridiculous.

I mean c'mon, get serious.

If you don’t want to blame the Big 10s commissioner for their lack of basketball success, that’s fine. Their main focus is football, and anyways the conference has gotten deeper, added revenue and made multiple final 4 trips. I’d kill for that kind of failure in the A10.

As far as limiting the conference tournament, you make a point that it would be fine to limit it to the top 8 teams but basing it on record is not fair to fans who have to book travel. How is a “top-8” model more fair to fans? If you’re in a 3 way tie for 9th going into the last week, you have the exact same amount of uncertainty as a team within a game of .500 either way.

I co-sign all of the proposals made by RR02, because regardless of whether they are the exact same as what I would have come up with they are addressing all the same issues that bug me and they are bold and innovative attempts at doing so.

[ramster]

First, we absolutely need to stop adding schools. We shouldn't have added Loyola Chicago. All we do by trying to react to super conferences is getting bigger ourselves but we're adding schools that take from the table and becoming a bloated mess in the process. All we have to do is look at the Big East to see that for basketball only conferences smaller, not bigger, is better. And if and when you do add it has to be a slam dunk, not a "this should probably work, despite 40 years of evidence to the contrary."

Second, something has to be done about teams that take and not bring to the table. Adjusting revenue is a must and kicking schools out should be on the table. If the Big East could kick Temple football out there should be a way to boot schools that belong in the Patriot League or NEC. If we can't kick them out, they should be so starved of revenue that they look to leave themselves instead of incentivizing them to stay and steal money from the other schools.

Third, we need to adopt the CUSA scheduling formula and we need to be more aggressive with partnering with other mid majors to produce bracket buster type games in mid to late February. Our scheduling model of "we think these teams will be good so we'll match them, we think these teams will be average so we'll match them, and we think these teams will be bad so we'll match them" doesn't work, and we have almost a decade of declining tournament bids to show this. The fact is, too many teams aren't properly assessed before the season (to be fair, that's really hard to accurately predict) which leads to not getting the scheduling results we're looking for. Instead, the last four games should be pods that are created based on NET rankings. This way the real top teams, after they've played everyone once, no longer have landmines in the regular season that bring down their NET rankings and have opportunities to increase their NET rankings. Ideally once we get rid of the dead weight in the conference you have more than 4 games that are scheduled based on actual team quality and not preseason team quality. For the non-conference bracket buster games, we should have a compact with other top mid major conferences where each conference sends their top 2 to 4 teams into a pool and each team gets a home and home non-conference bracket buster based on NET rankings. Instead of complaining about conspiracies and nepotism hires while we do nothing to fix ourselves we need to game the NET.

Fourth, I don't allow anyone with a losing conference record into the conference tournament. People might complain because the conference tournament gives everyone a chance. I say if you had a losing conference record you had your chance already and you lost it. No losing teams that bring top teams NET rankings down unless you beat them bad enough.

We can't keep going business as usual, it's not working and it's only going to get worse. We have to become a leaner, meaner conference. If that leaves teams by the wayside, so be it. If that means fans have to be nimble with their February home games, so be it, though I think fans of the top teams can adapt to having better home games rather than set games against blah opponents. If that means the conference tournament looks different, oh well, we have to do what's best for maximizing NCAA bids.

Or we can keep sliding down as a conference to the point where URI is better off in the one bid America East than the one bid Atlantic Ten

There's so much absurdity with this post, I'm not sure where to start. Bottom line, you can't blame a conference commissioner for how a conference's programs perform in a particular sport. Was it Jim Delany's fault that the Big Ten hasn't won a men's basketball championship since MSU in 2000?

And you're not going to allow teams with a losing record attend a conference tournament? In reality, you could have a rule (before the season) that states the top-8 teams go. But based on record? So fans book plane tickets, hotels, etc. (because their team is 2 games above .500 in January) and then their team hits a slide for whatever reason and finishes below .500. These same fans are going to cancel those reservations and get all their money back? Ridiculous.

I mean c'mon, get serious.

If you don’t want to blame the Big 10s commissioner for their lack of basketball success, that’s fine. Their main focus is football, and anyways the conference has gotten deeper, added revenue and made multiple final 4 trips. I’d kill for that kind of failure in the A10.

As far as limiting the conference tournament, you make a point that it would be fine to limit it to the top 8 teams but basing it on record is not fair to fans who have to book travel. How is a “top-8” model more fair to fans? If you’re in a 3 way tie for 9th going into the last week, you have the exact same amount of uncertainty as a team within a game of .500 either way.

I co-sign all of the proposals made by RR02, because regardless of whether they are the exact same as what I would have come up with they are addressing all the same issues that bug me and they are bold and innovative attempts at doing so.

You suggest all teams with below .500 don't participate in the A10 Tournament so last season only 7 of 15 teams would make the Tournament with 8 ending their season.

This helps get more NCAA Bids? How?

Seems like the bottom teams will know their season is over with multiple games to go. Fan interest will dwindle, teams will not play so hard as a post season seeding is no longer in the line.

In recruiting competitors will point out that URI has not even participated in the A10 Tournament in x years so why go there? Come here instead.

A10 for a few years only took the Top 12 of 14 teams. 2 sat home. Jim Baron had this happen to his team - they stayed home, season ended early. Terrible for me as a URI fan. Don't know how keeping URI home helped URI or the A10 as a Conference. Glad they got rid of that concept but now you suggest bringing it back in a way that keeps more than half the conference home? Recruiting would really take a hit for those bottom half teams. More players would transfer out than they do now I would imagine. Jump the sinking ship. More gaps between the top tier teams and bottom half teams. Seems to work against what needs fixing.

URI would have 3 straight years of no A10 Tournaments. A long gap and could continue this year as well.

This level of dejection seems like a detriment to player, coach and fan morale. Some Players will chose other conferences instead, some will transfer out depending on the future outlook for their respective team. The weak will get weaker.

[jcru]

And you're not going to allow teams with a losing record attend a conference tournament? In reality, you could have a rule (before the season) that states the top-8 teams go. But based on record? So fans book plane tickets, hotels, etc. (because their team is 2 games above .500 in January) and then their team hits a slide for whatever reason and finishes below .500. These same fans are going to cancel those reservations and get all their money back? Ridiculous.

I mean c'mon, get serious.

Wouldn't that be your team's fault? You are booking two months out for a team that is barely hanging on to making the tournament, only for them to tank in the last month and miss it. What does the A-10 have to do with any of that, at that point? That's between your sketchy decision making and your team not getting the job done. In all actuality, the much STRONGER argument is that your team doesn't deserve to play in the Conference tournament at all, because they had every opportunity and they blew it. They didn't finish strong. They did the opposite. No different than the Sox missing the playoffs because they go on a 7 game losing streak the last month.

The A-10 is going to make policy based on you, maybe or maybe not, making a poor decision some hypothetical time in the future? What kind of business model is that?

[jcru]

Let me preface that comment, by saying, if we were in a Conference that had only 8-10 teams to begin with, this entire discussion would be a moot point, and there would be no reason to even discuss it. It's because we have 15 teams, that it's even a point of discussion.

And they want to expand... ?

[RF1]

I don't get the argument for contracting the A-10 Tournament to only include a portion of the conference. It is very rare that the worst teams move on to face conference teams under NCAA Tournament consideration. The size of the league and the tournament format make it very unlikely that they advance that far to harm or oust other teams.

[jcru]

The argument is to drive things to produce more conference bids. A 14th place team should have absolutely no shot at the Conference Tourney Championship.

Yes it sucks for teams 9-15, but, at the same token, they suck already.

Bonus: maybe they'll eventually get discouraged and leave of their own accord.

And, not for nothing, if this Conference only gets one bid again this upcoming season, I would expect to see some sort of fall out.

One out of 15 teams making the NCAAT, at the "level" we are supposedly supposed to be at, which is meant to be way higher than America East, the Patriot League, and many other Conferences who get one out of their 8, 9, or 10 teams in, is just really bad math.

[SGreenwell]

I don't get the argument for contracting the A-10 Tournament to only include a portion of the conference. It is very rare that the worst teams move on to face conference teams under NCAA Tournament consideration. The size of the league and the tournament format make it very unlikely that they advance that far to harm or oust other teams.

To add on to your point - excluding Bonaventure in the truncated 2020-21 season, the past 25 tournament winners have all had 20+ wins. None of them had overall or conference records under .500.

[PeterRamTime]

Meh

The best programs in the A-10 just need to stop getting in their own way

Archie needs to get us back to where we should be and then he needs to STAY for a little while

Dayton needs to stop blowing every single opportunity they have to secure an NCAA bid and same goes to Saint Louis. Stop being emBARONsing.

VCU needs to start doing better in the non conference. I feel good about them. Their new coach is better than Rhoades.

UMass has loads of potential

Then St Bonaventure, St Joe's, Richmond, Davidson and Loyola can all build teams good enough to compete for at-large bids.

It really comes down to the league needing to not lose soul crushing games to cupcakes and pull out more resume building wins.

I mean I've watched so many A-10 teams piss down their leg in big moments over the last few years. I think the main issue has been the coaching though, so who knows if that gets any better. Well, it's getting better here

[ElmCityRhody]

Charleston baby

2 more weeks !

i said months ago i would make this happen and i did

NO DOUBT !

looking forward to raising my kids away from this BULLSHIT !

Will you be living in Charleston ECR?
Beautiful city
Lots of people from Rhode Island move to South Carolina

Been here 5 days - see you soon rhody when we whoop CoC !

[reef]

Meh

The best programs in the A-10 just need to stop getting in their own way

Archie needs to get us back to where we should be and then he needs to STAY for a little while

Dayton needs to stop blowing every single opportunity they have to secure an NCAA bid and same goes to Saint Louis. Stop being emBARONsing.

VCU needs to start doing better in the non conference. I feel good about them. Their new coach is better than Rhoades.

UMass has loads of potential

Then St Bonaventure, St Joe's, Richmond, Davidson and Loyola can all build teams good enough to compete for at-large bids.

It really comes down to the league needing to not lose soul crushing games to cupcakes and pull out more resume building wins.

I mean I've watched so many A-10 teams piss down their leg in big moments over the last few years. I think the main issue has been the coaching though, so who knows if that gets any better. Well, it's getting better here

Yeah our out of Conf record by the a10 has really been bad the last couple of seasons , until we start beating some P6 schools it may stay 1 bid for a time

[Blue Man]

There are some good scheduling thoughts in this thread. And there are some bad.

Good: we should definitely follow a more dynamic scheduling process for the 2nd half of the conference season. It's already been tried in other conferences, and it makes perfect sense. Have your schedule set for the first 9 games of conference play. Top 6 with the tiebreaker being NET ranking play each other until tournament time.

You need some way to insulate/protect your top 6/bubble teams from the shitshow that is the bottom of our conference.

That isn't necessarily what happened this past season - all the big teams were absolute ass in the OOC portion of the schedule. I think there was 1 Q1 win in the OOC.

Most seasons though, the issue is that our top NET teams will get 12+ Q3/Q4. You can't build an NCAA resume with that.

VCU had SEVENTEEN conference games in Q3/Q4 last season. 3 were losses. Bye bye bid.
Dayton had 16. 4 losses.
St Louis had 15. 2 losses.

You can't build an NCAA resume with that. You need your bubble teams to avoid those Q4 games especially.

Last season if you had gone to a top 6 model, at least you'd have avoided Q4 games - more importantly, the "lower" teams you'd play, would have their NET brought higher by not playing those bottom 9 teams.

Now the bad: the idea that any team shouldn't be invited into a conference tournament. It's horseshit. It was horseshit when the A10 did it and we got f'd. The idea flies in the face of NCAA basketball and the tournament.

Not for nothing if you're on the bubble and you can't knock off a Q4 team in your conference tourney you don't deserve an at large bid. And the tournament should be open to everyone. Every single NCAA team deserves a shot to win a couple in a row and go dancing. The idea that anyone shouldn't be invited to a conference tourney should be a non-starter for any college basketball fan.

[section(105)]

Which is why I think expanding the NCAA Dance field beyond the current level and make it an open tourney is crazy. The conference tourneys are those early round games. If ya can’t beat your dregs of the conference you are out as at large bid. Keep the economic and competitive value of the conference tourneys. No?

[RF1]

UNH released its full official schedule confirming the game and date of its visit to Kingston that had been mentioned in this thread earlier:

[RF1]

College Sports Madness has once again started to announce its annual top 144 teams with a school named each day. Rhody is not expected to be part of the list (only six members of the 15 team A-10 will make the top 144 this season) but several probable opponents have been.


COLLEGE SPORTS MADNESS TOP 144


#135 Wagner Seahawks
Conference Rank: #1 Northeast Conference
https://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/21854

# 130 Brown Bears
Conference Rank: #3 Ivy League
https://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/21864

#129 Milwaukee Panthers
Conference Rank: #2 Horizon
https://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/21865

#126 Saint Joseph’s Hawks
Conference Rank: #6 Atlantic 10
https://www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/21868

[RhowdyRam02]

Wagner, Brown, and Milwaukee all projected to be better than us is a sorry state of affairs. Hopefully we prove this wrong

[Blue Man]

I can't wait to shove all of this preseason stuff up everyone's ass 8 months from now

[KingstonLane]

Wagner, Brown, and Milwaukee all projected to be better than us is a sorry state of affairs. Hopefully we prove this wrong

I project URI will be the best team in the country.

Happy now?

[RhowdyRam02]

I'll be happier when we beat all of those schools

[Blue Man]

I mean...we do realize these are just dead sports time mid summer fodder pieces right? Like this isn't the exact happening of this upcoming year. And you do remember URI was on this list last year?

I think it's hilarious that we aren't being discussed as a threat at all, especially after last years preseason ranking and the improvement this offseason talent-wise. I expect the opposite, we won't be on in the offseason, but we'll be there when it matters.

While the list gets pretty close in the top 50 - they miss on plenty, because like everyone else, they're GUESSING. Take last year's top 144 for example, these were the most egregious (40+ spots) misses, or teams that didn't belong in the top 144.

UNC was 5th - they wound up 46th in NET and not dancing.
Villanova 7th - more like 71st actual.
Texas Tech - from 18th to 62nd.
St Louis - 27th to 97th.
Dayton - 30th to 78th
Washington - 49th to 124th
St John's - 52nd to 98th
Tulane - 54th to 107th
LOLoyola - 55th to 269th*
UNLV - 56th to 94th
Stanford - 57th to 96th
Butler - 63rd to 125th
Syracuse - 69th to 121st
WVU - 73rd to 24th
Ole Miss - 74th to 129th
Colo St - 77th to 115th
Richmond - 79th to 160th*
Temple - 81st to 123rd
BC - 82nd to 166th*
PSU - 83rd to 41st
Towson - 90 to 130
Davidson - 91 to 145*
WKU - 92 to 169*
Fresno - 94 to 148*
Miss St - 96 to 53
ORU - 99 to 50
NW - 101 to 37
DePaul - 102 to 155
NC St - 103 to 43
Boise St - 104 to 34
FAU - 107 to 13
California - 111 to 315*
Louisville - 112 to 314*
Ball St - 117 to 156*
Minnesota - 118 to 222*
UCF - 119 to 66
Gtown - 121 to 240*
Oakland - 122 to 276*
Sam Houston - 123 to 69
La Tech - 126 to 161*
ODU - 127 to 154*
Northeastern - 128 to 309*
Utah - 129 to 80
LB St - 130 to 167*
Nicholls - 131 to 264*
USF - 132 to 159*
URI - 133 to 263*
SIUE - 134 to 221*
UMass - 137 to 203*
Bryant - 138 to 179*
Howard - 139 to 213*
SHU - 140 to 322*
NM St - 141 to 191*
Jackson St - 142 to 308*
Delaware - 144 to 224*

That's 55 teams that were egregiously misranked. 27/144 didn't belong on the list.

Once you get out of the top 110 on this list, you have a 21/34 chance of not belonging on the list at the end of the season.

Outside of 120 you're 17/24. 130+ 12/15.

AKA this list probably doesn't matter, especially now.

I feel like you're looking for reasons to not be excited about this team.

[NYGFan_Section208]

UNH released its full official schedule confirming the game and date of its visit to Kingston that had been mentioned in this thread earlier:

Would we rather have this ooc sched than the one we do have?

[RF1]

UNH released its full official schedule confirming the game and date of its visit to Kingston that had been mentioned in this thread earlier:

Would we rather have this ooc sched than the one we do have?

I would not want that OOC schedule. Just five home games with one being a non D1 opponent (Curry) and another being a provisional transitioning D1 opponent. Three games vs Ivy opponents. FOUR buy games at opponents. Just one opponent last year was in the NET Top 100 (#25 Iowa), only two in the 100-200 range (#121 Syracuse and #176 Brown), five in the 200-300 range, three above 300, and two didn't even qualify for an NET ranking.

[theblueram]

UNH released its full official schedule confirming the game and date of its visit to Kingston that had been mentioned in this thread earlier:

Would we rather have this ooc sched than the one we do have?

I would not want that OOC schedule. Just five home games with one being a non D1 opponent (Curry) and another being a provisional transitioning D1 opponent. Three games vs Ivy opponents. FOUR buy games at opponents.

UNH is not looking for an At Large bid. They are just biding time until their conference tournament. One bid league.

[Ramfan22]

UNH released its full official schedule confirming the game and date of its visit to Kingston that had been mentioned in this thread earlier:

Don’t know who else they return but Clarence Daniels is a very good player.

[rhodyrudder]

263

[NYGFan_Section208]

Would we rather have this ooc sched than the one we do have?

I would not want that OOC schedule. Just five home games with one being a non D1 opponent (Curry) and another being a provisional transitioning D1 opponent. Three games vs Ivy opponents. FOUR buy games at opponents.

UNH is not looking for an At Large bid. They are just biding time until their conference tournament. One bid league.

Agree, but, number of home games aside, would Rhody benefit more from UNH's sched, or the one they have?

[ramster]

I would not want that OOC schedule. Just five home games with one being a non D1 opponent (Curry) and another being a provisional transitioning D1 opponent. Three games vs Ivy opponents. FOUR buy games at opponents.

UNH is not looking for an At Large bid. They are just biding time until their conference tournament. One bid league.

Agree, but, number of home games aside, would Rhody benefit more from UNH's sched, or the one they have?

Probably about the same with either schedule.
I do like the New Hampshire road games at Syracuse and at Iowa State. I'd probably lean towards the UNH schedule.

[Blue Man]

UNH is not looking for an At Large bid. They are just biding time until their conference tournament. One bid league.

Agree, but, number of home games aside, would Rhody benefit more from UNH's sched, or the one they have?

Probably about the same with either schedule.
I do like the New Hampshire road games at Syracuse and at Iowa State. I'd probably lean towards the UNH schedule.

Syracuse is terrible. And rebuilding. Give me Washington state or miss st on a neutral floor. Q1/Q2.

Iowa State is good, but Northwestern on a neutral floor is also good. And a more winnable Q1 game close to campus.

We’re at PC as well. And at college of charleston.

That’s another 2 Q2s that could easily be Q1.

Everyone pooping on this schedule is missing the fact that it represents potentially one of the highest quantities Q1 OOC we’ve ever had.

Our schedule. All day every day.

[ramster]

Agree, but, number of home games aside, would Rhody benefit more from UNH's sched, or the one they have?

Probably about the same with either schedule.
I do like the New Hampshire road games at Syracuse and at Iowa State. I'd probably lean towards the UNH schedule.

Syracuse is terrible. And rebuilding. Give me Washington state or miss st on a neutral floor. Q1/Q2.

Iowa State is good, but Northwestern on a neutral floor is also good. And a more winnable Q1 game close to campus.

We’re at PC as well. And at college of charleston.

That’s another 2 Q2s that could easily be Q1.

Everyone pooping on this schedule is missing the fact that it represents potentially one of the highest quantities Q1 OOC we’ve ever had.

Our schedule. All day every day.

I'm not pooping on our schedule, just simply answering the question that 208 asked
UNH and URI are both in conferences that will likely have no at-large bids, just like last year, so the OOC schedule is for building for the Conference Tournament. So I liked the road games for UNH for building resolve, including the game at URI.

[KevanBoyles]

Protect the house and win 50% on the road. No Q4 losses and steal a few Q1 and Q2s. Our schedule gives us that chance. That's good enough for me this year.