ADVERTISEMENT

2024–25 schedule

Some of u like to say we should think higher with big goals and stop being poor little Richmond. Yet, you then turn around and say play a schedule different from nearly everyone else, which is like a Monmouth schedule. So, congrats on making Richmond more like Monmouth.

Monmouth is dead money. We'd do substantiallly better than a Monmouth. Didn't Temple uised to do this? They have a pretty good brand. It was actually a lot better when they were playing those games.

Also, we'd still have more home games than a Monmouth too. I'm not a season tix holder, I'm not local. But at one point I was. I liked going to all games. But I can tell u I would give up 1 or 2 more home games for the high majors on road, which actually you'll get to see on TV I bet too. If we win some of them guess what, there is more excitement for the fans & students to come out to the future non conf and in conf games we do have.

we know what the status quo looks like - not great - some of us r trying to look beyond the status quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
exactly. the new formula is to play top 50 teams and kill bottom 150 teams.
which is why I don't think high majors are taking Mooney's call, even if we're not demanding a return game.
Most probably are not, but this late with some teams maybe needing another decent game or 2 on their schedule, I'm still hoping for a couple good road or neutral games.
 
Dayton: 0 true road games against majors.

Our board: Dayton has a great schedule.

VCU: 0 true road games against majors.

Our board: VCU has a great schedule.

Our board: We need to schedule more like VCU and Dayton.

Also our board: We should play at least 6 true road games against majors.

LOL.
 
what are you basing this on? just a hunch?
we were bad against the decent ooc teams last year, with wins only against UNLV ... and I guess Charlotte was ok.
You often play to the level of your opponent, better schedule, better pay?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKiller
Dayton: 0 true road games against majors.

Our board: Dayton has a great schedule.

VCU: 0 true road games against majors.

Our board: VCU has a great schedule.

Our board: We need to schedule more like VCU and Dayton.

Also our board: We should play at least 6 true road games against majors.

LOL.

bit of a straw man. Dayton had NW last year and has Marquette next year. But they get H&H's and neutrals, VCU gets the good MTE neutrals. We don't. And nobody has said that VCU has a great schedule that I recall. And nobody has said play at least 6 true road games against majors.
 
what are you basing this on? just a hunch?
we were bad against the decent ooc teams last year, with wins only against UNLV ... and I guess Charlotte was ok.

so why do u want to play against mids on road? I just looked and we're 2-6 last 3 years in those games. That doesn't help us. I do think we can do better than 2-6. I think BrownStoner and I have both said u can catch bigger teams in OOC when they're less up for game than the mids. But yeah I admit that's a bit of a hunch.

Also this is more about strategy going fwd. I would have liked to taken that approach in past myself but we haven't. U have to evaluate the upside. Of course Mooney has to do better in the OOC games no matter who we play. maybe he's under performed there overall in his tenure, like a number of areas (Extend Mooney/Fire Bennett?!). I feel like he's done ok in those major conf games but maybe that's another PR thing. The premise is we'd have to win some of the games. But I'd like to take a shot at it rather than relying on the 1 in 5 shot that we've had going on for 20 years. But what do I know, here it gets you 25 year job security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
P5 teams can lose like six in a row against good teams but then win one and magically they're "in." Maybe if we played 13 P5 teams on the road and won a few, we could use the same argument! Wishful thinking, I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spiders4ever
Please quote where I keep saying 4-4 vs. majors. I don't believe I ever said that.

What I said was "Play 5 major teams and UR prob gets 1-2 wins each year on average."

You provided stats of 7-18 = 28% winning percentage for road neutral and 27% in true road games. So Moon should win ~1.5 out of 5 vs majors if 100% of games are road/neutral. Thank you for backing my point fully with numbers. 'Preciate it.

I also speculated that against a 5 majors schedule "2 wins keeps you in conversations, 3 wins positions you well and 4+ wins is a season where you just don't mess up in A10 and you're in."

I would expect that in up years, we win more than Moon's expected 28% and in extreme up years we win 3 or more. In down years, we could go 0-5. But hey, if you want to be all negative about the program and think we can't beat anyone ever, despite numbers saying otherwise, go ahead. /s

But it's still better than going 0-5 vs three P5s, Wichita and UNI.
 
so why do u want to play against mids on road? I just looked and we're 2-6 last 3 years in those games. That doesn't help us. I do think we can do better than 2-6. I think BrownStoner and I have both said u can catch bigger teams in OOC when they're less up for game than the mids. But yeah I admit that's a bit of a hunch.

Also this is more about strategy going fwd. I would have liked to taken that approach in past myself but we haven't. U have to evaluate the upside. Of course Mooney has to do better in the OOC games no matter who we play. maybe he's under performed there overall in his tenure, like a number of areas (Extend Mooney/Fire Bennett?!). I feel like he's done ok in those major conf games but maybe that's another PR thing. The premise is we'd have to win some of the games. But I'd like to take a shot at it rather than relying on the 1 in 5 shot that we've had going on for 20 years. But what do I know, here it gets you 25 year job security.
so we win 28% of the time road/neutral vs P5 but 25% of the time vs mid majors on road? lolz
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
Fan, we won a ton of games last year and were not sniffing the bubble. I don't think UNI and WSU wins would have moved us into the field. So, in order to not have to have Moon's best-ever conference season be the minimum we have to expect to sniff an at large, I'd love an upgraded schedule. If we bomb out against it year after year, then whatever, we tried and we know that we're a boring afterthought, and can go back to playing VMI 8 times at home each season.
 
I would expect that in up years, we win more than Moon's expected 28% and in extreme up years we win 3 or more. In down years, we could go 0-5. But hey, if you want to be all negative about the program and think we can't beat anyone ever, despite numbers saying otherwise, go ahead. /s
'And yeah who cares if we go 0-5 some year. We still have the auto bid chances. And maybe we're more hardened for the A10. This doesn't even factor financials & program visibility. If a few years we bombed what r we losing out on? The 1 in 5 rate we have now. Great big deal. That might be generous too. We have 1 at large going on 20 years. I also give Moon 19-20. I give him the s16 year where we won A10 final. But a 12 seed and had we lost who knows we may be out but obv on bubble. I'll even give him the year we were NIT 1 seed but exactly 0 ppl thought we had a real at large chance. That's 1 every 5 years. All we're trying to do is put is in a position to beat that rate. U go 0-5 it skews the numbers so what. That's not the real number. The real number is beating 1 in 5.

But maybe the season tix holders care more about seeing the game vs. Queens
 
Fan, we won a ton of games last year and were not sniffing the bubble. I don't think UNI and WSU wins would have moved us into the field. So, in order to not have to have Moon's best-ever conference season be the minimum we have to expect to sniff an at large, I'd love an upgraded schedule. If we bomb out against it year after year, then whatever, we tried and we know that we're a boring afterthought, and can go back to playing VMI 8 times at home each season.
The schedule has never cost us an at large bid. We just have not won enough of the OOC games on our schedule. Yet, you think the solution is not only make the schedule harder, but make it harder than probably 350+ teams out there. And, funny that you would expect to take that schedule and win more road games than a team like Kansas did last year, who won 3 road games all year. You keep saying if we go 9-4, so that is where I am getting that we would need to win 4 road games against majors. Didn't you say no mid majors, just 5 cupcakes and 8 road games at majors? Thankfully, your idea has a 0% chance of happening, not only for us, but for any A-10 team or mid major hoping for an at large. It is just not realistic.
 
Let's dream a little. Agree with Brooklyn, feel like playing some power teams we have a chance to win a certain percentage. I think between just odds and then the power of human nature we win some. Let's give it a try.
I already said let's do 2 of them. I think brooklyn wants 5 or 6 along with an MTE, and also wants to eliminate mid major home and homes. So, do u agree with brooklyn with all that too?
 
Last edited:
Please quote where I keep saying 4-4 vs. majors. I don't believe I ever said that.

What I said was "Play 5 major teams and UR prob gets 1-2 wins each year on average."

You provided stats of 7-18 = 28% winning percentage for road neutral and 27% in true road games. So Moon should win ~1.5 out of 5 vs majors if 100% of games are road/neutral. Thank you for backing my point fully with numbers. 'Preciate it.

I also speculated that against a 5 majors schedule "2 wins keeps you in conversations, 3 wins positions you well and 4+ wins is a season where you just don't mess up in A10 and you're in."

I would expect that in up years, we win more than Moon's expected 28% and in extreme up years we win 3 or more. In down years, we could go 0-5. But hey, if you want to be all negative about the program and think we can't beat anyone ever, despite numbers saying otherwise, go ahead. /s

But it's still better than going 0-5 vs three P5s, Wichita and UNI.
Your numbers don't add up. You said you want to play road games against majors instead of mid major games. You also said play 5 winnable games at home. So, 13-5 = 8 games against majors, not 5 like you are saying. Then, when you said go 10-3 or 9-4, that means 5-3 or 4-4 against majors. How my numbers proved your point I will never know, but whatever.

If you really only wanted to play 5 majors, why did you have a problem with my idea of 2 majors on the road and a 2 or 3 game MTE? Wouldn't that be 4, maybe 5 majors? If you are talking 5 majors and the MTE, well, that means 7 or 8 majors away from home and you are saying just win 4 of them, when Kansas won 3 road games all year last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Watch out. VT is on a roll. o_O
Not trying to be on a roll...just debating with a fellow poster. Maybe if Brooklyn could be more specific about his 13 game OOC idea like I was several posts ago that he replied to that would help me understand better. But, I am reading his as 5 winnable home games, no mid majors, and 8 road/neutral games.
 
Most probably are not, but this late with some teams maybe needing another decent game or 2 on their schedule, I'm still hoping for a couple good road or neutral games.

I'd call it a lock we'll have 2. spiderman will be SHOCKED.

but I don't think they'll be late adds. I'm still riding with at Auburn. Known for months. UR80s comes thru. we don't want those collective Zooms to be lies and propanganda. And a neutral site venue takes more advance booking & planning by third parties, if we have one I doubt that'as a late add. This is true....if there is 1 thing UR is pretty good at....keeping secrets!

Maybe we add some late 3rd one tho...that would be crazy.

So my predictions...

At least 2 p5s
1 non d1
Let's go with Hofstra officially. Feels too similar to the 2-1 we did w Bucknell and u mentioned them a couple times
Still too weak

too late to implement the Giant Brownstone hard national schedule a la Temple & John Chaney, but hey maybe very soon we're hired as consultants after the 5-year Joe Lunardi contract ends in 24'. Let's get Joey Brackets on the Philly Bob show before it's too late!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
some of you think it's a choice we don't get bigger games. I just don't think so.
I know every program schedules some "wins". pretty much every program who spends what we spent to have a great home court wants some home games. but I'm confident we want to play some big name teams too. I don't think it's a choice or program strategy that we don't play many.

this year is the 1st time I can think of that we haven't heard of a big game this late in the summer. that does worries me. not being linked to an MTE worries me. but like GK predicts, we'll probably have a couple. Auburn would be great. I'll take anything for the others including the least powerful from the P5's. BC wasn't a power team, but I'll take that. heck, I'd love to play Georgetown and they've sucked. I'd be happy playing Vanderbilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
some of you think it's a choice we don't get bigger games. I just don't think so.
I know every program schedules some "wins". pretty much every program who spends what we spent to have a great home court wants some home games. but I'm confident we want to play some big name teams too. I don't think it's a choice or program strategy that we don't play many.

this year is the 1st time I can think of that we haven't heard of a big game this late in the summer. that does worries me. not being linked to an MTE worries me. but like GK predicts, we'll probably have a couple. Auburn would be great. I'll take anything for the others including the least powerful from the P5's. BC wasn't a power team, but I'll take that. heck, I'd love to play Georgetown and they've sucked. I'd be happy playing Vanderbilt.
Our OOC schedule hasn't been a problem in recent years (our success in has though). So, I am still holding out some hope that our staff is able to execute. Playing big games is so important for a program. It gets you exposure if you win or lose, also a recruitment tool in the future when you can tell prospects, look at the caliber of teams who you will get to play.

Time is ticking though, the schedule as known to the public thus far is uninspiring and bad.
 
VT do we regularly play 3 majors in our MTEs? Maybe I’ve been in a coma and Johnny Gazelle is actually doing an amazing job getting us into Maui and other spots. We often have 2 dogs in there, in addition to our VMI 5x at home for the fans cupcake games. Good try but keep trying. You try hard better than most.

Eliminate the games that are eminently losable that have zero upside for the NET or for talking points. Mainly the road games we give as h&h with mm teams.

As you say we don’t win enough. So if Moon is a coach who will never go 12-1 but can go 9-4 against most schedules - I believe he is - then replace those mm games with better games.

And since you mentioned Dayton as ypur example, I will use them as mine.

Last year
@Northwestern
NEUTRAL - LSU
NEUTRAL - St. John’s
@Houston
@SMU
@Cincinnati
HOME vs UNLV (cancelled)

I was told no one plays this type of OOC schedule of 6 p5 games away from home.

That schedule allowed them to lose 4 times and finish 3rd in the A10 and never sweat anything. It’s exactly the schedule I advocate for. (I don’t think MWC are mm btw, they are the 1 league I’d play h&h bc there is upside there, similar to A10, but they figured out the game. But that game wasn’t even factored in bc it was never played! Their schedule was even better!)

Find games vs the winnable NET frauds who aren’t that good and whose NETs are propped up by league losses to Kansas, Baylor, etc. Upside games.
 
VT do we regularly play 3 majors in our MTEs? Maybe I’ve been in a coma and Johnny Gazelle is actually doing an amazing job getting us into Maui and other spots. We often have 2 dogs in there, in addition to our VMI 5x at home for the fans cupcake games. Good try but keep trying. You try hard better than most.

Eliminate the games that are eminently losable that have zero upside for the NET or for talking points. Mainly the road games we give as h&h with mm teams.

As you say we don’t win enough. So if Moon is a coach who will never go 12-1 but can go 9-4 against most schedules - I believe he is - then replace those mm games with better games.

And since you mentioned Dayton as ypur example, I will use them as mine.

Last year
@Northwestern
NEUTRAL - LSU
NEUTRAL - St. John’s
@Houston
@SMU
@Cincinnati
HOME vs UNLV (cancelled)

I was told no one plays this type of OOC schedule of 6 p5 games away from home.

That schedule allowed them to lose 4 times and finish 3rd in the A10 and never sweat anything. It’s exactly the schedule I advocate for. (I don’t think MWC are mm btw, they are the 1 league I’d play h&h bc there is upside there, similar to A10, but they figured out the game. But that game wasn’t even factored in bc it was never played! Their schedule was even better!)

Find games vs the winnable NET frauds who aren’t that good and whose NETs are propped up by league losses to Kansas, Baylor, etc. Upside games.
LOL. Man, you keep jumping all over the place. I'm not "trying" to do anything except discuss possible scheduling with you. But, I still am not sure what you want because you keep contradicting yourself big time.

You said the Dayton schedule is the exact schedule you want. That looks A LOT like my idea for our schedule!!!! You also asked when have we ever played 3 majors in an MTE, getting on me with a "good try" comment and others to criticize. Well, Dayton played 3 majors in their MTE. So, if that is the exact schedule you want, then you are saying we should do the same.

You have said you want no more than 5 home games. Well, Dayton had 6 last year, 7 had they played UNLV.

But, the funniest of all is you did not like my earlier idea and are praising Dayton's schedule, and my idea is a heck of a lot closer to Dayton's schedule than what you have been saying.

I said play 2 road games @ power teams. Dayton played @ Northwestern and played Cincy neutral.

I said find an MTE that gives you 2, maybe even 3, majors to play. Dayton had 3 last year.

I said 4 cupcakes at home. Dayton played SIEU, Grambling, Longwood, and Youngstown St.

I said home and homes with 4 mid majors, so 2 home and 2 away. Dayton played at SMU (mid major last year) and had UNLV scheduled at home as part of home and homes with mid majors. You know, the same mid majors you got on me for for including them in my idea. Dayton also played Oakland and Troy, a pair of good mid majors that I also would want on our schedule. So, I asked for 4 good mid majors and Dayton scheduled 5 (counting Youngstown) mid majors in the top 140 NET. Once again, you said you don't want to play these types of mid majors at all..you would rather just play road games at majors...yet, Dayton scheduled 5 of them and you still say their schedule is exactly what you want??

So, Dayton's schedule is very very close to the one I was asking for. Very close. A slight difference would be I asked for 4 home and homes with mid majors and Dayton had 2, if Troy and Oakland were buy home games and not home and homes. That is the only difference I really see. So, Dayton would have had 3 home and 1 away against good mid majors, while I was saying 2 home amd 2 away. But, no worries, keep getting on my idea and please keep praising Dayton's schedule... I will take that as a compliment that you like my idea.
 
Last edited:
Find games vs the winnable NET frauds who aren’t that good and whose NETs are propped up by league losses to Kansas, Baylor, etc. Upside games.
Are these some of those "winnable" NET Frauds you are referring to.

North Texas - AAC - 79 NET (16-14 record)
VA Tech - ACC - 60 NET (18-14)
BC - ACC - 81 NET (19-15)
FSU - ACC - 96 NET (17-16)
Miami - ACC - 101 NET (15-17)
UCF - Big 12 - 61 NET (17-15)
OK State - Big 12 - 123 NET (12-20)
Rutgers - Big 10 - 103 NET (15-17)
Penn State - Big 10 - 89 NET (16-17)


I think you target those teams with around .500 records, but with NET around 100 or better. Very winnable games, and assume we play them on the road or neutral site, they will be good games for the resume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gospidersgo
Are these some of those "winnable" NET Frauds you are referring to.

North Texas - AAC - 79 NET (16-14 record)
VA Tech - ACC - 60 NET (18-14)
BC - ACC - 81 NET (19-15)
FSU - ACC - 96 NET (17-16)
Miami - ACC - 101 NET (15-17)
UCF - Big 12 - 61 NET (17-15)
OK State - Big 12 - 123 NET (12-20)
Rutgers - Big 10 - 103 NET (15-17)
Penn State - Big 10 - 89 NET (16-17)


I think you target those teams with around .500 records, but with NET around 100 or better. Very winnable games, and assume we play them on the road or neutral site, they will be good games for the resume.
They would have to want to play us. Many of these teams would rather play 250+ cupcakes at home than a game against us, especially when they don't need our game to help with their fraudulent NETs. It's the stupid NET that makes scheduling for us and most A 10 teams so hard. Why would a power team want to host a good team like us when it will only be a Q3 win for them if we finish below 75 in the NET? They might as well schedule a cupcake Q4.
 
Last edited:
I think looking at many of these A-10 schedules and seeing us struggling to find games makes my 20 game in conference schedule idea look better and better. Dayton, VCU, and a game with us would have been road games Q1s for 3 A-10 teams. At home, Dayton would have been Q1 and us and VCU Q2.

And, 7 more A-10 teams from 76-135 in the NET would have been 7 more Q2 games for 7 more teams. And, 6 of them were 83-93 NET, making them very close to Q1 road game status.

If all the A-10 teams replaced 2 home cupcakes with these 2 IC games, we would have more Q1 and Q2 wins as a conference, so not only would it make at large hopeful resumes look better, but it would likely improve the NETs as a whole.

The argument against on here was this doesn't give teams enough flexibility if they only have 11 OOC games. I think we can put that argument to rest now.
 
some of you think it's a choice we don't get bigger games. I just don't think so.
I know every program schedules some "wins". pretty much every program who spends what we spent to have a great home court wants some home games. but I'm confident we want to play some big name teams too. I don't think it's a choice or program strategy that we don't play many.

this year is the 1st time I can think of that we haven't heard of a big game this late in the summer. that does worries me. not being linked to an MTE worries me. but like GK predicts, we'll probably have a couple. Auburn would be great. I'll take anything for the others including the least powerful from the P5's. BC wasn't a power team, but I'll take that. heck, I'd love to play Georgetown and they've sucked. I'd be happy playing Vanderbilt.

For the P5 road buy games too? To me part of it is choice /strategy. again I'm not saying it's easy, but that plays a role. We r getting redundant - tho there is no actual news to discuss - but I thought earlier in thread u said it was a strategy of teams at our level not to give into p5s and demand a return game. I agree & some r still in that mode. & for low level p5 maybe UR should still be too...I don't want to give up on hosting any p5s entirely when we've gotten some recently and others do too occasionally...but it might take proving ourselves more out on road. Also, there is no doubt imo some teams want that extra 1-2 home games. That's a clear choice too. I'm ok with giving those up, especially when u can't get into the good neutral MTEs. if u believe no P5s r taking Mooney's call, even if we're not demanding a return game, we will never have any p5 games, outside of a MTE. So idk why you're expecting any this season.
 
Brownstone is there a DEFCON 0? vt4700 may have taken the board there again.
 
if u believe no P5s r taking Mooney's call, even if we're not demanding a return game, we will never have any p5 games, outside of a MTE. So idk why you're expecting any this season.
partly because you told me we're getting them!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: GKiller
you’re either purposefully warping what I said, misunderstanding it, or both. You’re also using factual errors and incorrect assumptions of what I say to support your thesis.

Regardless I won’t get sucked into the minutiae morass you thrive in. People here deserve to not wade through it all. So I’ll simplify.

I don’t see the upside to playing the mm h&h games. Similar in fact to what you say about p5 seeing no reason wanting to play Richmond for a Q3 win. However I say if we scheduled harder we become a Q2 game and more desirable an opponent. I also personally would enjoy playing more big games and I think we’d do similarly vs a better schedule, giving us a better NET and more shot at an at large. We certainly never tear up the OOC as is. I’m for a different approach.

If you disagree, fine. Your prerogative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spider23
Eliminate the games that are eminently losable that have zero upside for the NET or for talking points. Mainly the road games we give as h&h with mm teams.
high majors are doing exactly that! so why would they want to play us?

the playbook under the current NET system is to schedule a) projected top 75 NET teams and b) easy win games againt bottom 150 NET teams.

you can't say it would be smart to eliminate playing teams like us and then expect high majors to schedule teams like us. they don't need to. they can play each other and the bottom 150 teams.
 
high majors are doing exactly that! so why would they want to play us?

the playbook under the current NET system is to schedule a) projected top 75 NET teams and b) easy win games againt bottom 150 NET teams.

you can't say it would be smart to eliminate playing teams like us and then expect high majors to schedule teams like us. they don't need to. they can play each other and the bottom 150 teams.

I don't think those r equal things. One is not playing a mm H&H where you'll be going on the road 1 year. The other is a high major only having a home buy game, without a return game. If the major was returning the game it would an equal comparison. There is less risk at home. Personally I like the potential upside of those games anyway.

unless I'm misreading what u guys r debating
 
I don't think those r equal things. One is not playing a mm H&H where you'll be going on the road 1 year. The other is a high major only having a home buy game, without a return game. If the major was returning the game it would an equal comparison. There is less risk at home. Personally I like the potential upside of those games anyway.

unless I'm misreading what u guys r debating
just feels like most of the high major schedules I see being release are fitting my narative. they're playing other high majors whether they're home or away or neutral, and they're playing crappy easy win buy games. for the most part they avoid the tough A10 level teams even in a home only game.

there are exceptions of course. often involving proximity like Dayton against Cinci or Xavier. but Dayton's seen as practically a high major anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VT4700
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT