Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB

[Jersey77]

I've never been a fan. Ever.
This system was brought up last March on Friday (the off day media day) prior to the Semi-Finals by Travis Ford when it was his turn to speak. He talked about it hurts the Mid-Majors.

Since inception the NET has underrated the Top A10 Teams as compared to the long term previous Ranking System.

It hurts the Top WBB A10 Teams as well since it replaced the Previous Ranking System a couple years ago (years after MBB)

So it has had a negative impact on A10 At-Large possibilities.

Is that right? I don't know, not up to me, but it's definitely different

A big negative about the NET is the formula is secret and it is secretly tweaked as well. Wolf meet Hen House. The previous system was not complicated but was known publicly.

If you think the NET is better and more fair then so be it. Consider then that the A10 benefitted prior to NET and was able to get more At-Large bids over the years because of it. May be a combo of both and the right answer is somewhere in the middle.

Look at the former system and look at the Top 2 A10 right now. Sure Fire At-Large possibilities. And then compare in 2-3 Weeks when 1st NET is issued.

Ken Pom and I believe Sagarin too use a high percentage of prior year results in base for this year. Maybe starts at 50%?
Then that gradually reduces with more games played.

This system is not so good today when teams completely overhaul rosters with 5, 4 or 3 new starters transferred in (and out). Teams can change a lot good and bad with roster turnover. So Ken Pom and Sagarin can more soften the blows when they shouldn't be.

It is what it is. Dan Gavitt has the key in his pocket.


Also add that NET does not show SOS Strength of Schedule either as other Ranking Systems do. It's pretty much behind the curtain with the formula not public.

I have said this before (well before Travis Ford) but the NET sucks. VCU would have been a surefire lock last year under any other method but the NET. Even with the NET they should have been as they had a better NET ranking than PC last year when the selections were made. Yet one was comfortably in and the other was not even mentioned (yes they won the Auto but without that no chance of getting in). Now why would that be? Because the system is extremely flawed and it is done so in an obvious way to benefit the P5 schools and hurt anyone else that does not have the ability to play multiple Q1 games. And if you lose a Q3 or Q4 game it makes it really tough.

They made up a rating system then use that system not to select the schools with the best NET rating, but to use it to eliminate any school that does not play the proper amount of Q1 games, or stubs their toe one time and loses on the road in a Q3 or Q4 game. It is a joke and I am disappointed that there is not more analysis or outcry about it. It is blatantly unfair but no one seems to care, or even point out how unfair it is for smaller schools. I really think the NCAA was concerned about the P5 breaking away so they basically changed the rules to benefit them. Yes if you have a Gonzaga or San Diego State in your conference, you may be OK because all of those games become Q1 games. But those are final four quality teams and believe that is unusual to have in the smaller conferences (first time ever for San Diego State to reach the final four and Gonzaga is the anomaly of all anomalies). Does not mean that these other conferences do not have At large worthy teams, many do but good luck getting an at large berth outside of P6 for these schools.

Agree 100% with Jersey77. And Ramster for somebody who does not like the NET ranking system you certainly bring it up a lot in your criticism of the A10 and in other posts. Kind of surprised to hear your opinion on the NET, I expected the opposite.

4Diffs,
RI Red has it right and has it right for a long, long time. It's all about the Cartel. That's where I've been all along

Things working against Mid Majors just in recent 5 years:

1. Put Dan Gavitt in charge
2. Replace RPI with NET and QUAD 1,2,3,4 System
3. Replace RPI and QUAD System for WBB too 2 years ago
4. Expand Conference Games up to 18, 20 and even up to 22
5. Reduce OOC games with Mid Majors from more conference games but ALSO playing more NAIA, D2 and D3 teams at home
6. Reduce P6 games played at Mid Major home courts to almost non existent
7. Conduct MTE's with P5 hosting all games (See Duke, Kentucky, Nebraska to name a few this year (Duquesne, LaSalle and Jt Joseph's participated)
8. Reduce participation of Mid-Majors in high profile Tournaments
9. Reduce NIT for WBB from 64 to 32 Teams announced this year. WBB Mid And Low Majors liked the 64 teams
10. Make 12 P6 (2 per conference) Teams automatically eligible for NIT Bids if they don't get At-Large. AND give them Home Court even if their NET doesn't warrant Home Court. Take away Mid Major who wins Conference to auto get bid to NIT. Now goes to the 12 P6 teams
11. NIL where money is paid to players - Pay to Play. P6 schools pooling money to be given to players
12. schools can now add to rosters via NIL. Texas Tech has 40 players above the Scholarship limit by playing them $25k per year or more. Transfers happening in Basketball, Football and Baseball.
13. Let players transfer with no penalty once, more than once with Waiver
14. Ability to recruit players from low, mid majors (and high) without fear of tampering. Offer cars leased, money, etc. all fair.
15. Teams losing players they expect to have on roster as late as August, September
16. New players transferring as starters taking expected starting role away from somebody else "at last minute"




Helping Mid, Low majors is that most every game now on media. Great to be able to watch every game generating interest. At the same time people stay home more to watch on tv. Love actual attendance and at game enthusiasm.


I believe MBB will land with FBS and FCS just as Football today. FBS runs their own Football Postseason Bowl Program and FBS runs the Playoff System that had 4 teams then 8 and will go to 12. NCAA not involved.

P5 will take over Basketball too. Power play is happening behind the scenes.

Not sure how long it will take but my money is on a two tiered system.

That seems to be the direction it is headed.

[KevanBoyles]

We have to avoid quad four and quad three losses. If we have a minimal amount, or even none, then at least we have a résumé of quad one and quad two games to compare with other teams on a percentage basis. On a percentage basis, the number of quad one and quad two games become less relevant but obviously the more games payed and higher percentage won, the better. Anyone have a projection of how many quad one and quad two opportunities we will have this year? As we stand now, I think we are 1-2 in quad one and two games with no quad three or four losses. Obviously, the situation is fluid.

[Jdrums#3]

Not a fan.

I've never been a fan. Ever.
This system was brought up last March on Friday (the off day media day) prior to the Semi-Finals by Travis Ford when it was his turn to speak. He talked about it hurts the Mid-Majors.

Since inception the NET has underrated the Top A10 Teams as compared to the long term previous Ranking System.

It hurts the Top WBB A10 Teams as well since it replaced the Previous Ranking System a couple years ago (years after MBB)

So it has had a negative impact on A10 At-Large possibilities.

Is that right? I don't know, not up to me, but it's definitely different

A big negative about the NET is the formula is secret and it is secretly tweaked as well. Wolf meet Hen House. The previous system was not complicated but was known publicly.

If you think the NET is better and more fair then so be it. Consider then that the A10 benefitted prior to NET and was able to get more At-Large bids over the years because of it. May be a combo of both and the right answer is somewhere in the middle.

Look at the former system and look at the Top 2 A10 right now. Sure Fire At-Large possibilities. And then compare in 2-3 Weeks when 1st NET is issued.

Ken Pom and I believe Sagarin too use a high percentage of prior year results in base for this year. Maybe starts at 50%?
Then that gradually reduces with more games played.

This system is not so good today when teams completely overhaul rosters with 5, 4 or 3 new starters transferred in (and out). Teams can change a lot good and bad with roster turnover. So Ken Pom and Sagarin can more soften the blows when they shouldn't be.

It is what it is. Dan Gavitt has the key in his pocket.


Also add that NET does not show SOS Strength of Schedule either as other Ranking Systems do. It's pretty much behind the curtain with the formula not public.

I have said this before (well before Travis Ford) but the NET sucks. VCU would have been a surefire lock last year under any other method but the NET. Even with the NET they should have been as they had a better NET ranking than PC last year when the selections were made. Yet one was comfortably in and the other was not even mentioned (yes they won the Auto but without that no chance of getting in). Now why would that be? Because the system is extremely flawed and it is done so in an obvious way to benefit the P5 schools and hurt anyone else that does not have the ability to play multiple Q1 games. And if you lose a Q3 or Q4 game it makes it really tough.

They made up a rating system then use that system not to select the schools with the best NET rating, but to use it to eliminate any school that does not play the proper amount of Q1 games, or stubs their toe one time and loses on the road in a Q3 or Q4 game. It is a joke and I am disappointed that there is not more analysis or outcry about it. It is blatantly unfair but no one seems to care, or even point out how unfair it is for smaller schools. I really think the NCAA was concerned about the P5 breaking away so they basically changed the rules to benefit them. Yes if you have a Gonzaga or San Diego State in your conference, you may be OK because all of those games become Q1 games. But those are final four quality teams and believe that is unusual to have in the smaller conferences (first time ever for San Diego State to reach the final four and Gonzaga is the anomaly of all anomalies). Does not mean that these other conferences do not have At large worthy teams, many do but good luck getting an at large berth outside of P6 for these schools.

Agree 100% with Jersey77. And Ramster for somebody who does not like the NET ranking system you certainly bring it up a lot in your criticism of the A10 and in other posts. Kind of surprised to hear your opinion on the NET, I expected the opposite.

Whenever the NET arguments arise, I think back to HC Dan’s stated goal of Gonzaga of the East.

I think he stated it because he saw what was coming down the pike from the college football and basketball money hungry interests - ie the forced irrelevancy of anyone outside the P6 at that time - and our only shot was to model ourselves after Gonzaga and force our way to remain relevant with the money decision makers.

Please note that by model after Gonzaga I do not mean exactly duplicating their success.

[SGreenwell]

As a conference, the A-10 is scheduling more like we're the Big East or ACC or Big Whatever. Meaning, a ton of Q3 and Q4 games OOC. Losing one or two of those games doesn't kill you, but it means you have nothing impressive on your resume when it comes tournament time. It means you land in that no-man's land of 150ish in NET or KenPom or any other metric that's not heavily weight by raw win totals (RPI). P6 teams can do this because while they don't challenge themselves that much OOC, they still do mostly win the tough games they do play.

If you can't reliably schedule with power conference teams or get Q1 games, your fallback option should be Q2 teams, instead of teams like Hartford, Central Connecticut State, Fairfield, and all of these other awful Q4 teams that fill up A-10 OOC schedules. Teams 91 through 180 in NET, roughly, should be Q2 games. Hard to believe A-10 schools would just get no interest from teams like Southern Miss, Princeton, James Madison, UNLV, Charlotte, San Jose St., Indiana State, Montana State, and so on. If you can't schedule a Q2 team, slot in a Q3 team. Q4 games should be a last resort, or for rebuilding teams, or one or two tune-ups to start the season. (Obviously, you can't predict exactly where teams are going to finish, but you usually have a rough idea.)

(This was originally a response to someone else, but re-reading their post, I think I was misreading them. Meant it as more of a comment about the A-10 scheduling in general.)

[RhowdyRam02]

Yes, the A10 has done ourselves no favors with how we've been scheduling out of conference. Some of that has been pressed on us but a lot of it is an own goal

[adam914]

Agree with the last two posts above as well. We spend a lot of time talking about how bad the A10 is lately, with a lack of quality wins and too many bad losses, but then we blame the ranking system for not having more tournament teams. At some point you have to look in the mirror and control what you can control to put yourself in the best position possible. I don't think many (if any) A10 programs are doing that at the moment. It's a lot easier to just blame the big bad system being out to get us then for us (as in the A10) to take any responsibility ourselves.

[Jdrums#3]

If college football realignment (and those networks pushing it) has shown us anything, it is that it has blatantly brought to light that college sports has absolutely nothing to do with fair play or fair competition.

Nothing new under the sun for me and for us here. It’s just that my patience to tolerate it has grown thin with the continuing turning of the screws.

So, you either find ways to adapt, carve out a niche or game the system until they completely lock you out.

[PeterRamTime]

As a conference, the A-10 is scheduling more like we're the Big East or ACC or Big Whatever. Meaning, a ton of Q3 and Q4 games OOC. Losing one or two of those games doesn't kill you, but it means you have nothing impressive on your resume when it comes tournament time. It means you land in that no-man's land of 150ish in NET or KenPom or any other metric that's not heavily weight by raw win totals (RPI). P6 teams can do this because while they don't challenge themselves that much OOC, they still do mostly win the tough games they do play.

If you can't reliably schedule with power conference teams or get Q1 games, your fallback option should be Q2 teams, instead of teams like Hartford, Central Connecticut State, Fairfield, and all of these other awful Q4 teams that fill up A-10 OOC schedules. Teams 91 through 180 in NET, roughly, should be Q2 games. Hard to believe A-10 schools would just get no interest from teams like Southern Miss, Princeton, James Madison, UNLV, Charlotte, San Jose St., Indiana State, Montana State, and so on. If you can't schedule a Q2 team, slot in a Q3 team. Q4 games should be a last resort, or for rebuilding teams, or one or two tune-ups to start the season. (Obviously, you can't predict exactly where teams are going to finish, but you usually have a rough idea.)

(This was originally a response to someone else, but re-reading their post, I think I was misreading them. Meant it as more of a comment about the A-10 scheduling in general.)

Which I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.

Mohegan, Providence, Yale and Charleston, neutral game against Delaware.

Seems like it's the usual suspects dragging the league down. The Duquesne's and Fordham's of the world. St Bonaventure often schedules like crap and always drops a game to someone like Canisius.

If the league could at least not drop so many Q4 games we'd be fine. Lately our best teams seem to couple great wins with Q4 losses.

Like Dayton in 21-22

Losses to UMass Lowell, Lipscomb by 19 and Austin Peay coupled with wins over Miami, Kansas, Belmont and Virginia Tech. They also lost to 11-19 La Salle in late February.

[Blue Man]

I've never been a fan. Ever.
This system was brought up last March on Friday (the off day media day) prior to the Semi-Finals by Travis Ford when it was his turn to speak. He talked about it hurts the Mid-Majors.

Since inception the NET has underrated the Top A10 Teams as compared to the long term previous Ranking System.

It hurts the Top WBB A10 Teams as well since it replaced the Previous Ranking System a couple years ago (years after MBB)

So it has had a negative impact on A10 At-Large possibilities.

Is that right? I don't know, not up to me, but it's definitely different

A big negative about the NET is the formula is secret and it is secretly tweaked as well. Wolf meet Hen House. The previous system was not complicated but was known publicly.

If you think the NET is better and more fair then so be it. Consider then that the A10 benefitted prior to NET and was able to get more At-Large bids over the years because of it. May be a combo of both and the right answer is somewhere in the middle.

Look at the former system and look at the Top 2 A10 right now. Sure Fire At-Large possibilities. And then compare in 2-3 Weeks when 1st NET is issued.

Ken Pom and I believe Sagarin too use a high percentage of prior year results in base for this year. Maybe starts at 50%?
Then that gradually reduces with more games played.

This system is not so good today when teams completely overhaul rosters with 5, 4 or 3 new starters transferred in (and out). Teams can change a lot good and bad with roster turnover. So Ken Pom and Sagarin can more soften the blows when they shouldn't be.

It is what it is. Dan Gavitt has the key in his pocket.


Also add that NET does not show SOS Strength of Schedule either as other Ranking Systems do. It's pretty much behind the curtain with the formula not public.

I have said this before (well before Travis Ford) but the NET sucks. VCU would have been a surefire lock last year under any other method but the NET. Even with the NET they should have been as they had a better NET ranking than PC last year when the selections were made. Yet one was comfortably in and the other was not even mentioned (yes they won the Auto but without that no chance of getting in). Now why would that be? Because the system is extremely flawed and it is done so in an obvious way to benefit the P5 schools and hurt anyone else that does not have the ability to play multiple Q1 games. And if you lose a Q3 or Q4 game it makes it really tough.

They made up a rating system then use that system not to select the schools with the best NET rating, but to use it to eliminate any school that does not play the proper amount of Q1 games, or stubs their toe one time and loses on the road in a Q3 or Q4 game. It is a joke and I am disappointed that there is not more analysis or outcry about it. It is blatantly unfair but no one seems to care, or even point out how unfair it is for smaller schools. I really think the NCAA was concerned about the P5 breaking away so they basically changed the rules to benefit them. Yes if you have a Gonzaga or San Diego State in your conference, you may be OK because all of those games become Q1 games. But those are final four quality teams and believe that is unusual to have in the smaller conferences (first time ever for San Diego State to reach the final four and Gonzaga is the anomaly of all anomalies). Does not mean that these other conferences do not have At large worthy teams, many do but good luck getting an at large berth outside of P6 for these schools.

Agree 100% with Jersey77. And Ramster for somebody who does not like the NET ranking system you certainly bring it up a lot in your criticism of the A10 and in other posts. Kind of surprised to hear your opinion on the NET, I expected the opposite.

4Diffs,
RI Red has it right and has it right for a long, long time. It's all about the Cartel. That's where I've been all along

Things working against Mid Majors just in recent 5 years:

1. Put Dan Gavitt in charge
2. Replace RPI with NET and QUAD 1,2,3,4 System
3. Replace RPI and QUAD System for WBB too 2 years ago
4. Expand Conference Games up to 18, 20 and even up to 22
5. Reduce OOC games with Mid Majors from more conference games but ALSO playing more NAIA, D2 and D3 teams at home
6. Reduce P6 games played at Mid Major home courts to almost non existent
7. Conduct MTE's with P5 hosting all games (See Duke, Kentucky, Nebraska to name a few this year (Duquesne, LaSalle and Jt Joseph's participated)
8. Reduce participation of Mid-Majors in high profile Tournaments
9. Reduce NIT for WBB from 64 to 32 Teams announced this year. WBB Mid And Low Majors liked the 64 teams
10. Make 12 P6 (2 per conference) Teams automatically eligible for NIT Bids if they don't get At-Large. AND give them Home Court even if their NET doesn't warrant Home Court. Take away Mid Major who wins Conference to auto get bid to NIT. Now goes to the 12 P6 teams
11. NIL where money is paid to players - Pay to Play. P6 schools pooling money to be given to players
12. schools can now add to rosters via NIL. Texas Tech has 40 players above the Scholarship limit by playing them $25k per year or more. Transfers happening in Basketball, Football and Baseball.
13. Let players transfer with no penalty once, more than once with Waiver
14. Ability to recruit players from low, mid majors (and high) without fear of tampering. Offer cars leased, money, etc. all fair.
15. Teams losing players they expect to have on roster as late as August, September
16. New players transferring as starters taking expected starting role away from somebody else "at last minute"




Helping Mid, Low majors is that most every game now on media. Great to be able to watch every game generating interest. At the same time people stay home more to watch on tv. Love actual attendance and at game enthusiasm.


I believe MBB will land with FBS and FCS just as Football today. FBS runs their own Football Postseason Bowl Program and FBS runs the Playoff System that had 4 teams then 8 and will go to 12. NCAA not involved.

P5 will take over Basketball too. Power play is happening behind the scenes.

Not sure how long it will take but my money is on a two tiered system.

While I agree with your assessment that it's increasingly geared toward the P4/5/6 - what's been keeping the A10 teams out isn't even the scheduling or selections.

The conference can't win Q1 games and keeps racking up Q4 losses. And I get it about it being tougher to schedule those Q1 games - but our teams are losing to McNeese State, Illinois-Chicago, Canisus, and something called Abilene Christian.

If the conference collectively avoided losses like that...losses that no team in the A10 should lose...the entire conference would see NET boosts of 20+ spots by conference time.

[Jersey77]

I have said this before (well before Travis Ford) but the NET sucks. VCU would have been a surefire lock last year under any other method but the NET. Even with the NET they should have been as they had a better NET ranking than PC last year when the selections were made. Yet one was comfortably in and the other was not even mentioned (yes they won the Auto but without that no chance of getting in). Now why would that be? Because the system is extremely flawed and it is done so in an obvious way to benefit the P5 schools and hurt anyone else that does not have the ability to play multiple Q1 games. And if you lose a Q3 or Q4 game it makes it really tough.

They made up a rating system then use that system not to select the schools with the best NET rating, but to use it to eliminate any school that does not play the proper amount of Q1 games, or stubs their toe one time and loses on the road in a Q3 or Q4 game. It is a joke and I am disappointed that there is not more analysis or outcry about it. It is blatantly unfair but no one seems to care, or even point out how unfair it is for smaller schools. I really think the NCAA was concerned about the P5 breaking away so they basically changed the rules to benefit them. Yes if you have a Gonzaga or San Diego State in your conference, you may be OK because all of those games become Q1 games. But those are final four quality teams and believe that is unusual to have in the smaller conferences (first time ever for San Diego State to reach the final four and Gonzaga is the anomaly of all anomalies). Does not mean that these other conferences do not have At large worthy teams, many do but good luck getting an at large berth outside of P6 for these schools.

Agree 100% with Jersey77. And Ramster for somebody who does not like the NET ranking system you certainly bring it up a lot in your criticism of the A10 and in other posts. Kind of surprised to hear your opinion on the NET, I expected the opposite.

4Diffs,
RI Red has it right and has it right for a long, long time. It's all about the Cartel. That's where I've been all along

Things working against Mid Majors just in recent 5 years:

1. Put Dan Gavitt in charge
2. Replace RPI with NET and QUAD 1,2,3,4 System
3. Replace RPI and QUAD System for WBB too 2 years ago
4. Expand Conference Games up to 18, 20 and even up to 22
5. Reduce OOC games with Mid Majors from more conference games but ALSO playing more NAIA, D2 and D3 teams at home
6. Reduce P6 games played at Mid Major home courts to almost non existent
7. Conduct MTE's with P5 hosting all games (See Duke, Kentucky, Nebraska to name a few this year (Duquesne, LaSalle and Jt Joseph's participated)
8. Reduce participation of Mid-Majors in high profile Tournaments
9. Reduce NIT for WBB from 64 to 32 Teams announced this year. WBB Mid And Low Majors liked the 64 teams
10. Make 12 P6 (2 per conference) Teams automatically eligible for NIT Bids if they don't get At-Large. AND give them Home Court even if their NET doesn't warrant Home Court. Take away Mid Major who wins Conference to auto get bid to NIT. Now goes to the 12 P6 teams
11. NIL where money is paid to players - Pay to Play. P6 schools pooling money to be given to players
12. schools can now add to rosters via NIL. Texas Tech has 40 players above the Scholarship limit by playing them $25k per year or more. Transfers happening in Basketball, Football and Baseball.
13. Let players transfer with no penalty once, more than once with Waiver
14. Ability to recruit players from low, mid majors (and high) without fear of tampering. Offer cars leased, money, etc. all fair.
15. Teams losing players they expect to have on roster as late as August, September
16. New players transferring as starters taking expected starting role away from somebody else "at last minute"




Helping Mid, Low majors is that most every game now on media. Great to be able to watch every game generating interest. At the same time people stay home more to watch on tv. Love actual attendance and at game enthusiasm.


I believe MBB will land with FBS and FCS just as Football today. FBS runs their own Football Postseason Bowl Program and FBS runs the Playoff System that had 4 teams then 8 and will go to 12. NCAA not involved.

P5 will take over Basketball too. Power play is happening behind the scenes.

Not sure how long it will take but my money is on a two tiered system.

While I agree with your assessment that it's increasingly geared toward the P4/5/6 - what's been keeping the A10 teams out isn't even the scheduling or selections.

The conference can't win Q1 games and keeps racking up Q4 losses. And I get it about it being tougher to schedule those Q1 games - but our teams are losing to McNeese State, Illinois-Chicago, Canisus, and something called Abilene Christian.

If the conference collectively avoided losses like that...losses that no team in the A10 should lose...the entire conference would see NET boosts of 20+ spots by conference time.

I agree Blue Man, it's the bad losses that really hurt the A10 and it seems to happen yearly.
Although our conference does still need to steal a couple of big wins.
The Bonnies have a good opportunity on 12/16 against FAU.

[RhowdyRam02]

As a conference, the A-10 is scheduling more like we're the Big East or ACC or Big Whatever. Meaning, a ton of Q3 and Q4 games OOC. Losing one or two of those games doesn't kill you, but it means you have nothing impressive on your resume when it comes tournament time. It means you land in that no-man's land of 150ish in NET or KenPom or any other metric that's not heavily weight by raw win totals (RPI). P6 teams can do this because while they don't challenge themselves that much OOC, they still do mostly win the tough games they do play.

If you can't reliably schedule with power conference teams or get Q1 games, your fallback option should be Q2 teams, instead of teams like Hartford, Central Connecticut State, Fairfield, and all of these other awful Q4 teams that fill up A-10 OOC schedules. Teams 91 through 180 in NET, roughly, should be Q2 games. Hard to believe A-10 schools would just get no interest from teams like Southern Miss, Princeton, James Madison, UNLV, Charlotte, San Jose St., Indiana State, Montana State, and so on. If you can't schedule a Q2 team, slot in a Q3 team. Q4 games should be a last resort, or for rebuilding teams, or one or two tune-ups to start the season. (Obviously, you can't predict exactly where teams are going to finish, but you usually have a rough idea.)

(This was originally a response to someone else, but re-reading their post, I think I was misreading them. Meant it as more of a comment about the A-10 scheduling in general.)

Which I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.

Mohegan, Providence, Yale and Charleston, neutral game against Delaware.

Seems like it's the usual suspects dragging the league down. The Duquesne's and Fordham's of the world. St Bonaventure often schedules like crap and always drops a game to someone like Canisius.

If the league could at least not drop so many Q4 games we'd be fine. Lately our best teams seem to couple great wins with Q4 losses.

Like Dayton in 21-22

Losses to UMass Lowell, Lipscomb by 19 and Austin Peay coupled with wins over Miami, Kansas, Belmont and Virginia Tech. They also lost to 11-19 La Salle in late February.

And therein lies the problem with the A10 and why I've been so adamant that we need to cut the lesser programs off or form a new league with only the better programs. It's the usual suspects that drag us down. Programs that are happy to take from the pie yet don't do anything to grow the pie.

Duquesne = .369 all time conference winning percentage, 1 tournament game in 45 years
Fordham - .262 all time conference winning percentage, 0 tournament games in 27 years
La Salle - .386 all time conference winning percentage, 4 tournament games in 27 years

Too many non-competitive years. No sign of truly investing at an A10 level. Almost never a good win, almost always a bad loss if you get tripped up

[Jersey77]

As a conference, the A-10 is scheduling more like we're the Big East or ACC or Big Whatever. Meaning, a ton of Q3 and Q4 games OOC. Losing one or two of those games doesn't kill you, but it means you have nothing impressive on your resume when it comes tournament time. It means you land in that no-man's land of 150ish in NET or KenPom or any other metric that's not heavily weight by raw win totals (RPI). P6 teams can do this because while they don't challenge themselves that much OOC, they still do mostly win the tough games they do play.

If you can't reliably schedule with power conference teams or get Q1 games, your fallback option should be Q2 teams, instead of teams like Hartford, Central Connecticut State, Fairfield, and all of these other awful Q4 teams that fill up A-10 OOC schedules. Teams 91 through 180 in NET, roughly, should be Q2 games. Hard to believe A-10 schools would just get no interest from teams like Southern Miss, Princeton, James Madison, UNLV, Charlotte, San Jose St., Indiana State, Montana State, and so on. If you can't schedule a Q2 team, slot in a Q3 team. Q4 games should be a last resort, or for rebuilding teams, or one or two tune-ups to start the season. (Obviously, you can't predict exactly where teams are going to finish, but you usually have a rough idea.)

(This was originally a response to someone else, but re-reading their post, I think I was misreading them. Meant it as more of a comment about the A-10 scheduling in general.)

Which I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.

Mohegan, Providence, Yale and Charleston, neutral game against Delaware.

Seems like it's the usual suspects dragging the league down. The Duquesne's and Fordham's of the world. St Bonaventure often schedules like crap and always drops a game to someone like Canisius.

If the league could at least not drop so many Q4 games we'd be fine. Lately our best teams seem to couple great wins with Q4 losses.

Like Dayton in 21-22

Losses to UMass Lowell, Lipscomb by 19 and Austin Peay coupled with wins over Miami, Kansas, Belmont and Virginia Tech. They also lost to 11-19 La Salle in late February.

And therein lies the problem with the A10 and why I've been so adamant that we need to cut the lesser programs off or form a new league with only the better programs. It's the usual suspects that drag us down. Programs that are happy to take from the pie yet don't do anything to grow the pie.

Duquesne = .369 all time conference winning percentage, 1 tournament game in 45 years
Fordham - .262 all time conference winning percentage, 0 tournament games in 27 years
La Salle - .386 all time conference winning percentage, 4 tournament games in 27 years

Too many non-competitive years. No sign of truly investing at an A10 level. Almost never a good win, almost always a bad loss if you get tripped up

02, I don't think it is the bottom tier programs that is the problem.
As a matter of fact, I think they have become more competitive.

It's the so-called better teams that are letting us down.
It is very hard to overcome the bad losses and they need some big wins.

Where does that put us after finishing 10th, 11th, and 14th the last 3 seasons?

Besides every conference is going to have its share of teams that struggle.

Doubtful the A10 drops anyone, so should probably give that thought up.

[reef]

Utah State at Saint Louis 8:00pm Bally Sports
Chicago State at Loyola Chicago 8:00pm ESPN+

There is zero interest in Chicago St. at Loyola...even in Chicago.

Loyola favored by 17.5
St Louis favored by 6.5

I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77

Utah St is -6.5 they are good , Billekins are home dogs tonight

[ramster]

There is zero interest in Chicago St. at Loyola...even in Chicago.

Loyola favored by 17.5
Utah State favored by 6.5

I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77

I think you are correct

[ramster]

There is zero interest in Chicago St. at Loyola...even in Chicago.

Loyola favored by 17.5
Utah State favored by 6.5

I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77

Utah St is -6.5 they are good , Billekins are home dogs tonight

Reef
Utah State RPI 26, St Louis 155

6.5 does seem like a lot of points for Utah State to give up playing at St Louis. Could be a good one to watch tonight

Look at the RPI strength of the top of the MWC
MWC currently ranked 4th best conference

To think we had a multi-year A10 vs MWC Battle scheduled just when Covid hit. It never materialized. Nobody from MWC or the A10 ever gave an update as to why it dropped.
A10 has not set up any other Conference Battles either. Crickets from the Home Office.

[Rhody15]

Not revisiting the A10 MW games were a major disappointment.

Makes perfect sense for two of the better Mid Major conferences.

[reef]

Loyola favored by 17.5
Utah State favored by 6.5

I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77

Utah St is -6.5 they are good , Billekins are home dogs tonight

Reef
Utah State RPI 26, St Louis 155

6.5 does seem like a lot of points for Utah State to give up playing at St Louis. Could be a good one to watch tonight

Look at the RPI strength of the top of the MWC
MWC currently ranked 4th best conference

To think we had a multi-year A10 vs MWC Battle scheduled just when Covid hit. It never materialized. Nobody from MWC or the A10 ever gave an update as to why it dropped.
A10 has not set up any other Conference Battles either. Crickets from the Home Office.



IMG_1191.jpeg

IMG_1192.jpeg

Be a nice win if Travis Ford and Co can get it

[RF1]

I believe the challenge never occurred due to the decision of the MWC. everything I have come across seems to indicate the A-10 wanted it to go ahead. The power rankings of the two leagues have been trending in opposite directions since the original agreement was completed. COVID then delayed the challenge and I believe the MWC felt they were now a much superior league and did not need games with the A-10.

[ramster]

All makes sense, but the lack of an official announcement is not the way to run a business. Just say the Challenge is off.

By not making an official statement people speculate.

By not making an official statement other Conference may not approach you. Just admit the breakup or breakdown and find other possibilities.

[reef]

Freaking PC looks like worldbeaters winning 78-42 late

St Louis losing 41-30

[Jdrums#3]

Ramster, Add it to the battleaxe’s laundry list of suck.



Note: I was inspired by BlueMan in the typing of this post.

[Jdrums#3]

Freaking PC looks like worldbeaters winning 78-42 late

St Louis losing 41-30

Reef, I think they read my last post in the PC game thread or someone here leaked it to them.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Speaking of games of interest...the 'cuse up big over LSU. Haven't seen much of the game, but did tune in just in time to see Judah Mintz dunk on a dude. Guy looks like he can play a little. Will be an ESPN highlight reel job if not already.

ETA: I have watched this dunk over and over. Dang, that looks like some fun. I love it when guards dunk

[RhowdyRam02]

Loyola Chicago down 28-22 at the half to a really bad Chicago State team.

If Fordham Chicago loses this game I demand our commissioner's immediate resignation and I demand my immediate appointment as the next A10 commissioner

[Jdrums#3]

Loyola Chicago down 28-22 at the half to a really bad Chicago State team.

If Fordham Chicago loses this game I demand our commissioner's immediate resignation and I demand my immediate appointment as the next A10 commissioner

I approve this message.

** Brought to you by the RhowdyRam for A10 Conference Commissioner Campaign.

[RhowdyRam02]

Boots in asses and terrible programs to the curb!

RhowdyRam02 for A10 Commissioner

[Blue Man]

This is the Loyola I expected. No idea how they beat BC and ruined my thanksgiving plays.

[reef]

Loyola wins but doesn’t come close to covering 17.5 , way too many points !

[ramster]

St Joseph's visits The 6500 seat Pavillion to play Villanova tonight
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5

Would be a great upset!

[ramster]

We have to avoid quad four and quad three losses. If we have a minimal amount, or even none, then at least we have a résumé of quad one and quad two games to compare with other teams on a percentage basis. On a percentage basis, the number of quad one and quad two games become less relevant but obviously the more games payed and higher percentage won, the better. Anyone have a projection of how many quad one and quad two opportunities we will have this year? As we stand now, I think we are 1-2 in quad one and two games with no quad three or four losses. Obviously, the situation is fluid.

[Jersey77]

St Joseph's visits The 6500 seat Pavillion to play Villanova tonight
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5

Would be a great upset!

I will watch but expect this game to be ugly.
Although Villanova did lose to Penn, so I guess anything is possible.
Since then, Villanova went undefeated in the Battle 4 Atlantis beating 3 pretty good teams: TT, UNC, and Memphis.

[JimSidd]

St Joseph's visits The 6500 seat Pavillion to play Villanova tonight
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5

Would be a great upset!

I will watch but expect this game to be ugly.
Although Villanova did lose to Penn, so I guess anything is possible.
Since then, Villanova went undefeated in the Battle 4 Atlantis beating 3 pretty good teams: TT, UNC, and Memphis.

Likely a Villanova win, but back in the day, this was the biggest rivalry in the Big 5 because of the proximity of the two schools. I assume this is the case now. Sometimes you have surprising results in these types of games.

[ramster]

St Joseph's visits The 6500 seat Pavillion to play Villanova tonight
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5

Would be a great upset!

I will watch but expect this game to be ugly.
Although Villanova did lose to Penn, so I guess anything is possible.
Since then, Villanova went undefeated in the Battle 4 Atlantis beating 3 pretty good teams: TT, UNC, and Memphis.

Likely a Villanova win, but back in the day, this was the biggest rivalry in the Big 5 because of the proximity of the two schools. I assume this is the case now. Sometimes you have surprising results in these types of games.

Just like when Penn Beat Villanova recently

[Jersey77]

I will watch but expect this game to be ugly.
Although Villanova did lose to Penn, so I guess anything is possible.
Since then, Villanova went undefeated in the Battle 4 Atlantis beating 3 pretty good teams: TT, UNC, and Memphis.

Likely a Villanova win, but back in the day, this was the biggest rivalry in the Big 5 because of the proximity of the two schools. I assume this is the case now. Sometimes you have surprising results in these types of games.

Just like when Penn Beat Villanova recently

Another Philly contest today.
La Salle at Temple 7:00 ESPN+

[Blue Man]

Loyola came back against super good blue blood school Chicago State. Definitely looks like a top 2 team in the A10.

St Louis fell behind too far to mount a full comeback but made it respectable and I believe covered the spread.

[KevanBoyles]

We have to avoid quad four and quad three losses. If we have a minimal amount, or even none, then at least we have a résumé of quad one and quad two games to compare with other teams on a percentage basis. On a percentage basis, the number of quad one and quad two games become less relevant but obviously the more games payed and higher percentage won, the better. Anyone have a projection of how many quad one and quad two opportunities we will have this year? As we stand now, I think we are 1-2 in quad one and two games with no quad three or four losses. Obviously, the situation is fluid.

IMG_1196.png

IMG_1195.png

Thanks for posting Ramster!!! Yale is a Quad #3 not a Quad 2. Got it.

[ramster]

We have to avoid quad four and quad three losses. If we have a minimal amount, or even none, then at least we have a résumé of quad one and quad two games to compare with other teams on a percentage basis. On a percentage basis, the number of quad one and quad two games become less relevant but obviously the more games payed and higher percentage won, the better. Anyone have a projection of how many quad one and quad two opportunities we will have this year? As we stand now, I think we are 1-2 in quad one and two games with no quad three or four losses. Obviously, the situation is fluid.

IMG_1196.png

IMG_1195.png

Thanks for posting Ramster!!! Yale is a Quad #3 not a Quad 2. Got it.

Playing Yale at Home at URI:

Quad 2 Yale would have to be 31-75 NET

Quad 3 would have to be 76-160 NET

Depends on where Yale ends up in NET Rankings that should be out within a couple of weeks. Probably borderline Quad 2/3

[Jdrums#3]

St Joseph's visits The 6500 seat Pavillion to play Villanova tonight
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5

Would be a great upset!

I will watch but expect this game to be ugly.
Although Villanova did lose to Penn, so I guess anything is possible.
Since then, Villanova went undefeated in the Battle 4 Atlantis beating 3 pretty good teams: TT, UNC, and Memphis.

Jersey, I think it will depend on which Joe’s team shows up. If the one that played hard at Kentucky shows up then I think it will be a tight game to the wire.

[reef]

St Joes is +12 now , great opportunity tonight !

[Jersey77]

St Joes is +12 now , great opportunity tonight !

St. Joe's does have some talent, but Villanova may be too much for them.

[reef]

St Joes is +12 now , great opportunity tonight !

St. Joe's does have some talent, but Villanova may be too much for them.

I’m thinking so too , though I hope St Joe can keep it to single figs

[PeterRamTime]

Damn St Joe's hasn't beaten Nova since 2011.

[Jersey77]

(C) Essandoko for St. Joe's out, still having toe issues.

[PeterRamTime]

(C) Essandoko for St. Joe's out, still having toe issues.

Still playing well. That effort against Kentucky was no fluke St Joe's looks good.

Xzayvier Brown is legit.

[Jersey77]

(C) Essandoko for St. Joe's out, still having toe issues.

Still playing well. That effort against Kentucky was no fluke St Joe's looks good.

Xzayvier Brown is legit.

The Joe's playing tough D.

[theblueram]

St Joe's playing tough first half. Let's see if they can play two halves.

[reef]

St Joe 43-35 halftime huge for the league

[NYGFan_Section208]

joe's up 7 at U12

[Shinze88]

Win or lose this game, St Joe's has been the most impressive A10 team I've seen this season and I've seen a few Dayton games already. They have good guards who can score from anywhere, athleticism, more than serviceable bigs and play tough aggressive defense. I love how much zone they play, just frustrating Nova. They are going to give us fits for sure, a team you don't want to see in the ncaa's.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Impressive...up 13 under 6 , as a 12.5 pt road dog

ETA, make it 15