2024–25 schedule
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
I'll be home from vacation in 24 hours...I'm disappointed you guys don't seem to be making much progress.
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion GK. Here are some of my thoughts on each point:
I don't know too much about the expenses that go into travelling for an away game vs. home game to provide an educated opinion on this, so I'll take your word for the costs. Fans may not care much if its 6 home games vs. 7 OOC but anything fewer than 6 I think you'll hear some disgruntled fans who pay for season tickets or donate otherwise to the program. Its not just the amount of home games, but also the quality of the games. If all our home games are against Sienna and Lafayette then we won't be making money on those games for sure. So I think that quality of home games is just as important if not more for revenue purposes than amount of home games. Home games aren't also just for revenue purposes, but also opportunities to have home court advantage against a team - that is ideally good - to add to our resume. We only lost 1 home game last year for both men's and women's bball. Playing Wichita State's, Drake's, or UNI's on our court can be a big plus because of fans, familiarity of court, lack of fatigue from travel, etc. So having at least 6 home games I think is important for several reasons.
2023-2024:
@ BC - lost
Neutral Colorado - lost
Neutral/Away Florida - lost
2022-2023
Neutral Syracuse - lost
Neutral Clemson - lost
2021-2022
Neutral Maryland - lost
Neutral Mississippi State - lost
Neutral NC State - won
2021-2021
@ Kentucky - won
@ West Virginia - lost
@ Vanderbilt - won (I will count Vanderbilt in this even though they are a bottom-tier P5 school)
2019-2020
Neutral Wisconsin - won
Neutral Auburn - lost
* we did beat Vandy and BC at home that year, but my argument is limiting playing P5 teams neutral/road. I would love to play them at home.
So in the last 5 years against P5 appointments away or neutral we are 4-9. So we win about 1 in 3 games against them.
I don't know too much about the expenses that go into travelling for an away game vs. home game to provide an educated opinion on this, so I'll take your word for the costs. Fans may not care much if its 6 home games vs. 7 OOC but anything fewer than 6 I think you'll hear some disgruntled fans who pay for season tickets or donate otherwise to the program. Its not just the amount of home games, but also the quality of the games. If all our home games are against Sienna and Lafayette then we won't be making money on those games for sure. So I think that quality of home games is just as important if not more for revenue purposes than amount of home games. Home games aren't also just for revenue purposes, but also opportunities to have home court advantage against a team - that is ideally good - to add to our resume. We only lost 1 home game last year for both men's and women's bball. Playing Wichita State's, Drake's, or UNI's on our court can be a big plus because of fans, familiarity of court, lack of fatigue from travel, etc. So having at least 6 home games I think is important for several reasons.
It can be a 1 for 1, 2 for 1, or 5 for 1. I don't think we should ever be playing a Bucknell type school at their place unless they a) have shown recent success of being solid (you can never 100% predict how a team will do any given season especially with roster turnover, NIL, transfer portal but its close) like a Yale/Princeton/Charleston/Vermont or teams where we have a rivalry like W&M and JMU. P5 teams aren't going to be doing that for us anymore, so why should we? Playing at Bucknell is a landmine game, where winning does virtually nothing to improve the NET and losing will be a big hit.
I am not trying to have the "Little ol' Richmond" mentality when I said prior that we shouldn't focus on too many away from home games against top P5 teams. There is nothing I would love more than for Richmond to win these games consistently and for us to be viewed as a top 40 program. I just want to be realistic in creating a schedule that will maximize our chances for an at-large bid. If we played 13 Q1 games OOC and went 4-9 we would not be in the at-large picture, same way if we went 13-0 against all Q4 teams. There has to be some balance of wins and quality of opponents. For Richmond, I do think we can play top P5 teams on the road, but I want to limit them to no more than 2 in a season (and aim for about 3 Q1 level games) because while we can win those games, we lose them more often than not. I am not knocking us when I say this and I don't think losing these kinds of games is necessarily a bad thing (it can build experience against good teams, confidence going into conference play, won't hurt our NET or at-large chances too much) but we have to be judicious in how we approach this. Since I've been following Richmond for over a decade now, I don't recall many seasons where we went into conference play with a strong at-large resume. Most often than not, the reasons for that isn't because of our schedule but because we didn't win the games on our schedule. I expect the A10 to be a lot better this year and think we will have more chances of quality wins in conference than previous years. We have to treat our season like a marathon. We can't win against Florida and then lose to La Salle and Fordham. Just because we haven’t been in at-largest discussions in previous years, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying now. I don’t want to go the Monmouth (who never really has a chance for at-large birth anyway) route and just give up on at-large chances day 1 and try and schedule every game away from home against P5 teams.
Here's who we have played against P5 team last five years
2023-2024:
@ BC - lost
Neutral Colorado - lost
Neutral/Away Florida - lost
2022-2023
Neutral Syracuse - lost
Neutral Clemson - lost
2021-2022
Neutral Maryland - lost
Neutral Mississippi State - lost
Neutral NC State - won
2021-2021
@ Kentucky - won
@ West Virginia - lost
@ Vanderbilt - won (I will count Vanderbilt in this even though they are a bottom-tier P5 school)
2019-2020
Neutral Wisconsin - won
Neutral Auburn - lost
* we did beat Vandy and BC at home that year, but my argument is limiting playing P5 teams neutral/road. I would love to play them at home.
So in the last 5 years against P5 appointments away or neutral we are 4-9. So we win about 1 in 3 games against them.
Last edited:
Hopefully you can come back to that elusive Auburn game, a UNC game, Arkansas and onne more power conference game.
Then we can all go back to debating AP vs Glou - and whether he is a legit threat this season.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Well, well, well…the NCAA is crying foul about the Players Era MTE. Both about them trying to claim it’s two separate MTEs and thus able to have more than one team from a conference, and also the NIL arrangements for the event.
NCAA Memo Fuels Questions About Big-Bucks NIL Hoops Event
The Players Era Festival, set to take place in two months, has agreed to pay $1 million to the NIL collective of each of its eight participants.www.sportico.com
well look at the NCAA, acting like they have some power or control in these matters anymore 😂
maybe the delay was holding out for that $5k discount over the usual $90k buy?
Man student17 u r making me do long posts...I will eventually convince some of u...tho the hope is the Giper is reading...our impromptu 7 Eleven meeting was relatively short.
look I'm with u on trying to eliminate 300+ bad games, but u wouldn't do a 5 for 1 with Bucknell? That's crazy. Malpractice by Moon if we didn't agree on a 5/1. Bucknell has no doubt stunk for # of years but they have good history. maybe u r too young. I had a hs teammate play there under Woollum and I think they were solid for like 25 years, often at top of Pat league. Likely to rise again based on that history. the risk/reward quotient is off the charts with a 5/1. And if not we'll have some cupcakes at home regardless and we got them locked in.
4-9 vs P5. well last 3 years we are 2-6 vs. those MM games we have to return. You think that's better? The p5 losses hurt less and their wins help more. upside. why sign up for worse outcomes. Look does Mooney have to find another win or 2 in there vs p5s...yeah. but take more shots at them. 2 or 3 doesn't do it. & u r just looking for real results vs. p5 2 out of 5 years.
Now it also feels like u r telling me Moon historical OOC & overall performance is not good enough and I agree, but that's a separate issue. Enough for 25 year job security.
"I expect the A10 to be a lot better this year and think we will have more chances of quality wins in conference than previous years."...heard the exact same thing last year. I have a little optimism there. Top 8-9 look solid. But I won't fall into that trap with A10 ever, no way. We used to schedule harder and had better leage, now we schedule easier and have worse league.
I'm looking to maximize our at large chances too. We've mainly done it your way, or the Mooney way, or the Joe Freaking Lunardi way. We know what those results look like. And this season will be another I'm sure. But check out when we've had real chances. It's with more P5s. Moon has ONE whole at large bid going on 20 years. The year we did we played 5 P5s. ZERO were at home. Look at 19-20'. We played 4. That should be the minimum imo. And yeah I count BC & Vandy that year. I have not given up on low tier H&Hs. I'd like them at home/neutral too but if you can't u have to go on road.
look I'm with u on trying to eliminate 300+ bad games, but u wouldn't do a 5 for 1 with Bucknell? That's crazy. Malpractice by Moon if we didn't agree on a 5/1. Bucknell has no doubt stunk for # of years but they have good history. maybe u r too young. I had a hs teammate play there under Woollum and I think they were solid for like 25 years, often at top of Pat league. Likely to rise again based on that history. the risk/reward quotient is off the charts with a 5/1. And if not we'll have some cupcakes at home regardless and we got them locked in.
4-9 vs P5. well last 3 years we are 2-6 vs. those MM games we have to return. You think that's better? The p5 losses hurt less and their wins help more. upside. why sign up for worse outcomes. Look does Mooney have to find another win or 2 in there vs p5s...yeah. but take more shots at them. 2 or 3 doesn't do it. & u r just looking for real results vs. p5 2 out of 5 years.
Now it also feels like u r telling me Moon historical OOC & overall performance is not good enough and I agree, but that's a separate issue. Enough for 25 year job security.
"I expect the A10 to be a lot better this year and think we will have more chances of quality wins in conference than previous years."...heard the exact same thing last year. I have a little optimism there. Top 8-9 look solid. But I won't fall into that trap with A10 ever, no way. We used to schedule harder and had better leage, now we schedule easier and have worse league.
I'm looking to maximize our at large chances too. We've mainly done it your way, or the Mooney way, or the Joe Freaking Lunardi way. We know what those results look like. And this season will be another I'm sure. But check out when we've had real chances. It's with more P5s. Moon has ONE whole at large bid going on 20 years. The year we did we played 5 P5s. ZERO were at home. Look at 19-20'. We played 4. That should be the minimum imo. And yeah I count BC & Vandy that year. I have not given up on low tier H&Hs. I'd like them at home/neutral too but if you can't u have to go on road.
GK, I see a lot of where you're coming from and get it. I don't entirely disagree with some of your positions, and perhaps we're splitting hairs.
With respect to Bucknell. Sure, if they become as good as they were back then, I would happily do a 1 for 1 home-home series with them. We could even alternate every year like we did against Wake Forest. However, until then I don't think playing at the arena of these teams benefits us at all. You've mentioned previously about not having the "little ole Richmond mentality". I completely agree! I want us to have a a mentality of a program that wants to be the best. We are conference regular season champions in the 8th best conference in the country. Let's act like it. It's the same reason you don't see good P5 teams do home-home with us. If we become as good as Dayton has, then we will also get home-home games against Marquette like they have now. It's all relative.
You also mentioned that we have one at-large bid going on 20 years. That is a factual statement. Do you agree that just because we haven't had many at-large bids in the past, doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying now? Or do you want to concede before the season starts that we won't get an at-large and just try the conference tournament like a Colgate or Monmouth? If you are for creating a schedule that maximizes our chances for an at-large, I disagree that we should be playing away/neutral against 4+ power teams. If the power teams are willing to come play us at the Robins Center like in '19-20 then I am all for it. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that we should aim for 3 Q1 games and 2 of which against top 40 opponents (my assumption is that we only will get these games away/neutral. Again, if it's at home, I am willing to play more). So for instance I would be okay if our schedule had at Auburn, at Florida, and then at a team like UCF or Miami as our Q1 games. I think that is the right balance of going for it and trying to get resume building wins, but not over extending ourselves, losing the games, and finishing with a OOC record of 8-5.
Here's our record against good mid major teams over the past 5 years:
2023-2024
Neutral UNLV - win (NET 76)
at Wichita State - loss (NET 151)
at Northern Iowa - loss (NET 109)
Charlotte - win (NET 114)
2022-2023
at Charleston - loss (NET 51)
Wichita State - loss (NET 112)
Temple - win (NET 125)
at Toledo - loss (NET 82)
Drake - win (NET 55)
*Northern Iowa was a win, but had NET of 216 so not including
2021-2022
Neutral Utah State - loss (NET 65)
at Drake - win (NET 85)
Hofstra - win (NET 112)
at Wofford - win (NET 108)
at Northern Iowa - win (NET 98)
Toledo - win (NET 86)
2020-2021
Wofford - win (NET 113)
Northern Iowa - win (NET 187)
Neutral Loyola-Chicago (in MVC at this time) - win (NET 10)
Hofstra - loss (NET 162)
2019-2020
Charleston - win
13-7 or .65% against good mid majors vs. 4-9 or 30.7% chance against P5 teams. That's why I think we should play about 6 good mid major teams like above that will be Q2 or high Q3 game because going 4-2 against them will look better for us than 0-3 or 1-3 against P5 teams. But still going and playing against the very good P5 teams because we have the chance of going 2-1 against them, which would be great or 3-0 which would be spectacular!
With respect to Bucknell. Sure, if they become as good as they were back then, I would happily do a 1 for 1 home-home series with them. We could even alternate every year like we did against Wake Forest. However, until then I don't think playing at the arena of these teams benefits us at all. You've mentioned previously about not having the "little ole Richmond mentality". I completely agree! I want us to have a a mentality of a program that wants to be the best. We are conference regular season champions in the 8th best conference in the country. Let's act like it. It's the same reason you don't see good P5 teams do home-home with us. If we become as good as Dayton has, then we will also get home-home games against Marquette like they have now. It's all relative.
You also mentioned that we have one at-large bid going on 20 years. That is a factual statement. Do you agree that just because we haven't had many at-large bids in the past, doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying now? Or do you want to concede before the season starts that we won't get an at-large and just try the conference tournament like a Colgate or Monmouth? If you are for creating a schedule that maximizes our chances for an at-large, I disagree that we should be playing away/neutral against 4+ power teams. If the power teams are willing to come play us at the Robins Center like in '19-20 then I am all for it. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that we should aim for 3 Q1 games and 2 of which against top 40 opponents (my assumption is that we only will get these games away/neutral. Again, if it's at home, I am willing to play more). So for instance I would be okay if our schedule had at Auburn, at Florida, and then at a team like UCF or Miami as our Q1 games. I think that is the right balance of going for it and trying to get resume building wins, but not over extending ourselves, losing the games, and finishing with a OOC record of 8-5.
Here's our record against good mid major teams over the past 5 years:
2023-2024
Neutral UNLV - win (NET 76)
at Wichita State - loss (NET 151)
at Northern Iowa - loss (NET 109)
Charlotte - win (NET 114)
2022-2023
at Charleston - loss (NET 51)
Wichita State - loss (NET 112)
Temple - win (NET 125)
at Toledo - loss (NET 82)
Drake - win (NET 55)
*Northern Iowa was a win, but had NET of 216 so not including
2021-2022
Neutral Utah State - loss (NET 65)
at Drake - win (NET 85)
Hofstra - win (NET 112)
at Wofford - win (NET 108)
at Northern Iowa - win (NET 98)
Toledo - win (NET 86)
2020-2021
Wofford - win (NET 113)
Northern Iowa - win (NET 187)
Neutral Loyola-Chicago (in MVC at this time) - win (NET 10)
Hofstra - loss (NET 162)
2019-2020
Charleston - win
13-7 or .65% against good mid majors vs. 4-9 or 30.7% chance against P5 teams. That's why I think we should play about 6 good mid major teams like above that will be Q2 or high Q3 game because going 4-2 against them will look better for us than 0-3 or 1-3 against P5 teams. But still going and playing against the very good P5 teams because we have the chance of going 2-1 against them, which would be great or 3-0 which would be spectacular!
Last edited:
Good post, 17. Right now, I would be okay with road/neutral at 4 or 5 games, as long as no more than 2 are on the road. So, like my earlier idea said:
2 true road games at a power conference team. Play these together if possible. For example, play @ Florida and then play @ FSU. Playing back to back would eliminate extra travel, and I think give you a better chance to win one.
2 or 3 game MTE, with at least 1 against a major. This could end up being 1-3 games against a power conference team.
4 mid major home and homes. 2 home and 2 away each year. I have heard on here those won't bring positives, but beating those teams will absolutely look good to the committee for a 23+ win team. We should not just stop playing home and homes against our equal peers.
4 cupcake home games, but try to avoid the 300+ games. Maybe limit 250+ to 1 if possible. So, the 180-250 range is what we should look for. 4 Q4 wins here would not hurt us, especially when so many teams out there would have more, and especially if we keep most of them under 250 NET.
If we have a 2 game MTE, try to get a neutral game against a power team for game 13. If not, a 7th home game would be fine with this type of schedule.
Then, like you said, if we can stay near the top of the A-10 for a few years, maybe we can turn the 2 true road games at majors into home and homes.
2 true road games at a power conference team. Play these together if possible. For example, play @ Florida and then play @ FSU. Playing back to back would eliminate extra travel, and I think give you a better chance to win one.
2 or 3 game MTE, with at least 1 against a major. This could end up being 1-3 games against a power conference team.
4 mid major home and homes. 2 home and 2 away each year. I have heard on here those won't bring positives, but beating those teams will absolutely look good to the committee for a 23+ win team. We should not just stop playing home and homes against our equal peers.
4 cupcake home games, but try to avoid the 300+ games. Maybe limit 250+ to 1 if possible. So, the 180-250 range is what we should look for. 4 Q4 wins here would not hurt us, especially when so many teams out there would have more, and especially if we keep most of them under 250 NET.
If we have a 2 game MTE, try to get a neutral game against a power team for game 13. If not, a 7th home game would be fine with this type of schedule.
Then, like you said, if we can stay near the top of the A-10 for a few years, maybe we can turn the 2 true road games at majors into home and homes.
Yep, Rocco shared that date back on July 31. FWIW, I try to keep the list in the first post of this thread updated with the latest info.
17, the point is u don't wait for them to be good again then the dynamic changes. u r turning down a 5/1 vs Bucknell now but will take a 1-1 if they get better. I hope u double down on 11 when the dealer is showing a 6. Especially when every team will have a couple cupcakes at home regardless. I realize it's hypothetical Bucknell won't give it to us, but u wouldn't even take it. Nuts. 5 for 1 w Bucknell is a great futures bet.
The only MM win those years that even move the needle is Loyola Chi. Maybe Drake.
Anyway my advocacy is out there. I want more P5s wherever u can get them. Road is fine. I want harder OOC schedules. I think it's the proven & only way in for us (at large). People say win more...great. I've been waiting 20 years for Mooney to do that. He basically never pulls off the great W/L records, so maybe try to win at same rate but with better wins (resume wins) & metrics. We only get a couple chances in the A10. It doesn't help that we're 9-25 vs VCU our main comp. So yeah win more there too. I'm not against a couple good mids but we are going too much that direction. reasons primarily r unwillingness to go on road buy games and inability to get in the better MTEs enough. To some extent no more p5 H&Hs but we have less control over that than the other 2 things.
I'm eager for some real scheduling news. As someone posted next Friday at 4 PM sounds right.
The only MM win those years that even move the needle is Loyola Chi. Maybe Drake.
Anyway my advocacy is out there. I want more P5s wherever u can get them. Road is fine. I want harder OOC schedules. I think it's the proven & only way in for us (at large). People say win more...great. I've been waiting 20 years for Mooney to do that. He basically never pulls off the great W/L records, so maybe try to win at same rate but with better wins (resume wins) & metrics. We only get a couple chances in the A10. It doesn't help that we're 9-25 vs VCU our main comp. So yeah win more there too. I'm not against a couple good mids but we are going too much that direction. reasons primarily r unwillingness to go on road buy games and inability to get in the better MTEs enough. To some extent no more p5 H&Hs but we have less control over that than the other 2 things.
I'm eager for some real scheduling news. As someone posted next Friday at 4 PM sounds right.
I like this ideal schedule of yours! This discussion definitely highlights how complicated scheduling is, considering how many teams out there are trying to optimize their own situation. Looking back at our games the last 5 years, I think our staff deserves a lot of credit and did an excellent job with our schedules. That’s why, even though we only know of 6 games at the moment, which leaves a lot to be desired, I remain hopeful that we will be pleasantly surprised and have another solid schedule this year as well.
GK, I agree that it would be great to schedule teams that overperform in the year and end up doing better than anticipated, or even trying to schedule games against really good teams early in the season like Kentucky when we played them, who had a bunch of freshmen and had only played 1 game together previously. Still, the teams have to show something to indicate they can do better this year. Teams like Charlotte and Belmont certainly fall in that category of good teams who have good potential to perform better than expected. To also reference gambling, there is a reason why all the sportsbooks have us as at least 10 point underdogs against these top teams. Last year vs. Florida we were +11 spread, +460 ML. Let's assume that is the same odds this year with 3 top power teams. The odds of winning all 3 of those games is +17,462. Again, I love our spiders. There is nothing more I want than for us to win all those games, be a top 25 team, and make NCAAs every year. I want to be realistic with our goals and not make an "all in" bet by trying to schedule a bunch of these games, hoping we will win when history has not shown that. My dream is for us to get to the point as a program that we can schedule more of these games expecting to win a good amount and be invited in the top non-conference tournaments. I don't think that our entire season's at-large hopes is going to hinge on if we beat multiple power conference teams or not.
I get that we say every year the A10 is going to be better, but I think there is some optimism this year. Here are the teams we play:
Home: Duquesne, Fordham, Loyola Chicago, Rhode Island, Saint Louis, Davidson, George Mason, George Washington, VCU
Away: Dayton, La Salle, Massachusetts, St. Bonaventure, Saint Joseph’s, Davidson, George Mason, George Washington, VCU
Likely/strong potential for Q1:
@ Dayton
@ Saint Joseph's
@ VCU
Likely/ strong potential for Q2:
vs. Loyola Chicago
vs. Saint Louis
vs. VCU
@ Saint Bonaventure
@ George Mason
Likely Q3 but has a solid chance to be Q2:
@ UMass
@ Davidson
Most likely mid-high Q3
vs. Duquesne
vs. Davidson
vs. George Mason
The opportunities will be there for us. Let's give ourselves the chance going into conference play to have the mindset that we can go 15-3 again and get an at-large bid.
I get that we say every year the A10 is going to be better, but I think there is some optimism this year. Here are the teams we play:
Home: Duquesne, Fordham, Loyola Chicago, Rhode Island, Saint Louis, Davidson, George Mason, George Washington, VCU
Away: Dayton, La Salle, Massachusetts, St. Bonaventure, Saint Joseph’s, Davidson, George Mason, George Washington, VCU
Likely/strong potential for Q1:
@ Dayton
@ Saint Joseph's
@ VCU
Likely/ strong potential for Q2:
vs. Loyola Chicago
vs. Saint Louis
vs. VCU
@ Saint Bonaventure
@ George Mason
Likely Q3 but has a solid chance to be Q2:
@ UMass
@ Davidson
Most likely mid-high Q3
vs. Duquesne
vs. Davidson
vs. George Mason
The opportunities will be there for us. Let's give ourselves the chance going into conference play to have the mindset that we can go 15-3 again and get an at-large bid.
one other factor in scheduling these days is the portal. Previously I'm sure the UR staff could look at the roster as a whole and target 1-2 years where they thought our team would be at the top of the A10 (KA junior/senior years, best class ever 19-20 through 21-22 years) and pump up the schedule. Other years with lots of underclassmen, maybe they scaled it down a bit. But now, you have to assume you will reload each year and schedule well yearly - you have to or risk leaving a talented team on a weak schedule. Moon has proven adept at the portal, we can't get caught with schedules that prevent first place teams from having a shot at an at large.
I'm cool with people disagreeing with scheduling philosophy, but like GKiller points out, Moon has 1 at large bid in 20 years. Last year was his career-best conference record by (I think) 2 games. I don't think mandating 15 win league seasons is something we want to rely upon, so either we need to win more OOC (which, sure, but 20 year history again suggests is a tough ask) or make the SOS of the OOC enough that 9-10 wins is still okay positioning and not a death blow. Hoping that mid majors all have up years to me is the riskier philosophy than hoping that a mid-pack P5 can pull upsets in their major conference season and be a top 50 win.
I'm cool with people disagreeing with scheduling philosophy, but like GKiller points out, Moon has 1 at large bid in 20 years. Last year was his career-best conference record by (I think) 2 games. I don't think mandating 15 win league seasons is something we want to rely upon, so either we need to win more OOC (which, sure, but 20 year history again suggests is a tough ask) or make the SOS of the OOC enough that 9-10 wins is still okay positioning and not a death blow. Hoping that mid majors all have up years to me is the riskier philosophy than hoping that a mid-pack P5 can pull upsets in their major conference season and be a top 50 win.
17, can u explain why u r against a 5 for 1, with 5 home games vs Bucknell and 1 away?
The 0-3 is never the math. I don't accept that math because I'm saying play more. Play 5. Go 3-2 or maybe even 2-3 some years. and if u go 0-5 some year who cares, u r shooting for 40%. 2 out of 5 years. we'd take 40% over our current odds of getting into bubble consideration which are way worse.
This is factually what our history has shown...we get into position really only when we play (and win) more p5s.
2003-04. 5 P5s. Went 2-3. Lost first 3. Won last 2. NCAA at large. 1 game at home. 14 months b4 Mooney hired.
2009-10. 5 P5s. Went 3-2. NCAA at large. Only 1 under Mooney. No games at home
2010-11. 5 P5s. Went 4-1. Won A10, bubble but likely at large imo if lose. 1 game at home.
2109-20. 5 P5s. Went 3-2. Covid. Likely in imo. 2 games at home.
we never won A10 reg season in any of them.
what is the common denominator. More p5 games. To me it hits u right in the face. Actually our entire season's at-large hopes do hinge on if we beat multiple power conference teams or not. That is the history.
Also, do the math/ML odds on a team projected 8th or higher in A10 going 15-3 in league play. Crazy long. Not impossible as last season proved. As Brooklyn noted above I'd like to position ourselves not requiring since hard to do in any league.
Ok my head hurts...will try to step away....I think ha.
The 0-3 is never the math. I don't accept that math because I'm saying play more. Play 5. Go 3-2 or maybe even 2-3 some years. and if u go 0-5 some year who cares, u r shooting for 40%. 2 out of 5 years. we'd take 40% over our current odds of getting into bubble consideration which are way worse.
This is factually what our history has shown...we get into position really only when we play (and win) more p5s.
2003-04. 5 P5s. Went 2-3. Lost first 3. Won last 2. NCAA at large. 1 game at home. 14 months b4 Mooney hired.
2009-10. 5 P5s. Went 3-2. NCAA at large. Only 1 under Mooney. No games at home
2010-11. 5 P5s. Went 4-1. Won A10, bubble but likely at large imo if lose. 1 game at home.
2109-20. 5 P5s. Went 3-2. Covid. Likely in imo. 2 games at home.
we never won A10 reg season in any of them.
what is the common denominator. More p5 games. To me it hits u right in the face. Actually our entire season's at-large hopes do hinge on if we beat multiple power conference teams or not. That is the history.
Also, do the math/ML odds on a team projected 8th or higher in A10 going 15-3 in league play. Crazy long. Not impossible as last season proved. As Brooklyn noted above I'd like to position ourselves not requiring since hard to do in any league.
Ok my head hurts...will try to step away....I think ha.
Definitely some passion out there on this topic. I will be very happy to see a full OOC slate so the prognosticators can weigh in on record and associated topics.
I think the hope of an at-large is fool’s gold for the following reasons in no particular order:
1) A10 is no longer a guaranteed multi-bid league. Two teams seems to be the ceiling and other A10 teams have more appeal than UR. The days of the giant killers are way in the rear view.
2) Mooney’s history - others have detailed this. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks
3) Power conferences have changed how they schedule and the NCAA has shifted the deck to favor P5 schools inclusion in the dance. A historical good enough record will likely not be good enough.
4) Player movement- NIL and the portal has changed team construction and now uncertainty rules in terms of the team strength. Another poster mentioned this and I agree (sorry not digging through thread to find, but kudos to the person).
I do want the staff to build the best schedule possible, but saying that it should be built to maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly, but it does fill up the time while waiting for something concrete to discuss (the bells, sirens and lights are getting very irritating /s).
I think the hope of an at-large is fool’s gold for the following reasons in no particular order:
1) A10 is no longer a guaranteed multi-bid league. Two teams seems to be the ceiling and other A10 teams have more appeal than UR. The days of the giant killers are way in the rear view.
2) Mooney’s history - others have detailed this. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks
3) Power conferences have changed how they schedule and the NCAA has shifted the deck to favor P5 schools inclusion in the dance. A historical good enough record will likely not be good enough.
4) Player movement- NIL and the portal has changed team construction and now uncertainty rules in terms of the team strength. Another poster mentioned this and I agree (sorry not digging through thread to find, but kudos to the person).
I do want the staff to build the best schedule possible, but saying that it should be built to maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly, but it does fill up the time while waiting for something concrete to discuss (the bells, sirens and lights are getting very irritating /s).
This is Bucknell's NET the past few years:
2024 - 277
2023 - 295
2022 - 334
2021 - 225
So the past 3 years if we played them away it's a Q4 game and in 2021 it would be a low Q3 game (241+ away is Q4). I absolutely get that it is very difficult to predict future success of a team in any given year in this era of college basketball with transfers and NIL, but a way I try to, is to look back at recent success (~5 years) and see how the team has done. I don't want to play at any Q4 games if we can avoid it. We have to when it comes to conference play and preserving the history between us and W&M is important so I get going there too every now and then. Outside of conference play and rivalries, why would you want to go to the arena of a team that has shown to be a Q4 team? Winning doesn't move the needle much and losing will take a big hit on our NET rankings. If Bucknell shows to be better than expected this year and finish with a NET < 200, then great! We can see how they do the year following and then consider another home and home with them in the future.
I also should clarify my position on power conference teams. Looking back on it, I may not have been clear, which is my fault. When I say that I want to limit at the road/neutral of power conference teams, I mean top power conference teams (top 40 or so) that will strongly be Q1 like an Auburn, Alabama, UNC, Florida. For lower-tier power conference teams like Boston College or Vanderbilt's of the world, who will likely be a Q2 game for us, I am okay with adding some of those games because they are more winnable for us and also won't hurt our NET. There's also the upside that the power conference team overperforms in conference play and sneaks into Q1 category, like you mentioned before. I am also okay with any power team, of any quadrant, to play us at home.
Essentially I don't want us to play a bunch of games like this: at Auburn, neutral Purdue, at UNC, at Alabama, neutral Florida. If instead of Alabama/Florida, you replace with Boston College and Georgia Tech, I think that's fine because the latter 2 are more winnable for us.
2024 - 277
2023 - 295
2022 - 334
2021 - 225
So the past 3 years if we played them away it's a Q4 game and in 2021 it would be a low Q3 game (241+ away is Q4). I absolutely get that it is very difficult to predict future success of a team in any given year in this era of college basketball with transfers and NIL, but a way I try to, is to look back at recent success (~5 years) and see how the team has done. I don't want to play at any Q4 games if we can avoid it. We have to when it comes to conference play and preserving the history between us and W&M is important so I get going there too every now and then. Outside of conference play and rivalries, why would you want to go to the arena of a team that has shown to be a Q4 team? Winning doesn't move the needle much and losing will take a big hit on our NET rankings. If Bucknell shows to be better than expected this year and finish with a NET < 200, then great! We can see how they do the year following and then consider another home and home with them in the future.
I also should clarify my position on power conference teams. Looking back on it, I may not have been clear, which is my fault. When I say that I want to limit at the road/neutral of power conference teams, I mean top power conference teams (top 40 or so) that will strongly be Q1 like an Auburn, Alabama, UNC, Florida. For lower-tier power conference teams like Boston College or Vanderbilt's of the world, who will likely be a Q2 game for us, I am okay with adding some of those games because they are more winnable for us and also won't hurt our NET. There's also the upside that the power conference team overperforms in conference play and sneaks into Q1 category, like you mentioned before. I am also okay with any power team, of any quadrant, to play us at home.
Essentially I don't want us to play a bunch of games like this: at Auburn, neutral Purdue, at UNC, at Alabama, neutral Florida. If instead of Alabama/Florida, you replace with Boston College and Georgia Tech, I think that's fine because the latter 2 are more winnable for us.
Last edited:
I am genuinely curious. If you say trying to build a schedule to "maximize the possibility of an at-large bid is simply folly" then how should we build our schedule? What should our goal of the non-conference be? I interpret trying to “build the best schedule possible” and maximizing our at-large bid chances as synonymous with one another. You also mention an at-large is fool’s gold for a few reasons. Even though we haven’t had more than one in the past 20 years, does this mean we shouldn’t try to get an at-large bid in the future?
Last edited:
I don’t think a team ever tries for an at-large bid. The goal for a mid-major school is always to win the auto-bid simply because that is the only thing it can control. All the schedule manipulation that is being talked about is a waste of time in my opinion because the quality of future teams is a total crap shoot and the NCAA is stacking the deck against the mid-majors. Of course time needs to be spent creating a non-conference schedule and you build the best schedule you can. But looking for the “inside track” to an at-large is foolishness to me.
We joined the A-10 for the express purpose of seeking at-large bids. It obviously has not panned out the way we'd hoped, at least in that regard.
We should have separate threads for schedule news and schedule discussion so I don’t get my hopes up every time I open the message board, haha
I think we should always build our schedule for at large purposes. 100%. Every year regardless of how young or experienced our team looks. We might have only gotten one at large under Mooney, but we also were 1st 4 out one year, a likely at large in 2011 if we didn't win our tourney, and a likely at large in 2020. We have also been mentioned on the bubble a few times during IC play, meaning our OOC those years kept us in it. There is no reason to not schedule for an at large...pretty much every schedule we have ever had has been a good schedule for this.
Of course, you can’t predict precisely how good the OOC teams will be. But I think you should alway try to schedule so somewhere between 8-5 and 10-3 gives you a reasonable chance at an at large. If you can get an at large at 6-7 it is too tough, if you need 12-1 it is too easy. I think calls for an OOC that is in the top 100 is not optimal but neither is an OOC below 200.
I think that we have had some that were too tough, and some that were too weak. Not sure we always knew that before the season started.
I do believe you should TRY to build a more challenging schedule when you're talented and experienced.
and maybe you should schedule lighter in a year where you're going to be playing a lot of freshmen ... if that ever happens again. but I don't believe there's a magic formula for "scheduling for at large purposes".
road games in general are tough, but road dogs @ high majors have a horrible winning percentage. I'm not against those games. they're a ton of fun. but loading up on a tough SOS OOC and finishing with a so-so record is not the answer, nor is a great record against really weak comp. just put together a fun schedule and go win the games.
in general, I just don't like VMI type games where you know they'll end up ranked about #350. that's a boring game with no upside.
I actually kinda LIKE a lot of the games on our current schedule so far ... depending on how it finishes. VMI excluded, we have some fun games. I even like playing at Bucknell. theyre not likely going to be great, but that could be a challenge on the road. same with W&M. and I like Belmont and FGCU at home. Charlotte is a solid game too.
we're freaking because of the unknown and it's late. we need a decent MTE. we need probably 2 bigger games that'll push us. hopefully we'll know more next week.
and maybe you should schedule lighter in a year where you're going to be playing a lot of freshmen ... if that ever happens again. but I don't believe there's a magic formula for "scheduling for at large purposes".
road games in general are tough, but road dogs @ high majors have a horrible winning percentage. I'm not against those games. they're a ton of fun. but loading up on a tough SOS OOC and finishing with a so-so record is not the answer, nor is a great record against really weak comp. just put together a fun schedule and go win the games.
in general, I just don't like VMI type games where you know they'll end up ranked about #350. that's a boring game with no upside.
I actually kinda LIKE a lot of the games on our current schedule so far ... depending on how it finishes. VMI excluded, we have some fun games. I even like playing at Bucknell. theyre not likely going to be great, but that could be a challenge on the road. same with W&M. and I like Belmont and FGCU at home. Charlotte is a solid game too.
we're freaking because of the unknown and it's late. we need a decent MTE. we need probably 2 bigger games that'll push us. hopefully we'll know more next week.
We released last year's OOC schedule on Friday, August 25, so I guess today would be the equivalent date.
The year before, we announced our MTE on August 10, almost the entire rest of the schedule including A-10 games on September 7, and the final game against Wichita State on September 15.
The year before, we announced our MTE on August 10, almost the entire rest of the schedule including A-10 games on September 7, and the final game against Wichita State on September 15.
Ha! I guess we're way off then. Had thought based on things that we announced early/mid August.
Nothing to see here.
@sman - it's the "go win the games" part that has always been the issue. Thus, the discussion on how to circumnavigate that.
Yep, you're right. MTE was announced March 11, matchups announced August 10.
Spiders join Syracuse, St. John's, Temple in 2022 Empire Classic - University of Richmond Athletics
RICHMOND, Va. -- The Richmond Spiders men's basketball team will participate in the 2022 Empire Classic along with Syracuse, St. John's, and Temple, the Gazelle
richmondspiders.com
Spiders to open with Syracuse at Empire Classic - University of Richmond Athletics
PRINCETON, N.J/BROOKLYN, N.Y. – The Richmond Spiders men's basketball team will face Syracuse of the ACC in the opening round of the Empire Classic, the Gazelle
richmondspiders.com
I guess Tuesday after Labor Day should be the next panic day if nothing has changed by then.
2 seasons ago, we had 8 OOC games announced by early June, and 12 OOC games announced before the start of August after adding Clemson as our 12th in late July.
I would say it was to join a higher quality conference and it definitely had nothing to do with an OOC schedule. Better league = More bids. Unfortunately, the prestige of the A10 is gone and there is no chance UR is going to be able to move up to a power conference without having a monster investment in football. There is talk about UConn joining the Big 12 and that is going to be hard to pull off without a huge investment in football too. Would have thought the Huskies learned their lesson, but apparently not.
The football schools want to be the only game in town and the dollars are letting them do it.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Couldn't have said it better, if we couldnt get at large bids when the A10 was a powerhouse and the deck wasn't totally stacked against us institutionally from the NCAA in all forms it is pretty hard to imagine getting them now. All you have to do is look at our conference run last season to know that.
Similar threads
