2022–23 Schedule Updates

SFspidur

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 5, 2003
15,009
8,878
113
not sure that SJU is better than Temple. either would be a solid win.
Obviously projections are just projections, but a lot of people are picking St. John’s as dancing or a bubble team. I haven’t seen Temple anywhere in tournament talk.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
not sure that SJU is better than Temple. either would be a solid win.

They are projected to be if u look at & like that kind of stuff, and also show up on some bracketology, more than Cuse & Temple. So right now I'd choose the Johnnies too like SF. However I don't think anyone would be shocked if St. John's was around .500 and closer to a NIT team either given their history. I think all 3 are close enough that any of them could be the highest NET team but with St. Johns most likely right now. Hard to quibble much with how it plays out, but w's over Cuse & Johnnies look the ideal. Cuse biggest name but could certainly be the worst of the 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section9.RowD
Jan 6, 2016
278
430
63
My only hesitation with the Syrcause game is, unlike many other power conference schools, I'm pretty sure they won't overlook us.:rolleyes::D
 

32counter

Spider's Club
Apr 8, 2008
17,464
5,854
113
Siesta Key,FL
Well, against Syracuse's 2-3 zone, you need to shoot the 3 well, and make some from deeper than normal because they always have length on the perimeter.
Now I get it.The answer to the question seemed elusive to me at first especially when it forces UR to shoot up more 3’s than usual.As long as it doesn’t put more pressure on you to make more 3’s than usual we should be ok,I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,009
4,023
113
Now I get it.The answer to the question seemed elusive to me at first especially when it forces UR to shoot up more 3’s than usual.As long as it doesn’t put more pressure on you to make more 3’s than usual we should be ok,I guess.
Will Roche be the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 32counter

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,050
1,777
113
Now I get it.The answer to the question seemed elusive to me at first especially when it forces UR to shoot up more 3’s than usual.As long as it doesn’t put more pressure on you to make more 3’s than usual we should be ok,I guess.
Not sure exactly what you are saying, but I think we will need to shoot more 3s against them, and as a result, we need to make more than normal. So, if we usually average about 7-8 makes out of 20-22 3s, we might need to take about 28+ or so and make 10+ against them.
 
Last edited:

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
Clemson has been around .500 the past few years, which is exactly the P5 team we need to play. Not too good like a Duke, but not bottom feeder like NC State or Pitt. They have hovered around 40-60 in the BPI the last few years, so they are a winnable game, and would be a good resume builder.

Very similar to Syracuse - they almost always finish around .500 and if they do that - they almost always get put on the bubble for some reason. So another good game. St. John's/Temple - that is a toss up - cause they could go either way. But in that Empire Classic - beating Syracuse is the key, and no matter win/lose to Syracuse - we need to win 2nd game vs. either Temple/St. Johns.

Drake - I like getting them on our home floor. Could be a game that creeps into top 100 BPI territory, but all depends on how Drake does. I like this one this year, especially at home. If it was on the road - I would be very worried it turns into a bad loss (we lose and Drake doesn't do well). But at home - I like us to win, and then after that - its up to Drake.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
Clemson has been around .500 the past few years, which is exactly the P5 team we need to play. Not too good like a Duke, but not bottom feeder like NC State or Pitt. They have hovered around 40-60 in the BPI the last few years, so they are a winnable game, and would be a good resume builder.

Very similar to Syracuse - they almost always finish around .500 and if they do that - they almost always get put on the bubble for some reason. So another good game. St. John's/Temple - that is a toss up - cause they could go either way. But in that Empire Classic - beating Syracuse is the key, and no matter win/lose to Syracuse - we need to win 2nd game vs. either Temple/St. Johns.

Drake - I like getting them on our home floor. Could be a game that creeps into top 100 BPI territory, but all depends on how Drake does. I like this one this year, especially at home. If it was on the road - I would be very worried it turns into a bad loss (we lose and Drake doesn't do well). But at home - I like us to win, and then after that - its up to Drake.

I don't see how Drake won't be top 100. But I don't trust ESPN with any stats, formulas, rankings. BPI is probably reputable enough but since it comes from ESPN I look at it last.

Drake was pretty good last year and returns all their top guys, have super seniors similar to us last year. Good chance it ends up our best OOC game.

No validation yet on the Clemson game from anyone. It came from a random college student who was from Richmond. Probably has some connection to U of R Clemson or both & heard the rumor. I don't think someone would drop that tweet re: Richmond & Clemson bball just for fake news but also premature to put that game in the lock category. Hopefully we hear something soon, and we also have another game to fill.
 

32counter

Spider's Club
Apr 8, 2008
17,464
5,854
113
Siesta Key,FL
Not sure exactly what you are saying, but I think we will need to shoot more 3s against them, and as a result, we need to make more than normal. So, if we usually average about 7-8 makes out of 20-22 3s, we might need to take about 28+ or so and make 10+ against them.
Maybe there’s an effective way to get the ball inside the paint either for a drive or a close-in 2pt shot.With our rapid ball movement that might be very possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
I don't see how Drake won't be top 100. But I don't trust ESPN with any stats, formulas, rankings. BPI is probably reputable enough but since it comes from ESPN I look at it last.

Drake was pretty good last year and returns all their top guys, have super seniors similar to us last year. Good chance it ends up our best OOC game.

No validation yet on the Clemson game from anyone. It came from a random college student who was from Richmond. Probably has some connection to U of R Clemson or both & heard the rumor. I don't think someone would drop that tweet re: Richmond & Clemson bball just for fake news but also premature to put that game in the lock category. Hopefully we hear something soon, and we also have another game to fill.
I hope Drake becomes a good game, but they can't be the best game on our schedule - unless somehow Drake becomes a top 20 team - which is unlikely. But if they are as good as supposed to be with everyone returning - this is a very good home game for us. One that could be a good resume builder for us, but also remember - it will be tough if they have everyone returning and we have all knew pieces. Should be a good game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I hope Drake becomes a good game, but they can't be the best game on our schedule - unless somehow Drake becomes a top 20 team - which is unlikely. But if they are as good as supposed to be with everyone returning - this is a very good home game for us. One that could be a good resume builder for us, but also remember - it will be tough if they have everyone returning and we have all knew pieces. Should be a good game.

why would Drake need to be a top 20 team to be our best ooc game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,050
1,777
113
Maybe there’s an effective way to get the ball inside the paint either for a drive or a close-in 2pt shot.With our rapid ball movement that might be very possible.
No question at times we have to do that. We never want to be one dimensional. But, Syracuse can make things real tough for you. They recruit for the 2-3 zone, they always get that length out on the perimeter, they usually have a decent inside presence, and it just seems like they have all 6'7ish active guys with long arms. I just think the best way for a lot of teams to beat them, maybe not all, but most, us included, is to shoot more deep 3s and of course, make more.
 

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
why would Drake need to be a top 20 team to be our best ooc game?
I am just saying - even if Drake is very good, look at last year they were 25-11 - which is a very good record and they had a good BPI of 89 and year before that they were 25-4 and made NCAA (lost in 2nd round) with a BPI 66 - which is probably the best we can hope for - I think name still counts in the eyes of the Committee and if we are sitting in March and saying our best win was vs. Drake - then we got problems.

BUT - if we can say - we beat Drake, Syracuse, St. Johns, and Clemson - that Drake win looks a lot better. And while it may be best win numbers wise (BPI) - the BPI doesn't drive top 25 votes.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
No question at times we have to do that. We never want to be one dimensional. But, Syracuse can make things real tough for you. They recruit for the 2-3 zone, they always get that length out on the perimeter, they usually have a decent inside presence, and it just seems like they have all 6'7ish active guys with long arms. I just think the best way for a lot of teams to beat them, maybe not all, but most, us included, is to shoot more deep 3s and of course, make more.

when we faced cuse at home in NIT one year under Beilein - great crowd btw - their zone was ridiculously long. Hakim Warrick especially. Gave us trouble. I remember wondering how that cuse team didn’t make ncaa.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I am just saying - even if Drake is very good, look at last year they were 25-11 - which is a very good record and they had a good BPI of 89 and year before that they were 25-4 and made NCAA (lost in 2nd round) with a BPI 66 - which is probably the best we can hope for - I think name still counts in the eyes of the Committee and if we are sitting in March and saying our best win was vs. Drake - then we got problems.

BUT - if we can say - we beat Drake, Syracuse, St. Johns, and Clemson - that Drake win looks a lot better. And while it may be best win numbers wise (BPI) - the BPI doesn't drive top 25 votes.

that’s why I don’t trust bpi. Why using that? That 24-5 year they were 43 net. that’s a good win. Also higher in SOR & kenpom than bpi too.

I don’t know where they end up but they r projected to be better than last year. If they r close to a cuse or Johnnies then yes their names could help more. But if we beat Drake & they would be a ncaa tourney at large like the year b4 or on bubble & a Cuse is say in 70s and not on bubble & only NIT, wouldn’t u want the Drake win? I would.

again I don’t know what will happen but I could just see them as potentially best ooc win, if we get it, by the numbers. & they don’t need to be a top 20 team to be that. Top 40ish ok. Our ooc doesn’t have a lot of signature win possibilities which is a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
I am not saying I am a BPI fan, but you have to go by what the committee uses - and the BPI has replaced the old RPI ranking system and I think it has become the first layer of qualification for NCAA teams on the bubble. The 2nd line of consideration is eye test and name recognition - this is just the human element of it all. So you can probably get into the tourney beating a handful of the better mid-major programs, like Drake, who end up having nice BPI numbers - but the committee is still human and still biased towards the bigger leagues - so you better be able to throw some of those names on your resume as well. Otherwise - your name will come up in that committee and they will ask - UR - who did they beat - Drake - and they will move on to the next team. Not saying its right, but there is a human element and power conference bias in the selection. So you have to play to that a little bit to have a fighting chance - or just win your tourney like we did this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I am not saying I am a BPI fan, but you have to go by what the committee uses - and the BPI has replaced the old RPI ranking system and I think it has become the first layer of qualification for NCAA teams on the bubble. The 2nd line of consideration is eye test and name recognition - this is just the human element of it all. So you can probably get into the tourney beating a handful of the better mid-major programs, like Drake, who end up having nice BPI numbers - but the committee is still human and still biased towards the bigger leagues - so you better be able to throw some of those names on your resume as well. Otherwise - your name will come up in that committee and they will ask - UR - who did they beat - Drake - and they will move on to the next team. Not saying its right, but there is a human element and power conference bias in the selection. So you have to play to that a little bit to have a fighting chance - or just win your tourney like we did this year.

The NCAA has their own results based metric the NET, I'm certain they would use that as first layer. Would seem super strange to bypass that and go with an espn predictive metric. I mean if they went with BPI how did they get an ncaa at large bid in 20-21 with a 66 BPI out of the MVC? They wouldn't. They got in with the 43 NET.

So, that is news to me if using BPI #1...do u have a link to that?

I think they look at BPI, along with kenpom, SOR and a few others.
 

Ferrum Spider

Team Manager
Feb 17, 2010
2,321
2,005
113
when we faced cuse at home in NIT one year under Beilein - great crowd btw - their zone was ridiculously long. Hakim Warrick especially. Gave us trouble. I remember wondering how that cuse team didn’t make ncaa.
They didnt have Carmelo Anthony of Gerry McNamara yet.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
They didnt have Carmelo Anthony of Gerry McNamara yet.

True. The next year they won the national championship so I wasn't comparing to that team. But besides Warrick that NIT team had some other good players like Shumpert and Duany. It's very rare to go from no ncaa to winning it all, but Cuse did. so they had some talent but obv Carmelo & McNamara were on a much different level.
 

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
The NCAA has their own results based metric the NET, I'm certain they would use that as first layer. Would seem super strange to bypass that and go with an espn predictive metric. I mean if they went with BPI how did they get an ncaa at large bid in 20-21 with a 66 BPI out of the MVC? They wouldn't. They got in with the 43 NET.

So, that is news to me if using BPI #1...do u have a link to that?

I think they look at BPI, along with kenpom, SOR and a few others.
I could agree with that - the use a combination of Net and BPI - but I don't think Kenpom or RPI are used anymore. But you can't discount the human element. If we are making our case to the NCAA selection committee and saying to them - our best win is Drake at home - we got problems. The power conferences get the lions share of the bids and so therefore you got to beat the power conference teams - even the bottom feeders and mid-level teams.

And I don't think the NCAA every publishes guidance on how selections are made for this very reason, because it is too subjective. it is a bunch of power conference AD's sitting in a room and looking at list of probably 20 teams for about 4-8 spots on any given year.
 

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,050
1,777
113
The RPI is not used anymore, but KenPom is one of the metrics they use.
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I could agree with that - the use a combination of Net and BPI - but I don't think Kenpom or RPI are used anymore. But you can't discount the human element. If we are making our case to the NCAA selection committee and saying to them - our best win is Drake at home - we got problems. The power conferences get the lions share of the bids and so therefore you got to beat the power conference teams - even the bottom feeders and mid-level teams.

And I don't think the NCAA every publishes guidance on how selections are made for this very reason, because it is too subjective. it is a bunch of power conference AD's sitting in a room and looking at list of probably 20 teams for about 4-8 spots on any given year.

I didn’t say it was a equal combo I don’t think it is. The NET is their top metric. Why would ncaa develop that & then use Bpi over it. They look at Kenpom & SOR over bpi too from what I’ve heard. Do they check out bpi too…yes probably…but it’s down the list. they don’t say exactly what they value next the most, except obv they publish their own tool (NET)

why do u think bpi is the first layer of qualification? Seemed like a really odd take. So curious if u have new info or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpiderDogg

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
I didn’t say it was a equal combo I don’t think it is. The NET is their top metric. Why would ncaa develop that & then use Bpi over it. They look at Kenpom & SOR over bpi too from what I’ve heard. Do they check out bpi too…yes probably…but it’s down the list. they don’t say exactly what they value next the most, except obv they publish their own tool (NET)

why do u think bpi is the first layer of qualification? Seemed like a really odd take. So curious if u have new info or something.
I say BPI because that is what ESPN and Joe Lunardi always seem to show and he seems to be the closest person from the outside to inside the process. The NCAA doesn't have guidelines for selection - because they want to be able to select as they choose with the committee.

If it was as simple as a computer formula - no committee would exist and there would be no selection sunday. Just simple run the numbers and make a bracket. But fact remains - people make the decisions. The computer numbers get you in the door and in the conversation, but my "take" is more about Drake - if it is our top win, I don't think it looks good for our chances. Imagine standing in front of the committee and they ask - who is your best win. Drake. Who.....Drake!!!
 

urmite

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
9,773
3,030
113
What is on the NET team sheets? Don't they list a few other ratings? So isn't that what they receive?
Now what they use...
Has the latest Team Sheet version been in place long enough to say which measure has the most higher team left out?
 

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I say BPI because that is what ESPN and Joe Lunardi always seem to show and he seems to be the closest person from the outside to inside the process. The NCAA doesn't have guidelines for selection - because they want to be able to select as they choose with the committee.

If it was as simple as a computer formula - no committee would exist and there would be no selection sunday. Just simple run the numbers and make a bracket. But fact remains - people make the decisions. The computer numbers get you in the door and in the conversation, but my "take" is more about Drake - if it is our top win, I don't think it looks good for our chances. Imagine standing in front of the committee and they ask - who is your best win. Drake. Who.....Drake!!!

Trap u were the one who brought up computer metrics not me. & kept harping on bpi bpi. I just asked why use bpi over net. Does not seem logical for ncaa to develop publish & promote their own result based metric (NET) & then go & use a predictive metric BPI from espn over that. If they did I don’t see them picking a 66 bpi mid major team like drake. I mean they’re Drake right?

While Lunardi is the most visible bracketologist he’s not particularly accurate on the selections vs. others. But he also references NET regularly anyway.

Look I’d love us to have a W over a big name team with good numbers. That would indeed go further. Like a Wisco in 19-20 or what we thought Kentucky would be in 20-21. But they r not on our schedule. So yes Drake could be it…currently as schedule looks. Unless 1 of the few big conf teams outperform expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,050
1,777
113
I say BPI because that is what ESPN and Joe Lunardi always seem to show and he seems to be the closest person from the outside to inside the process. The NCAA doesn't have guidelines for selection - because they want to be able to select as they choose with the committee.

If it was as simple as a computer formula - no committee would exist and there would be no selection sunday. Just simple run the numbers and make a bracket. But fact remains - people make the decisions. The computer numbers get you in the door and in the conversation, but my "take" is more about Drake - if it is our top win, I don't think it looks good for our chances. Imagine standing in front of the committee and they ask - who is your best win. Drake. Who.....Drake!!!
If Drake is a top 50 team and in the dance, the committee will 100% know exactly who Drake is, and it will be a very good win for us, way better and way more important than a win over a non tourney power team.
 

SpiderDogg

Rookie
Dec 24, 2017
267
305
63
The committee uses the NET rankings, BPI is just as irrelevant as RPI. A win over Drake would be our best win if it’s our best win net wise, the name recognition thing is way overblown
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKiller

VT4700

Graduate Assistant
Dec 16, 2016
4,050
1,777
113
The committee uses the NET rankings, BPI is just as irrelevant as RPI. A win over Drake would be our best win if it’s our best win net wise, the name recognition thing is way overblown
The committee also uses KenPom, the BPI, and other metrics, but I agree if the Drake win would be the best win NET wise, that is the one we want the most.
 
Last edited:

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
I say BPI because that is what Joey Brackets harps on. What the committee uses - no one knows.

I think name recognition and Power conference wins are just as important. Drake might be a better NET win by the number. But beat Syracuse and Clemson - that will get more attention than a Drake win - home or away. UNLESS - like I mentioned earlier in the thread, Drake becomes a top 20 team. If they are ranked - then people take notice, but if they are 1 of 20 teams in the "other receiving votes" category - not so much.

Drake is a good game. Syracuse is a good game. Clemson (if true) is a good game. I would say from those 3 games - we need to win 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

GKiller

Head Coach
Jun 3, 2003
8,438
4,129
113
I say BPI because that is what Joey Brackets harps on. What the committee uses - no one knows.

I think name recognition and Power conference wins are just as important. Drake might be a better NET win by the number. But beat Syracuse and Clemson - that will get more attention than a Drake win - home or away. UNLESS - like I mentioned earlier in the thread, Drake becomes a top 20 team. If they are ranked - then people take notice, but if they are 1 of 20 teams in the "other receiving votes" category - not so much.

Drake is a good game. Syracuse is a good game. Clemson (if true) is a good game. I would say from those 3 games - we need to win 2.

well Joey Brackets works for espn & bpi is an espn metric

If Drake was NET 30 and syracuse was net 75, Drake would definitely be better win. u dont agree but ok.

Also the NCAA has absolutely said the NET is main barometer metric and what they use. In fact they said they wanted it to get rid of RPI which u said BPI replaced. They use NET and have said as much. So we do know that. They have not explicitly said how much how little or if at all they use other ones like kenpom, SOR, BPI, etc., as far as I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1

bullfrog91

Letter Winner
Gold Member
Dec 14, 2008
492
298
63
I wouldn't mind beating Temple and then trolling the eff out of their message board 🤣.

Yes Boheim is going to throw length at you and they will be very good at the 2-3, and most teams are not used to it. On the plus side he has probably turned 40 5 star recruits into G league lifers.
At least spell boeheim correctly
 

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
5,271
1,363
113
I agree 30 Net is better than 70.

But what I am saying is that the committee is made up of human beings!!!! If it was as simple as a NET formula, there would be no need for a committee. Just take the highest remaining NET teams and put them in tourney until you hit 68 teams - but is that how it works????? NO!!!!!! And I am not saying Drake would be or will be a bad win. They will likely be a very good win - assuming they have a good year.

But Syracuse and Clemson - even if they just finish around .500 for the year - will have a good NET, a good BPI, a good anything ranking - and they come from a Power Conference. And they are recognizable from a name perspective - which counts. Especially when your adding the human element.

Maybe the NCAA should move to just strictly a computer based system. No people. No Committee. Just a NET score, and after auto qualifiers, the rest of the bids are taken up by the remaining top NET scores. No questions. No complaining. No human element.
 

gospidersgo

Team Manager
Dec 21, 2015
1,551
1,664
113
Maybe the NCAA should move to just strictly a computer based system. No people. No Committee. Just a NET score, and after auto qualifiers, the rest of the bids are taken up by the remaining top NET scores. No questions. No complaining. No human element.
But who decides what criteria makes up the NET?