That seems to be the direction it is headed.ramster wrote: ↑5 months ago4Diffs,4Diffs wrote: ↑5 months agoI 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.ramster wrote: ↑5 months ago
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.
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.
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.
Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
0 x
-
- Carlton Owens
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: 7 years ago
- x 1357
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Whenever the NET arguments arise, I think back to HC Dan’s stated goal of Gonzaga of the East.4Diffs wrote: ↑5 months agoI 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.ramster wrote: ↑5 months agoI'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.
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.
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.
1 x
- SGreenwell
- Sly Williams
- Posts: 4428
- Joined: 11 years ago
- Location: Houston, TX (via Charlestown, RI)
- x 3066
- Contact:
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.)
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.)
3 x
- RhowdyRam02
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 6622
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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
2 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
3 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
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.
0 x
-
- Ernie Calverley
- Posts: 9957
- Joined: 9 years ago
- x 5773
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Which I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.SGreenwell wrote: ↑5 months ago 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.)
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.ramster wrote: ↑5 months ago4Diffs,4Diffs wrote: ↑5 months agoI 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.ramster wrote: ↑5 months ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
2 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
I agree Blue Man, it's the bad losses that really hurt the A10 and it seems to happen yearly.Blue Man wrote: ↑5 months agoWhile 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.ramster wrote: ↑5 months ago4Diffs,4Diffs wrote: ↑5 months ago
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.
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.
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.
Although our conference does still need to steal a couple of big wins.
The Bonnies have a good opportunity on 12/16 against FAU.
2 x
- RhowdyRam02
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 6622
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months agoWhich I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.SGreenwell wrote: ↑5 months ago 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.)
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.
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
1 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
02, I don't think it is the bottom tier programs that is the problem.RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 months agoAnd 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.PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months agoWhich I think we have done fairly well at this season considering.SGreenwell wrote: ↑5 months ago 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.)
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.
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
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Utah St is -6.5 they are good , Billekins are home dogs tonightramster wrote: ↑5 months agoLoyola favored by 17.5PlayMikeMotenMore wrote: ↑5 months agoThere is zero interest in Chicago St. at Loyola...even in Chicago.
St Louis favored by 6.5
I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Reefreef wrote: ↑5 months agoUtah St is -6.5 they are good , Billekins are home dogs tonightramster wrote: ↑5 months agoLoyola favored by 17.5PlayMikeMotenMore wrote: ↑5 months ago
There is zero interest in Chicago St. at Loyola...even in Chicago.
Utah State favored by 6.5
I think they are both on ESPN+ Jersey77
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Not revisiting the A10 MW games were a major disappointment.
Makes perfect sense for two of the better Mid Major conferences.
Makes perfect sense for two of the better Mid Major conferences.
4 x
Go Rhody
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Be a nice win if Travis Ford and Co can get itramster wrote: ↑5 months agoReef
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
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Freaking PC looks like worldbeaters winning 78-42 late
St Louis losing 41-30
St Louis losing 41-30
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Ramster, Add it to the battleaxe’s laundry list of suck.
Note: I was inspired by BlueMan in the typing of this post.
Note: I was inspired by BlueMan in the typing of this post.
2 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Reef, I think they read my last post in the PC game thread or someone here leaked it to them.
0 x
- NYGFan_Section208
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 12328
- Joined: 8 years ago
- Location: West K
- x 6686
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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
ETA: I have watched this dunk over and over. Dang, that looks like some fun. I love it when guards dunk
Last edited by NYGFan_Section208 5 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
- RhowdyRam02
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 6622
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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
If Fordham Chicago loses this game I demand our commissioner's immediate resignation and I demand my immediate appointment as the next A10 commissioner
2 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
I approve this message.RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑5 months ago 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
** Brought to you by the RhowdyRam for A10 Conference Commissioner Campaign.
1 x
- RhowdyRam02
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 6622
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Boots in asses and terrible programs to the curb!
RhowdyRam02 for A10 Commissioner
RhowdyRam02 for A10 Commissioner
1 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
This is the Loyola I expected. No idea how they beat BC and ruined my thanksgiving plays.
2 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Loyola wins but doesn’t come close to covering 17.5 , way too many points !
1 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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!
6:30pm
FS1
St Joseph's +14.5
Would be a great upset!
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
KevanBoyles wrote: ↑5 months ago 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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Just like when Penn Beat Villanova recentlyJimSidd wrote: ↑5 months agoLikely 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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Another Philly contest today.ramster wrote: ↑5 months agoJust like when Penn Beat Villanova recently
La Salle at Temple 7:00 ESPN+
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
St Louis fell behind too far to mount a full comeback but made it respectable and I believe covered the spread.
2 x
If you say you’re a Rhody fan, I know you are my brother. For you have suffered as I have suffered.
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Give to Rhody's NIL
-
- Carlton Owens
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: 7 years ago
- x 1357
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Thanks for posting Ramster!!! Yale is a Quad #3 not a Quad 2. Got it.ramster wrote: ↑5 months agoKevanBoyles wrote: ↑5 months ago 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
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Playing Yale at Home at URI:KevanBoyles wrote: ↑5 months agoThanks for posting Ramster!!! Yale is a Quad #3 not a Quad 2. Got it.ramster wrote: ↑5 months agoKevanBoyles wrote: ↑5 months ago 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
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
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
I’m thinking so too , though I hope St Joe can keep it to single figs
0 x
-
- Ernie Calverley
- Posts: 9957
- Joined: 9 years ago
- x 5773
-
- Ernie Calverley
- Posts: 9957
- Joined: 9 years ago
- x 5773
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Still playing well. That effort against Kentucky was no fluke St Joe's looks good.
Xzayvier Brown is legit.
0 x
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
The Joe's playing tough D.PeterRamTime wrote: ↑5 months agoStill playing well. That effort against Kentucky was no fluke St Joe's looks good.
Xzayvier Brown is legit.
0 x
-
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10499
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 7614
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
St Joe's playing tough first half. Let's see if they can play two halves.
0 x
- NYGFan_Section208
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 12328
- Joined: 8 years ago
- Location: West K
- x 6686
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
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.
2 x
- NYGFan_Section208
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 12328
- Joined: 8 years ago
- Location: West K
- x 6686
Re: Games of Interest - 2023-2024 MBB
Impressive...up 13 under 6 , as a 12.5 pt road dog
ETA, make it 15
ETA, make it 15
1 x