2022–23 Schedule Updates
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Really why? Moot point because obviously we get H&H's with the good mids or even those considered above. We had one with Cincinnati to but canceled due to Covid. I don't think we need to give a 2 for 1 to any team outside p6 not named Gonzaga. I'm not opposed to 2 for 1s, but we should only consider for those in the top half of the power conferences, in the BE there might only be 2 teams.
I certainly can, but I figured it was moot now that everything is official.
Edit: I put the full schedule in the first post and kept some notes about the OOC games.
Edit: I put the full schedule in the first post and kept some notes about the OOC games.
Last edited:
Thanks, just didn't want to have to search through this thread for the official.
Especially since yours is more official...
Edit: First post still looks odd...
Wichita was Net 87 last year with a 15-13 record. Year before they were 70. And prior to that - BPI was 39 (No Net rankings yet).
I just see them as a perennial top 100 NET team. Even in a down year - I think they fall in that 75-100 year and in a typical year I think they will be around 50. If they are poised to be good - you get lucky and are top 50, but for the most part - I think you are guaranteed a top 100 ranked game - and that seems to be something hard for us to come by these days outside of these OOC tourney's.
but why a 2-1? how many times have we ever given a 2-1? once you start that, you'll never get a 1-1 from any good team.
Yeah, no way we would or should give them a 2-for-1. They were very good for a few years, but we're kind of trending in opposite directions and overall we should consider each other peers.
Even when they were at their peak though, I wouldn't have given them a 2-for-1. There's maybe 20-25 programs in the country I'd be willing to do it for, and even that might be pushing it.
Even when they were at their peak though, I wouldn't have given them a 2-for-1. There's maybe 20-25 programs in the country I'd be willing to do it for, and even that might be pushing it.
20-25 - There are about 60-70 I would do it for. Just to sure up our schedule, which by the looks of this board and in my own opinion - has been a hot topic lately. But also remember - you don't lock into a bunch of these or else you have limited flexibility with your schedule. But wouldn't it be nice to know for the next 3 years - we have a top 100, if not top 50 game guaranteed. Right now - our scheduling philosophy is really - lets hope our OOC tourney gives us 2-3 good games, and then fill in the rest as we go along.
I think if we could have 2-3 long term GOOD (meaning team is pretty sure to be a top 100 game) contracts on the schedule - you take it.
Beggars can't be choosers. And right now - until we make the tourney consistently (NCAA or NIT) - we are the beggars. One magical march run on the back of Matt Grace doesn't make us the highlight on teams schedule where we make the demands.
we gave VA Tech one early in Mooney tenure when we stunk. Beyond that I don't think we have in long time. But I also remember UNC in the 90s. That was a legit one you'd do again. But you are right u r just hurting yourself if you give 2 for 1s when you can get 1 for 1s. We've proven to get H&Hs with good teams right outside P6 whether wichita, UNI, drake, cincinnati (covid) and solid p6s that aren't the upper echelon like Wake, Vandy, Gtown, Minnesota, Tx Tech. Those teams have to be in Trap top 70 I assume. Now we need more of those lower to mid level p6 ones but you gotta work at it. Again I'd do 2 for 1s but only for those top 25ish teams too. Problem is they don't even do 2 for 1s, and their 1 for 1s are with other p6. Rare to find that kind of team do it for non p6 these days. I've long desired the NCAA to set some mandates there about max home games allowed. It's only way we see those come back.
I think only way we get a top 25 team on our schedule is play 1 game with no return or hope that our OOC tourney gives us a matchup with one.
But along those lines - if there was a team, and try to be realistic, that we could get on our schedule long term - remember the old Wake Forest days - I felt like we played them every year for several years in a row - who would you like to get on the schedule?
Example - I think UVA could be realistic or even Wake - but I don't think UNC or Duke would a realistic opponent.
But along those lines - if there was a team, and try to be realistic, that we could get on our schedule long term - remember the old Wake Forest days - I felt like we played them every year for several years in a row - who would you like to get on the schedule?
Example - I think UVA could be realistic or even Wake - but I don't think UNC or Duke would a realistic opponent.
Last edited:
Agree only way these days, for the Duke UNCs and other top half power conf teams, seems to be a game we're bought w no return or a ooc tourney. Which is why I'd be very willing to give those teams a 2 for 1. But for realistic ones we can get 1 for 1s. I don't know if that is UVA, probably not, we haven't played them in a long time. But you wanted to give realistic opponents 2 for 1s when u can get 1 for 1s - like a Wake - which didn't make too much sense. Now if the scheduling model keeps trending the way it is I don't know hell eventually u may be forced to give even the bottom half power teams a 2 for 1. Hope not, but it wouldn't shock me. Until it is I don't think we should help it get there like u suggest.
Ya, it's tough. Neutral-site games (MTEs or standalone) have become an increasingly important part of scheduling, and we've generally done a pretty good job with those. (We had some bad Gazelle Group MTEs over the years, but they've been better recently.) And with conferences moving to 18 or 20 game schedules, there are fewer opportunities for quality OOC matchups.
I don't know that 2-for-1 even helps us that much as a bargaining chip with the big boys...they have limited slots and probably don't want to lock us in for that many games, so I think we prefer to pursue the MTE and one-off neutral site games as much as possible to get the P6 opponents, and then do some quality H&Hs with peers in the same situation as us.
I don't know that 2-for-1 even helps us that much as a bargaining chip with the big boys...they have limited slots and probably don't want to lock us in for that many games, so I think we prefer to pursue the MTE and one-off neutral site games as much as possible to get the P6 opponents, and then do some quality H&Hs with peers in the same situation as us.
yeah, I honestly don't think most top high major programs see 2-1's as worth it. they don't want that road game. they're swimming in football money anyway. they'd rather write the check for a buy game. plus, they don't really need the tough non-P5 OOC game when their in-conference schedule boosts their SOS so much.
neutral site MTS's are the only chance to play a big name team without going to their place now.
neutral site MTS's are the only chance to play a big name team without going to their place now.
Trying to remember the 2-for-1s we've had and like GK, the VT one in the early Mooney days and the UNC one in the mid '90s are the only ones coming to mind since I've been following Spider hoops.
We've done a few 2-for-1s in the other direction...VMI on occasion, and I remember UNC Greensboro maybe 10-15 years ago.
Regardless, they're quite rare and seemingly even more so in recent years.
We've done a few 2-for-1s in the other direction...VMI on occasion, and I remember UNC Greensboro maybe 10-15 years ago.
Regardless, they're quite rare and seemingly even more so in recent years.
They probably are more rare than years past in terms of 2-1 deals.
I just think we rely so heavily on these OOC tourney games, that when we do get bad games, it really has potential to crush our schedule. Not sure how the selection for those work or how much behind the scenes work goes into getting invited.
I know this isn't your point but...
38 out of 44 seasons between the 1975-1976 & 2018-2019 seasons is several?
The MTEs are much better now that they're limited to two or three games. The four-game ones could be crushing with a couple of cellar-dwellars required to get a solid matchup or two.
But now like with the Empire Classic, we've got two decent (not great) games but don't have to play two 300+ NET teams as part of the deal.
But now like with the Empire Classic, we've got two decent (not great) games but don't have to play two 300+ NET teams as part of the deal.
yeah, we used to have to play 300+ rpi teams to get good games in a tournament.
now we schedule 300+ NET teams just for the heck of it.
Look at this year Empire Classic. Here we are coming off an NCAA run - and we are not sure this will be a good set of games.
Syracuse - a good name, so I like that. But they are hit or miss lately. Last year they were 16-17 overall and came in with a 83 Net ranking. We all assume they get better, but lately they have not been as good as years past. Are they another .500 record with a 80 Net ranking?
St. Johns - another .500 team with a NET ranking of 64. They have been improving slightly - but again, are they just another .500 team and likely fall somewhere in the 60-80 NET range.
Temple - was 17-12 last year, but 111 in the NET.
And no one of these teams, I know its early - have been mentioned as top 25 teams or even close to top 25 teams this season. So IF that stands true - this tourney has the potential to not be a good for us. Similar to last year where Maryland and Miss. State did not end up over 50 in the NET (Maryland was around 90 and Miss was about 60). We really rely on these events to get us that top 50, even a top 25 game if possible. And its not happening.
COVID year was okay - we got Kentucky - a top 10 team at the time, but had 2 bad games with it (1 got cancelled). But year before - when COVID cancelled tourney - we got a good one. Roman Legends - we got Wisconsin and Auburn - who was ranked top 20 at the time. So that year - we had good luck and got two really good games.
Syracuse - a good name, so I like that. But they are hit or miss lately. Last year they were 16-17 overall and came in with a 83 Net ranking. We all assume they get better, but lately they have not been as good as years past. Are they another .500 record with a 80 Net ranking?
St. Johns - another .500 team with a NET ranking of 64. They have been improving slightly - but again, are they just another .500 team and likely fall somewhere in the 60-80 NET range.
Temple - was 17-12 last year, but 111 in the NET.
And no one of these teams, I know its early - have been mentioned as top 25 teams or even close to top 25 teams this season. So IF that stands true - this tourney has the potential to not be a good for us. Similar to last year where Maryland and Miss. State did not end up over 50 in the NET (Maryland was around 90 and Miss was about 60). We really rely on these events to get us that top 50, even a top 25 game if possible. And its not happening.
COVID year was okay - we got Kentucky - a top 10 team at the time, but had 2 bad games with it (1 got cancelled). But year before - when COVID cancelled tourney - we got a good one. Roman Legends - we got Wisconsin and Auburn - who was ranked top 20 at the time. So that year - we had good luck and got two really good games.
Last edited:
Just a thought from a guy that hangs out on the football board and knows little about the ins and outs of basketball programs, other than lurking in the shadows on this board and hoping Spiders continue to have success.
Guess my question would be. Why not approach Nova. Spiders should be low risk for them even with the one road game, but if Spiders stay in top 120ish level in Net, it might not be that bad for them on their schedule.
Surely the ADs see each other occasionally due to football and they are not swimming in football money any more than UR is. The trip is not a long one for the programs.
If we could get them once a year, it would certainly be a highlight for Spiders schedule each year. If they have not told someone no as yet, this admitted low knowledge fan would at least give them a chance to do so.
Just a thought, I will go back to lurking.
I agree that would be a good game for us. either we do ask or should ask every year. but I think pretty much everyone would love to schedule Nova.
they don't have many open OOC dates. they have 20 in-conference games. that "big 5" thing they do every year takes up 4 OOC games with LaSalle, Temple, St Joe's and Penn. throw in an MTE and I think they only have 5 OOC games to schedule and they like to get a few high majors with those. but you're right ... we should reach out every year.
This is not realistic. Not counting their annual "big 5" games, last year, Nova played 2 OOC road games, @ UCLA, and @ Baylor. 2 years ago, their lone true OOC road game was @ Texas, 3 years ago their only one was @ Ohio St., 4 years ago, their only one was @ Kansas.
I think this tourney is pretty much guaranteed to be good, and has a chance to be great, for us. 1. The games are winnable. 2. If any of the teams we play make it into the top 50 NET, that is a Q1 game, and 51-100 is still a Q2 game. 3. All 3 teams are "name' teams who would give us attention grabbing wins regardless of their NETs. So, the opponents are great games for us, we just need to beat them.
Largely agree. I think Empire Classic gives us two fairly high quality games that we have a good chance of winning. I don't think it will be great, because Syracuse, St. Johns/Temple all are at this point average at best programs. There is not a Wisconsin/Auburn/Kentucky level program in this tournament that would guarantee us a really signature win on our resume though.
we actually had a home game vs. Villanova but it was back when Lappas was their coach. I don't remember the year but I think towards end of his tenure. Obviously they've elevated their program since then. u r right not viable any longer. It is the type of team you'd offer a 2 for 1 & yeah why not ask but good luck as they've shown no inclination there, like any other school in their vicinity. If we took a buy game away they would be on the list. The football connection with Nova means nothing unfortunately.
I’d like to hear any other thoughts you may have on Spider basketball. This one really has my attention and you’re making a whole lot of sense
The tournament with Syracuse will be fine — if we win it. The tournament last year would have fine, but we lost both games. We can’t afford losses to Syracuse and Temple/St. John’s.
And now...game times for all home games:
richmondspiders.com
Men’s Basketball announces tip times for all 2022-23 home games - University of Richmond Athletics
RICHMOND, Va. – The Richmond men's basketball teams announced tip-off times for its 16 home games during the 2022-23 season Tuesday. Four of the Spiders final
richmondspiders.com
The article links to a page where you can buy season tickets. The only problem: There is nowhere on that page to buy season tickets.
Clemson game on sale tomorrow, looks like you will need a code, on sale general public is Friday.
Similar threads
