2025-2026 Non Conference Schedule

[GKiller]

I think the idea is that this is how the high major conferences get so many bids. win 80% of your ooc games, then you only play teams in-conference who also won 80% of their ooc games.

It doesn’t work in reverse for a10 for many reasons. I don’t believe that to be a new mandate - but if it were - it’s a bad mandate. When do they decide who r projected best teams. U schedule some games in advance. And in this era of turnover your roster is constantly evolving. So if u think u have a better team then projected u still schedule easy because other ppl think u won’t be good? That’s nonsense. I’m scheduling to elevate my own program first not my own competition. I’m not scheduling to help a vcu in theory. We do that quite well on our own by getting killed by them regularly. At least if mandate was to schedule hard u r trying to elevate both yourselves and the league.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Maybe Bernadette is auditioning for our AD job, she would fit right in with our culture.

Or this strategy makes sense. Literally this has been what I’ve been saying so glad to see A10 trying to implement it if sman point #2 is true. You have to win the games you play. Bernadette, like myself, probably recognizes that it does no good for us, Davidson, Fordham, Loyola, etc to play an entire schedule of really top competition and get smoked by 50. VCU and Dayton shouldn’t even do that. They can play more than the rest of us because they’ve shown that they can win those games more often than not. We, like every other A10 team, should absolutely schedule good teams but within a limit of not biting off more than we can chew and shooting for that 80% win mark is a good goal for all of us to have. So for right now, it might mean the La Salle and Fordhams of the conference do not schedule any top 100 teams. For us it means limiting to 2-3 of those teams. For Dayton and VCU it could mean 4-5. There’s probably a formula or analytics that is suggestive of the kind of competition each team should schedule to maximize its NET potential.

 

[Eight Legger]

Isn't this basically what the league did (intentionally or not) last year? GW, Rhody, Loyola a few others came into league play 11-2, 10-3, etc. It didn't matter. They beat a bunch of garbage teams, then got into league play and everyone beat everyone and we got our usual one team into the tournament.

 

[urfan1]

I think every team should schedule the best teams they think they can beat, add 2 power teams offset by 2 easy wins.

 

[GKiller]

Bernadette, like myself, probably recognizes that it does no good for us, Davidson, Fordham, Loyola, etc to play an entire schedule of really top competition and get smoked by 50.

Talk about strawman. Nobody has suggested that. such a defeatist attitude anyway. yeah we got smoked by Auburn. that's not normal. I'm not suggesting we play these games to get smoked by 50. No, I want to play em' because it is proven that the way into at large consideration for Richmond is to win as many tough & high profile OOC games as possible. You play to win the game (Herm Edwards). but first give yourself even a chance. And when does Moon go 80% ooc anyway. It's extremely rare. Not going to happen when easy. honestly I think his history is we do just as well playing tougher schedules. so if u will have a similar result OOC u better have those big wins on resume. Just 2 top 100 teams would be gross imo. especially for "one of the top basketball programs in the nation". Right now it's zero so we got that going for us.

do u still think all our schedules besides last season are always stellar? the numbers tell a different story. is it fair to characterize this year's schedule so far as doing well in limiting q4 games when half of the games are Q4?

 

[spiderstudent17]

Problem was top teams were losing to teams they shouldn’t have. Can’t control that or tell teams to lose on purpose. So the goal is to have every team be at the highest NET possible so that losses don’t hurt each other as badly. Loyola was 107, GW 124, and Rhode Island 152. That’s potentially Q2 or Q3 game if played home or away. So I’d argue that the OOC helped so that these games weren’t landmines for teams like we were last year.

 

[97spiderfan]

Or this strategy makes sense. Literally this has been what I’ve been saying so glad to see A10 trying to implement it if sman point #2 is true. You have to win the games you play. Bernadette, like myself, probably recognizes that it does no good for us, Davidson, Fordham, Loyola, etc to play an entire schedule of really top competition and get smoked by 50. VCU and Dayton shouldn’t even do that. They can play more than the rest of us because they’ve shown that they can win those games more often than not. We, like every other A10 team, should absolutely schedule good teams but within a limit of not biting off more than we can chew and shooting for that 80% win mark is a good goal for all of us to have. So for right now, it might mean the La Salle and Fordhams of the conference do not schedule any top 100 teams. For us it means limiting to 2-3 of those teams. For Dayton and VCU it could mean 4-5. There’s probably a formula or analytics that is suggestive of the kind of competition each team should schedule to maximize its NET potential.

God, this is loser talk. And if we or others are getting smoked by 50 by top competition, that is an us problem. This isn't the Patriot League, we are the A-10, a once proud multi-bid conference. We should have some self respect.

 

[spiderstudent17]

God, this is loser talk. And if we or others are getting smoked by 50 by top competition, that is an us problem. This isn't the Patriot League, we are the A-10, a once proud multi-bid conference. We should have some self respect.

It’s practical 97. I am all for playing top competition that helps us maximize our NET/record for at-large. I would have much rather played at Cincinnati, Clemson, Vanderbilt though. Teams that were good, Q1 games, and we would have had more of a shot to win. Listen, I take pride in us wanting to play the best and be the best you all know that. I want us also to be realistic about our chances winning those games and not over extend ourselves for no reason. We have won plenty big games in the past decade so we absolutely can do it and should schedule accordingly. I have always advocated for that. I just don’t want to bite off more than we can chew and for us to be judicious in scheduling knowing that getting an at-large is a marathon not a sprint.

 

[spiderman]

Our league mandate should be to have each league member to call every high major and attempt to schedule them and then publicize when they don't.

lol, publicize when they don't?
UVA probably gets calls for games from 250 schools for the 12 OOC spots on their schedule.
238 teams are going to cry on Twitter that UVA won't play them?
EVERYONE wants a game with a high major.

 

[VT4700]

I think the idea is that this is how the high major conferences get so many bids. win 80% of your ooc games, then you only play teams in-conference who also won 80% of their ooc games.

But we aren't a high major who can schedule weak because they will get 10+ Q1/Q2 chances in conference. Also, we won't ever get the benefit of the doubt ( our quad numbers and SOS will be looked at much closer than a major), and we certainly won't get in the dance with only 1 Q1 win like UNC did.

If this is the A-10's strategy, it is the wrong strategy. Most of the A-10 OOC schedules were pathetic last year, and the result was a 1 bid league.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Talk about strawman. Nobody has suggested that. such a defeatist attitude anyway. yeah we got smoked by Auburn. that's not normal. I'm not suggesting we play these games to get smoked by 50. No, I want to play em' because it is proven that the way into at large consideration for Richmond is to win as many tough & high profile OOC games as possible. You play to win the game (Herm Edwards). but first give yourself even a chance

I think we agree more than we disagree here. Your last sentence “but first give yourself even a chance” is something I agree with. I think we would all agree that our chances of winning at Auburn were very, very low. Our chances of winning at a Cincinnati, Clemson, or Vanderbilt would also be “low” but a heck of a lot higher and more likely to pull off. So why don’t we schedule those teams instead. Why don’t we give ourselves a chance of an at-large by maximizing our schedule strategically to play teams that balance both maximizing our NET and have a good record.

do u still think all our schedules besides last season are always stellar? the numbers tell a different story.

I wouldn’t say they’ve been stellar but certainly solid and the schedules themselves weren’t what kept us from getting an at-large.

is it fair to characterize this year's schedule so far as doing well in limiting q4 games when half of the games are Q4?

I addressed something like this earlier in the thread. I will reserve my final judgement on our schedule until finalized. For now the Q4 games don’t bother me as we’ve known about them in advance and every season will have Q4 games. Just need to limit them to no more than 4 or 5. So for now we are doing well in maintaining that. To me, the order of announcing our games doesn’t matter. We could schedule our first 7 games against Q2-3 opponents and the last 6 against bottom feeder Q4s. Right now we know 3 of the 7 are Q4s. The goal now is to make sure the last 6 games are against good competition with no more than 1-2 additional Q4s.

 

[spiderstudent17]

But we aren't a high major who can schedule weak because they will get 10+ Q1/Q2 chances in conference. Also, we won't ever get the benefit of the doubt ( our quad numbers and SOS will be looked at much closer than a major), and we certainly won't get in the dance with only 1 Q1 win like UNC did.

If this is the A-10's strategy, it is the wrong strategy. Most of the A-10 OOC schedules were pathetic last year, and the result was a 1 bid league.

I think the big thing the A10 is banking on as a whole is that by scheduling strategically OOC, there will be more Q1-2 games available in conference play for every team and ideally no Q4 games so losses don’t hurt teams as much. Rhode Island did well OOC but horrible in conference yet had a NET of 152. If they had done just a tad better in conference they would’ve been an away Q2 game. We had 3 Q1 and 5 Q2 opportunities in conference last year. If as a conference, every team elevates itself more such that we could have 4-5 Q1 opportunities and 6-7 Q2 opportunities in a season during conference play, that more than makes up for a non-stellar OOC. That is enough where if we do well like in 2024 and finish 15-3 and have a good OOC record will be enough for an at-large.

So I don’t see as much pressure for us to go out and have a bunch of Q1 games (a bunch meaning more than 3) because we will have the opportunities in conference to build a good resume because it’s a good conference and not the Patriot League where every game is Q3 or Q4. Plus, the opposite where we try to schedule super tough OOC can backfire if we finish with a bad record that will be very hard to make up in conference play.

 

[VT4700]

Our OOC schedules, except for last year, have always had enough good teams, majors, good NET opponents, etc. that would give us a great chance at an at large if we would win enough of them. We shouldn't try to play the hardest schedule we can. We should play the smartest schddule, with enough good, but beatable teams mixed in. Before last year, we consistently did that. The problem in the past was we didn't win enough of them. That is not a scheduling issue, that is an us issue.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Our OOC schedules, except for last year, have always had enough good teams, majors, good NET opponents, etc. that would give us a great chance at an at large if we would win enough of them. We shouldn't try to play the hardest schedule we can. We should play the smartest schddule, with enough good, but beatable teams mixed in. Before last year, we consistently did that. The problem in the past was we didn't win enough of them. That is not a scheduling issue, that is an us issue.

Perfectly stated VT and it captures my philosophy on scheduling succinctly. Well said.

 

[97spiderfan]

lol, publicize when they don't?
UVA probably gets calls for games from 250 schools for the 12 OOC spots on their schedule.
238 teams are going to cry on Twitter that UVA won't play them?
EVERYONE wants a game with a high major.

I meant as a league, we could use that data. Not to blast people on Twitter. If we could say collectively our league members tried to schedule 500 games with major and only got accepted by 12 of them, that would be a pretty powerful statement to make to the NCAA and the public about the challenges of being a non high major league and pushing the NCAA/powers that be to make changes.

 

[97spiderfan]

We shouldn't try to play the hardest schedule we can. We should play the smartest schddule, with enough good, but beatable teams mixed in.

Correct, you have to schedule BCS games with finding teams that we have an opportunity to win. For instance, the @Auburn game last year was not a good scheduling decision. We had no prayer of winning that game. This is why getting into a quality MTE is so important because it gives us those good opportunities on a neutral floor. But we've failed that test now for the second year in a row.

 

[spiderman]

I meant as a league, we could use that data. Not to blast people on Twitter. If we could say collectively our league members tried to schedule 500 games with major and only got accepted by 12 of them, that would be a pretty powerful statement to make to the NCAA and the public about the challenges of being a non high major league and pushing the NCAA/powers that be to make changes.

understood. and I think it could help fans like us to see that at least we're trying to schedule harder. but in the end it doesn't matter. we can't make a high major play UR, and they aren't doing anything wrong by not choosing us. they have a ton of options for their OOC.

look at UVA's OOC last year.
Campbell (home)
Coppin St (home)
Villanova
Tennessee
St John's
Manhattan (home)
Holy Cross (home)
Florida
Bethune Cookman (home)
Memphis (home)
American (home)

so 5 high majors (I include Memphis) and 6 mid majors.
with 5 really tough losable game, I assume they wanted the other 6 to be pretty sure wins. they didn't schedule any risky mid major potential losses. this is just one example but seems like the ways high major scheduling is going.

 

[GKiller]

lol, publicize when they don't?
UVA probably gets calls for games from 250 schools for the 12 OOC spots on their schedule.
238 teams are going to cry on Twitter that UVA won't play them?
EVERYONE wants a game with a high major.

But not everyone wants to play them on the road only as a buy game. Of course everyone wants them as H&H or neutral. Many teams at UR level have been against taking too many buy road games. We take them rarely. VCU never takes them. That is by choice. But VCU gets in good MTEs or crushes it in A10 or wins A10 tourney w regularity. Or gets a H&H with a NC State, plus others with their coaches contract. We have to reevaluate our strategy. Traditionally the strongest mid major leagues wouldn't take those buy games, or rarely. I don't really care what others do. Or offer 2 for 1s or 3 for 1s. We need those games so if u have to do more road buy games at P5 u do it. Thanks goodness we took the game at Kansas.

And now there is more inventory with 2 P5 leagues moving down from 20 to 18 league games.

 

[GKiller]

I think we would all agree that our chances of winning at Auburn were very, very low. Our chances of winning at a Cincinnati, Clemson, or Vanderbilt would also be “low” but a heck of a lot higher and more likely to pull off. So why don’t we schedule those teams instead. Why don’t we give ourselves a chance of an at-large by maximizing our schedule strategically to play teams that balance both maximizing our NET and have a good record.

But our chances are not very very low every year vs an Auburn type. & great let's schedule those other teams too. how about all 3 in same season. Those 3 teams were 22, 48 & 50 in NET. u think I don't want to play them...of course I do. But u r against scheduling more than 2 "top 40 caliber" (which = top 75 Net in my mind roughly) in a season. so we couldn't play all 3. Which is kinda insane. How many times have we been at large candidate in Moon tenure? Four I think. 1 in 5 seasons. It's not working. So either A. Fire Mooney & get a coach who can win at better clip or B. do something different. The same old same old of supposedly scheduling smart to maximize at large. It works 20% of the time. 1 in 5! Give me 5 years of really hard schedules and I'm confident we can beat those odds. You want both Mooney to stay and to schedule the same way. Guess what I can predict the future it's not going to work any better.

I love how the win more people are often the Extend Mooney people too. lmao.

So far we have 3.83 of 7 games Q4. The .83 represents Charlotte. idk what we'll do in future, but so far that's not limiting. I'll just stay confused I guess on your explanation. I'll gladly take a friendly wager that we schedule a minimum of 2 more Q4s. If 2 exactly it's a push.

 

[GKiller]

Our OOC schedules, except for last year, have always had enough good teams, majors, good NET opponents, etc. that would give us a great chance at an at large if we would win enough of them. We shouldn't try to play the hardest schedule we can. We should play the smartest schddule, with enough good, but beatable teams mixed in. Before last year, we consistently did that. The problem in the past was we didn't win enough of them. That is not a scheduling issue, that is an us issue.

It's an us issue...but also Extend Mooney! 20 years we haven't won enough against these great schedules that are just laid out for us to get bids...but by all means keep running it back with the same coach. It's very hard to follow logically.

But I disagree about the schedules; they have sometimes been too weak. If u r rolling out a 200+ sos ooc that is too weak. And we've done that too often.

I'll repeat what I wrote above to 17...

How many times have we been at large candidate in Moon tenure? Four I think. 1 in 5 seasons. It's not working. So either A. Fire Mooney & get a coach who can win at better clip or B. do something different. The same old same old of supposedly scheduling smart to maximize at large. It works 20% of the time. 1 in 5! Give me 5 years of really hard schedules and I'm confident we can beat those odds. You want both Mooney to stay and to schedule the same way. Guess what I can predict the future it's not going to work any better.

PS...if u look at those 4 years we were at large worthy...my guess is 3 out of 4 we were top 1/3 in OOC sos. Because that's what works. Of course u still have to win at good clip but u give yourself some margin. Not to mention the players and fans like the high profile games (well not all fans). btw my guess is exception is the s16 year when we were bubble but won A10. Maybe that's why we were a 12 and closer to bubble than we thought. Too far back to remember. Don't have the data but would be interesting to look at.

 

[spider23]

God, this is loser talk. And if we or others are getting smoked by 50 by top competition, that is an us problem. This isn't the Patriot League, we are the A-10, a once proud multi-bid conference. We should have some self respect.

Agree completely, this is Triumvirate thinking I'm afraid. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It is hard to he really good. I get that ,but every mental give in leads to the next. I'm afraid Mooney and the newer fans are so conditioned now there is no turning back.

 

[spiderman]

But not everyone wants to play them on the road only as a buy game. Of course everyone wants them as H&H or neutral. Many teams at UR level have been against taking too many buy road games. We take them rarely. VCU never takes them. That is by choice. But VCU gets in good MTEs or crushes it in A10 or wins A10 tourney w regularity. Or gets a H&H with a NC State, plus others with their coaches contract. We have to reevaluate our strategy. Traditionally the strongest mid major leagues wouldn't take those buy games, or rarely. I don't really care what others do. We need those games so if u have to do more road buy games at P5 u do it. Thanks goodness we took the game at Kansas.

And now there is more inventory with 2 P5 leagues moving down from 20 to 18 league games.

I think our level was trying to hold out for home and homes, but we've all given up on that now.
we've been forced to agree to buy games, and I assume we'll get another one this year.
I'd offer 2 for 1's with lower high majors, but not sure if they'll even do that.
but for crying out loud pull some strings to get in better MTEs.

 

[GKiller]

I think our level was trying to hold out for home and homes, but we've all given up on that now.
we've been forced to agree to buy games, and I assume we'll get another one this year.
I'd offer 2 for 1's with lower high majors, but not sure if they'll even do that.
but for crying out loud pull some strings to get in better MTEs.

well the real good mid majors haven't - a UD or VCU. Even GW had South Carolina at home very recently. Pretty sure SLU and Joes has got 1 in recent past too. I expect there have been some out of the MWC, AAC, WCC possibly too. So I don't want to give up on those H&Hs completely, but no doubt they r much harder to come by.

The buy game at P5 is not new for us, we've just done it sporadically to the elite p5. The elite p5 haven't given up H&Hs in a long time so that's not new. It's the middle or lower p5 that's a newer issue. But I agree with you, in general, our level has tried to hold out. us too with a few exceptions. That's exactly why it's been a choice bc not everyone wants a road buy game only w a high major. That's a distinction imo from your post. UR should change its thinking, get ahead of the curve. To me the opportunity is there. Because there isn't as much comp when a lot of our level isn't going for them. Then maybe we improve our program and we can hold out for middle or lower p5 h&h. But alas expect 1 again and don't complain. I'd rather play 3 road buy games then our current strategy of giving road games to ODU, W&M, So Ill, Bucknell etc. I think we can get home buy games pretty equivalent to those teams.

The failure of the MTEs does affect the strategy. Not sure how anyone is ok with this season's mte either but I get surprised on here often.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I think we all agree that we’ve missed the mark with MTEs this year and last year. Not sure why when we’ve been able to get in pretty good ones before irrespective of how good our prior season records were. A10 and Richmond has good enough reputation to be in an above average tier MTE. I think VT and 97 said it best, respectively. “We shouldn't try to play the hardest schedule we can. We should play the smartest schddule, with enough good, but beatable teams mixed in.” And “Correct, you have to schedule BCS games with finding teams that we have an opportunity to win. For instance, the @Auburn game last year was not a good scheduling decision. We had no prayer of winning that game.”

I 100% agree with those comments. For me, I’m just ballparking here but in my eyes that equates to playing about 2-3 beatable P5 opponents a year. Not the Auburn’s of the world, but Clemson/Vanderbilt/Syracuse etc who are still great teams and give us quality Q1 games.

This isn’t an exact science though. It’s my way of finding that balance of a hard/smart schedule with realistically beatable P5 teams mixed in. Maybe depending on the teams and our roster some years that means more P5 games… I’m not dead set on a fixed number of P5 teams. Instead, it’s the mentality of scheduling judiciously and striking that balance between hard/smart. In a way it kind of aligns with the 80% win rule that sman mentioned A10 is advocating each school to aim for. I agree with that too. What’s screwed most A10 teams from at large in the past is either not winning enough or losing landmine Q4 conference games. Look at Dayton who beat Marquette, Northwestern, UNLV and UConn this year but missed at large because they lost enough bad games in A10. Having each team play within their means and optimize their NET/record the best possible is a great way of addressing this problem.

 

[spiderman]

I'd rather play 3 road buy games then our current strategy of giving road games to ODU, W&M, So Ill, Bucknell etc. I think we can get home buy games pretty equivalent to those teams.

then we're doing the same thing as the high majors ... just buying low level games and not giving them return games.
and maybe that is the best strategy, but we can't complain about high majors not coming to us if we won't do it for W&M.

 

[GKiller]

For instance, the @Auburn game last year was not a good scheduling decision. We had no prayer of winning that game.”

surprise surprise but I disagree. Most ppl thought we had no shot to win at Kansas. in this era of roster turnover u don't know as much year to year what u get, your own team or opponents. I'd hate to under value my team and miss out on a game like that. Ignore last year result. It's a 1 off. we got smoked. so what we won 8 d1 games overall. we got smoked by a lot worse teams. Auburn game was probably most talked about OOC game going in. they ended up a F4 team but some games will be easier. It sets a precedent u play them. national game. program visibility. culture. it makes them more common in future. the players want to play them. again some years u get smoked in those games. it doesn't matter. we r 1 for 5 in at large candidacy. u hope to make it matter 1 every 3 years, at least that is better than 1 for 5 chance and 3 for 20 ncaa results.

 

[GKiller]

then we're doing the same thing as the high majors ... just buying low level games and not giving them return games.
and maybe that is the best strategy, but we can't complain about high majors not coming to us if we won't do it for W&M.

I've made that exact point b4. I'm not against giving up a H&H to lower leagues. Especially a local one. But we r doing it too frequently. If u r doing it that much show me u can at least still get a high major at Robins.

Also I'm not the one complaining about high majors coming to us. Sure I'd love to see it. I'm the one saying to change tactics and take more road buy games vs majors because they aren't coming to us. I'd say that's the opposite of complaining.

 

[spiderstudent17]

surprise surprise but I disagree. Most ppl thought we had no shot to win at Kansas. in this era of roster turnover u don't know as much year to year what u get, your own team or opponents. I'd hate to under value my team and miss out on a game like that. Ignore last year result. It's a 1 off. we got smoked. so what we won 8 d1 games overall. we got smoked by a lot worse teams. Auburn game was probably most talked about OOC game going in. they ended up a F4 team but some games will be easier. It sets a precedent u play them. national game. program visibility. culture. it makes them more common in future. the players want to play them. again some years u get smoked in those games. it doesn't matter. we r 1 for 5 in at large candidacy. u hope to make it matter 1 every 3 years, at least that is better than 1 for 5 chance and 3 for 20 ncaa results.

The Auburn game was talked about for all the wrong reasons lol. We were debating whether we were going to lose by 40 or 50. I am going with the strategy that going into conference play 11-2 with wins over teams like Clemson, Vanderbilt (hypothetically) and being in contention for at-large, maybe getting AP votes in poll will do more for our program visibility and national reputation than getting getting embarrassed by a national contender like Auburn. So we should schedule accordingly to give us that opportunity.

You bring a good point about roster turnover and scheduling. I’ve been a believer that you have a baseline difficulty of scheduling you do every year no matter what and then adjust slightly from that with the roster you have. When we had Gilly, Golden, etc. as seniors you schedule the kind of games at Kentucky, absolutely. When you have unknown rosters, then maybe not the best idea. My guess is the staff were desperate to schedule anything that was a good game for us because of how awful our MTE and other schedule was. So they went to the other extreme of getting a game we had no business being in at this time. I am willing to bet you if our staff could waive a magic wand and get their perfect schedule, playing at Auburn would not be included.

 

[mojo-spider]

I've made that exact point b4. I'm not against giving up a H&H to lower leagues. Especially a local one. But we r doing it too frequently. If u r doing it that much show me u can at least still get a high major at Robins.

Also I'm not the one complaining about high majors coming to us. Sure I'd love to see it. I'm the one saying to change tactics and take more road buy games vs majors because they aren't coming to us. I'd say that's the opposite of complaining.

Can’t read too much more of this debate without pulling my hair out, but appreciate the passion of the participants.

What I’ve seen of next year’s schedule may represent an improvement to someone who wants to sit down and compare NET etc. To less sophisticated fans it looks almost the same.

Unless I’ve missed it in the blizzard of the debate the home schedule for the loyal Robins Center fans looks as mediocre and unattractive as it has in recent years. The UR AD needs to work harder to respect the RC fans. Get some advice from the Women’s scheduler!

Rebuilding the Men’s Basketball program, one of our flagship programs, should be priority one in the UR AD. If it’s difficult to schedule in a way that respects the history of the program and its Robins Center fans, then someone needs to work harder, or we need to find someone more capable.

Why not seek and take enough P6 buy games to pay to bring decent and meaningful games to the RC for the fans?

Finally, I expect A-10 caliber basketball talent will be interested in playing an attractive schedule. Not sure we’ll check that box in the very competitive Portal/NIL/Direct Pay era.

It sure seems like we’re on our way to another disappointment.

Go Spiders!

 

[MrTbone]

Perfectly stated VT and it captures my philosophy on scheduling succinctly. Well said.

So if it’s an us issue, and a regular enough one, what is the answer?

It’s not to schedule easier. But no one wants to seem to address the elephant in the room.

 

[MrTbone]

Thinking about this debate, a few thoughts:
1. The upcoming MTE is not a good MTE, saying otherwise is pretty much putting lipstick on a pig.
2. When was the last time we won 80% of our OOC? I think it’s been awhile.
3. I have limited interest in watching us play West Chickahominy State, it’s not exciting to win and it’s deflating to lose.
4. None of this debate matters much if we can’t win at a better clip.

 

[VT4700]

So if it’s an us issue, and a regular enough one, what is the answer?

It’s not to schedule easier. But no one wants to seem to address the elephant in the room.

Sure, I would have liked to win more of our OOC games some years. I have also been very happy with some of our OOC wins some years. Same thing with seasons. I have been very happy with some seasons and disappointed with some others. I can respect your opinion wanting a coaching change and don't expect everyone's expectations to be the same.

 

[VT4700]

Thinking about this debate, a few thoughts:
1. The upcoming MTE is not a good MTE, saying otherwise is pretty much putting lipstick on a pig.
2. When was the last time we won 80% of our OOC? I think it’s been awhile.
3. I have limited interest in watching us play West Chickahominy State, it’s not exciting to win and it’s deflating to lose.
4. None of this debate matters much if we can’t win at a better clip.

1. Agree. We need to get in MTEs with majors.
2. That is a big ask. We would need to go at least 11-2 OOC to get to 80+%. I know, I know....here come the "4700 has low expectations" replies.
3. Our schedule bothered me last year. Every team has cupcakes, but we had way too many, and even lost to some.
4. Agree.

 

[urfan1]

I think if staff schedules soft vs hard it sends a message to players both ways. And same if Administration is supportive of weak schedule vs hard. Up to staff and team to win the games they play.

Did the ladies shy from playing the best? Coach said it showed what was expected. How about men's Lax. Expectations ae set at top.