2023–24 NET Ratings
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
And so now, *puts on rose colored glasses*, if we do take care of business these last 4 games, and avoid a loss to anyone outside the top 4 in Brooklyn, AND Dayton wins the tournament, I think we’d have a real shot at being the last 4 in. We’d be one of the few (maybe the only?) mid major teams to be on the bubble being compared to these dopey P6 teams fighting to be .500 in the conference.
If this exact scenario plays out, and we still have to hope there aren’t a ton of bid stealers, I could see the committee deciding to give us a shot in Dayton. We think the committee has a P6 bias which is true, but looking at past play in games they’ve included at least one non P6 team in the First Four round in 10 of 12 years
Our goal obviously remains “win the whole damn thing” but if we fall short in Brooklyn our path is rooting for Dayton and hoping we’re the top mid major being compared to the slog of underachieving P6’s on the bubble
In this scenario, we could only afford to lose to Dayton in the A10s, I think. Losing to anyone else would be used as a black mark against us, even if it's Loyola or vcu.
One last thought I’d sign up right now for Richmond vs Villanova in Dayton which would feel like a home game with all the Dayton fans on our side. Im remembering St Bona vs UCLA in 2018, St Bona ended up losing but it was an incredibly pro Bona crowd thanks to the Dayton fans
I disagree I don’t think a loss to Loyola or VCU would kill us as long as Dayton wins the auto bid. We’d have to go 4-0 to finish for sure, making us A10 reg season champs. I’m cautiously optimistic losing to Loyola or VCU wouldn’t DQ us as long as Dayton wins the auto bid. But if it’s not Dayton, I agree we’re toast
NIT is not going to keep out the A-10 regular season winner. That new rules was designed to not only get more P6 teams in NIT but also remove the really bad mid-major conference winners that are not a draw to the NIT.
We are a draw to the NIT, we would sell out that game if it is at home, that is a game the NIT wants.
We are a draw to the NIT, we would sell out that game if it is at home, that is a game the NIT wants.
Shotz!!!!!
This board could use a group trip to Power Hour at Shotz. A magic hundo on the bar and everyone would be in a great mood.
Right now, I just care about beating St. Louis. That's it.
Depends on who we play. If we get a BCS school here, I think we can sell that out. Hell, we are selling Davidson and UMass games out right now. We get a first round match up with say Syracuse, I think the RC would be hopping.
My point was we are not the target audience with there rule changes in the NIT.
Almost all of those BCS schools are going to be hosts themselves...they get 12 of the 16 slots. The other four slots preference NCAA first four out teams, though they will overlap some or maybe even all with the BCS autos, so there may be a few hosting slots available for others.
The last time we hosted BCS teams in the NIT was 2015 when we had Arizona State in the second round and Miami in the quarters. Didn't sell out either one even though we sold out five A-10 games in the regular season.
NIT games are just tough to sell out...short notice, often inconvenient days, general apathy toward a "consolation prize," etc.
The last time we hosted BCS teams in the NIT was 2015 when we had Arizona State in the second round and Miami in the quarters. Didn't sell out either one even though we sold out five A-10 games in the regular season.
NIT games are just tough to sell out...short notice, often inconvenient days, general apathy toward a "consolation prize," etc.
Fine. I hate when you are right, which you always are. Thought we sold out the Miami game (attendance was over 6,000 but not a sell out), also remember the Syracuse and West Virginia NIT games as being sellouts and very raucous crowd, maybe they weren't sellouts though. Was going off of that.
Need to watch/worry about USF possibly. They are in a similar situation as UR and Loyola in that they have peaked in league play at now 14-1 with good chance of being 17-1 in AAC. There NET is around 90 from 2 Q4 losses in Nov. If they lose in finals to say FAU and Spiders lose in finals to Dayton, the committee will have some tough choices to make, which will be telling. Do they want to put zero credibility to mid major leagues by not inviting dominant regular season champions? And instead give all at large bids to P6 mediocrity, clearly showing that they only care about power 6 teams.
It will be a tough call. They could reward both mid majors or leave both out.
Syracuse and WVU games were back in the days of the larger arena of course. We did sell out the Syracuse game, while WVU had 8,000.
Both of those games were also 20 years ago. Just seems harder these days, where even P6 teams with solid in-season draws frequently get only 2,000–3,000 for their early NIT games.
20 years ago. Damn, I'm old. Thanks for that as well.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
You are correct, they have not played a single Q1!
How many other teams with a top 100 NET can make that claim I wonder.
EDIT: That was a lot easier to look up than I expected, three teams in the top 100 NET with no Q1 games played. USF, Princeton, and McNeese.
Are you using
Bracketologists :: NCAA Tournament Resumes with NET Rankings.
bracketologists.com
Seems easy to scan, High Point is next at #111
No Q1, one Q2 and a loss?
Memphis and FAU could turn out to be Q1. The A10 is the higher rated conference and NET should give Spiders the advantage.
U have to be careful w 1 year data, but yep 11 teams. I bet only 2 were likley in without it - Yale & Bradley. Maybe 1 of the west coast teams for geography/travel balance.
Yet some think removing a rule that had 11 teams guaranteed to be in over us, somehow hurts us. What am I missing w that logic?
Lol. I wasn't sure if anyone would see or get that reference. did my 21st bday at Shotz Power Hour. Puked right in the bathroom.
Shotz has been permanently closed for a long time though.
all you need to reopen Shotz is an alleyway that is 7 feet wide by 25 feet long, a surly bartender and few coolers filled with Icehouse, Red Dog and other beers of the era that thankfully I have not heard about or ingested since.
Shoot, Icehouse was the classy beer when you wanted to impress back then. When you drank that after a Beast or a Mickey's, you thought you were your drinking some craft beer excellence. Beer sucked in the 90's.
iirc icehouse had a pretty high alcohol percentage for a “cheaper” beer. But nothing beat Mad Dog 20/20 in the 90s. That’s when u knew it was time to party. If we make the NCAA I’m committing to downing a Mad Dog.
Ok someone post about the awful NET rankings get us back on track.
mad dog was around way before the 90's.
nobody collecting above minimum wage should ever drink that dishwater.
nobody collecting above minimum wage should ever drink that dishwater.
True I realize. 90s for me was just only time I drank it. Assume still around now but that idk. Don’t be a hater sman lol. I had 1 or 2 campus jobs, it paid minimum wage.
oh I had it a few times in college too. I was always on a low budget.
I'm just guessing we're both beyond minimum wage status these days. don't ruin a good day drinking that stuff in 2024!
Mad Dog got me in trouble several times in my day. Awful stuff, but it’ll do the job in a hurry if that’s what you’re looking for.
don't know if same formula but md20/20 has a line of wines for sale on line.
Last edited:
Somewhat related to this. Friday night I went to a minor league hockey game here. It was $2 beer night and one of my buddies was the DD.
You should have seen the look on his face when they rung him up for a bottle of water and it was $9. And it wasn’t even one of the big bottles. absolutely priceless
