Yeah, 18 teams less 2 games each is 36 potential games OOC. Most of those aren’t going to the A10 I’d guess, maybe a few.
2025-2026 Non Conference Schedule
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
there is still a trickle down effect. It's 36 extra ooc games. they all won't be acc vs. only p5. Tho it does gives them flexibility to add more of those games. whether we specifically benefit is tbd but that's on the staff. is 36 more games in ooc inventory better or worse overall? better.
ACC is doing this cause they got 4 bids last year. Extra in conference games hurt them because they had so many "mid" teams. Same logic would apply to the why the A-10 should not seek to add more in conference games as that won't help us secure more bids either.
I don't see the ACC/Big 12/Big 10 following suit because they are getting all of the bids they could possibly dream of just playing each other.
I don't see the ACC/Big 12/Big 10 following suit because they are getting all of the bids they could possibly dream of just playing each other.
Most, maybe even all, will likely be cupcakes. The ACC went 4-29 against the SEC last year. The 20 game IC schedule had nothing to do with the ACC sucking last year.
Agree ACC is doing this to try to get more bids. But, you can't compare them to the A-10. The ACC still got 4 bids, and had good, but not great, Clemson and Louisville teams go 18-2 IC, behind Duke's 19-1 IC record. So playing 20 IC games gave them separation at the top.
The A-10 got 1 bid and would love to get 4 bids. Shoot, even 2 bids would be an improvement. So, actually the same logic is why the A-10 should go to 20 IC games. Maybe a team like Mason could get 2 more IC wins, possibly good IC wins, and look a lot better for a bid at 17-3. When you are basically a 1 bid league right now, why not schedule more IC games and hope a couple top 4 teams benefit by getting 2 more IC wins?
people look at scheduling like there's a magic formula to getting more bids. there's not. you need to have good teams that win games.
look at the high major games the A10 plays. we lose most of them. heck, we lose too many games against mid majors, and the occasional game against low majors.
the A10 is typically a 2 bid league, sometimes a little better or worse. just like all the best non-power conferences. no scheduling trick will change that.
look at the high major games the A10 plays. we lose most of them. heck, we lose too many games against mid majors, and the occasional game against low majors.
the A10 is typically a 2 bid league, sometimes a little better or worse. just like all the best non-power conferences. no scheduling trick will change that.
The A10 should change its name to the Strong Enough Conference and then sell recruits and committee members on the idea that we all play in the SEC.
Pretty much agree with you Sman. But, I do think, if anything, 2 more IC games would help the A-10 more than hurt. Look at our schedule, and numerous A-10 schedules last year. Cupcakes after cupcakes. Why not replace 2 of those with 2 more A-10 games. 1. Maybe a team on the bubble could get an extra game with a top 4 team and add to their Q1 or Q2 wins. 2. It would give us a chance for a couple better games. Maybe we get Dayton and/or Loyola twice. And, if you get 2 lower A-10 teams....what's the difference in that and all these 250+ and 300+ teams we see all over A-10 schedules anyway?
But, I agree that the bottom line is just win more of the good OOC games you play.
I agree for the A10. we have a hard time getting good games. we take all we can get. reducing our OOC games wouldn't affect the number of good games we get in the OOC at all. it would only drop 2 weak games.
Isn’t this the 50 year anniversary of the A10? I thought I heard somewhere that we are trying to get games against former A10 members who are now P5 as part of the 50 year celebration.
I would just like a non-conference away game within 2.5 hours driving distance of my home in NJ. Is that too much to ask? If we're going to be "the least interesting program in college basketball," as another poster aptly put it, can't the powers that be at least reward this 40-something year old double alum who has lived and died with Spider Basketball since he walked onto the Richmond College side of the lake in 1998 as a skinny freshman?!!
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
The last time we played them was in 2008 in the CBI. Two point loss.
Much closer than the first time we played them in 1915 and lost 59-14.
I think when Rick Houston went off in Beilein first year they were like sorry no more reg season games
That's interesting. yeah it is 50th year. Did that come out of the league office? Not sure I buy it. But one can hope. there r good possibilities. Nova Pitt WVU Penn St. Xavier Temple VA tech Rutgers. Now a few of those teams like Philly Big 5 r already played.
well the article fwiw expressly said the goal was to get more marquee ooc games.
but I certainly don't see them filling with just marquee, so if there were cupcakes, shouldn't that benefit us? We were NET 253 last year and most don't think highly of our prospects for next year.
just curious why do u draw that conclusion? I kinda think the opposite. because teams want those weak games no matter what. for padding wins, selling tickets, getting home games for fans. and logically if u have more OOC openings u have more opportunity for good games. but I think if OOC is reduced rather than the 2 weak games being dropped those are the first 2 to stay.
Law, you are clearly a loyal Spiders fan who has been through the ups and downs since 1998!
Our schedule makers need to show fans like you and thousands of others some respect for their loyalty by scheduling a respectable non conference schedule. I hope they’re working on it right now, not only for loyal fans, but for the players and the rebuilding of the program.
Go Spiders!
Definitely. If we get a neutral game like Clemson, we would certainly keep that. Same with an OOC tourney if we get in a good one. And, if we get a road game like Auburn, of course we keep that. And, we would never give up a good home and home series with a quality team. So, no question, going to 20 IC games would not hurt our schedule at all. It would give us a chance to maybe get another game or two against a top 4 or 5 A10 team who likely has a good NET.
The road game like Auburn? We hardly play those. we should play more. I’d personally like to see it. But they’d be first to go imo. idk why u think of course we keep that kind of game. Based on what? We don’t seem inclined to play them now.
18 a10 games is plenty. 20 almost insufferable. I don’t need more. Not when the ooc games carry more importance. Play a national schedule. Be bold for once. Branding. Culture. Fans & players like the big games. And while yeah there is a chance for 1 more solid a10 game there is a greater chance it’s an average a10 game (last year avg net 137) or worse a 200 Net game.
I’m blocked talking to air. So someone else can reply.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Mooneyites love pie in the sky "wouldnt it be nice if" thinking on things that they know has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.
I serously doubt we ever intentionally plan on playing D2 teams. that's a last resort kind of phone call. any extra A10 level game is a huge upgrade over that.
in a normal year I think we want to play 2 high majors, play in a decent MTE, and have a couple home and homes against average teams. we fill the rest with buy games. some years, maybe intentionally and maybe because we're not good at it, we'll have a weaker schedule like last year. sometimes high majors aren't willing. but it should be easier to fill 11 spots than 13 spots.
Damn, they should hire you s-man. Our program is all about "easy".
Killer, Men’s basketball has been declared a UR flagship program by the UR Administration and AD. We cannot be a flagship for the program players and fans without a respectable OOC schedule. Your points about branding, culture and fans are dead on.
Build a respectable schedule regardless of where the team stands. If the team’s not good enough to handle it, build the program back to the point that it can.
The Universities’s flagship is more like a motorboat without a respectable OOC schedule.
Go Spiders!
well I agree extra A10 is better than d2. i hope a 1 time thing where we f'd up by getting in the worst MTE in the country (Google agrees!) and the home opener d2 was just as embarassing. but not even counting those since d2 not normal for us.
I'm disputing that us and A10 programs "would only drop 2 weak games". I don't see it. They seem to disproportionately like the weaker games why would they remove those. They r the staples. I realize u & a few others r against hard national scheduling. like i don't want a decent mte why is that our ceiling when so many peers get in really good or great MTEs. where r all the connections for a 20 year dean of A10 coach. I've been wanting to try to elevate our program with the OOC & more cracks at it is a pro not a con imo, but it will take a mentality change first. which probably means regime change.
I'd love a harder schedule. I don't think it's avaiable. I don't think we're choosing to schedule weakly.
I posted the A10 OOC SOS's from last year and our weak schedule was the 5th toughest out of 15. you think everyone is choosing to schedule this poorly? more likely the high majors aren't scheduling us. and for some reason, good mid majors aren't banding together to play each other more. we all play a bunch of crappy teams instead.
I posted the A10 OOC SOS's from last year and our weak schedule was the 5th toughest out of 15. you think everyone is choosing to schedule this poorly? more likely the high majors aren't scheduling us. and for some reason, good mid majors aren't banding together to play each other more. we all play a bunch of crappy teams instead.
Adding more A-10 games would not improve our schedule measurably. The only way we to improve our schedule is to for us to say we will play anyone anywhere and not accept anything less. We showed our hand last year and looks like we are showing it again this year, that we are not all that serious about playing an OOC schedule worthy of being a "national" program. Mooney's words in this arena as they are in many other aspects are completely hollow, feel good nonsense. National programs don't finish 258 in the NET either.
According to NET, our non-conference SOS was 9th in the A-10 at 277, and the D-II games don't contribute to that.
Regardless, Dayton at 56 and Mason at 185 being the only two in the top 200 is atrocious.
Regardless, Dayton at 56 and Mason at 185 being the only two in the top 200 is atrocious.
I'm not saying it's easy but yes, choice is part of it. teams still get good hard schedules. also btw I think we were lower than 5th in NET ooc sos which is what I default to because it is ncaa metric. Tho SOS has always been all over the place & I'm not disputing the A10 overall was bad. The A10 once made a choice to schedule hard. they got away from it. league now does worse. hmm.
But I've said this b4 u have to be more willing to take road buy games. UR is generally opposed bc they feel they need to have the weak cupcakes for a home game so they can sell $5 tickets to Mt. Olive. That's a choice. That's a mentality. a 20 year connected coach should be getting us into good MTEs. why do others succeed there? That part isn't a choice, that part is ability. so there r definitely ways for UR to be better. I'd rather not resign myself to a garbage embarassing schedule like last season. do something about it. I mean we call ourselves 1 of the top basketball programs in the nation.
Also presumably there is more inventory coming if the ACC goes through w reducing from 20 to 18 league games.
Last edited:
Yes but I said "on our schedule ", not some exhibition game like the CIB. I remember when Kenny Foster went off on them in the late 60s, we were like down 20 in the second half we he lit them up. There's been a few games since then but I don't know if they were actually on our OOC schedule and I'm too lazy to research it.
we hear mid major coaches everywhere with the same complaint, that the high majors won't schedule them.
it isn't just a UR problem.
but yes, I totally agree there's no good reason we can't play in some better MTE's.
it isn't just a UR problem.
but yes, I totally agree there's no good reason we can't play in some better MTE's.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
We had a home and home with them from 2004 to 2005 so the last time we had them in the non-conference schedule would have been that November in 2005 where we actually played them at home and lost (lost both sides of the home and home actually, the last time we beat them was 1997 also a home game for us.
The last time I remember the Spiders playing UVA was during the Wainwright days. November 28, 2004 in Cville - UVA spanked UR 85-58. I was at the game.
Go call some schools in the American, Mountain West and get some home and homes, heck just go to their place and play them. VCU did this last year, they are in our league, last time I checked. Is it harder in this day and age? Sure, but are we running a "national" program as Mooney says we are or some mid major budget operation that takes whatever table scraps are offered. Seems like the latter to me. Mandate has to come from the top that this is our intention but we won't ever hear that. We will hear the excuses after though.
That’s for H&Hs. I don’t want to give up on a major H&H but yeah those have become harder. We have more pro sports wish it meant pro scheduling.
The road buy games r there. I don’t hear then complaining about those, many just don’t want to do it. Like us. Choice. Gotta look for a few more and of course any neutrals.
Exact mentality why we have slipped. Well shucks everyone else says its hard. It is , and is getting harder every year under mooniocrity. Top teams know we are probably not going to be great, so no reason to play us.
It is hard, but Leon Rice and Randy Bennett and Brian Dutcher all picked up the phone and got some good OOC opponents last season. But I know IT IS HARD. WE WANT EASY.
i get it.
where can I find this? I'm looking at kenpom.
??? Other than an MTE game against BC, Clemson was the only major Boise St played. And Boise played an NAIA team.
Other than MTE, the only majors St Mary's played were Nebraska and Utah, and they played a D2 team.
SDSU only played Cal as a major outside of their MTE while also playing a D3 team.
So, outside of MTEs, these 3 teams played a combined 4 majors and 3 non D1 teams OOC. Seems like this hurts, not helps, your argument.
NCAA site: https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/43833
NC SOS and some other info isn't in the final rankings, but you can use the drop down to go back to the Selection Sunday rankings. (or any other date). You can filter by conference if you just want to see A-10 and then sort by NET NC SOS or whatever metric you want.
Similar threads
