urmite said:

Their 29 NET plus Q2 wins should have gotten them in.

On the flip side they were 0-2 Q1 OOC, 0-0 Q2 OOC, and 22-1 Q3/4 overall.

1-2 Q1 MVC, 4-1 Q2 MVC

Click to expand...

Exactly. Stacking wins doesn’t matter, optics or otherwise. Playing a MTE only to pick up three Q3/4 games is meaningless. There is no wins threshold that guarantees entry anymore. Seems like winning a conference is also meaningless, even if you finish ahead of so-called better teams/bid locks, as A10, MVC and AAC winners were not given bids or even thought about in a couple instances. Which shows why OOC is so important. It’s given way more weight than the 40% of the schedule it represents.


Login to view embedded media

He also has us going 11-13 by the A10 tourney but that is another thread…

GKiller said:

it's the same reason why at our level. and exactly what I mentioned above. teams will actually build their NET around smaller amount of games. take out 1 max 2 of the awful dogs on schedule and replace with d2s that have no chance of hurting u. I don't know if the math always works but it's being done.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that this is the approach many programs are taking. Unfortunately, it adds to the reason why scheduling has become even harder.

GKiller said:

Ok. But I never once said they all have to be the elite of the P5. what is the elite anyway....top 10? that's pretty subjective year to year. So I'm sure I would take more than u, but the overall strategy was load up on P5s wherever u get them, most likely all neutral and road. Are u against 5 or 6 road/neutral p5s? If u aren't then great. But it felt that way. the very rare times we've gotten in or had reasonable chance is when we played 5 P5s. And we also took some losses where our record didn't stand out with the optics imo, i.e. u could afford 1 or 2 more losses. This season schedule looks like 1 P5. Ugh, our fate basically sealed. Unless we win at rates Mooney has never shown b4 in 20 years.

Click to expand...

I know it's rather subjective on my part - and also based on our recent past record against these teams - but my thought is limiting to scheduling 2 top 40 caliber teams played either on the road or neutral. I say P5 because its easier but it technically it could include teams like Gonzaga or Memphis. So essentially 2 teams who are in the AP top 25 or receiving votes kind of teams and then one more against a fraud-Q1 team like a UCF who have an inflated NET because of record but aren't really good but also not bad (so try and schedule a total of 3 Q1 games OOC). I have no problem playing more bottom level P5 teams who will be Q2 like Boston College, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, California, etc. since those games are more winnable than say at Auburn and there is the upside that they over perform in conference and turn out to be a better win than expected. So whether or not I am for or against playing 5 or 6 road/neutral P5s depends on who the P5s are.

spiderman said:

I could actually see B Artis leading us in scoring ... if he gets the minutes.
he has the potential to be the most "alpha" of our scorers in the mold of our previous smaller leading scorers.

problem is it's really crowded at guard.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I have sorted by Torvik points per minute…

brooklyn brownstone said:

Optics no longer matter. Teams win 26, 27, 28 games now and don’t sniff a bid if they have one off night in conference. Indiana St made the conf tourney finals with a good NET and a lot of wins and were SOL.

There are always reasons they include P5s and shaft others but if you think that non P5s are winning any optics discussions, you’re mistaken.

Click to expand...

Their 29 NET plus Q2 wins should have gotten them in.

On the flip side they were 0-2 Q1 OOC, 0-0 Q2 OOC, and 22-1 Q3/4 overall.

1-2 Q1 MVC, 4-1 Q2 MVC

I could actually see B Artis leading us in scoring ... if he gets the minutes.
he has the potential to be the most "alpha" of our scorers in the mold of our previous smaller leading scorers.

problem is it's really crowded at guard.

urmite said:

I’m still not sure that playing 1 weak D1 team at home for a close win won’t hurt your NET…

Click to expand...

I agree with that. but if you're any good you shouldn't have a close home win against the 350th team in the country.

Optics no longer matter. Teams win 26, 27, 28 games now and don’t sniff a bid if they have one off night in conference. Indiana St made the conf tourney finals with a good NET and a lot of wins and were SOL.

There are always reasons they include P5s and shaft others but if you think that non P5s are winning any optics discussions, you’re mistaken.

That works out to:
Abbreviation/minutes/points

DN/28/12.5
DH/32.8/14.1
JROC/26/9.8
JB/30.8/11,3
BMC/6/2.2
MT/27.2/8
MW/21.6/6.1
GW3/28/3.1
BAW/13.6/3.5
AR(AP)/2.8/.7

CT, RS, JROB 0/0

I am not confident in any of the bolded minutes…

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

Independence High School
Charlotte, NC

• HEIGHT:​

  6'3"

• WEIGHT:​

  255lbs

spiderman said:

hadn't looked at Torvik in a while. top 10 projected contributors seems pretty reasonable now, though light to me on B Artis, Glou ... and I think Tanner will be in the top 10.

but the total is over 71 ppg, so that's very reasonable. if you had to take some points away to give to others, who would it be?
I think 14.1 ppg is agressive for Hunt. and 9.8 ppg would be a heck of a year for Roche.

T-Page for Richmond - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank

T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.

barttorvik.com

Click to expand...

if we can rely on Roche to knock down three 3's a game that would be big time for us.

SFspidur said:

We've been in touch with 2025 Evan Sterck, PG out of Gainesville, FL.

https://verbalcommits.com/players/evan-sterck

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Sterck to Jacksonville.

Login to view embedded media

spiderstudent17 said:

and they likely see it as theoretical zero risk of losing, whereas even with a bad Q4 team there runs a small risk of losing. For us, being who we are in the A10, we need as many games as possible to try and build our NET.

Click to expand...

it's the same reason why at our level. and exactly what I mentioned above. teams will actually build their NET around smaller amount of games. take out 1 max 2 of the awful dogs on schedule and replace with d2s that have no chance of hurting u. I don't know if the math always works but it's being done.

spiderstudent17 said:

As far as your last point, about upside and P5s, I see it as a calculated risk/upside. My general point is that I don’t want to play more than 2-3 very, top P5 teams (I mention in one of my more recent posts that the Boston College, Vanderbilt’s of the world don’t count in my number) because a great record is important for optics and I want to be realistic about our chances of winning these games. So play enough games where we have the chance to have resume building wins but not so many where we put all our eggs in one basket.

Click to expand...

Ok. But I never once said they all have to be the elite of the P5. what is the elite anyway....top 10? that's pretty subjective year to year. So I'm sure I would take more than u, but the overall strategy was load up on P5s wherever u get them, most likely all neutral and road. Are u against 5 or 6 road/neutral p5s? If u aren't then great. But it felt that way. the very rare times we've gotten in or had reasonable chance is when we played 5 P5s. And we also took some losses where our record didn't stand out with the optics imo, i.e. u could afford 1 or 2 more losses. This season schedule looks like 1 P5. Ugh, our fate basically sealed. Unless we win at rates Mooney has never shown b4 in 20 years.

UR notes

Jerry Garcia Jr interview

spiderman said:

went over this before, but the idea that beating weak D1 teams hurts your NET is an urban legend.

Colgate's NET was 161 on January 11. they didn't play a team with a NET better than 267 the rest of the year.
they finished at 125.

Click to expand...

I’m still not sure that playing 1 weak D1 team at home for a close win won’t hurt your NET…

urfan1 said:

VCU has D3 St Mary's and D2 Elizabeth City on schedule. I've been told that is common now.

Click to expand...

st marys is an exhibition game

VCU has D3 St Mary's and D2 Elizabeth City on schedule. I've been told that is common now.

GKiller said:

I like the upside of D1 only games too. I think the upside for non d1....in theory, is less risk. Take an easy W that inflates your record in some areas (although not the NCAA committee). And not drag your numbers. We have seen teams win bad games and go down in NET too. It's hard to know with a secret formula. But best to avoid those 300+ games. And if u can't avoid it, I understand why teams go down the non d1 route. It's sad tho and needs a change at NCAA/Net level.

Again, I'm not in favor of this scheduling approach, just discussing the reasons behind it.

I'm glad u r factoring upside, it's a little weird hearing u talk about upside when you were rather dismissive about upside playing more P5s tho.

Click to expand...

For P5s who do it, I get because they will have plenty of opportunities to bolster NET and they likely see it as theoretical zero risk of losing, whereas even with a bad Q4 team there runs a small risk of losing. For us, being who we are in the A10, we need as many games as possible to try and build our NET. That’s why I’m in favor of playing in a MTE than not, even if it’s an MTE that is the lower division.

As far as your last point, about upside and P5s, I see it as a calculated risk/upside. My general point is that I don’t want to play more than 2-3 very, top P5 teams (I mention in one of my more recent posts that the Boston College, Vanderbilt’s of the world don’t count in my number) because a great record is important for optics and I want to be realistic about our chances of winning these games. So play enough games where we have the chance to have resume building wins but not so many where we put all our eggs in one basket. Conversely, I don’t want to play too many Q4s either for the opposite reason. We can go 11-2 record OOC against Q4s but losses really hurt us and the wins likely won’t improve our NET. Essentially, I am providing what I think the formula is for UR to maximize its at-large chances, which too me is what we should strive for every year, despite only 1 at-large the last 20 years.

spiderstudent17 said:

I agree with playing D2/D3 in an exhibition, but personally I would never want to play a non-d1 team in the regular season under any circumstances. If we end up scheduling one this year, then it is what it is. Scheduling a Q4 game has virtually no upside but scheduling a non-d1 has zero upside, even if it’s against a team that goes 32-0 and wins the D3 national championship. At least with a team that’s Q4 there’s a hope that they perform better than usual and could turn out to be a slightly better game than we imagined. Also, beating a Q4 by 30+ will help NET (as we’ve seen with P5 teams gaming the system). My understanding is that non-d1 games are not factored into NET regardless of margins of victory. Regardless, I find it surprising that out of the 350+ D1 teams, we wouldn’t be able to find one to fill our home schedule over a D2/D3 opponent.

Click to expand...

I like the upside of D1 only games too. I think the upside for non d1....in theory, is less risk. Take an easy W that inflates your record in some areas (although not the NCAA committee). And not drag your numbers. We have seen teams win bad games and go down in NET too. It's hard to know with a secret formula. But best to avoid those 300+ games. And if u can't avoid it, I understand why teams go down the non d1 route. It's sad tho and needs a change at NCAA/Net level.

Again, I'm not in favor of this scheduling approach, just discussing the reasons behind it.

I'm glad u r factoring upside, it's a little weird hearing u talk about upside when you were rather dismissive about upside playing more P5s tho.

spiderman said:

went over this before, but the idea that beating weak D1 teams hurts your NET is an urban legend.

Colgate's NET was 161 on January 11. they didn't play a team with a NET better than 267 the rest of the year.
they finished at 125.

Click to expand...

But some teams do believe it is less risky for NET. at our level. It's different with high majors. Because they get a full conference schedule of good games. we see a lot more of these games at our level. & I've heard coaches explicitly say this to be a reason. tho part of it might be easier and less expensive to get the game too.

& maybe some teams don't want to rely on absolutely crushing a weak d1 team, bc we've also heard that's what it takes. Also Colgate went 17-1 rest of way, what % of teams pull off 17-1 down the stretch (1%?) and maybe their OOC teams overperformed we'd have to analyze. But 17-1 is hard to rely upon, if the University of Richmond could then yes we could adjust accordingly.

Also remember Colgate played half those games on road too. We r talking a HOME game only so not apples to apples.

could be urban legend at our level too, unfortunately we don't know the secret NET formula.

spiderman said:

hadn't looked at Torvik in a while. top 10 projected contributors seems pretty reasonable now, though light to me on B Artis, Glou ... and I think Tanner will be in the top 10.

but the total is over 71 ppg, so that's very reasonable. if you had to take some points away to give to others, who would it be?
I think 14.1 ppg is agressive for Hunt. and 9.8 ppg would be a heck of a year for Roche.

T-Page for Richmond - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank

T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.

barttorvik.com

Click to expand...

I believe AP will be in double figures scoring.

GKiller said:

a lot of teams r scheduling d2/d3 teams. Net gaming. Just take a W over non d1 instead of a weaker D1 that could hurt your Net/sos. So it's already a thing and why we'd do it too. poor reflection on NCAA/Net. they have to look at revising. until they do it looks like it will continue. That part is more a problem of the NET than us. I still prefer we don't do it.

as far as losing...yes we'd have much bigger problems. but fact is there are harder d3s out there than others. some would even win games against lower d1. A loss would be a death blow, so why risk any chance. u can find teams that r essentially zero chance. The others I mentioned, while very low chances, are not that. There is reason why VCU is playing Elizabeth City in theirs and not VA Union, who they've played often in exhibition and is local.

If we were doing the game for season prep instead, like an exhibition, I would want those teams.

Click to expand...

I agree with playing D2/D3 in an exhibition, but personally I would never want to play a non-d1 team in the regular season under any circumstances. If we end up scheduling one this year, then it is what it is. Scheduling a Q4 game has virtually no upside but scheduling a non-d1 has zero upside, even if it’s against a team that goes 32-0 and wins the D3 national championship. At least with a team that’s Q4 there’s a hope that they perform better than usual and could turn out to be a slightly better game than we imagined. Also, beating a Q4 by 30+ will help NET (as we’ve seen with P5 teams gaming the system). My understanding is that non-d1 games are not factored into NET regardless of margins of victory. Regardless, I find it surprising that out of the 350+ D1 teams, we wouldn’t be able to find one to fill our home schedule over a D2/D3 opponent.

went over this before, but the idea that beating weak D1 teams hurts your NET is an urban legend.

Colgate's NET was 161 on January 11. they didn't play a team with a NET better than 267 the rest of the year.
they finished at 125.

spiderstudent17 said:

If we are at the point where we need to schedule these teams and even lose to one of them, then we have much bigger problems than debating our schedule and if/which MTE we should be in.

Click to expand...

a lot of teams r scheduling d2/d3 teams. Net gaming. Just take a W over non d1 instead of a weaker D1 that could hurt your Net/sos. So it's already a thing and why we'd do it too. poor reflection on NCAA/Net. they have to look at revising. until they do it looks like it will continue. That part is more a problem of the NET than us. I still prefer we don't do it.

as far as losing...yes we'd have much bigger problems. but fact is there are harder d3s out there than others. some would even win games against lower d1. A loss would be a death blow, so why risk any chance. u can find teams that r essentially zero chance. The others I mentioned, while very low chances, are not that. There is reason why VCU is playing Elizabeth City in theirs and not VA Union, who they've played often in exhibition and is local.

If we were doing the game for season prep instead, like an exhibition, I would want those teams.